All 3D Is A Horrible Idea
Despite the 3D lovefest at CES, by Avatar’s James Cameron, and numerous movies in recent history, not to mention the announcements of ESPN and Discovery/Sony/IMAX for new television channels with an extra dimension of depth, the cold reality is that not only is 3D not the holy grail of entertainment, it doesn’t need, or deserve to be, used in every possible facet of modern consumer entertainment.
The 3D experience is not all it’s purported to be, even though the technology has come a long way since its inception: motion sequences can be blurry, parts of scenes are purposely out of focus, and the added depth is often distracting. These problems are exacerbated when moviegoers have less-than-perfect eyesight or conditions such as vertigo, making for an overall unpleasant time.
Why, then, are studios and manufacturers insisting on using 3D rendering in every manner possible? Until the problems surrounding the viewing-experience are addressed, 3D will ultimately be nothing more than an exotic fascination – yes, Avatar in 3D was entertaining, but watching a children’s movie or drama in the same manner would be a waste of money by studios, theaters, and consumers.
Even more importantly, glasses are still required to view 3D entertainment properly – if a 3D television ultimately becomes popular in homes, the owner of the TV will need to have extra pairs of glasses for any guests, creating additional cost and a barrier to easy viewing. It seems highly implausible that mainstream consumers will ever pay extra for a television set that’s nothing more than an expensive novelty causing eye discomfort, with additional effort to use.
3D movies and television will remain largely just a gimmick until either the issues inherent to the rendering and viewing of this technology are addressed, or when holographic displays finally appear outside of lab environments. There is not, and can not, be a revolution in visual entertainment displays until all variables of the viewing experience are properly calibrated and it becomes logical for consumers to even consider purchasing – RealD, IMAX 3D, or Dolby 3D are not the solution.
Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] piece adheres to the Code of Ethics subscribe to Self posts: rss – email New column at Technotainment Revelations on True/Slant: Despite the 3D lovefest at CES, by Avatar’s James Cameron, and numerous movies in recent [...]
It hasn’t been mentioned much, but it also limits the number of places where you can watch television; if I were an advertiser on a 3D channel, I would want lower rates to account for the fact that people passing TVs on the street, standing in Times Square, or sitting in an airport lounge or packed in at a bar, won’t be likely to tune to have their 3D glasses with them. That’s even before the low-income houses that aren’t about to buy eight pairs of glasses. A lot of barriers to entry, as you say.
Hey Michael,
Very good point – I didn’t think about that.
It’s even more important now that networks are already losing money from advertisers…
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »