If it gets big it gets big, but I have yet to see a 3D experience that didn't give me a headache and was terrible. Most require glasses (which is even worse if you already wear glasses) and the ones that don't require such specific viewing positions that 70% or more rooms would not be able to accommodate one. 

It's one thing to go to the IMAX theater and suffer through Avatar with goggles on, but to think that enough people would run out to buy these things seems farfetched based on the technology. 

I'm with Trip on this one.  3-D has been around for a long time and it never really seems to get past the novelty stage.  It comes, it goes, and then a few years later it's back again.  Since it requires the user to wear a device such as glasses and with it's side effects headaches/nausea, demand for a 3-D platform for common viewing will likely remain low.  IMO, the only industry that would embrace 3-D technology would be the gaming industry.     

I would think they add that with the same speed as they adopted blueray, so few years.

I have glasses and sat through Avatar at my regular cinema and it wasn't too bad but not sure this will be my preferred way of watching all my movies.

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about 3D until another 5 years.

JK

Hey folks,

This was emailed over to me via a colleague last week. Not sure where the information is from but nonetheless! (BTW i work in a B & O store so relavent to me!)

"Here’s an interesting snippet: for those who keep asking about whether we’re going to do 3D televisions, here’s another arrow to shoot them down with for the time being -

The technology behind 3D movies involves two images being shown on the screen. The glasses you wear make sure only one eye sees each image, and your brain puts those two together to create a 3D effect. According to the COVD there is a significant part of the population that is unable to view 3D due to vision problems.

Around 56% of those between the ages of 18 and 38, for example, have one or more problems with binocular vision that would inhibit their viewing experience. Around five percent have amblyopia (also known as ‘lazy eye’) or strabismus, both of which make 3D viewing impossible.

Kenneth J. Ciuffreda, a professor at SUNY, State College of Optometry, says that visual motion sensitivity (VMH) may be an issue as well. “People who have visual motion hypersensitivity will find Avatar quite challenging to view.” Those with VMH will often feel dizzy when watching movies in two dimensions, and three dimensional movies cause them to feel nauseated and stressed.

Over half the population can’t actually ‘see’ 3D television (?!) and a portion of those who can will just vomit all over the place. Brilliant stuff"

notsolittledave wrote:

Hey folks,

This was emailed over to me via a colleague last week. Not sure where the information is from but nonetheless! (BTW i work in a B & O store so relavent to me!)

"Here’s an interesting snippet: for those who keep asking about whether we’re going to do 3D televisions, here’s another arrow to shoot them down with for the time being -

The technology behind 3D movies involves two images being shown on the screen. The glasses you wear make sure only one eye sees each image, and your brain puts those two together to create a 3D effect. According to the COVD there is a significant part of the population that is unable to view 3D due to vision problems.

Around 56% of those between the ages of 18 and 38, for example, have one or more problems with binocular vision that would inhibit their viewing experience. Around five percent have amblyopia (also known as ‘lazy eye’) or strabismus, both of which make 3D viewing impossible.

Kenneth J. Ciuffreda, a professor at SUNY, State College of Optometry, says that visual motion sensitivity (VMH) may be an issue as well. “People who have visual motion hypersensitivity will find Avatar quite challenging to view.” Those with VMH will often feel dizzy when watching movies in two dimensions, and three dimensional movies cause them to feel nauseated and stressed.

Over half the population can’t actually ‘see’ 3D television (?!) and a portion of those who can will just vomit all over the place. Brilliant stuff"

Hmmm, there might be something to this, since I love a good IMAX 3D, but my wife hates it, she says she gets nausea.

3D won't take off until people can ditch the glasses.  Just think of having these 3d glasses that run on batteries, recharging them and such, and having to have extra pairs for company, family, etc.  Do you really want the clutter of all this? And it is going to change.  3D in its current form is the new Quad....it will be gone....

I don't think there were any batteries in my glasses at my local movies when watching Avatar.

What I noted was, some movements within the film are uncomfortable .... what a Director has to learn I guess is to avoid these.

Giving the success that Avatar has for an "average" story I think they might be onto something with 3D ....

3D is moving along two parallel route at the moment: the special glasses/ double image film, and the adaptation of lenticular still photography (remember NIMSLO?) to work on LCD/ computer screens. There are already plenty of 3D computer screens on the market at premium prices..... but you generally need to sit in a very specific position (and only one of you) to get the experience.

The comments above about binocular vision problems in the general populace are probably true. In real life most people rely less on 3D vision than is popularly believed. For example, when driving most of your eyesight  judgement is based on comparisons rather than 3D depth (unlike that of a pilot who often has nothing to make comparisons with!)

Rather than alienate half the population it's more likely that TV stations will make separate broacasts now and then for special spectacle viewing, with most TV's and broadcasts remaining 2D for universal viewing.

Graham

Ok, the science bit is that 3D works by getting your eyes to see two seperate images, filmed from different angles and this tricks your brain into sterophonic vision.  Eventually, screens will produce two images projected outwards at very slightly different angles.  Being a very narrow angle, this will involve a screen that tracks the position of your eyes and we're talking about 10-years away.  Sorry folks.

My take on Avatar was more that I already enjoy making films on Super8 (or 8mm movie film for those out the know) Anyway, the cameras are cheap now, mainly because people are stupid and throw away high quality eqipment because it's "outdated" although the film is expensive to buy, and process.  So anyway, a friend and I thouguht there's no reason to not buy two cameras, two projectors and some polarising lenses to create a 3D film.  Obviously this would work with glasse and the editing would have to be frame-by-frame accurate on each film but the idea is so cool I'd love to do it.  Now I just need to get some cash together to buy 2x200feet of film (alas, £200). And another camera/projector (£40 if I'm lucky).  And a 4 polarising lenses.