Why didn't 3D movies and/or shows ever really take off?

[T-Rage]

I'm totally fascinated by anything 3D.

The concept is so simple. Using two cameras to film the same scene but at angles that are similar (or most likely exaggerated for enhanced effect) to how our own eyes see things and hence we have 3D. Its kinda cool that 3D is really something are brain creates and that is why we can trick our eyes and brain into seeing depth with these techniques.

Anyway, considering how true to life good 3D can be and given our current technologies why hasn't this ever taken off?

I mean geez they were doing this kind of thing over 30 years ago.

Wouldn't it make sense that this would be the next logical step to creating an actual experience as opposed to just watching a film?

And finally, does anyone know of any 3D DVD's that you can buy that include the glasses and all?

I would love to watch a 3D movie on my new tv.

[BrianW]

hmm maybe when SPy Kids 3-D makes its run then gets to DVD.

[57U]

The next logical step may be the use of virtual reality glasses to "watch" movies instead of watching a TV.

The step after that'll be the holodeck...:)

[LeeS]

Here's a link from an earlier post. HD3D Movies (http://www.hd3dmovies.com/intro.html)

Look around a bit, lots of interesting stuff at that site.

Lee

[Ohm-Bob]

You could try the products from Slingshot Entertainment slingshotent.com
I found the "Ultimate 3d Collection" at a Best Buy for I think about $10 off from Slingshot's price.

The good: DVDs have both DTS and Dolby Digital soundtracks, both 2d and 3d versions on discs, usual DVD interface and extras + 2d & 3d "photo albums," comes with two pair of shutter glasses and synch box.

The not-so-good: 3d effect will not work properly on modern, progressive scanning or line-doubling TVs. You must use an old-fashioned interlaced TV set (the bigger the better, in my experience), flicker can be annoying if you don't set everything up right (check their FAQ).

The movies that come in this set were originally computer-generated and written to I-Max film.

It looks from their site, though, like they have a coulple dozen or so more titles. Don't know if there's anything else in 3d that will work with this system out there or not.

As an aside, I had the wonderful lucky fortune of being able to attend a 3d film fest at a local metro-area theatre about 10 or 12 years ago. They showed several 1953-era films such as "Creature from the Black Lagoon," "It Came From Outer Space" (Jack Arnold Films using the analglyphic method) and "The House Of Wax" using polarized glasses. We were fortunate enough to have a great audience and I found it a highly entertaining experience. Also shown were "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" from the 70s (a very funny "horror" film that should only ever be seen in 3d) and "Kiss Me Kate" (53). I missed that one ("Kate"), and was sorry because for that film they used the original two-projector process with newly-restored film prints and one of the filmgoers who saw it said it was absolutely stunning.
--------
Ohm Bob

[zarlor]

There are some neat things that HD might be useful for, when it comes to the 3d experience. Right now there is a stereoscopic adapter for any handheld camcorder that does 480i recording that alternates frames for use with LCD shutter glasses and a syncbox for recording your own 3D movies for a cost of around $250-$300. However, as mentioned, you must use a non-progressive scan or line-doubling TV for the effect to work correctly. (Although there are ways to convert the video on a computer into two separate fields and using a GeForce video card to get a computer to provide 3D video on an HDTV, or any digital monitor for that matter.)

At any rate, the concept, effectively, works only on interlaced video and since 1080i is an HDTV standard format, the process could just as easily be modified to work for that format as well. And since you would get 540 lines for each frame of the video, instead of the 240 maximum you could get with the current formats, the 3d video should look FAR superior. So I definitely hope that once the time rolls around that we start seeing some decently priced, consumer-level 1080i camcorders that we may seem some kind of attachment like the one currently on the consumer market for standard camcorders.

I have to admit that I also LOVE 3D video and computer, as well. But I think the fairly low resolution of 3D video and the inconvenience of having to wear the glasses, and even the not-too-steep-but-just-high-enough-that-most-comsumers-don't-want-to-bother price added in with the general lack of any kind of advertising or media push to induce interest probably all contribute to 3D not taking off like some of us hope that it would.

At any rate, some other great sites to look into for 3D info would be:

http://www.stereo3d.com/
http://www.stereovision.net/

Both of those sites also have tons of links and discuss all of the great 3d technologies available out there. The biggest surprise for me, though, is that the 3D push hasn't taken off in the computer gaming market. If you look at both of those sites any computer with the right kind of graphics cards (generally a GeForce card) already support the ability to take any 3d rendered information and turn it into a pair of 3d fields that can be viewed through shutter glasses. And with the higher refresh rates of many of today’s monitors you could do full field (instead of the interlaced stuff I mentioned as being the standard for consumer level 3d video) rendering at a flicker-free refresh rate to get an outstanding 3D gaming experience. I figure many computer geeks would just kill for that kind of stuff, just for the coolness factor of it, if nothing else. And while that market is there and does seem to actually be gaining some ground, it's still wallowing around in its infancy. Hopefully, someday, it will take off.

[TheBigE]

and then there are people like me - injury leaves one eye at 20/13 while the other is now 20/40.

