James Cameron has a lot of money. So if he wants to throw some of it at Panasonic to help promote 3D TVs, that's his terrible decision. He shot his latest film in 3D, so he's clearly got it on his mind. And if Avatar does as well as the response to that trailer would have us believe, he may have a lot of free time soon anyway.Speaking of time, this is about the worst time to try and thrust new television and film technology on consumers. Aren't we still in the middle of this transition to digital broadcasts, HDTV and Blu-Ray? Now you're telling us we should buy new HDTVs and new Blu-Ray players that support 3D technology? Oh, and we'll need those cool 3D glasses, too.
There's a few problems with this. 3D was going to revolutionize the movies in the '80s. It didn't happen. It's supposed to be "going to revolutionize" movies right now, but it's not happening.
The new 3D technology is impressive. The full color 3D presentations look great, but I don't see it becoming the standard by which we watch television. 3D computer animation was supposed to take over completely from 2D line drawing animation, but if you look at the top cartoons on television, you'll see 2D doing just fine.
Plus, Americans are lazy. As long as you are going to require us to actively find and put on glasses to experience 3D television, most of us won't bother. We have a hard enough time finding the remote control. You come up with a way to give us the 3D experience minus the glasses, and you might be onto something.
The other problem is content. Like HD in its early days, there is virtually no content to justify the expense of a 3D upgrade, and there won't be enough any time soon, even if every studio started mass producing 3D films. Then there's the 3D itself. While it's cool for action-adventures, sci-fi and the like, what will the effect really add to most television shows?
Jaws certainly wasn't more awesome in 3D, so Law & Order: Special Victims Unit won'tl be either. If you put Ghost Whisperer in 3D, you might get legions of young men upgrading so that when Jennifer Love Hewitt turns, she'll be bursting quite literally from their television screens, but they won't be as impressed with 3D Charlie Sheen on Two and a Half Men.
Am I wrong? Will you be the first in line to upgrade to new 3D television technology?
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
8-23-2009 @ 2:49PM
Garlick said...
Where your point goes way off track is the 3D glasses remark.
I work in the LCD industry, and stereoscopic 3D, the ones you don't need glasses for, while grainy now, is having tons of research pumped into it.
For 4 years now, that's been all the rage at SID. If you don't know what SID is, check it out. It's where all the latest display technology gets hawked, and trust me, stereoscopic 3D has been getting progressively better every year.
Let alone the fact that we're going to see transparent OLED technology, which is built to enhance stereoscopic 3D. I've seen the technology in action, and it's definitely the future of TV.
So those "lazy" americans that you talk about, won't have to find those 3D glasses to enjoy a 3D movie.
So please, try to be informed when you write a piece, not just put out an opinion that is light on facts.
Reply
8-23-2009 @ 7:27PM
Jason Hughes said...
Well, the 3D that Cameron is pushing with Panasonic involves the end-user needing 3D glasses, which is one of my major points. I indicated that if "You come up with a way to give us the 3D experience minus the glasses, and you might be onto something."
You say that's happening, so I say "you might be onto something" that would work.
8-23-2009 @ 8:51PM
jimmytheface said...
So says the guy with the LCD industry.
Hello, I'm with the mustard industry. At the last hot dog convention chocolate mustard was all the rage.
8-24-2009 @ 10:32AM
garlick said...
Jason, the point is that the glasses are going away and rather quickly, so James is pushing the technology that's best now, but don't think he doesn't know what's right around the corner.
Also, as someone else pointed out, most 120Hz TV's can handle 3D technology with glasses, so most of the newer TV's are already 3D "ready" TV's.
Jimmy, that was the worst post ever. If you knew anything about the LCD market, you would know LCD TV technology is almost exclusively based in Korea & Taiwan. The US doesn't have a business that has anything to do with R&D in LCD TV applications. LCD business in the US, including my own, is all based on industrial applications & digital signage. 3D has no applicable use in industrial applications, so I have absolutely no interest in pushing the technology.
I'm just stating what other companies that I deal with on industrial applications are telling me about their roadmaps and technology advancements.
The world is going 3D.
8-23-2009 @ 2:55PM
Garlick said...
