News - 3D market 'extremely profitable' says report

[HEXUS]

3D influence set to grow in TVs, film, games and phones, according to PwC.

Read more.

[Saracen]

I guess time will tell. Personally, I'm not in the least interested, but then I couldn't give a hoot about HD, much less 3D, so I'm not exactly their target market.

[aidanjt]

I thought you meant actual 3D, not stereoscopy. :\

As with Saracen, I couldn't care less. I can get headaches and eye strain for free watching trailers of French cinematography.

[cheesemp]

I've watched three films in 3d (at the cinema) now and avatar was the only one worth bothering about. Personally I'm going to save money and go back to 2d. I think its a bit of fad as no one wants to wear glasses - It won't disappear but I expect 2d screenings to be more viable in the longer term! Also I've only just upgraded to HDTV with bluray/freesat HD so I'm not out laying on 3d equipment any time soon.

[miniyazz]

The next generation of consoles? Pfft. It's been like forever since the last ones were released (minor updates like Kinect excluded). How long does it take to develop a new console? It certainly can't drag on >~3yrs if they intend to use modern hardware (which perhaps they don't), even including game development. Surely.

[bear jesus]

The thing that annoys me is over recent decades 3d has been pushed on us over and over yet it always fails and although the tech has improved it still struggles to take off.

I would hope that once glasses are not required and thus (hopefully) the side effects of current tech no longer apply and it actually works for everyone then and only then should it fully take off.

[aidanjt]

I honestly can't ever see it as anything more than a fad. Even proper holographic projection systems would be technologically interesting, a curiosity, but it would never beat the quality of an active 2D display. There's just nothing wrong with representing a 3D image on a 2D display, it's already 100% convincing. Stereoscopy is nothing but technology pimping and marketing propaganda.

[Brewster0101]

3d on home TV's is a complete con.

I watched Avatar SE in 3d in Imax and watched a bit of it the other day in my local Currys on a 3d TV set up with goggles and 3d bluray. It looked rubbish. The technology is not the same compared to projectors in the cinema. The 3d parts looked too 3d (too in your face) and the rest of the scene was out of focus badly, almost not even part of the film.

It maybe that the TV or something was poorly set up, but I can't see 3d TV taking off as it seems like a gimmick to me.

[davidcrofter]

Unfortunately this year it will be virtually impossible to avoid being added to the growing 3d statistics if you plan to buy a decent TV as the manufacturers will be bundling this tech in with all their mid to high end products - so you won't have a choice in the matter.

I don't think I can remember a technology being forced on the public like this has - especially when LG have virtually admitted it is a flawed product in its current shape and form and will be introducing passive technology across their LCD & LED ranges due to the crosstalk issues seen in the active sets.

As has been suspected this technology is simply an easy "Cash Cow" for the manufacturers, studios and everybody else involved in trying to convince us we need or want it.

[Merson]

3D is good when it is done right. Having seen numerous 3D films in the cinema it becomes clear to me that they way 3D is used is a game breaker. As has been said before films which use 3D in a smart way or in sizable doses on the screen like Avatar or Tron (Everything in the normal world is in 2D while the Grid is in 3D) is enjoyable to watch, and generally doesn't cause discomfort to your eyes. This helps when the film is designed with 3D in mind and uses the correct cameras when filming.

The 3D i hate on the other hand is those which use horrible post production techniques which just look gash (Clash of the Titians) or those that film an entire film in 3D without any let off for your eyes, causing discomfort and generally making the film seem like a gimmick 3D tech demo (Resident Evil: Afterlife).

3D has great potential it's just down to those creating the content to get it right.

Not to mention the underlying fact no one their right mind can justify the price for a complete 3D set-up at home so go to the cinema instead. Which IMO is keeping them alive at the moment.

[aidanjt]

Apocalypse Now! film editor argues that stereoscopy will not only fail, but is inherently incompatible with our neurology: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html