3D Destined to Fail, Yet Again

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html' target='_blank'>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/201.../01/post_4.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will. The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed."</em></p><p>I've got to agree. &nbsp;I see 3D as nothing more than a&nbsp;novelty&nbsp;and fad that will die off just as it has during its past iterations. &nbsp;Unless you are dealing with interactive media (like gaming) the attempt at immersion serves as more of a distraction than as an enhancement to a quality &nbsp;story. &nbsp;And anyway, we all know that 3D is a poor substitute for holograms and a holodeck. &nbsp;;) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p><em></em></p>

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

That's a really great article. Can 3D die already please?

[cweeks]

I'd like to agree, but I just can't.

Like many new ideas or technologies, they will come in fits and starts... kind of like starting and old Edsel. It will take hold for a while, die, come back a little stronger, die, and then finally get going.

I'm not sure at what point we are with 3D yet, but it will eventually take hold. I much prefer to see most of my movies in good old 2D... but only the character-driven films, or the ones that have great outdoor cinematography. Those just look better, for now, in 2D. I can also focus better on the story.

But for the big action-adventure, techno-marvels... give me 3D every time! It's still not great, but for those it is good enough for now.

In every art museum there are sections for both flat artwork, and sculpture. There's a reason for that. For some works of art only 3D will do. For others, a 2D picture makes the more powerful statement. There's room for both.

The day is coming when there will be a great art film in 3D, and most critics will admit that it could only have been done properly in 3D.

Right now I can get my 3D-done-properly fix simply by going to the theater to see a play or a broadway show. In a few years... who knows?

[Jon Childs]

Two reasons I tend to disagree. First, my kids love it, and it seems to work pretty well for computer generated stuff. Second, at some point in the next year or two I think pretty much all except the lowest level TVs will be 3D ready. Once it starts coming "for free" with most new TVs I think it will pretty much be here to stay as you don't see too many features get removed from stuff.

[Fritzly]

The day 3D will be available with no glasses and, much more important, without stressing my eyes I will be interested; right now I am not interested.

[Jason Dunn]

My one and only experience thus far with 3D in a movie theatre has been Tron; it looked good and I enjoyed the 3D aspect.

On a PC, however, I've been much less impressed. At CES I got some hands on time with a variety of PC-based screens, some with glasses, some without, and they all pretty much sucked. Some nearly made my head explode they sucked so bad.

3D is here to stay, but it has a lot of growing up to do.