http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/01/hands-on-sonys-head-mounted-3d-display.ars (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/01/hands-on-sonys-head-mounted-3d-display.ars)
Sony's 3D enabled headset was unveiled at CES yesterday. THIS is the kind of tech that could turn me around on 3D. Who needs a TV? Plug in, turn it on, and immerse yourself in a fully 3D enabled virtual universe. Imagine the implications for 3D gaming. This is a product I've been dreaming about ever since becoming a gamer and it seems that the technology is catching up to my dreams. I'll try not to get too excited, but WOW.
(http://static.arstechnica.com/sony3dheadset.jpg)
3D in entertainment is here to stay. Alot of the reports out of CES on CNBC this past week I have been watching with the CEO's of companies like Sony as well as the entertainment industry are making a lot of big bets on 3D.
3D is a gimmick. After Tron 3D, I probably will never watch anything else in 3D. Too expensive for what you get.
King
Quote from: Kingisaaclinksr on January 07, 2011, 08:09:50 AM
3D is a gimmick. After Tron 3D, I probably will never watch anything else in 3D. Too expensive for what you get.
King
According to the film studios and theater owners, you are in the minority, sorry to say. I'm just reporting what is on business news, I have no dog in this fight beyond any potential investment opportunities.
I will never turn to the darkside of 3-D. And Bryan, I think you may need to recheck some of those reports. Most 3-D films have not done well in the last year. And the lack of another great 3-D film experience is leaving many people sour on the format and extra cost. "Tron Legacy" is a good example of this. Always been a gimmick and still is a gimmick. Just make a good freaking movie and you don't need gimmicks.
I'm holding out for Holodeck movies!! :)
Quote from: Rico on January 07, 2011, 08:46:29 AM
I will never turn to the darkside of 3-D. And Bryan, I think you may need to recheck some of those reports. Most 3-D films have not done well in the last year. And the lack of another great 3-D film experience is leaving many people sour on the format and extra cost. "Tron Legacy" is a good example of this. Always been a gimmick and still is a gimmick. Just make a good freaking movie and you don't need gimmicks.
No, in general theater owners have benefited form ticket sales at a higher price point due to the various 3D offerings this year despite a dcline in overall attendance.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/28/business/la-fi-1228-ct-box-office-20101228 (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/28/business/la-fi-1228-ct-box-office-20101228)
No doubt they have of wildly dispirit quality and effectiveness, but the studios have so many new offerings in the pipeline coming as well as the home entertainment efforts to begin to capture this technology...3D is here to stay, mark my words. They will do everything they can do to drive that business.
Here's a good article about the debate that came out prior to AVATAR's release:
http://www.slashfilm.com/is-the-digital-3d-movie-fad-over/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/is-the-digital-3d-movie-fad-over/)
Nope, still not buying it. I'll give you another example. "Inception." Not in 3-D, made a ton of money. Why? Because it was a good movie!
You are welcome to continue to pay $15+ and get gouged for 3-D that matters little in the current film going experience. People are tight with their dollars these days. They may get people to pay that, but I still maintain more are staying away at those prices.
Read this to get an idea of the price gouging going on. Get ready for a $20 3-D movie ticket. I can buy the movie for less than that!
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Movie-Ticket-Price-Gouging-Will-Push-3D-Near-20-Dollars-17734.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Movie-Ticket-Price-Gouging-Will-Push-3D-Near-20-Dollars-17734.html)
I know it takes very little to kick off the 3D debate on these boards. But try to set aside the theater going experience and think of this product used in conjunction with a motion sensing, full body scanning device like the new Microsoft Kinect. The tech is all in place, for a true three dimensional space with an avatar based around everything you are doing with your body. Quadshot joked about the holodeck but with a little bit of imagination on the part of software designers, the level of immersion that could come from this headset might very well rival something we've seen in TNG. To me the possibilities seem endless.
I'm more in favor for it with computing devices and gaming actually where it could truly be immersive. They've tried to get these big headsets out there for several years now. nVidia had a set for a long time they were pushing. A couple issues are the cost and software/games to run on them. Until those things come together, we have a ways to go. I'd guess maybe 5 years still or so.
And you even look like Geordi LaForge when you're wearing them!
Quote from: Rico on January 07, 2011, 10:03:29 AM
I'm more in favor for it with computing devices and gaming actually where it could truly be immersive. They've tried to get these big headsets out there for several years now. nVidia had a set for a long time they were pushing. A couple issues are the cost and software/games to run on them. Until those things come together, we have a ways to go. I'd guess maybe 5 years still or so.
Maybe sooner Rico, there's a pretty long list of 3D games coming out this year for the PS3. A couple are already out...Avatar the Game had 3D support. Cost is probably the major stumbling point. This must be a super expensive device and it could be a really long time before the price becomes anywhere near affordable for the average consumer.
Very true, Joby. My contention is 3D, from films to home entertainment to gaming is here to stay and will continue to be developed and pushed aggressively. It's not going away and provides for future avenue's of growth and revenue for so many different industires. And it's going to improve in terms of quality and delivering a positive experience. I haven't seen a 3D TV boradcast yet but I recall your son Stephen, Rico, mentioning he thought that sports looked pretty cool in 3D. It's coming. I don't think there is any debate of that inevitability. A person may not like the theater experience or cost, but in general, that's not going to stop the trend.
Yep - Stephen said that. He also said (like I did) that Tron in 3-D stunk and was not worth it. Like I've said above, I'm opposed to tacking 3-D on to a movie that just isn't helpful to it and only adds to the ticket pricing. Maybe in 10 years when I can walk into a new movie theater and see some type of full 3-D experience without wearing goofy glasses and that costs a reasonable amount I will be good with it. Until then, it's still a gimmick for most movies.
Quote from: Rico on January 07, 2011, 10:09:53 AM
Yep - Stephen said that. He also said (like I did) that Tron in 3-D stunk and was not worth it. Like I've said above, I'm opposed to tacking 3-D on to a movie that just isn't helpful to it and only adds to the ticket pricing. Maybe in 10 years when I can walk into a new movie theater and see some type of full 3-D experience without wearing goofy glasses and that costs a reasonable amount I will be good with it. Until then, it's still a gimmick for most movies.
Fair enough but when evaluating something like this, it's often usefull to remove our personal bias, love it or hate it, and look at it in a more academic way. Your a scientist, this should be second nature for you! :) This is the same way I evaluate Apple. Yes I love the products but my evaluation of their products and prosepects in purely academic, I remove my own bias to try and be more predictive. 3D technology is here to stay, that's not a very difficult prediction to make. Whether we like it or not is inconsequential.
LOL! The CEO of Panasonic is on TV RIGHT NOW talking about how much 3D is part of their future business model. They see 30% 3D TV penetration coming, the only hold back to penetration is content, or lack of current content.
Here is some more recnet business news reporting from CES regarding 3D:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40827379 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/40827379)
Yeah Bry, that link talks about the 3DS from Nintendo, which comes out in March, as one of the first products to launch with glasses free 3D at a mass market price point. It's a pretty safe bet that this product is going to be absolutely huge and change the way alot of people think about 3D. When Nintendo unveiled the device at E3 this past summer, people went absolutely crazy for it.
How many HD TVs exist that do not have 3-D? Most ppl I talked to that got an HD TV with 3D, only got the TV for the HD part, the 3D part was only, to them, a slapped on benefit they will never use. Its like FaceTime on the iPhone. We have it, but how many people actually use it and how many people actually got it for the FaceTime features? I'm willing to bet it wasn't the first thing on their minds. I use it, oh yes, but FT was not the primary thing I was looking for in my next phone. The same holds true for 3D.
After watching Tron in 3D I will probably never see another movie in 3D. MAYBE Avatar 2 because 3D actually worked in the first one and I loved it. Beyond that? Pretty unlikely. Unlike Blue-Ray, I don't see 3D as an advancement in technology. For gaming, maybe in the future but for movies not much. Even in Disneyland I only thought 3D worked in Bugs life, the other two shows we saw in 3D were pretty meh, being Captain EO and the Muppets show. They could have been fine without 3D.
Maybe ticket sales for 3D are up because it was Christmas, but I have to guess the trend is going to go downhill, especially when you start introducing $20 tickets per person. That's insane. If they go up that high, that is $100 for my family. $100. Not including any sort of drink or snacks. How are we supposed to justify that when we can go buy the blue-ray for $20, get popcorn for $3 and Water for free ( I wish theaters offered water for free). If theaters continue to raise prices, they are going to find themselves with empty theaters. Just going to Tron was expensive enough.
Heck, I'm not even including Netflix, which I can hook up to the TV and stream a movie. $10 a month right there. Can even choose the movie of the night. Sure, its not a new release, but cmon.
King
I have a different perspective on 3D. I have poor eyesight and wear glasses. Because of this, 3D does not always come out looking great because my eyes react differently to the way normal 20/20 eyes do. There are a LOT of people with eyesight issues and they may not pay for a 3D solution unless it works for their eyes in a way that does not cause eye strain and discomfort.
I doubt 3D will go beyond the film buffs and the early adopters until they have perfected 3D without glasses. Then 3D will just be an 'option' in a nice HDTV rather than a specialized TV in and of itself. By the time they figure this out, there will be lots of 3D capable broadcast, cable, and consumer content to view in that format -- the perfect storm for large scale adoption.
The other component to adoption here is he proliferation of affordable 3D home video equipment -- cameras, authoring software, and studio accessories. When the consumer can make their OWN movies in 3D, then the desire to be able to view them on something other than a computer will drive sales. Right now, home 3D is still an early adopter technology. Grandma and Grandpa need to be comfortable buying this technology so they can watch their grandchildren in 3D. We are not there yet.
Until then, it will be the pervue of the gamers, techies, early adopters, and film fanatics who feel they cannot live without it right away. The masses will be slow to fork out the big bucks for little benefit.
Yeah, Lynn has the same trouble seeing 3-D too Rick. She wears contacts and even with 3-D glasses can't really see it. So, it's currently pretty useless for her. Oh, and for me too. ;)
Quote from: RickPeete on January 07, 2011, 12:34:56 PM
I have a different perspective on 3D. I have poor eyesight and wear glasses. Because of this, 3D does not always come out looking great because my eyes react differently to the way normal 20/20 eyes do. There are a LOT of people with eyesight issues and they may not pay for a 3D solution unless it works for their eyes in a way that does not cause eye strain and discomfort.
I doubt 3D will go beyond the film buffs and the early adopters until they have perfected 3D without glasses. Then 3D will just be an 'option' in a nice HDTV rather than a specialized TV in and of itself. By the time they figure this out, there will be lots of 3D capable broadcast, cable, and consumer content to view in that format -- the perfect storm for large scale adoption.
The other component to adoption here is he proliferation of affordable 3D home video equipment -- cameras, authoring software, and studio accessories. When the consumer can make their OWN movies in 3D, then the desire to be able to view them on something other than a computer will drive sales. Right now, home 3D is still an early adopter technology. Grandma and Grandpa need to be comfortable buying this technology so they can watch their grandchildren in 3D. We are not there yet.
Until then, it will be the pervue of the gamers, techies, early adopters, and film fanatics who feel they cannot live without it right away. The masses will be slow to fork out the big bucks for little benefit.
I agree 100% and that's all I am saying here. To say that it's simply a gimmick and will die off is very short sighted.
In Blighty 3D has done well but not as well as they hoped. Of course we don't matter because its sales in the US that count. Sony i'm afraid (and this is just my opinion) has dropped the ball in tech over the years. I'm not impressed with their TV's and the hard drive DVD players are slow and clunky. I cant see 3D really hitting home entertainment systems soon, they will if sales go well but its like surround sound, we'd all like it bit not many people have it.
Cinema wise here's my take. Avatar ( i found it boring) was made for 3D, so that is great, brilliant knock your socks off. If a film is NOT made in 3D and just rendered then you are being coned. Its not a true 3D film. Don;t pay a extra £3 to see one scene thats been rendered, its silly.
If films come out in 3D that has been filmed using the unique 3D cameras and the story is solid on its own merit then i think brillinat the future looks bright but so far that is not happening.
It's going to be much more than cinema, Meds, that's the point.
Honestly, you guys have gotten so off topic here. The thread was about a pair of 3D gaming goggles. I made the correct comment that 3D is here for the long haul. Tim said it's a gimmick and the movie experience sucks. I pointed out that it's growing so far beyond that but you guys keep pissing and moaning about the movies! :roflmao
Hello!!! Is this thing on?!!!! :old_bash:
LOL, I'm just throwing in my opinion. I cant stand Sony i'm afraid but hey I've not slipped these bad boy gaming specs on yet and i cant think of anything better than a Meds controlled 3D game.
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on January 07, 2011, 02:01:28 PM
i cant think of anything better than a Meds controlled 3D game.
With naughty bits? ;)
Quote from: Rico on January 07, 2011, 08:46:29 AM
I will never turn to the darkside of 3-D. And Bryan, I think you may need to recheck some of those reports. Most 3-D films have not done well in the last year. And the lack of another great 3-D film experience is leaving many people sour on the format and extra cost. "Tron Legacy" is a good example of this. Always been a gimmick and still is a gimmick. Just make a good freaking movie and you don't need gimmicks.
If you do a movie in 3D - take advantage of the tech. Make a 3D movie - don't just add it after market so the theaters can charge another $2.
Despicable Me took advantage of 3D (very funny stuff) and I hope pixar will do that with Cars 2 next year.
Quote from: Bryancd on January 07, 2011, 01:49:27 PM
It's going to be much more than cinema, Meds, that's the point.
Honestly, you guys have gotten so off topic here. The thread was about a pair of 3D gaming goggles. I made the correct comment that 3D is here for the long haul. Tim said it's a gimmick and the movie experience sucks. I pointed out that it's growing so far beyond that but you guys keep pissing and moaning about the movies! :roflmao
Hello!!! Is this thing on?!!!! :old_bash:
While I certainly commented on the film aspects, I have also commented on the original topic. I actually stay up on computer tech like this more than many. I've even tried a few of these headsets on. They have a ways to go still. And the price is too high and again - no content really right now. Same for TV.
The preview for Cars2 in 3D in front of TRON looked terrific. Animation really lends itself to the format. And base don the previews I saw, EVERY SINGLE ONE of next years big even movies has a 3D release. So either studios are
A. Foolishly throwing money at 3D in a desperate hope it all works out.
or
B. Based on previous box office and expensive market research have determined there is money to be made utilizing the format despite the fact that Rico is boycotting.
I actually have no interest in seeing most of those films, 3D or not, they all looked lame.
Bryan - you should read this thread more closely. I'm not the only one opposed to most of the 3-D films that have been released - or will be released.
Quote from: Rico on January 07, 2011, 03:18:17 PM
Bryan - you should read this thread more closely. I'm not the only one opposed to most of the 3-D films that have been released - or will be released.
I'm fine if you are opposed! You keep missing the point. I'm not interested, motivated, care if anyone likes them. I don't always like them. I'm discussing TRENDS and where the money is going. All of you were opposed to iPads and iPhones and iPods at one point or another around here! I was the sole voice who was able to look beyond the noise. :) Your opposition is meaningless, it's going to happen regardless, that's all I am saying.
Oh i dont know, i've always loved iphones/ipadds and i dont recall anytime i said boo to a i-device. Ive only just been able to afford one mind you lol.
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on January 07, 2011, 03:25:53 PM
Oh i dont know, i've always loved iphones/ipadds and i dont recall anytime i said boo to a i-device. Ive only just been able to afford one mind you lol.
OK, now you are just posting everywhere to try and beat me to 5000! Crafty one, English! OH MY GOD!! We have the EXACT same post count RIGHT now!!!!!
Bryan is proving my point about trends though...I hate them. ;)
I still think the trend is going to backfire in the long run especially if the economy doesn't recover. Bully to trends, most ppl can't keep sinking $$ into overpriced movie tickets.
King
The trend can be your friend if you know what to do with it. :)
Quote from: Bryancd on January 07, 2011, 03:55:49 PM
The trend can be your friend if you know what to do with it. :)
Yeah yeah yeah. Sure, investing now into 3D is a good idea because most consumers are suckers. (Sad but true). But not in the long run. I suspect something better will be out in 3-5 years. Suspect mind you.
