💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 3070.gmi captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"The entertainment and electronics industries keep trying to push 3D on
consumers, even though a lot of smart people have caught on to the fact that it
is a scam and not innovation as the industry would like you to believe. From
the article: 'This is a bad experiment that the industry is forcing consumers
to subsidize. And since they can t create a better product, they ve simply
latched on to 3D as a marketing ploy that the entertainment and electronics
industries can use to trick people into thinking that they are getting a
superior experience. It s only working because just enough people are falling
for the scam to keep it alive.'"
Typical geek blither-blather. "I don't like it therefore everyone who does is
an idiot who's being duped." Here on /. I've seen this argument used against:
Apple, craft beer, very spicy chiles, tablets in general, 3d film and TV,
hybrid cars, wind power, solar power, drug laws, Democrats, Republicans and
organized sports.
Just accept that people like different things and move on. I realize this is a
strain to the borderline Asbergers types who are rife around here, but come on.
Sometimes there isn't a "right answer" for everyone.
3D is just a scam, I didn't really watch Avatar in 3D and enjoy it far more
than when I watched it in 2D, nope, that was all just part of my imagination.
Really, this is one of the more fucking retarded Slashdot stories I've seen in
a while, the article can be summed up entirely as:
"3D is a scam, because I, Mr Random Nobody, says so. End of."
Sure 3D isn't brilliant everywhere, some attempts at it are pretty naff, sure
sometimes it's misused, but so is audio particularly the likes of surround
sound, so are special effects, so is colour. It's a tool, and like any tool,
when used right, it can be pretty effective. But a scam? That's like saying a
hammer is a scam because you can't screw screws into the wall with it when you
try. It'd help if there was anything in the article other than his mere
reiteration of his personal opinion that it's a scam and absolutely nothing
more than that backing up his point.
The guy is a douche of the highest order, but the Slashdot editors moreso for
letting such utter shite through. If someone is going to suggest something is a
scam, they at least need to explain why. People spouting unfounded shite
without an ounce of evidence to back up their point is what I expect from the
comments, not the story... I know, I must be new here.
Want real 3-D? (Score:4, Insightful)
Go to a play. All the actors are right there on stage in living 3-D!
Will I buy a 3D TV? No.
Actually, you probably will. I don't like 3D movies and I ended up with a 3D
capable TV just because most of the really good new TV's have this capability.
If I could have bought the exact same model without 3D, I would have.
The effects are self-evident, there isn't some unfulfilled promise of what it
is or some sort of placebo effect making people think things look different, it
just is different. It's a feature that one can evaluate and decide for
themselves what they think. I personally am waiting because I recognize the
flaws in the current system and will see if they get better.
Now he does hit upon some points of interest:
-Adding 3D after the fact. For rendered movies, it's not too hard to do right
(add 'camera' with offset, re-render), but live-action stuff is indeed awkward
and I hear the biggest source of complaints about headaches.
-Less defined picture. With polarized lenses, this is true. You are effectively
halving the resolution of the screen. On the other hand, shutter glasses will
preserve the resolution at the expense of refresh rate, but that's compensated
by 240 Hz displays. However I do find shutter glasses a tad awkward with the
battery and cost. Instead of 1920x1080 displays with 240 Hz and shutter
glasses, I'd prefer 1920x2160 with 120 Hz and polarized lenses (or double the
column count).
However, his gripe about TVs supporting 3D is off the mark. A TV isn't
magically 3D only if it has the *capability* of doing 3D. You can still do it
fine and sometimes the requirements for 3D drive enhancements that up the
quality standard for 2D viewing. An exception to this could be
auto-stereoscopic displays, which would cause me concern depending on how much
resolution they provide.
A big problem with "3D movies" is Disney "Real3D(tm)", which is Disney Fake3D.
The image was delaminated in postprocessing, and reassembled with shifts to
simulate depth. That stuff sucks, and it sucks worse if the 3D producer
overdoes it. (Ref "Pirahna 3D").
"Avatar" is good 3D. It was really shot and animated in 3D, and Cameron put a
lot of effort into getting it right and not overdoing it. At no time in Avatar
is something positioned in front of the screen plane. Few other directors are
that good.
Even so, film 3D is inherently fake, because of the scaling issue. In the real
world, there's no noticeable stereoscopy beyond a few meters of range. Our eyes
are too close together. 3D distant shots with wide separation are a cinematic
convention, not visual reality.
TV 3D is far worse, It can't be watched casually. If you're off-axis, or lying
on your side, the effect is totally wrong. Having to wear glasses or sit in the
correct position is too restrictive. I'm curious to see how 3D sports bars work
out.
My guess is that after a while, 3D will be scaled back, and it will only be
used for content worth showing in Imax.