3D Video Content, is it just a gimmick or the future for Movies and TV?
CES is in full swing in Las Vegas right now and the emphasis is clearly on 3d content. Blu-Ray finished the 3d spec last month, pretty much every TV manufacturer (LG, Vizio, Toshiba, Panasonic, Sony) have made complete commitments to 3d in their upcoming lines of HDTVs, and even broadcast media (CBS, Discovery, ESPN) have begun to dip their toes in the 3d pond.

With all of this going on, I wonder what the XBMC community's take is on everything - is it a gimmick?, is it the future?, is it easily implementable on XBMC?

Let the ideas flow
One vote for "gimmick".

Stereoscopic 3D graphics have been available on the PC, in one form or another, for a long, long time now. Heck, years ago NVidia even released special drivers that add such effects to pretty much any game that uses Direct3D.

And why isn't everyone using these drivers today? Because they're no where near as interesting as they sound, when you get around to trying them for yourself.

Now, you might say "so what, a 3D depth illusion in software isn't the same as what these LCDs are doing - these let you get different views of the action depending on where you are relative to the TV". Well that's all well and good, but if you were sat down in front of one of these new screens, how long would it take before you got bored of moving around the room to get the different views, and having to find where the kids left the special glasses each time you want to use them?

Not long, I'd wager.

And then there's the eye pain you'd get out of wearing the likes of these babies...

If I'm playing a game and want to move the camera, I'm happy to give the thumbstick a tap rather then get up and walk around. The thumbstick gives me a greater range of movement anyway; you can't expect to walk around behind the TV to get a complete 180-degree view change.

If they want to add 3D effects to videos, then they might as well just forget the fancy LCDs and glasses, and stick a thumbstick on TV remotes. Assuming they can find any producers willing to create movies compatible with the displays (the amount of extra footage + equipment required would up costs no end during the recording stages).
XBMC Manual - BlackBolt - SVN Guide - Skin SVN - Wide Icon SVN - ROM Shortcut Generator
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
At first, sorry for my bad english...

I would like play stereoscopic content in xbmc-live with dual-head (2 beamers).
Ok, there is a commercial software called "stereoscopic-player", but it is for windows.
I think at is time for an opensource version and xbmc is very cool with stereo it would get mega cool ;-)

Ok. the easyst way, I think, is to play a side by side video with xbmc with dual-head graphics card.
the 2. one is to play a video where the left and right video is above/below in one stream (file).

Maybe there is a opensource stereoscopic player out, but I don't know.
I am searching for a long time for that tool.
+2 for gimmick 3d is old hat and is not the way forward.Wink
XBMC Frodo 12 - Windows 7 - Asrock Ion 330HT - Aeon Nox
That what I wanted is allready there...

What is a side by side stereomovie, a very wide "cinemascope", that is no problem for xbmc to play this.
The problem was, how tell I ubuntu to make a big desktop with dual output,
but the newest nvidia driver has all what I need in it.

I think 3D display is the future... eventually, and the current technology just doesn't make it practical or enjoyable yet. There is no denying that a well done 3D production adds a huge increase in immersion into the experience. It transforms the perspective from "watching something filmed that is being shown to me" into "being there for the filming of the actual events."

That being said, even though it is a massive step up in the reality of the experience, it "gets old" quickly with today's technology not because 3D itself is annoying or gimmicky (no one complains of walking around seen stereoscopically in everyday life, do they?), but because the technology required to give you that experience is clunky and annoying. The technology reminds you that it is very artificial, which sort of negates the whole purpose of 3D to begin with. No one wants to put on a pair of glasses that flicker like the devil every time they sit down for TV. Not even for routine movie watching. So until the magical technology arrives that allows me to simple sit in my recliner and see 3D display in front of me, no glasses, holding my head a certain way, sitting really close to the display, etc. required, then 3D isn't ready for prime time.

I think if you have invested in a true home theater - and I'm talking controlled lighting environment, projection screen of 100+ inches, well done multichannel sound, proper seating - then having the ability to watch the "occasional" movie in 3D would be nice. I could see putting on the glasses in one's home theater to see Avatar in 3D, with friends over and such. But that would probably be a once every few months experience. Far from 3D being a "routine" part of the viewing experience.
Wont matter to me. I am uninterested in "movies" in 3D. Ironic that the more effects we get, the lower the quality of the movie content. Notice that even in the Matrix movie when they duplicated the one character the scene with fighting was a joke.

I prefer intelligent story telling over "effects." Mind you a well done effect is worth everything. Example - the Abyss. Very few effects but so well crafted.
I'm going for "gimmick" as well. I refuse to spend a ton of money for a TV that requires me to wear goofy-looking "glasses".
I really think this technology, for home use, is in the 'infant' stage. My gut feeling is that the uptake for this round will be minimal, but as they continue to get the non-glasses requiring TV's perfected, it will end up becoming more and more prevalent.

I can easily see myself wanting one of these just for the enhancement to viewing sports, tv, etc., it would bring if things were filmed with 3D as avatar was - not as a gimmick, but just as a technology to have content be viewable in 3D.
I'll put it mildly when i can stick my f##cking d##k in it then maybe I'll consider it until then its a load of crap

even the porn industry says it sucks, lol
As someone who has worked with virtual reality in the past I think it is currently just a money maker for the high end.

From a tech standpoint, as far as the glasses type of 3d tv is concerned, it should be completely capable of displaying a good stereo picture to anyone sitting near the centre. I'm sure in a few years many people will accept sitting off axis for 3d content in the same way that they accept seeing stretched people on widescreen tvs. It will still annoy me like hell though.

However stereo imagery lives or dies by content and I think this is where it will go wrong. The only 'new' 3d content I have seen so far in the movie or tv industries is Avatar and the Sky 3d logo when they installed it in my local pub.

My view of Avatar was that it just wasn't quite right. The computer generated stuff worked well, but the live action stuff was somehow wrong. Specular highlights were unnatural, some cinematography tricks they used didn't work ( out of focus stuff ). The worst thing I saw though was in the Piranha 3d trailer before... that was awful, painted on cardboard stereo.

Now Avatar is one of the most expensive films of all time and they couldn't get the live content right. From what one of my friends said, Alice in Wonderland was like the Piranha 3d trailer... post production 3d. It seems they really don't know how to do it yet.

Pixar will be laughing to the bank though... computer generated 3d will be much easier, provided they still have all the source animation data.

For TV, an industry that still hasn't fully adopted HD, I suspect that it will take longer. I expect the increase in production and special effects costs is probably the same kind of magnitude as from standard TV to HD TV, possibly more. There is also the changes in cinematography... culturally we have had almost 100 years to learn how cinema works, both as film maker and as audiences. Some of these tricks don't work, there are probably new ones in 3d that do.

TV Sports have it now, but they have tiny special effects costs and big budgets, most of their budget goes on the rights, so they are fine.

So all in all... a way of the entertainment industry to get more money off the people who like the best gadgets.

I may change my mind in 5 years time.

Zotac 9300 Mini ITX, 2GB, Intel E2180 2.0Ghz,
Cyberlink Remote,
Ubuntu 9.04
Personally, I think it has potential, but like Colin said, they haven't fully figured out how to use it. I agree wholly about Alice in Wonderland...only a few parts really utilized the 3D, the rest seemed phoned in.

Now...360 has project Natal coming out, which utilizes full-body motion tracking. In this aspect, a stereoscopic display would be amazing. I know it's not movies...but it is still related to the TV's. Imagine fighting games, racing games, or just about anything in full-tilt head-tracking 3D. Sexy.

I definitely know I have no interest in wearing shutter glasses anytime soon, however...
3D is a gimmick until we have genuine holographic projection that does not require glasses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg

Edit: there was also some neat video of I think the White House or State House at the time but can't seem to find it -- that was truly amazing to see the field of depth it projected.
I am not 100% sure, but it looks like the image is not holographically created in the studio, but rather overlayed in real time on top of the video feed that we see. (The lady says that the cameras in two locations move in sync, which tells me that the image is not really 3d, but a 2d image that adapts to the camera movement, creating a virtual reality for the TV viewer)

Just like how the weathermen stand in front of a green screen, they don't see anything on this screen in the studio, but the weather map is overlayed on top of the video feed, on the green screen, so the TV viewer sees it.

I doubt that cnn dude saw the lady in the studio, he was just talking to the emptiness.
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
3D Video Content, is it just a gimmick or the future for Movies and TV?00