'Chuck' in 3D falls flat
NBC's Chuck aired in 3D Monday, and it left many viewers wanting to do exactly that with the paper 3D glasses: chuck them.
The overriding opinion of many people interviewed who tuned in to the 3D television event was disappointment.
"I thought it was a gimmick and did not add anything to the show," said Jamie Knapp of Columbus, Ohio. "The red/blue (glasses) did not look good and gave me a headache."
Maybe Chuck is better the old-fashioned way.
(Credit: NBC)The 3D promotion was intended to raise awareness of 3D movies, specifically ones coming to theaters soon, like Monsters vs. Aliens from Dreamworks. But the entire effort may have been wasted if it just left a bad taste in the mouths of potential ticket buyers.
Intel sponsored the distribution of the red and blue paper glasses because Intel's InTru3D processing technology helped Dreamworks Animation create the 3D versions of its films.
"We are excited that the 3D commercial and the episode of Chuck have helped raise awareness of the industry's move to 3D. As you know--the technology used for the Super Bowl does not give you the full (theater) experience, but is the best available today that will work with your standard TV."
That's what's unfortunate. What was shown to viewers Sunday during a 3D commercial and Monday night's Chuck episode is nothing like the 3D technology available today in theaters. Instead, the paper blue-and-red lensed glasses reminded many of them of cheesy 3D films of the past (one viewer, Ken Lee, told CNET News that Chuck in 3D was at least "better than Captain EO.")
And worse, it didn't make everyone want to rush off to the next 3D screening, which was ostensibly the point of the whole exercise.
Analyst Michael Gartenberg said the Chuck episode actually made high-def TV look worse. "The effect was weak and made the HD signal looked washed out," he said. "(There's a) long way to go before the home version is more than a gimmick."
Erica Ogg is a CNET News reporter who covers Apple, HP, Dell, and other PC makers, as well as the consumer electronics industry. She's also one of the hosts of CNET News' Daily Podcast. In her non-work life, she's a history geek, a loyal Dodgers fan, and a mac-and-cheese connoisseur. E-mail Erica. 
I was asking my other friends who I knew were watching in 3D if they saw anything, in case I just didnt get it or something.
I didnt even see anything in 3D and I have seen it before in theaters. I am glad you wrote this article so I knew I wasnt going nutty =)
I think it's a step back from the newer glasses that aren't multi colored. I know those are dedicated to theaters and special projectors right now, but those don't require you to use your eyes in tandem for them to work. I saw chicken little in 3d with the newer glasses, and it was awesome. I could see the 3d effects no problem, it didn't give me a headache, and it didn't alter the color of the movie.
I definitely think this was a step back. I was glad when the multi colored glasses were gone, and I wasn't happy to see them back. It did however add depth to the show if you paid attention. If you were looking for things to pop out of the screen, well you weren't going to see that. If you want to see that, search for a music video on youtube called "Golden Shine". You can use the glasses with that video, and you can see the mic stand pop out of the screen more than the stuff on Chuck.
I DO fault them for not making a decent experience out of the whole thing. If they are gonna do 3D, they have to make it look good. The effects were lacking and the whole screen had a blue tint for most of the show. It makes me wonder if they even demo'd it before putting it on live.
I found that I was able to see the 3D-ness of it better if I tilted my laptop's screen either up or down slightly...staring straight at it wasn't as effective for me.
I've seen 3D movies in theaters which used polarized glasses to create a 3D effect, and its much more enjoyable than the method they used here. So much more enjoyable in fact, that I wouldn't even have tried to get people interested in paying a little extra for a 3D movie by using this far inferior technology.
"I thought it was a gimmick and did not add anything to the show," said Jamie Knapp of Columbus, Ohio. "The red/blue (glasses) did not look good and gave me a headache."
NO WAY, of course. This was a new 3d technique. It does not use Red/Blue, it uses clear lenses. So now wonder it looked bad.
You cannot use the Red/Blue glasses with Intel's technology, this was widely published and any CNet editor should of done the damn research before posting a BS article in the first place.
I guarantee some marketing geniuses came up with this idea to the dismay of the developers. Anyone that knows anything about the technology should have known this would be a poor representation of 3D.
I just saw My Bloody Valentine 3D and it was awesome. Not this outdated (yet cheap) red/blue 3D technology.
When writing, please use correct English. It's "should have done" not "should of done." I cannot 'of' something, and cannot have 'of'-ed something. I have a pair of the lenses in my hand and it's an off-red and blue. It didn't work well with me, and it should HAVE been filmed with a clearer technology, perhaps using polarized lenses, which come off better in my opinion. The 3D effect was rather weak to me, and the glasses didn't work very well.
James
I have the official glasses, and the lenses are indeed red(ish) amber and blue. Not the same shades as the traditional red/blue glasses, but close enough for people to simply call them red/blue.
In fact, this does work the exact same way as the traditional red/blue glasses work, only these particular shades preserve the videos colors better, while the original shades were designed to be used with black and white video/images, where color retention obviously wasn't a concern.
Are you talking about 3D here, or just network sitcoms in general?
Really, the headline of this article could have omitted the words "in 3-D" and been true in general...
When will people reporting items concerning the renewed interest in 3D going to get their facts straight. If someone feels that a subject is worth writing about they should at least do some basic research. An article called, "NVIDIA Takes Video Games Into 3D" states: "This approach is called stereoscopic because the computer sends separate images to each eye. Objects in the two images are slightly offset from each other?a gap the brain interprets as depth, resulting in a compelling 3D illusion." The 3D image is NOT an illusion. An illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. A misleading visual image. When you observe something, the parallax difference between the left eye image and the right eye image enables the brain to construct the stereoscopic image. When you observe a 3D image through some kind of visual aid you are experiencing that same difference in parallax, which means it is a real image and not an illusion.
