Movies Blog : 3D

3DTV, or how your brand new HDTV is already obsolete

professor.knowsitall@evpl — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:34:00 GMT

In case you were unaware, 3D is once again all the rage. With the record-breaking success of Avatar, movie studios, TV networks, and electronics manufacturers are looking to capitalize on this recent surge in popularity.

There has never been a good way to reproduce the "3D movie theater" experience at home (those red/blue glasses don't count!). That will supposedly change with 3DTVs (3D-capable HDTVs). All the major TV manufacturers had 3DTVs on display earlier this month at the Consumer Electronics Show, with the first models expected to go on sale this summer. Movies will be available in 3D on Blu-ray Disc, and TV networks may broadcast in 3D (ESPN & The Discovery Channel are launching 3D channels). Sony has also demoed PlayStation 3 videogames in 3D.

In non-techie terms, 3D video works by having footage from two perspectives...one for the left eye and one for the right. By using 3D glasses, video intended for the left eye is hidden from the right eye and vice versa.

You've probably seen DVDs that come with the old-school red & blue glasses. While the 3D effect is okay, these glasses decrease brightness, give everything a green hue, and can even cause headaches/eye strain.

Most movie theaters nowadays use polarized 3D (i.e. glasses with grey lenses). This provides for incredible 3D without affecting color or brightness. But this isn't possible at home, as it requires a projector with a special lens and a special screen to project onto.

3DTVs will utilize wirelessly-synchronized shutter glasses, while quickly alternating between the left & right perspectives. The lenses are actually thin LCDs that darken & lighten. So the TV will display a single frame intended for your left eye, the right lens on the shutter glasses will darken completely, and only your left eye will see the frame. The next frame is only for your right eye, so when the TV displays it the left lens will darken & the right lens will lighten, making the frame viewable only to your right eye. As this will be running at 120 frames per second, it should appear silky smooth to the human eye.

Being the nerd that I am, in-home 3D definitely sounds cool. But with prices dropping on HDTVs, will consumers be willing to pay a premium for 3DTVs? Will folks that already own a HDTV go through the hassle of upgrading? Will current-gen Blu-ray players be 3D-compatible, or will they have to be upgraded with newer players? And will movie/TV-watchers and gamers scoff at having to constantly wear dorky 3D glasses?

What do you think? Sound off in the comments below!

More Info

CES 2010 TV Trends @ AnandTech: An article about upcoming TVs shown at the Consumer Electronics Show.
The Illustrated 3D Movie List: A list of past, and upcoming, 3D movies.
Next "Harry Potter" Movies Coming in 3D: Warner Brothers just announced that the upcoming Harry Potter movies will be in 3D.

Avatar: Visual Spectacle, But Not For Everyone

PotionsMaster@evpl — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:34:00 GMT

Avatar is a pretty amazing flick. The graphics are beautiful, the acting fairly decent and believable enough to not think, "Wow. That's some pretty bad acting." Action scenes are a-MAY-zing. Story line? A little predictable, but I found that I didn't mind that. But I know some people might. The movie is a bit clean-looking, like many sci-fi and space movies are. District 9 is a good contrast; very gritty and heavy handed. But this isn't about District 9. The claims that it have revolutionized the way future movies have been made? I can't say for certain, but it will definitely be a hard pill to swallow if future computer generation images aren't as well executed or realistic.

The first time I saw Avatar was in IMAX 3-D and I can say with certainty that made me absolutely love it. Sheer escapism done exquisitely. The movie implemented a few shots of traditional 3-D tricks, such as an arrow pointing straight at the audience, and when the main character Jake Sully is running for the first time in his avatar (he is a parapalegic Marine embarking on this adventure), dirt is kicked up and seems to fly directly into your face. But those shots are well implemented and not over done in the slightest. Instead of having multiple things coming at my face, it made me feel more like I was experiencing the world with Jake instead of observing it like on a traditional flat movie screen. When Jake is in the jungle running, I found myself moving my head to avoid the leaves, but they weren't blocking me from seeing anything. As an outdoorsy person, I appreciated the sensation and really enjoyed that high a degree of realism. If you can call ten foot tall aliens and their surrounding world real, that is. The one element in the movie that destroyed my suspension of disbelief was the mineral that the humans were going after: 'unobtanium'. Wow. Subtle, isn't it? And the message the movie is sending is one that many movies are using now, such as Wall-E.

I would give it out of , because it is a beautiful film that allows you to forget yourself and the visuals are stunning. The story is formulaic and average; think Dances with Wolves, but with blue aliens instead. 'Unobtainum' seems like a slap of, "Oh crud! We forgot to name the metal!" "How about 'unobtanium'?" "Sounds good, we'll keep it!". Very last minute and not thought about. But being placed in the world, instead of watching it, more than made up for it. Experiencing the world made the joyful parts of the movie feel like your heart was soaring, while the sad parts were completely heart wrenching. And the satisfying feeling at the end? Incredible, because you feel full of hope.

So if you want a bit of pure escapism, see Avatar and do yourself a favor: see it in 3-D. Flat screen will still be good, but the 3-D offers much more. If you don't like such cut and dry stories, it might be a little hard to stomach. But if you can forgive mediocre story lines and have an open mind, Avatar will reward you in ways you could hardly imagine.

Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D

this.is.not.here@evpl — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:42:00 GMT

I saw this movie last weekend. This is yet another remake of a classic movie. For those who remember seeing it on the big screen the original had Pat Boone and James Mason. I can remember one part really standing out --it was really hot at the center of the earth and Pat Boone took his shirt off. Back to the 2008 3D version and my commentary. The special effects in digital 3D are pretty neat. However, it was like watching a full length movie through a viewmaster. After a while the 3D effects became distracting and it was a little hard to concentrate on the storyline. I feel like it would actually have been more effective if the first part of the movie ---just ordinary stuff on the surface of the earth in Brendan Frasier's house --had been shot regular without the 3D. Then when they did begin their actual JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH it could change to 3D. But that's just me.