Tuesday, 15 January 2013

(Feature) The Rise and Fall of 3D

For some reason 3D was hailed as the future of film and TV watching. 

It's obvious none of that is true given how few people these days actually care about 3D in either films or games. However for something full of such hype to all but die shortly after release is an odd occurrence. Either way, here's my take on why it didn't work in each of the genres it tried its hand at.

3D in Film

3D cinema experiences were the thing during a lot of 2012. Going to see a film? Going to see it in 2D when a 3D option is available? Loooossseeeeer. 
3D was in; 2D was out. You couldn't invite a group of people to go the cinema and ask to see it in 2D. Why would you want to anyway when there was the option of having things pop out of the screen into your face?

Well, here are some good reasons: 3D can cause headaches. 3D can cause eyestrain. 3D can distort the image. 3D glasses are annoying. 3D is more expensive. 3D is a barely noticeable.

The fact of the matter as to why 3D never made it massive in cinema is that there is, simply, no point. The picture doesn't really pop out. It's more expensive and, quite frankly, a bit of a hassle with the glasses and all. It soon became apparent that money was being wasted on these more expensive 3D tickets and it was time to call it a day.

Obviously films are still being released in 3D, but you'll probably get as many - if not more in some cases - people in 2D showings as you will in a 3D one.

It's not hard to see why nobody, as of yet, has properly bought into the whole 3D in film/cinema thing yet.

3D in TV

It was only a matter of time before 3D invaded people's homes. Get the 3D cinema experience at home they said. Just buy a 3D TV and a 3D Sky package they said. What they didn't remind people is that they'd be sitting in their living room with the family all wearing these big, odd, mostly horrible looking glasses like something from one of the sci-fi films on the TV. What a great way to watch TV folks. Gather round the 42", more than half a thousand pounds TV set while wearing these disturbing glasses.

If there's a knock at the door you better take them off otherwise the person you open the door to will no doubt be legging it down the road.

What a way to watch TV.

It never was massive and never will be - not until glasses free 3D becomes properly available anyway. 

3D in Video Games

3D in video games didn't exactly get very big either. Surely a service that allows gamers to view their already beautiful HD game's in 3D was something people wanted? Well, not so much.

The thing with a lot of gamers is that they're original. Gamers don't really like change to the things they know and love. I'm the same and no doubt, if you're a gamer, you might be the same. Different controllers, different online systems, motion controls - just leave us be to enjoy our games.

3D never felt necessary for anything, but for games? It's borderline pointless. If companies think that a majority of gamers are going to sit there with these big glasses on, playing Call of Duty or something then they have (or already had) another think coming. 

Gaming is all about immersion, and while 3D may sound like a way to extend that immersion, it really isn't. It's cumbersome, if anything, and the 3D itself just isn't good enough to warrant putting up with the issues.

Nintendo integrated glasses free 3D into the handheld 3Ds. At first the device borderline flopped, but then it picked itself up and is still selling well enough. But while the main attraction of the device was supposed to be the easy to view 3D, it wasn't. People bought and buy the device for the game's it offers. Many users actually turn the 3D off. It was just too much effort to use in truth.

3D in video games hasn't taken off well. It may do in the future but for now; no way.

3D in The Future


What is the future of 3D? It's hard to tell but it's likely that it won't ever be accepted or liked on a massive scale. Companies are already focusing more on high-powered TV systems that offer even better quality image displays and are somehow thinner.

3D is OK and everything, but in truth it just lacks the finesse required to make it a streamlined service that is not only enjoyable and comfortable to use, but readily available and good quality. In the future it will no doubt be completely glasses free, which will eradicate a lot of the issues with it, but health problems will always be there. Forcing your eyes to view images in 3D goes against the build of a human's eye. In other words: it's far from natural.

3D will have to be safer, easier and far better quality before it is widely approved of and used, but even then it is unlikely it will be that popular. It doesn't matter how smooth the service becomes; the simple action of viewing actual images in 3D is just more effort than watching basic 2D ones. 

There's no doubt it will be used in the future; but in a more optional way. Unlike super HD TVs which no one has a problem with in todays society, 3D will always have haters and people who avoid it like the plague. There is no way that can be forced on people.

What are your opinions on 3D in film, TV and video games as well as in the future? Let the comment box be your thought area.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your Thought Box. Leave Your Thoughts Here.