3-D means headaches to many, yet companies push on

Yahoo ^ | 1/20/11 | Peter Svensson - ap

[NormsRevenge]

NEW YORK – From Hollywood studios to Japanese TV makers, powerful business interests are betting 3-D will be the future of entertainment, despite a major drawback: It makes millions of people uncomfortable or sick.

Optometrists say as many as one in four viewers have problems watching 3-D movies and TV, either because 3-D causes tiresome eyestrain or because the viewer has problems perceiving depth in real life. In the worst cases, 3-D makes people queasy, leaves them dizzy or gives them headaches.

[longtermmemmory]

1. 3d movies are just not worth it.

2. 3d tv at home with glasses is just plain stupid

3. it is a waste of money for a minimal gimicky effect

4. This is just a ploy to stop pirates taht has already faied AND this is a ploy to get us to spend money on a tech gimick that is NOT WORTH IT.

5. 3d movies are NOT b/w vs color.

[Las Vegas Dave]

Pinging the HDTV list.. HDTV pings!

[LibWhacker]

No problemo. Just keep a case of barf bags on hand. Costco will probably have a display case full of ‘em right next to the TVs.

[I Drive Too Fast]

The ride "Toy Story Midway Mania" at California Adventure (next to Disneyland) is in 3D and is fun. The ride is less than 7 minutes long though so you don't have time to get sick. The Captain EO show is in 3D too, but again it is short less than 20 minutes. They also have The Muppets in 3D and A Bugs Life in 3D. Both of those aren't that long either. I have never been sick on any of those attractions.

Now when it comes to 3D tv. I am not that enthused about it and figure the fad should go away in time.

I wear glasses already so I don't like the idea of having to wear 2 pair. I know at least one manufacturer has 3D tv without glasses. Perhaps in the future there might have 3D glasses available in prescription strength.

[I Drive Too Fast]

there might have = there might be.

Dang it, I must need new glasses.

[big'ol_freeper]

Huh, never had that problem with 3D

[James C. Bennett]

That’s quite creative!

[savedbygrace]

3D w/o glasses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uef17zOCDb8

Disturbing and probably a big joke, but there it is.

[mowowie]

I bought myself a nice Sony HD 34” tube set 5 years ago for half the price and twice the picture quality as lcd’s at that time.
She is still going strong.

Until these cheap flat panels and especially the 3D ones become around 250 bucks i’ll be OK for now.
250 bucks?
It will happen.

[mowowie]

Back in 1990 or so me and a bud were at Epcot Center and watched the Michael Jackson ‘Captain Eo” movie.

The 3D Was only ok until the captain was flying through a meteor storm. The next thing i saw was these tiny meteors floating right in front of my face, and i was way back in the theater. i was literally reaching out to them it was so unbelievable.
I haven’t seen anything like it since.

I saw Piranha 3D a few months ago.
There was no 3D, just a headache inducing blur.
Piranha 3D was actually not filmed in 3D though, it was CONVERTED, Just like a lot of these other so-called 3D movies out these days.
Avatar was actually filmed in 3D but i never saw it so i have really no base onto which to judge how good it really can be now,
How good these new tv’s can duplicate it’s effect, i have no idea.
Again i’ll wait till the 3D tv’s are around 250 bucks, maybe a few Christmases from now.

[mowowie]

I’ve read video games are real easy to convert to authentic 3D.
Movies? Not so much.

[taxesareforever]

Just like obamacare. Most don’t want it but it’s pushed on us any way.

[Sans-Culotte]

All the greatest movies ever made are not in 3D. 3D is a gimmick that gives life to crappy movies. I already wear glasses with prisms and do not need to wear an extra pair on top of them. My next TV upgrade will not be a 3D TV.

[trisham]

I plan to get a 3-D TV. I’ll wait until the price comes down, though.

[RobRoy]

>>I’ve read video games are real easy to convert to authentic 3D.
Movies? Not so much.<<

Since everything in both movies and video games is rendered in it’s particular place in space relative to lighting, POV etc, I would assume they would require similar activity though the movie, being much higher resolution, with much more things to render, would take a bit more computing power. But ultimately it should be about shooting every scene with a slightly different POV than the original, adding it to the original and, Presto, you have a 3D movie. Can’t do that with live action.

[fr_freak]

I’m not against 3D, I just don’t think it is the big leap over 2D that color was over B&W.

I think most movies are not really made for 3D, so the benefit is minimal. In my unprofessional opinion, the gold standard now for how a 3D movie can be made is "Avatar", the ridiculousness of the plot and ideology aside. I saw that movie in IMAX and 3D and it felt like I was actually there, on the alien planet. I did end up with quite a headache, though, but that might have been partly because, after the excruciatingly long 2.5 hours or so, my beer buzz had completely worn off.

[RobRoy]

I’m with you on Avatar. I also saw it in 3D Imax and, as you said, it was almost like being there. But 3D is only part of the equation. The sheer size is important.

I like your comments about being intended for 3D, Dr. Tongue’s 3D house of stewardesses notwithstanding.