Is 3D DOA?

There's an interesting article over at Slate titled "The problem with 3D." I'd encourage you to read the whole thing, but the subtitle pretty much sums it up: "It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will." Author Daniel Engbar argues that today's digital-assisted 3D technology isn't so far removed from earlier incarnations of the 1950s and 1980s, and that it's still effectively hacking your brain's depth perception triggers--and putting a lot of strain on your eyes in the process.

This matters, of course, because Hollywood is doubling down on 3D technology in a big way. In addition to new movies like "Monsters vs. Aliens" and James Cameron's upcoming "Avatar," studios are repurposing existing favorites for eventual 3D releases. And why not? With increasingly affordable giant-screen TVs in the home (and ever-shrinking theater-to-DVD release windows), the industry needs new and more elaborate gimmicks to get customers into the theater.

But it's not just the movie theater. Consumer electronics companies are working hard to bring 3D to the home as well. 3D TV was arguably one of the biggest trends at January's Consumer Electronics Show--and that's exactly where I feel that Engbar's "it hurts your eyes" thesis was born out. CNET picked Nvidia's Geforce 3D Vision Kit as a finalist in the Best Gaming Product category, but it ultimately lost to the Nyko Wand because our first encounter with the Nvidia did cause some eyestrain. Our full review of the Geforce 3D Vision offered confirmation: it's cool, to be sure, but playing over long periods of time will start to hurt.

The same was true of Panasonic's 3D demo at CES (see the embedded video above). While much of the footage (which included everything from pro wrestling to the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies) was palpably three-dimensional, it was already starting to hurt my eyes by the end--despite the fact that it was only about 10 minutes long. (As proof, I offer contemporary testimony from my now-dormant Twitter account.)

Truth be told, I have a slight astigmatism in one eye (corrected by eyeglasses) that might contribute to my 3D eyestrain. And I haven't seen any of the feature-length 3D movies yet. But I don't have a real desire to, either. (I'm intrigued by "Avatar," but that's more because I'm a longtime Cameron fanboy, not a 3D-phile.) But I fear that Engbar and I are on the losing side of this argument. I'm used to it: despite my campaign against reflective laptop screens, they're now the industry standard (I still hate 'em).

But I'm curious what you think: are you psyched for more 3D in the theater and at home? Or do you think it's just a fad that the industries are force-feeding us to sell more movie tickets and electronics? Share your thoughts below.

[DatabaseDoctor]

Total agreement. Until 3D is no longer a "trick" but a reality, I cannot help but be amused but frustrated experiencing a "3D" film. The strain and ease of which I can "escape" the effect makes it suitable for DisneyWorld parks and not much else.

So until we can project a film on a three dimensional surface that recreates the captured event, we'll just be "sleight of hand" carnies trying to fool the locals.

[pjcamp]

Three dimensional surface? Do you live in hyperspace?

[blusky08]

AND, THESE SAME COMPLAINTS EMERGED OVER 120HZ TELEVISIONS only last year!
Consumers flooded electronics forums with complaints over the new motion technology (MotionFlow, etc) coupled with 120hz that made the picture "pop" or appear slightly "3D". Apparently they've adapted to it.

[deanbvfx]

Oh great, I had looked forward to 3D of some kind (mainly in Nvidia Vision), but I too have astigmatism and I really hope it won't impair me enjoying any 3D tech. I never really thought I'd be in an situation where I'd be impaired in my tech of a new gadget, but it seem's the time has come.

[b_baggins]

I wouldn't worry about it. I'm also astigmatic (fyi, just from a grammar point of view, you don't have astigmatism, you are astigmatic), and after a few minutes of adjustment, I was able to watch Coraline 3D without any noticeable eyestrain whatsoever.

[tonhogg]

I've seen Polar Express,Beowulf, Bolt, My Bloody Valentine, and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3d. I have perscription glasses and have to put the 3d glasses over them. I have never had any eye strain what so ever with any of these movies. Now the red and blue 3d bothers my eye just a little but not to bad. I think its just having to look through two different colors that bother them.

The real problem is you just have two groups ot people. Those who like 3d and those who don't. For the last 30 years the don't like group thought their group was really the only group that existed. Now all of a sudden people are showing up to these 3d movies and the don't like group has been taken of guard. This is causing them just a little bit of frustration because they never thought so many people would turn out for these 3d movies. High attendance it what has driven the 3d move so far.

I don't think 3d will totally take over because not everyone is going to want a 3d television, but a lot of people will. So most likely best but will sale dvd's in 2d and dvd's in 3d. I could be wrong but I also think movie theaters will show both 2d and 3d in the future. Maybe one theater will show the 3d and another will show the 2d version of the same movie.

[Renegade Knight]

My entire family likes them and think they make going to the theater worth it. Either they bother you with eyestrain or they don't, but the tech is ready now and only need to fix the issue for the last holdouts.

Ironicly Flourescent lighting can give me a headache and I've always been sensative to the flicker on most peoples CRT monitors. I'd adjust themaway from 60hz to 72hz when they weren't looking. They never noticed but man did I ever.

[ivandrago]

People get headaches from the films sometimes. It's not a matter of like or dislike. Some peoples brain simply notice the irregularities in some 3D films.

[Ordonator]

Didn't they try this about 10 years ago? And about 10 years before that? And about 10 years before that? It seems like Hollywood (and now others) are going to keep pushing this on every generation until it finally catches on. Which may be never. I think it's kinda, sorta cool. My wife, on the other hand (who is the mainstream consumer in our household), thinks its really stupid...even after being dragged to see these films.

Engbar's article was interesting. I'm a bit surprised that he didn't mention how rapidly the effect can wear off on most people. I definitely fall into that category. By the end of the film, I don't even really notice it anymore.

[blusky08]

Once true 3D standards are approved, and it starts to go mainstream, people will find it difficult to watch non-3D movies--just as some people don't enjoy B&W or SD with the advent of colour and HD.
Real 3D (without glasses and side effects) was never possible in the past. The equipment didn't even exist to implement it properly in the theater let alone the home. But BR discs/players, filming in actual 3D and computer processing have moved comfortable, full 3d from theoretical to inevitable.

[davezatz]

Oh yes, I'll tell you what I think. :) Demo-ed three different systems at The Cable Show. Hope to blog it tomorrow or Tuesday.

I saw Monster vs Aliens using the 3D glasses last weeks and my eyes didn't strain whatsoever as this article says. I found the the new 3D way different from the RE-BLUE type. For once, is not 'on your face' type of viewving unlike the old 3D use to be. I found the new 3D to be more of a clearer picture accentuating the details of the movie unlike anything I've seen before. The hair and fur movement was so detail that for a while you forget that you're watching a cartoon movie. I wear prescription contacts and my eyes are very sensitive to any type of eye strain and I have to admit, I was a little skeptical about this movie and the experience as a whole but I found both the movie and the experinece to be great entertainment. I'm a happy customer and cant wait for the next one.

[PDB12]

I'm sorry that 3D strains your eyes. BUT there is some good news for you. Feel free to go see all those 3D movies you've been missing. Your brain captures 3D information is two basic ways. The first is with stereo vision (which is what the 3D displays provide). The second is through head motion. As you move your head, your perspective changes and your brain interpolates the corresponding 3D image.

In other news, high resolution photo quality 3D image printing isn't that far away. In fact, I patented a process using inkjet printers a few years ago (www . 3dprintingtechnologies . com). Unfortunately, Nortel Networks owns the license and given their current financial woes aren't willing to talk to me about a license. Outside the USA however, another company owns rights to a similar technology (www. popims. com) and you should expect to see quality 3D printers available in these other countries within a year or so.

[ivandrago]

For a awhile I worked for a company called In-Three that did great post-production 3D conversions. There 3D (what little has gotten out the gate for them) was perfect. Everything, and I mean everything within a shot is judge by a human eye for distance, rotation, and angle. Our stuff is like looking through a freak window.

I was saddened when i went to see Coraline 3D about 3 weeks ago. I hadn't seen a animated film in 3D before, I had assumed that it would offer a superior 3D experience. It did not. I started getting the headaches as many of you have mentioned. Plus the 3D came off as gimmicky and weak.

I've come to the personal conclusion that until computers can truly understand depth, they can't make to adjustment to fit the way that human see depth. The In-Three process has a human operator that tell the application the distance of all objects. It's a painstaking, time intensive process. If In-Three ever gets some automation in the process..... beautiful!

[wcnetw]

I saw Monsters & Aliens in 3D last week - unfortunately just as my previous experience watching a 3D movie, again I felt headaches/eyestrain and even slight uncomfortable feeling down my throat after like half an hour (though after a few minutes I few better and put the glasses back on!) - like as though I've been spinning around too much! Probably out of the 8 friends I went with to see the movie, only two other friends felt slightly uncomfortable watching it too... so I think it really depends on individuals...
just like how not everyone would be able to be an astronaut/fighter pilot, I accept that not everyone will be able to stand 3D movies for long periods of time...

