I think renowned film critic Roger Ebert makes a better case than I could, or maybe you'd like to question his mental state too.
See:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
It's entitled:
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.
Glasses-Free (Auto-stereoscopic) 3DTV - When?
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.
Wow! Instead of addressing the issue you question my mental state. Doesn't say much for your character or lack thereof.
I think renowned film critic Roger Ebert makes a better case than I could, or maybe you'd like to question his mental state too.
See:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
It's entitled:
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.
I think renowned film critic Roger Ebert makes a better case than I could, or maybe you'd like to question his mental state too.
See:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
It's entitled:
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
The article you mention was already responded by others in the industry several weeks ago.
Neither the article nor the responses to that article provide the evidence you have been asking for, to support or negate your opinion of “disaster waiting to happen” with scientific facts and research.
The “case closed” can only happen when that kind of evidence is available, and as disclosed on the Symposium above, vision Doctors and the 3D&Home Consortium are working on it and hopefully we will have feedback soon.
No one questioned your mental health. Please keep the exchanges factual and respectful.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Neither the article nor the responses to that article provide the evidence you have been asking for, to support or negate your opinion of “disaster waiting to happen” with scientific facts and research.
The “case closed” can only happen when that kind of evidence is available, and as disclosed on the Symposium above, vision Doctors and the 3D&Home Consortium are working on it and hopefully we will have feedback soon.
No one questioned your mental health. Please keep the exchanges factual and respectful.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
I sympathize with the industry. A huge amount of money has been bet on this technology, and a lot of investors stand to lose a lot of money, but the reality is, and I'm speaking as a retired NASA scientist here, they went into this without really understanding the science and, compounding the problem, they're trying to demonize people who would stand in the way of profits, a strategy that is highly unprofessional to say the least. You have a lot of nerve to lecture me on the subject.
The basic problem is we're asking the brain to work overtime in a way it was not evolved to perform. It works for awhile, but then come the headaches . . .
Not to say that the technology can't work for short periods of time. It can. But for regular viewing? Give me a break. I've always been a 3D buff. When I was a teenager I loved 3D comics and even experimented with it at home. But this technology is a time bomb that will go off eventually and investors would be well advised to bail while there's still time.
The basic problem is we're asking the brain to work overtime in a way it was not evolved to perform. It works for awhile, but then come the headaches . . .
Not to say that the technology can't work for short periods of time. It can. But for regular viewing? Give me a break. I've always been a 3D buff. When I was a teenager I loved 3D comics and even experimented with it at home. But this technology is a time bomb that will go off eventually and investors would be well advised to bail while there's still time.
-
stevekaden
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:20 pm
hh - no one is requiring anyone to do anything they do not want to do, or to watch anything that gives them headaches, or to watch 3D TV all the time.
There is no evidence that anyone is subtley suffering from 3D TV such that the government needs to regulate it. Unlike things like cigarettes where we were lied to and it takes years and years to do damage.
There is no evidence anyone has been handcuffed to their chair to watch 3D, nor that any but a smaller percentage gets anymore than irritated by it. No evidence there is a class action suite pending for people feeling slighted by the experience.
The article you are referring to, refers to a Cinematographer who is primarily a SOUND guy. While he may film and edit and design sound - he has no expertise in the viewing of movies in the context of the inner workings of the human eye-brain interface (that we know of). His opinion was shoved in our face by a fine movie reviewer - that is not known for any other expertise.
What we do know is that many of us have watched lots of 3D movies and bought lots of 3D TVs and NO ONE is being force to buy or watch them. The market is proving that the people are happy enough to tell their friends and the market is building. They do not have to watch in 3D. They don't even have to watch lousy post production 3D. But the movie market is proving that this is not a problem. 3D is doing EXTREMELY well. Without having to issue barf bags.
I personally have not purchased a 3D TV nor watched much. But I seriously doubt I would watch more than specific 3D created movies or shows. This simply because of the ~20' effect. After that, it's all more or less 2D anyway even if object are slightly moving around (we are mostly focusing at one point). The real effects are mostly in close ups. I don't want to watch anything that was not designed and story appropriate for that.
And in the end. Who are these investors that are going to suffer? And what company has bet the farm? Heck if Toshiba didn't implode over HD DVD what expenditure will take to cause damage here? I have no idea of the numbers but I serious doubt that dangerous amounts have been invested. Chips and glasses for the most part and for TV transmission encoding.
If you want truly horrible customer experience, protest Cloverfield and the shake technique. They Should have issued Barf bags for that one - almost everyone I know got sick.
There is no evidence that anyone is subtley suffering from 3D TV such that the government needs to regulate it. Unlike things like cigarettes where we were lied to and it takes years and years to do damage.
There is no evidence anyone has been handcuffed to their chair to watch 3D, nor that any but a smaller percentage gets anymore than irritated by it. No evidence there is a class action suite pending for people feeling slighted by the experience.
The article you are referring to, refers to a Cinematographer who is primarily a SOUND guy. While he may film and edit and design sound - he has no expertise in the viewing of movies in the context of the inner workings of the human eye-brain interface (that we know of). His opinion was shoved in our face by a fine movie reviewer - that is not known for any other expertise.
What we do know is that many of us have watched lots of 3D movies and bought lots of 3D TVs and NO ONE is being force to buy or watch them. The market is proving that the people are happy enough to tell their friends and the market is building. They do not have to watch in 3D. They don't even have to watch lousy post production 3D. But the movie market is proving that this is not a problem. 3D is doing EXTREMELY well. Without having to issue barf bags.
I personally have not purchased a 3D TV nor watched much. But I seriously doubt I would watch more than specific 3D created movies or shows. This simply because of the ~20' effect. After that, it's all more or less 2D anyway even if object are slightly moving around (we are mostly focusing at one point). The real effects are mostly in close ups. I don't want to watch anything that was not designed and story appropriate for that.
And in the end. Who are these investors that are going to suffer? And what company has bet the farm? Heck if Toshiba didn't implode over HD DVD what expenditure will take to cause damage here? I have no idea of the numbers but I serious doubt that dangerous amounts have been invested. Chips and glasses for the most part and for TV transmission encoding.
If you want truly horrible customer experience, protest Cloverfield and the shake technique. They Should have issued Barf bags for that one - almost everyone I know got sick.
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
"hh - no one is requiring anyone to do anything they do not want to do, or to watch anything that gives them headaches, or to watch 3D TV all the time."
So if someone markets a drug, say, that turns out to have a deadly side effect, the companies manufacturing the drug could claim, hey, we didn't require you to actually take the drug? We just put it out there. It's not our fault if you actually took it. Guess what would happen if they actually used that argument.
I don't think you understand the concept of consumer protection in the USA. It's proactive which means the government can takes steps to prevent harm before it happens.
"There is no evidence that anyone is subtley suffering from 3D TV such that the government needs to regulate it. Unlike things like cigarettes where we were lied to and it takes years and years to do damage."
It's true that watching 3D TV won't kill you so it's not in the same category as cigarettes. It is true the government did not stop cigarette smoking, instead they used the deadly addiction as a profitable revenue stream for the benefit of the rich. Analogously I suppose the government could tax 3D and claim they were protecting the public while supporting the wealthy manufactures. More likely 3D TV will be a short-lived phenomenon. It's hard to enjoy something that makes your eyes hurt.
"There is no evidence anyone has been handcuffed to their chair to watch 3D, nor that any but a smaller percentage gets anymore than irritated by it. No evidence there is a class action suite pending for people feeling slighted by the experience."
Nobody handcuffed people to a chair to make them smoke either, but they still died from cancer. It's a little early for a class action suit. 3D TV has only just begun, so that's a non-argument. The problem with 3D TV is it subverts the normal brain-eye vision system into something it has not evolved to do. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
"What we do know is that many of us have watched lots of 3D movies and bought lots of 3D TVs and NO ONE is being force to buy or watch them. The market is proving that the people are happy enough to tell their friends and the market is building. They do not have to watch in 3D. They don't even have to watch lousy post production 3D. But the movie market is proving that this is not a problem. 3D is doing EXTREMELY well. Without having to issue barf bags."
I've read that about 300,000 sets have been sold, mainly Samsung. (Somebody correct me if this isn't correct.) According to what I've read on professional websites, the 3D market is largely still untapped. I've gone to several mainstream stores and noticed a very strange behavior. Six months ago, the stores typically wouldn't give me a demo saying their existing sets (or glasses) weren't working. (This was in LA.) Now they'll give me a very short demo and then quickly stop it after a few minutes. You tell me what that means. I didn't like even the short demo. It was dark and strobey.
"I personally have not purchased a 3D TV nor watched much."
Yeah, I kinda figured that.
So if someone markets a drug, say, that turns out to have a deadly side effect, the companies manufacturing the drug could claim, hey, we didn't require you to actually take the drug? We just put it out there. It's not our fault if you actually took it. Guess what would happen if they actually used that argument.
I don't think you understand the concept of consumer protection in the USA. It's proactive which means the government can takes steps to prevent harm before it happens.
"There is no evidence that anyone is subtley suffering from 3D TV such that the government needs to regulate it. Unlike things like cigarettes where we were lied to and it takes years and years to do damage."
It's true that watching 3D TV won't kill you so it's not in the same category as cigarettes. It is true the government did not stop cigarette smoking, instead they used the deadly addiction as a profitable revenue stream for the benefit of the rich. Analogously I suppose the government could tax 3D and claim they were protecting the public while supporting the wealthy manufactures. More likely 3D TV will be a short-lived phenomenon. It's hard to enjoy something that makes your eyes hurt.