The same question applies to most reporter's erroneous belief that the 3D movies of the fifties were anaglyphic and presented through red and blue pieces of cellophane. I cannot think of one first run 3D feature film of the fifties that was presented that way. They were all presented with a two projector system through polarizing filters shown on a silverized screen so as not to depolarize the images. The glasses were also polarizing filters that separated the left and right image. And, when the projectionist did his job properly (which seldom was the case) the 3D image was superb. Cardboard red and blue cellophane filters were usually reserved for cheap 3D ads and comic books. And, it saddens my heart that there are greedy fools around now, ready to present that anaglyphic garbage to young people today who are not familiar with 3D, and suggest that this is what 3D on television is all about. This kind of greedy stupidity will set 3D back several years in the minds of those who are unfamiliar with sterescopic principles. This is what happened in the fifties. Email me and I'll tell you that story.
Lastly I would like to correct the following quote: "In recent years several companies have developed 3D computer displays, with results ranging from disappointing to, literally, nauseating. Graphics specialist Nvidia (NVDA) has a new approach that promises to take computing into the third dimension." This is certainly NOT a new approach. The field-sequential system that utilizes shutter glasses has been around for years. It is probably true that NVIDIA has a quality system that I am sure is state of the art. But then, so is the price. Not only for the system, but the cost of a brand new extra expensive TV set. I have a system I spent less that $100.00 on and the only drawback is that it can only be used on a CRT (cathode ray tube) TV set. But right now, that's what most poor people have anyway.
Speaking of people. In today's world most people wear glasses. If for nothing else, to shut out the sun's glare. Is it so inconceivable that they would wear glasses to view a film in the way most of them actually see the world. If one is fortunate enough to have binocular vision, isn't viewing still and moving pictures on a flat surface that mushes everything together rather antiquated? When we view a regular image, the only way we can get any feeling of depth is through perspective and relative size. Can this truly be enough?
Christopher R. Mohr Sr.
Just a question ... wouldn't the fact that your brain thinks the object is coming out of the screen - when it is not (thus making it an erroneous perception) - make it ALSO an illusion?
and later say "If one is fortunate enough to have binocular vision, isn't viewing still and moving pictures on a flat surface that mushes everything together rather antiquated?".
Well yes it is antiquated, just as viewing 3D images on a flat surface will on day be seen as antiquated, as
stereoscopic viewing on a 2D surface obviously gives an *illusion* of depth.
Honestly, when was the last time Pixar needed a push to sell tickets to it's movies? Animated movies are still amazingly popular!
The technology used in the SuperBowl ads and Chuck was not traditional anaglyphic (red/cyan) stereo, and using those glasses definitely will not work. It is a technique from a company in Denmark which they call Color Code 3D and patented about 5 years ago (US Pat 6,687,003). Anaglyphic stereo uses red and cyan filters to isolate left and right stereo images, so that the resulting image is inherently monochromatic, no color. In addition, unless you can control the color perfectly (which no displays, TVs, or printed images do), you get leakage and cross-talk between the left and right images, resulting in eyestrain, headache, or worse.
The Color Code 3D technique uses different amber and blue/purple glasses and the encoding is different. A more-or-less full color image is transmitted through the amber lens whereas through the blue lens is transmitted a monochrome parallax-only image whose purpose is to add depth information but no color information to the amber image (except to fill in corresponding compensation made to the color image). That's as clear as I can make it in a sentence, read the pateht. The big deal is that you get a color stereo image, unlike anaglyphic stereo.
Without the glasses the image looks like a high-contrast color image with lots of yellow and blue halos, which is somewhat watchable without the glasses, unlike an anaglyphic image which is basically unwatchable without glasses. The system also works a lot better on a range of devices where color is not so well controlled. However, the quality of the 3D effect still depends on the color control, so the 3D effect is what gets compromised using it for uncalibrated TV, displays, etc. Also, the brightness is cut back, especially in the right (blue) eye, not as bad as anaglyphic but about like polarized glasses or shutter glasses. It's sort of like watching TV wearing sunglasses over one eye and somewhat headache-inducing in its own special way. I find the trick is to basically watch with your left eye and let your brain use the right eye image subconsciously to figure out the 3D.
I thought the SuperBowl ads showed the effect poorly and Chuck wasn't much better. It all strikes me as bad marketing in that it could easily cause fewer people to go see Monsters vs. Aliens and (later in 2009) James Cameron's Avatar, especially counterproductive given that neither of these is using the same technique. The movies and images at the www.colorcode3D.com site are much better, though many people will still find the images less than ideal, but is much better than any anaglyphic images you've ever seen. It is definitely worth checking out for the close up of a woman's chest they included in the samples for all of you guys who don't otherwise get what's the value of stereo imagery. To get the glasses (I got mine at Safeway last week), you can go to the main company that makes cardboard 3D glasses, www.3dglassesonline.com.
I love it when people try to make themselves sound smart with idiotic comments like that.
Im sure they'd look much better reprocessed and viewed with traditional anaglyph glasses.
http://www.wood-life.ru
- by biffhenerson February 4, 2009 6:22 AM PST
- I think that it is a huge mistake for anyone to use the old school red/blue glasses in an attempt to show 3D. I too had the same fear that it would discorage people from wanting to go see a 3D movie the theater. They need to educate the public. They need to let the public know that the 3D in a movie theater uses modern day technology and is no where near as terrible as the old school 3D. They need to call on people who have already experianced the 3D technology at theme parks. I want 3D to take off both in theaters and on our television sets (120Hz and faster required). What they have done with this crappy old school 3D is eliminated the audience that they had hoped to attract to the theater.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (39 Comments)