King
Better? Like the actors show up in your living room and act out the performance? Ahh, youth, you have that in spades, my friend Tim. :) Have I ever steered you wrong? I'm money, baby. :2cents :2cents :2cents :2cents :2cents :2cents
Quote from: Bryancd on January 07, 2011, 05:45:35 PM
Better? Like the actors show up in your living room and act out the performance? Ahh, youth, you have that in spades, my firend Tim. :)
:)
Quote from: Geekyfanboy on January 07, 2011, 05:47:12 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 07, 2011, 05:45:35 PM
Better? Like the actors show up in your living room and act out the performance? Ahh, youth, you have that in spades, my firend Tim. :)
:)
If Kenny and I were your age agian we would be tearing up the town!! :cheers :cheers :cheers :cheers
I was reading some articles from CES, and they mentioned some companies demoing 3D TV's that did not require glasses. They said they were smaller screens, but would be cool if they could get to point where we could skip the whole glasses requirement at home.
That said, the post Joby posted is really cool, like Joby said, this coupled with Kinect type technology, and you have yourself a Holodeck.
Quote from: jedijeff on January 07, 2011, 07:14:29 PM
I was reading some articles from CES, and they mentioned some companies demoing 3D TV's that did not require glasses. They said they were smaller screens, but would be cool if they could get to point where we could skip the whole glasses requirement at home.
That said, the post Joby posted is really cool, like Joby said, this coupled with Kinect type technology, and you have yourself a Holodeck.
THANK YOU brother, finally another nerd with vision that goes beyond his investment portfolio!!! ;) ;) ;)
I'm all for 3D. I don't think it's a gimmick and I find it funny that people are complain about 3D when they are, more times than not, given the option to not have to see it in 3D.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that for those of you that don't like 3D and keep going to see 3D, obvious the marketing is working. I enjoy 3D, but only under the qualifiers that I mentioned several times before. I want a native 3D film. If you shoot it in 3D, I am there. I don't need anything jumping out at me or any "grand" 3D effects. If you can give depth to the screen and you shot it that way, you will have my money at the theater quicker than a 2D film. I can see 2D at home.
At this point saying 3D is nothing but a gimmick is like saying color talkies and surround sound are nothing but a gimmick.
I still recall all those people wondering less than 20 years ago, what someone needed with more than 2 speakers. For me, that how the 3D is gimmick argument sounds.
For every person here that professes not wanting to see a film in 3D, there are plenty that want that experience. In the end, to each his own. I won't go to IMAX movies because I don't like the experience. For me as a consumer, the experience if fundamentally flawed. I go to the big screen so I can see everything without strain and IMAX is too big to allow me to see everything at once or with little head turning. I don't like IMAX, but I'm not going to suggest that it's a gimmick.
Quote from: X on January 07, 2011, 09:26:13 PM
I'm all for 3D. I don't think it's a gimmick and I find it funny that people are complain about 3D when they are, more times than not, given the option to not have to see it in 3D.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that for those of you that don't like 3D and keep going to see 3D, obvious the marketing is working. I enjoy 3D, but only under the qualifiers that I mentioned several times before. I want a native 3D film. If you shoot it in 3D, I am there. I don't need anything jumping out at me or any "grand" 3D effects. If you can give depth to the screen and you shot it that way, you will have my money at the theater quicker than a 2D film. I can see 2D at home.
At this point saying 3D is nothing but a gimmick is like saying color talkies and surround sound are nothing but a gimmick.
I still recall all those people wondering less than 20 years ago, what someone needed with more than 2 speakers. For me, that how the 3D is gimmick argument sounds.
For every person here that professes not wanting to see a film in 3D, there are plenty that want that experience. In the end, to each his own. I won't go to IMAX movies because I don't like the experience. For me as a consumer, the experience if fundamentally flawed. I go to the big screen so I can see everything without strain and IMAX is too big to allow me to see everything at once or with little head turning. I don't like IMAX, but I'm not going to suggest that it's a gimmick.
Well said X.. I totally agree with you.
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on January 07, 2011, 08:40:36 PM
Quote from: jedijeff on January 07, 2011, 07:14:29 PM
I was reading some articles from CES, and they mentioned some companies demoing 3D TV's that did not require glasses. They said they were smaller screens, but would be cool if they could get to point where we could skip the whole glasses requirement at home.