Oh and one more point. Lost would kick ass in 3D.
Same with 24, prison break, burn notice, battlestar galactica, warehouse 13, eureka.....I wouldn't even mind watching a reality show like Top Chef in 3D. Imagine seeing those dishes popping off the screen, or oil bubbling out of pan into your lap.
Sorry, but 3D would totally enhance most shows you watch, you just don't have the imagination to handle that right now because the lame 3D of years past, is not the 3D of today.
Reply
8-23-2009 @ 3:37PM
All or Nothing said...
3D has always been 'gimmicky'. Things flying out of the screen at the viewer, stuff like that. But thats changing. After seeing Camerons Avatar preview at IMAX, I have to say it was like going from black and white to colour.
The reason it worked was not the 3D technology itself, but the way it was used... properly. Instead of things popping out the screen, you were looking INTO the depth. Characters and sets tend to feel holographic with 3D movies, but the composition and layout of shots were executed with enough subtlety and finesse that instead of feeling like you could 'put your hand through them' you felt like you could 'put your hand ON them'.
This isn't another way to enjoy film, this is a new media format. The rules change when 3D is used correctly, and I feel its for this reason that your article is a little off base!
Simply adapting current format shows to 3D isn't going to make it worth while, but making use of the format correctly and creating a whole new structure of show will. It's in its infancy still (because to be fair, no one has used 3D without gimmicks up until now), but we can now approach the medium with a different eye.
Lastly, you are right about it being the wrong time to push another format with HD still fairly young in terms of broadcastable and deliverable content. I don't think 3D in the home is the way to go yet, but 3D in cinema is. For tv, as others mentioned, Lost etc would be great - but so far the tech isn't there. Considering broadcasters are strangling their HD streams with terrible bit rates, there would be no point yet anyway!
Reply
8-23-2009 @ 4:20PM
Tony Montana said...
You're jumping the gun a bit here.
It's hard to really judge the impact something has till you have to learn to live without it.
If you moved from a 30" SDTV to a 60" HDTV and then had to go back would you be able to?
3D has a long way to go before it becomes established properly but when it does going back from 3D to 2D is likely to be akin to going back from HD to SD or from colour to black and white.
The technology is still in its infancy so its retarded to kick it while its down though. If everybody had that mentality we would have never got those crappy black and white cameras or those slow computers that were as big as a house.
We all saw what those lead to.
Reply
8-23-2009 @ 4:40PM
Daritan said...
From what people have said, the Avatar footage that underwhelmed so many was very different when viewed as it was supposed to be in 3D. Cameron is apparently trying to make it like there is a real world just beyond the window of our movie screen and if that is his goal I am all for it. Too many 3D movies now simply use the technology as an excuse to have Brenden Fraser urinate on the audience... something I'm still working through with as many therapists as I can afford.
In either case the technology isn't there yet. The current stuff might be so different when it is actually shown to the public that we may not recognize it. I mean the first attempt at digital discs for movies were those bulky laser discs and that changed quick enough. Right now I don't think they have what it takes to put 3D reliably and more important inexpensivly in our homes. After all, with most shows suffering budget cuts who is going to shell out the extra cash to film in 3d? Not everyone even films in hi-def yet.
In 10 years we may be looking at this stuff seriously but for now it likely belongs in the same category as a flying car that folds into your brifcase.
8-23-2009 @ 6:18PM
Mario Grabner said...
I don't care if I ever will see AVATAR at home. I will go to cinema and watch it - as far as I can see - at least 2-3 times. If theatres show this movie in summer 2010 again - i will go and watch it there again. I would generally love to see good movies in cinemas again and again and again...
AVATAR will be a great movie - everyone's hot on this movie. Maybe it should stay in theatres for some years with breaks of some months.
The best reason why this movie will make a lot of money at the box office is: there won't exist illegal downloads of it ;-)
To Blu-Ray: I will never buy a Blu-Ray Player. Blu-Ray now exists for a long time - and they are still far away from where Blu-Ray should be to be the next "standard". Okay, its better then a simple DVD - but I will not change because the next revolution - named "Holodisc" - is coming. So i will wait for these Holodisc-Players and Discs and won't waste money for Blu-Ray. Sorry guys, movie freaks like learn from the "HD-DVD-desaster" and better wait for the next "standard"...