All I see is blurry red images

what a drag :(

[T-Rage]

In my quest for researching 3d I came accross a site that somehow has created a technology that converts standard film into a more 3D like look. They admit that true 3D is impossible if it is not filmed using two cameras, etc. I downloaded one of their sample films and I have to admit somehow it looks like it has dimension! This is even without glasses! If you pause the film the picture looks one dimensional but when its playing it has depth! Is it me or does this look somewhat 3D to anyone else? This is pretty cool stuff! Also, the technology can do this conversion in real-time! Below is a link to one of the sample videos that I think had the best feeling of dimension.

http://3dplus.ssc.co.kr/SSC_EN/download/worm.mpg

Actually I think this one might even better!

http://3dplus.ssc.co.kr/SSC_EN/download/chameleon.mpg

[Ohm-Bob]

Also, don't forget the pullfirich [SP?] effect. This invlolves simply placing a darker lens over the "trailing" eye. Scene must be in motion. Simply stick your camcorder out the window of a moving vehilcle. Then, when you play the tape back, if the image moves from left to right (as in the US if your camera is sticking out the passenger side) put the darker lens over your right eye. No one knows how or why this works but you definitlely get a 3D effect. Tried it and it *does* work.

[Qwackertoo]

I think this just started in theaters today. Who knows if it will ever come out on DVD with the glasses! Walt Disney Pictures and director James Cameron, could be a good. I checked for theaters and nearest me is Nashville TN, Chattanooga TN or Birmingham, AL, any of which are less than 2 hours so not bad, being from Texas that is just a little ways down the road ;)

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/ghosts/flash/index.html?

I collect Disney movies and swore I wasn't going to replace my VHS collection with DVD's and I'm now up to probably 30 or more, so much for swearing! :o

[57U]

This was shot with HD cameras, not film. Therefore it should be out on HD some time - perhaps PBS HD. Even better than DVD...

[retread316]

I think this is my first post here! I've been lurking for a few weeks...Hold on to your hats!

I coordinated a screening of Ghosts of the Abyss last Monday night (the 7th of April) as a representative of Disney for a local marketing agency.

The movie was nothing spectacular at all...no more so than anything you'd see on National Geographic or Discovery channel. Jame Cameron just spent a boatload of dough renting a research vessel and all the cameras to try to wring just a wee bit more dough out of his Titanic movie.

The 3-D effects are pretty cool at times - but they're still far from perfect. There is a scene where a robotic arm from one of the submersibles extends right out into your face - it's the most spectacular use of the effect, and it almost makes you go crosseyed as it zeros in on your nose.

But - it's still just a journey to the bottom of the ocean, in documentary fashion, will Bill Paxton hamming it up like he's scared for his life in the submersible (a REALLY wussy moment).

The show is in full color (not the funky red/blue) - with very unique and special glasses used. Not sure of the technology - they looked like lightly shaded polorized lenses. Could have just been polorized to offset the double images - or electronically linked to a transmitter to "flicker shift" between eyes. I hope that makes sense, noone at the theater could answer - and I have not taken the time to research the technology.

When you did NOT have the glasses on - the image shift was plainly evident on the screen. Kind of a superimposed and shifted ghost image of the main image always on the screen. Similar to the old red/green types of past 3-D movies.

Anyhow the technology is not very clean, there were sometimes when you'd see a very distracting and annoying double image off center of screen. It's kind of hard on the eyes at times - requiring you to close your eyes for a few seconds or just look away from the screen occaisionally.

I think the effect could be put to GREAT use in an action type flick - there were a few brief scenes when the effect was used on a smaller boat on a rolling ocean and you definitely got the sweet "fake" roller motion in your ears. Your vision is a very powerfull sense that can fake your entire system into feeling motion as was briefly sensed in the movie. Imagine blasting through the trenches on the Deathstar in 3-D - THAT might be quite impressive.

But - at a local ticket price of $13.00/seat, I would have been more than disappointed to throw my money away (free for the screening though) :-) Our regular movies here are still only $6.50 so imagine what the 3-D Imax would cost in a larger market.

The movie itself? For what it is (documentary)...I'd give it maybe a 3 out of 5 stars. It was kind of cool to see the Titanic again and see some of the stuff inside - but I think it's time to let the dead horse lie.

The 3-D effect? Same...probably a 3 out of 5 stars.

I hope that helps!

[zarlor]

Most anything 3D in a theater these days uses polarized lenses to differentiate the images from the two cameras. The technique works pretty godd, but as you mentione eye fatigue can sometimes be a bit of a problem due to the nature of trying to project a 3d image on a 2d surface. The thing is that your eyeballs will cross/uncross to change their convergence point of where they consider an image to be, but the lens of your eye stays focused at a single depth plane. It's a tad counterintuitive to the way the muscles and brain naturally work when looking at things in a depth field and so most folks will get some eye fatigue from it just because they are working those eye muscles in ways different than they are used to using them.

At any rate the polarized glasses are pretty cheap, can be disposable, can be made with a pretty good field of view and can be very lightweight. If they had been using any kind of shutterglass technology then you are looking at a heavier set of glasses that might be more uncomfortable for many people. Although it should be noted that a company has recently put together a set of LCD glasses that are encased completely in a plastic film, instead of in glass, making the glasses a good bit lighter.

Content-wise, I think one of the biggest problems with #D movies tends to be that movie-makers who do them have this seemingly unrelenting need to make things jump out of the screen at you. I actually find that I most enjoy, with less eye fatigue, the 3d effect at the screen's plane or behind, kind of like watching the movie through a large window. And to hell with worrying about making a movie look 3D, just give us the movie, the 3D will take care of itself. Too much tweaking around with 3D effects will ruin a movie as surely as making a movie just to show off the latest special effects, without regard to the movie content, will.

[cpaesq]

Originally posted by T-Rage
....I downloaded one of their sample films and I have to admit somehow it looks like it has dimension! This is even without glasses! If you pause the film the picture looks one dimensional but when its playing it has depth! Is it me or does this look somewhat 3D to anyone else? ...

Yes it does look 3D but in a reverse sort of way:

It looks 3D going "into" the screen.. not like the 3D we all know from the movies where it comes "out of" the screen.

They should use this for a short HD movie. Mark Cuban could put it on HD net.