That said, the post Joby posted is really cool, like Joby said, this coupled with Kinect type technology, and you have yourself a Holodeck.
THANK YOU brother, finally another nerd with vision that goes beyond his investment portfolio!!! ;) ;) ;)
Will be cool, just thinking what can be done is sort of exciting.
Quote from: jedijeff on January 08, 2011, 08:08:17 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on January 07, 2011, 08:40:36 PM
Quote from: jedijeff on January 07, 2011, 07:14:29 PM
I was reading some articles from CES, and they mentioned some companies demoing 3D TV's that did not require glasses. They said they were smaller screens, but would be cool if they could get to point where we could skip the whole glasses requirement at home.
That said, the post Joby posted is really cool, like Joby said, this coupled with Kinect type technology, and you have yourself a Holodeck.
THANK YOU brother, finally another nerd with vision that goes beyond his investment portfolio!!! ;) ;) ;)
Will be cool, just thinking what can be done is sort of exciting.
For sure, that's why getting all bent out of shape about 3D movies is so myopic, you have to look at the big picture. I'm very excited for LucasFilm's entrance into the space and pushing the technology for both film transfers and for gaming down the road, you know they have their eye on that.
Quote from: Bryancd on January 09, 2011, 12:12:38 PM
Quote from: jedijeff on January 08, 2011, 08:08:17 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on January 07, 2011, 08:40:36 PM
Quote from: jedijeff on January 07, 2011, 07:14:29 PM
I was reading some articles from CES, and they mentioned some companies demoing 3D TV's that did not require glasses. They said they were smaller screens, but would be cool if they could get to point where we could skip the whole glasses requirement at home.
That said, the post Joby posted is really cool, like Joby said, this coupled with Kinect type technology, and you have yourself a Holodeck.
THANK YOU brother, finally another nerd with vision that goes beyond his investment portfolio!!! ;) ;) ;)
Will be cool, just thinking what can be done is sort of exciting.
For sure, that's why getting all bent out of shape about 3D movies is so myopic, you have to look at the big picture. I'm very excited for LucasFilm's entrance into the space and pushing the technology for both film transfers and for gaming down the road, you know they have their eye on that.
"But Bryan, all Lucas is doing is padding his wallets!!!!!"
;) I think someone said that on this forum, although I heavily disagree with it.
King
i would never deny the right for a man to make an honest dime. :)
That was me. Lucas is padding his already over loaded wallet. We all know Lucas is stretching the Star wars franchise as much as he can. We'll all buy the blue ray and then he's doing a '3D' version. Will he re-film it using the proper cameras (that would be good) or will he render it (which will be crap and doing what he did with the re-issues).
Now as Bryan said fair enough about making a dime, thats fair play but come on Lucas have a go at being a film maker and make a 'new' film about something brand new. Not another Howard the Duck though.
He's not a film maker, he's a film technician, he's a film editor, he's much more interested in the mechanics of films then their content at this point. Sure, when he was younger he liked story but the prequels demonstrated very clearly he's more an engineer than artist, and that's not a criticism.
Quote from: Bryancd on January 09, 2011, 02:56:45 PM
He's not a film maker, he's a film technician, he's a film editor, he's much more interested in the mechanics of films then their content at this point. Sure, when he was younger he liked story but the prequels demonstrated very clearly he's more an engineer than artist, and that's not a criticism.
i can agree with this. He makes a better producer than he does a director or writer.
Quote from: X on January 09, 2011, 04:21:12 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 09, 2011, 02:56:45 PM
He's not a film maker, he's a film technician, he's a film editor, he's much more interested in the mechanics of films then their content at this point. Sure, when he was younger he liked story but the prequels demonstrated very clearly he's more an engineer than artist, and that's not a criticism.
i can agree with this. He makes a better producer than he does a director or writer.
Now, he does spend some time meeting with Dave Filloni to hash out the story arcs of The Clone Wars and is usually spot on with that, with a few exceptions, but then allows Dave to create the vision. He's a technocrat at this point which is why any 3D re-master of STAR WARS will be great. This is his wheelhouse.