[sting7k]

I too suffer from a mild astigmatism in my left eye which is corrected with glasses. But sometimes I see a little better at the movies without my glasses on. I tried to watch one of these new digital 3D movies and it was just the same as the old 3D tech to me, it hurts my eyes after awhile and I get tired and can barely keep my eyes open from the strain. It's almost like a sensory overload after awhile.

I really don't see the problem with regular movies. Digital projectors are noticably better already than the regular ones, isn't that enough? I might not even be able to go to the big screen if every movie is going to be in 3D because I don't want the headache that comes with it. Blu-ray movies already look nearly 3D on my 52" TV at home so I might just be staying there.

[wadah1111]

I also had some eyestrains watching this 3D things and I'm against them. Why? Because we're not ready to take it to the next step. We still need to improve the visuals we produce right now. I know some will say technology is fast. Ok but for 3D it's early. remember how things happened before?

First photos were invented then they started moving and then we added sound to them. Now photos must become 3D then they start moving then we add time to them. The latter which time might become true if we acknowledge the way of traveling in time. And I don't want someone to discover how to travel through time or the symptoms will be disastrous.

Anyway I still want TV to continue really when I saw 3D TVs I didn't feel any taste of goodness in it. Just plain things getting out.

[patientzero]

As one who wears glasses as well I've never really felt comfortable putting an additional set of 3D specs on top of them. Until they can design 3D programs so I can view them w/o the glasses or somehow fix my eyes without the worries of Lasik I have yet to enjoy the 3D phenomena.

[BenFlavoredCandy]

I have never been able to enjoy a 3D film (not even Captain EO) because of a weak right eye. More unfortunate than that, people's obsession with Coraline in 3D meant no standard presentations in my area. I know this probably isn't a normal occurrence, but it bothered me.

Despite my objections to 3D, if people can make the tech in a way that some people can enjoy it (and they can still make money), then go for it.

[redflowerone]

3d tv ? Jackey Gleason would be proud....Unfortuneately broadcast stations are not quite readly for it ..They cannot get the aspect ratios right yet ..let alone 3d..I predict halogram tv will come in first ,alla Star Treck.

[harveyj]

I think that 3D has always hurt YOUR eyes and always will. I love the new 3D movies. No more red and blue paper glasses. The home 3D stuff may not be there yet but it's getting better by the day. I have watched most of the 3D releases and none of them hurt my eyes or gave me a headache. IMO this was the only way hollywood had to go to make effects bigger and better. Not every story is meant for 3D but for the ones that are it's a great addition to the entertainment.

[joeltom]

I just hope there will always be a choice, like in standard vs. Blue-ray. I cannot see 3D because of one bad eye, but I like sharp, crisp images with my good eye and would prefer to buy a non-3D version of available films. Having to look at a 3D movie in 2D just makes everything fuzzy....

[pmhaney]

I find this entire article irrelevant since the author himself admits to not having experienced the technology via ANY do the 3D films currently in theaters? What exactly is your purpose for this article? Are you asking for opinions from people who actually have experienced full featured 3D films? Seems you should stick to technologies designed for the home consumer as that is where you have at least done some research.

[blusky08]

This idea of 3D being DOA sounds very similar to the "BR is DOA naysayers" from last year.

[dctech08]

i seen it. its cool. but not that cool...

[paulimusmaximus]

I hate 3d. I mean it looks cool, but especially for a 1 1/2 to 2 hour movie, a lot of people like me get eye strain. Then I have to take the glasses off for a little while, and the movie looks bad. Plus they charge you $3 for a cheap pair of glasses. So it's already more money on top of an already expensive movie.

The new glasses they give you at the theater are way better than the old red and blue glasses, but it still bothers me too much to make it worth going to a 3d movie.

[aggiedoc]

As long as I have to put on a pair of glasses, or do anything else to modify myself in order to see a movie, I will not be interested in participating.
People are sheep and will follow any trend for a while, but they are not really lemmings. If enough of them go over a cliff the rest of the pack will veer away.
Given time 3D will indeed fade out again. It's too much "effort".
Holographic images are technically possible (laser graphics projected into "steam" or it's equivalent translucent media) but if HD is expensive and requires large bandwidth, imagine how much it would cost to have your own 3D receiver and the transmission lines needed to feed one.
While the economy stinks people will go to movies for diversion but when thing improve they will return to their prior habits. Hollywood boomed during the Great Depression. Improving economy will not support the cost of a long term 3D solution for many years so it will fade, IMHO.

[ccmike72]

3D is lame, that is all