4 December 2010
The Video Viewmaster
Posted by Brent under: movies .
I was in my favorite store the other day and saw the new 3-D HDTVs on display. They had a DVD looping with all kinds of 3-D stuff on it: concert clips, etc. What struck me was the not-quite-3d experience. It looked to me like flat people standing out in front of a flat background. Then I remembered where I’d seen this effect before. Way back in my childhood, I loved to look at photos of far-off places with my ViewMaster. Yes, it’s the same flat-foreground standing in 3-D in front of a flat background. So welcome to the world of the Video Viewmaster. So what do you think? Have you seen the demos? Is it worth the money?
3 Comments so far...
Dick Says:
8 December 2010 at 3:36 pm.
A few months ago, I thought that the “3D Train” had left the station on its inexorable journey. But now I have serious doubts. First, as we all know, the main push behind it was TV Set manufacturers hoping to bolster sagging sales. And the 3D movie “Avatar” caused quite a stir. Broadcasters had initial interest in 3D thinking those that could afford it would be awarded with increased viewership. So ESPN jumped on the bandwagon and announced ESPN-3D. B Sky B in Europe announced an all-3D channel (direct broadcast satellite). Panasonic started sponsoring a 3D channel on DirecTV. Discovery announced a 3D channel. As far as full blown live production trucks, there are 3 of them that I know of (NEP has two, AMV has one). That is out of over 250 trucks. There have been some sporting events covered in 3D. The World Cup is the most widely publicized. ESPN, courtesy of NEP, does 3D. We’ve (Turner Broadcasting) done two NASCAR races and one PGA in 3D. You can increase your revenue by perhaps 5% and your expense by 1,000%. So the business model is weak. Since then, what has transpired? 3D sets have been selling very poorly. There are less than six 3D BluRay movies available. Surveys conducted have discovered people don’t want to wear glasses. There has been a lot of bad 3D content produced. If done poorly, bad 3D can give you a headache and nausea. And as you have discovered – poor 3D can easily look like cardboard cutouts and different depths. 3D ALMOST ALWAYS looks like your ViewMaster when synthesized from 2D (unless it is “re-animated” 3D animation done in Maya, 3DS, Houdini, or XFS). If done well (correct interaxial distance and convergence setting) things can actually have volume and depth. But a lot of fly-by-nights are shooting bad 3D and doing really lousy synthesis. Eventually autostereoscopic sets will appear so 3D glasses are not required (some are available now but they look bad). Apple has been granted a patent for a projector that uses a screen with “pixels” that may be a solution. Standards are being worked on that will allow the resolution of 3D to return to HD figures. But personally, I think the train may stall out on the tracks. If it does, 3D will be re-discovered in another 10 years. Maybe next time’s the charm?
Dick
Brent Says:
15 December 2010 at 12:16 pm.
Dick,
As always, thanks again for your cogent and insightful comments. Even the computer-generated 3D, which should be the best, still didn’t look terrific. I guess one point that’s always cogent is “Is this a good movie even if it’s not in 3-D?” Pixar’s UP passes the test, I’m not sure about some of the other titles out there. Historical note in the same vein: Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder” was shot in 3-D, but it stands up well even when ‘flat’.
Brent Laminack’s Personal Site » 3-D Followup: I’m not the only one Says:
6 February 2011 at 12:29 pm.
[...] followup to my previous ranting about 3-D movies looking like ViewMasters. Roger’s Ebert’s blog has a letter from an Oscar-winning film editor about why 3-D [...]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.