"There is no evidence anyone has been handcuffed to their chair to watch 3D, nor that any but a smaller percentage gets anymore than irritated by it. No evidence there is a class action suite pending for people feeling slighted by the experience."
Nobody handcuffed people to a chair to make them smoke either, but they still died from cancer. It's a little early for a class action suit. 3D TV has only just begun, so that's a non-argument. The problem with 3D TV is it subverts the normal brain-eye vision system into something it has not evolved to do. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
"What we do know is that many of us have watched lots of 3D movies and bought lots of 3D TVs and NO ONE is being force to buy or watch them. The market is proving that the people are happy enough to tell their friends and the market is building. They do not have to watch in 3D. They don't even have to watch lousy post production 3D. But the movie market is proving that this is not a problem. 3D is doing EXTREMELY well. Without having to issue barf bags."
I've read that about 300,000 sets have been sold, mainly Samsung. (Somebody correct me if this isn't correct.) According to what I've read on professional websites, the 3D market is largely still untapped. I've gone to several mainstream stores and noticed a very strange behavior. Six months ago, the stores typically wouldn't give me a demo saying their existing sets (or glasses) weren't working. (This was in LA.) Now they'll give me a very short demo and then quickly stop it after a few minutes. You tell me what that means. I didn't like even the short demo. It was dark and strobey.
"I personally have not purchased a 3D TV nor watched much."
Yeah, I kinda figured that.
-
stevekaden
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:20 pm
I'll only respond to the last comment - the rest of my comments can be reviewed in their contexts.
I do not depend on my personal experience for objective comments, only subjective. I try to look at the bigger picture, broader evidence. And I do not see any evidence that 3D is either injuring, particularly annoying people (beyond those who can not adapt), nor is there any evidence it is damaging to the human system.
On my own experience I have seen my daughter nearly throw up at a showing of Avatar, but that was because of a screening in a non-specified theater. That is, it was on a white screen not a silver screen and it was very dark, could not saturate the eyes and was flickery. Ugly and exacerbated the issues. But that theater was sold to a reputable firm who updated all the projectors and screens. And now their RealD is great.
Interesting that you seem pro-goverment intervention. I though in our previous discussions you lean a bit conservative and would not be interested in that. I guess we'll get to learn more of each other over time.
I do not depend on my personal experience for objective comments, only subjective. I try to look at the bigger picture, broader evidence. And I do not see any evidence that 3D is either injuring, particularly annoying people (beyond those who can not adapt), nor is there any evidence it is damaging to the human system.
On my own experience I have seen my daughter nearly throw up at a showing of Avatar, but that was because of a screening in a non-specified theater. That is, it was on a white screen not a silver screen and it was very dark, could not saturate the eyes and was flickery. Ugly and exacerbated the issues. But that theater was sold to a reputable firm who updated all the projectors and screens. And now their RealD is great.
Interesting that you seem pro-goverment intervention. I though in our previous discussions you lean a bit conservative and would not be interested in that. I guess we'll get to learn more of each other over time.
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
The Final Solution (maybe)
"On my own experience I have seen my daughter nearly throw up at a showing of Avatar"
You certainly make a compelling case for 3D.
But seriously, enough of the negatives. We should look for solutions, and I believe there is one on the horizon. (I have no personal connection to what I'm about to recommend.)
See the paper "Digital Holographic Data Reconstruction with Data Compression" by Takanori Nomura (and others) as an example of what I'm about to recommend.
Obviously holography would be the ideal way to show 3D in the living room but there's a problem. The movie "Star Wars" forecast future television as holography, but even in Lucas's high-tech vision the resolution was iffy, a recognition of the enormous bandwidth a true holographic image requires. (Well, there was also the problem of interstellar distances if you want to quibble.) The solution to this is to perform some heavy duty data compression. I believe this may be our ultimate solution to 3D image transmission. No glasses are required with holography and, as the paper claims, both high image quality and high compression ratios can be maintained with lower data rates.
You certainly make a compelling case for 3D.
But seriously, enough of the negatives. We should look for solutions, and I believe there is one on the horizon. (I have no personal connection to what I'm about to recommend.)See the paper "Digital Holographic Data Reconstruction with Data Compression" by Takanori Nomura (and others) as an example of what I'm about to recommend.
Obviously holography would be the ideal way to show 3D in the living room but there's a problem. The movie "Star Wars" forecast future television as holography, but even in Lucas's high-tech vision the resolution was iffy, a recognition of the enormous bandwidth a true holographic image requires. (Well, there was also the problem of interstellar distances if you want to quibble
.) The solution to this is to perform some heavy duty data compression. I believe this may be our ultimate solution to 3D image transmission. No glasses are required with holography and, as the paper claims, both high image quality and high compression ratios can be maintained with lower data rates.