Gentlemen?,
That the revival of 3D movies into the home is experiencing a tapering off of interest as the 1950's may be for similar reasons- novelty wearing off, poor translation to home, plus technological, experiential, cost and availability issues.
1 > Availability of movies > There are simply not an extremely large selection of 3D movies >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blu-ray_3D_releases
> and in reviewing this list, I've see only one in 3D, "Avatar". I've also seen "Hugo", but Hugo was on Netflix in 2D and I would possibly watch up to only ten or twelve more on that list.
I don't mean to suggest that my taste is similar to anyone else, but that anyone's taste means that only a relatively small proportion of any catalog- books, art, clothes, and entertainment will appeal. I have Netflix streaming and with whatever they have now, 35,000 listings, there are probably no more than 500-700 I would ever watch. That's about 1.5-2%.
2. 3D movies are considered big screen "event" not translatable to home > It seems to me that 3D is still treated as a novelty, an advertising feature. This reminds me of the touting of Panavision and Cinemascope, and of course, a new technical feature is no guarantee of any other qualities of the movie. Some people will be drawn to the movie because of the technique and the scale of the screen creating an immersive experience, as a kind of thrill ride, but that wouldn't probably translate well to the home. I saw " Avatar" mainly because of a connection to the production, but also because I wanted to see what qualities 3D could contribute to the experience- the novelty. Tellingly, I have not watched it again, partly because of the simple-minded story and surprisingly 1D and 2D characters, but mostly because the astounding visual richness could not translate in scale to a home screen.
3. 3D made me physically ill >. While I've seen mention of the kind of motion sickness that some people experience and I have no idea how common the effect is, when I saw Avatar, in the first twenty five minutes I had a strange sense of irritation and impatience, slightly woolly-headed. Feeling restless, at about forty minutes, I started looking at my watch thinking the movie was too long and then began feeling distinctly motion sick- something that had only happened to me once before as a kid on a theme park ride after a couple of hot dogs.
The motion sickness lasted only for about fifteen minutes, and I enjoyed the visual assault after, but overall I remember the discomfort as vividly as the images.
4. The technology seems not yet solid for home use > I've heard complaints- mostly from my brother who has a recent 60" 3D set, that the quality and stability of the 3D image at home can vary, the depth varies scene to scene and can fade in and out a bit. This may be due to the several slightly different methods of filming / encoding.
5. Cost > While 3D sets have, like many new technologies been reduced in price- remember the first flat panel television, the Philips cost $15,000 and the same size today is $400. Still, as 3D sets become cheaper, I hear a lot of comments that the active glasses are still too expensive- up to $110 each. Sets come with 2 pair and when confronted with 3 more pair- and +$300 to outfit the whole family- it seems expensive.
6. Wearing Glasses. Wearing the glasses not only suggests the primitive form of the 50's, as I also wear glasses, using 3D glasses over them is distracting and uncomfortable.
7. 3D can not be streamed.
When there is a catalog of five or eight thousand titles, autostereoscopy without glasses is mainstream and affordable, the camera / encoding technology settles to a single standard, 3D can be streamed, and I have the money for an eighty inch screen, I'll think about it.
BambiBoom
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram