3D: Doable, but Definitely Doubtful

For the past month or so, a household phrase has been, “see Avatar, and see it in 3D”.  Avatar single handedly revolutionized not only motion capture and visual effects, but also 3D. Proof? This year’s Consumer Electronics Show was swarmed with new 3D technology.  Sony, Samsung, LG, and Panasonic all showed off their shiny, new 3D-compatable TVs.  Both movies and video games were shown off on the convention floor.  But, for $2,000+ a pop for a new TV after so many people have already invested in high-def TVs, will the cost be worth the “3D experience”?

3D has come a long way.  No more “Ooh-look-out-there’s-a-rock-coming-at-you!”. Now, 3D is all about creating depth, immersing you in the universe of the film. Avatar is obviously the best example of this.  Sure, other movies, mostly family movies like A Christmas Carol and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, have used 3D, but they have received no more than slight kudos for doing so.  Avatar didn’t focus on telling a story, but rather how the story was told.  Cameron used 3D as a tool to put the audience on Pandora.  Of course, the next question is, “Will future movies be able to use 3D in the same manner?”  Not all movies are epics in some remote world that can only be accessed by the magic of the silver screen.  Of course, a reboot of The Matrix Trilogy, Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings (upcoming Hobbit movie possibly?) in 3D would be nothing short of awesome.  Films like these are just too few and far between to merit spending big bucks on this new technology.

Gone are the days of blue and red paper glasses.  Enter “active shutter” glasses.  What?  OK, active shutter glasses work something like this: “a transmitter integrated into the display sends timing signals to advanced 3D shutter glasses, which synchronize with the display’s refresh rate to create two, independent high-definition images for each eye.”  In English, the glasses work as a sort of enhancer, almost like two mini-HDTV screens, making for a cleaner 3D experience.  However, this brings up another problem.  The RealD glasses in the movie theaters weigh very little and aren’t too noticeable unless they somehow get in the way of your popcorn eating.  From what I have heard of those who used active shutter glasses, they are much heavier, definitely noticeable, and oftentimes distracting. Plus, do you really want to invite a bunch of friends over, start up a 3D Blu-Ray, and hand out weird-looking glasses that cost upwards of $20 apiece?  No thanks.

I’ve seen Avatar in 3D twice now – once on a regular screen and once in IMAX.  While IMAX was undoubtedly better, the technology was nevertheless impressive. I don’t think consumers are ready to spend loads of money on a technology that is not only scarcely supported, but will cost cheaper in the future. Will 3D someday become the next high definition?  It’s possible, but not now, anyway. Perhaps in a couple years or ten.

-Burke Rea

3 Responses to “3D: Doable, but Definitely Doubtful”

1. erichendey says:

   February 28, 2010 at 8:54 pm

   What did everyone else think of this movie?
2. Ethan says:

   February 28, 2010 at 10:44 pm

   I thought it was pretty good, and I didn’t even see it in 3d.

   The cinematic and editing qualities of the movie were quite impressive.
3. Charlie Nelson says:

   March 6, 2010 at 12:54 am

   As someone who has seen Avatar on Imax twice, I honestly doubt that there will be anything of similar technological achievement soon, not at least till something guaranteed to pull monster profits comes around (whether reboots like suggested in the article, or sequels like the next Batman). Once we get a couple of those, and maybe even a television show (probably along the lines of Planet Earth), at which point 3-d will be here before we know it.