Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/14/09
09/12/09
09/13/09
Shrek 3D uses the very outdated red/cyan anaglyph, which induces headaches with prolonged use. I can only make it through about half an hour at a time, and generally just watch those types of 3D movies in their optional 2D format. Now, when an episode of Chuck was aired in 3D, they used the new amber/indigo ColorCode3D, which has two major advantages over anaglyph. Firstly, you don't need to be wearing glasses to watch the show. True, you won't get the 3D experience, but the two-color 3D formatting doesn't make it unwatchable to someone who _isn't_ wearing the proper eyewear. It just makes the edges a bit fuzzy, where anaglyph looks like technicolor vomit without the glasses. Second, it's more of a light/dark thing than a two-color thing, and by making one of the lenses amber it gets around the problem where one single type of cone is used to see red, green, and amber. I suspect this latter bit is what causes anaglyph headaches, since that two-color arrangement splits the red and green colors between opposing eyes.
09/11/09
This will die like many other specialty media formats, including DVD-A.
3D is a nice idea that in reality requires way too much capital investment to make sense for the average consumer, especially TODAY's average consumer, who has been burned by the recession and thinks a LOT harder now about what they throw money at. That mentality will continue for a long time after the economy starts recovering.
09/14/09
In it's greed, the consumer electronics industry is biting itself in the ass big time with the push for 3D. Most consumers have not even adopted HDTV yet (and this was before recession), and now the CE industry is already pushing for something much more expensive - 3D goggles, 3D blu-ray player, 3D HDTV, etc. The fact that you need to have all of these components combined just to buy into the entire 3D experience is ludicrous when you examine the out of pocket expenditure it all represents to the end consumer.
True, a small handful of people with money to burn, are going to pony up to the 3D table, but the vast majority simply are not going to fall for it.
And that is before we even address the matter that no one really wants to wear those stupid goggles every time they want to plunk down on the couch and watch a movie.
And that still does not address the issue of this little format war to see which 3D tech will become the dominant supported tech.
Plain and simple, at this stage of development of the technology, none of it should even be considered for release into the hands of consumers. The CE industry still has years worth of work to do before they get to the point where all of the issues are addressed that would make 3D tech not only consumer friendly to use, but also consumer friendly in price.
09/11/09
09/12/09
09/11/09
Now what was new was what Samsung and others showed at CES in Jan. They had a display that didn't require glasses at all.
09/11/09
09/11/09
And some of them require power? Seriously? You know, I was playing with a Wii the other day and the batteries died. And I was thinking, "Man, replacing these batteries in the middle of a game is so much fun! I wish I could do this in the middle of a movie!"
Yeah, no. I mean, I'm a 3D purist. I want a damn hologram, k? A real hologram, that I can walk around. One that appears to occupy space on more than two axes. But failing that, if everybody absolutely positively HAS to make faux-3D television and movies, can we please at least have the decency to not wear dumb glasses that make my head hurt? K? K.
09/11/09
Regarding glasses, I think 3d may catch on even if they're required. It's just a matter of getting the quality/price to the right level. I've been waiting for 3d gaming for my entire life (movies, eh, not as much) compared to that, glasses are a non-issue.
09/11/09
My vision is such that the images look the same with and wthout the glasses. (Super blurry.) If everything is going to be in this special 3D-style, what happens for those of us who have trouble seeing the images correctly because of our eyesight? Will there be a second feed that will be in 2D to accommodate us? Or will we be SOL until we can beam the images directly into our brains a la "Batman Forever". (I can't believe I referenced that.)
This is a question that I've been searching for an answer to for a little while. Especially since I've been hearing more and more people say they don't/can't see 3D movies.
09/11/09
06/18/09
06/18/09
06/18/09
06/18/09
06/18/09
06/18/09
06/18/09
06/18/09
Regardless, my thanks to you and everyone else for making my already soft head feel like the soft brown stuff.
(Though, I have to admit - I have wondered since watching The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D and wondering why I still cannot purchase it at Target.)