Reply
8-23-2009 @ 7:29PM
yossarian said...
you are absolutely missing something. No one cares about HDDVD or blu ray. I havent used a physical disk in 3 years. Blu ray was already dead when it was released. the plebians will always follow the herd.
Reply
8-23-2009 @ 11:57PM
Butters said...
You took the words right out of my mouth, yossarian.
I didn't buy DVD's for that very reason, so I couldn't believe it when people were paying upwards of $50 for some Blu-Ray movies.
The days of physical discs are numbered and have been for years. The movie industry is struggling to try and convince consumers to buy a physical disc because they are convinced that if they distribute their movies by download alone then piracy will run rampant.
The only physical item you should need is an SD card or flash drive to transport your freshly purchased movie from the kiosk at Walmart to your computer. Or better yet, download the movie directly from the studio to your computer or smart phone. The technology is already here so it just needs the consumer to demand it.
As to 3D technology, one day it will probably be integrated into every computer and TV screen. Over time there is always new developments in technology and electronics companies will undoubtedly integrate these into new products so they have an excuse for consumers to buy a new item from them.
8-24-2009 @ 1:19AM
Picviewer said...
Butters your as naive as the character whose name and avatar you use. Really discs are numbered? Must be why redbox took off like crazy and other rental services did and do, why the stores are constantly stocked on release day with disc-based media for purchase too. One hand you say physical is numbered yet on the other you say you want to walk out of the store with a flashmemory device. ?? Make up your mind or is a bipolar day? It's still physical just one is quickly wipeable.
The whole point of the disc is portability and playability. Take it from device a to b and it'll still play. You want to watch poorly compressed movie on a small shitty smartphone or computer screen go right ahead. I'll stick to a disc based one where I can if needed rip the content and stick it in a format of my choosing not some drmlaced locked in format. hate to break it to you people demand the disc not some bits that can be wiped out in a instant.
"The days of physical discs are numbered and have been for years. The movie industry is struggling to try and convince consumers to buy a physical disc because they are convinced that if they distribute their movies by download alone then piracy will run rampant.
The only physical item you should need is an SD card or flash drive to transport your freshly purchased movie from the kiosk at Walmart to your computer. Or better yet, download the movie directly from the studio to your computer or smart phone. The technology is already here so it just needs the consumer to demand it."
Reply
8-24-2009 @ 3:26AM
Butters said...
Wow, some one is stuck in the 90's.
1. The flash memory based device would only need to be used if you were to purchase the download for somewhere other than through your computers internet connection. I am not sure if you are aware but there is this thing called commerce, where people buy and sell items. Sometimes this occurs outside the home and you need to get the item from one device to the next. If you use a flash memory device it would reduce the cost as you would not need to purchase a physical item each time you wanted a new movie. Your iPhone or Solid State hard drive is just a large flash memory device. Then again I guess you don't have those living in the 90's
2. More movies are downloaded and watched every day than are rented from Redbox. Red box was cheap, that is why it was popular. Plus I am pretty sure they did not have HD movies which makes your point mute. Companies like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video are facing bankruptcy because the numbers of people renting movies is rapidly decreasing. Even Netflix has movies that stream or download to your computer of DVR device.
3. Blu-Ray Disc only play on Blu-Ray players, where as a downloaded movie file will play on any device with a hard drive and appropriate software (already available and for free).
4. Why would the movie from a download have DRM? The only reason that would happen would be if the short sighted movie companies decided to impose it; probably under the belief that it will stop piracy. Even though music DRM has proved that theory to be wrong.
5. You must have a crappy phone, computer or internet connection if you think that a computer screen or smart phone file would be compressed. An HD movie could easily fit on to a 32gb iPhone or a smart phone that holds a SDHD card of equivalent size. A computers hard drive or DVR device could also easily fit many movies than that and my internet connection can download a HD movie in under 3 hours. Keep in mind that all these technologies are getting faster and holding more information.
My suggestion to you, Picviewer, would be to get into the year 2009 and understand that the technology has already made discs obsolete. It is just the consumer that needs to catch up.
P.S. I expect to get a response from you in a a few hours after your Dad gets off the phone so you can log into your dial up connection and read my post. You might want to turn the sound down on that betamax video you are watching and stop feeding your tamagotchi for a few minutes so you can concentrate on what you are writing. When you have finished responding you can listen to your cassette walkman while you wait for your windows 3.0 computer shut down for the night.
8-24-2009 @ 1:49AM
jimd said...
I saw Panasonic's 3D demo at the consumer electronics show. It was very impressive. It might not be much use for a sitcom, but WOW when they showed an NBA game in HiDef 3D it was amazing. Like you're sitting in the front row. They shot some of the Beijing Olympics also. I gather any HiDef TV with 120 Hz can probably show 3D--the glasses will be controlled by another signal. So a whole new generation of TV's may not be necessary.
Reply
8-24-2009 @ 7:49AM
Juliette said...
I'm not interested in the format of what I watch, I'm interested in the content. I switched to DVD purely for the extras, which I love and which are worth paying more for (though it helps that they also take up less space). I prefer 2D animation to 3D (I think 3D looks weird, quite frankly) but I'll watch either if the story is interesting. I won't stop using discs no matter how much I download because one day the computer will up and die and I don't want to lose all my stuff (as my brother recently did).
CDs and DVDs were successful because they enhanced the content - CDs by allowing people to skip between tracks, DVDs with extras (and similar skipping between TV episodes).
I agree with you Jason. Most of us, who don't know that much about technology and just want to enjoy watching film and television, do not care about 3D, or Blu-Ray or any of it. Show us interesting and exciting stories, in whatever format, and we'll watch them. If there is a way to do 3D without glasses, maybe we might be interested, but to be honest I doubt anything is going to make a huge impact unless it's actually a holodeck.
Reply
8-24-2009 @ 1:33PM
cynmack said...
I think the main drawback is that 3-D as it exists now makes a significant portion of the population (including me) sick as a dog. I tried to watch Coraline because a friend mistakenly bought tickets to the 3D showing and I spent the next hour in the theater bathroom. And I am far from alone. Close to half the people I've asked about it say that 3D movies cause nausea or headaches. The parts of the movie I saw before I got sick, looked great but it's not worth it.
Reply
8-24-2009 @ 1:11PM
Christopher said...
Butters, you do realize that not everyone has broadband correct? And you insult people like it is the consumer's fault without realizing that in some regions it is not economically feasible to receive high speed internet connections. Many cable companies refuse to run a line that is going to service one house, actually, you could probably change that to all cable companies. This whole "the disc is dead" is foolish. Maybe eventually, but not until high speed internet is as common place as electricity is in homes.
Reply
8-24-2009 @ 12:23PM
Butters said...
Christopher, The point is that there is really no need for DVD's.
Hard drives are getting bigger, internet speeds are getting faster. Whether you have very high speeds or not doesn't take away from the fact that you soon will. It is just a matter of time.
You are the only one in these comments that used the term "the disc is dead". I said the days of physical disc are numbered. They will still be around as long as the movie studios push them and consumers buy them.
However. just think about it. Why buy a movie on a disc that only plays on a DVD player and/or a computer when you can download the movie and play it on any media device. You don't have to go to the store if you don't want to. No waiting for your netflix movie to turn up in the mail. It just makes more sense. Why is that so difficult to understand?
8-24-2009 @ 1:08PM
Harry J. Friedman said...
One big genre was not addressed. I am not a big sports fan, but imagine sporting events broadcast in 3D. That is a market.
Reply
8-24-2009 @ 1:15PM
Mike said...
Yossarian said, "Blu ray was already dead when it was released"
To which you said, "You took the words right out of my mouth, yossarian."
And if blu-ray was DOA, then that suggests dvd is certainly deader than dead...
So, want to revise that you didn't say discs were dead, chum?
See, you're not the only one who can be snarky.
Then again, I could always point out that you claim they're already useless, then go on to say that one day everyone will make them useless... which is it?
Or, maybe, rather than a pissing contest about a silly little point, you can just disagree without making yourself seem brilliant while trying to indicate others are morons........
Reply