.:neuko:.
10-08-2010, 01:03 PM
About a month ago I went to the movie theatre to see Toy Story 3 3D. Given the success of TS1 and TS2, I was in no doubt that I'd enjoy TS33D at least as much as the prequels, whether the additional 3D counterpart was any good or not. Thankfully, the 3D technology was every bit as impressive as the movie itself... and I have to admit, my jaw dropped at the unbelievable depth of the visuals. Even the smallest details I didn't expect to look 3D looked 3D... like for example, when I was looking at the scene of a garden, I could pick out every blade of grass as a separate 3D object. Anyway... I left the movie theater feeling very impressed with both TS33D and the 3D technology behind it.
But... somehow, a few weeks later I found myself forgetting about the 3D visuals of TS33D. So, in an effort to remember the experience, I walked into a Sony store and decided to try out their new flagship 3DTV model with a pair of so-called "active" 3D glasses. Surely enough, the 3D sensation that impressed me in the movie theatre was all here as well - to say nothing of the visual quality. But... and this a big but... the flickery display was horribly jarring... and no doubt the reason I ended up with a splitting headache afterwards. Side effects from these 3D glasses were not on my list of expectations - and the unpleasant nasal sensation around my eyes and forehead took the best part of an hour to go away afterwards. Sony claim that their active 3D glasses are superior to passive (i.e conventional) 3D glasses; their argument being that active 3D glasses can pass full-resolution (1080p) 3D images as opposed to passive 3D glasses, which can only pass interlaced (1080i) 3D images. Unfortunately, and as I discovered, the technology that supposedly makes active 3D glasses better is also the reason for the flickery display of the percieved 3D images; hence the following headache... But however meaningful Sony's claims may be, it seems they're trying to justify the higher price point of their 3D glasses, which clock in at around £50. Passive 3D glasses on the other hand are sold for as little as £0.80 in movie theatres. As for comparing image quality between the 2 types of 3D glasses, well... I can't say I noticed any difference at all.
3D glasses aside though, there is one other thing about 3D technology that does concern me: Well, to be more specific, it's not that I have a problem with the technology itself; but rather, I have a problem with how it's applied in 3D movies, 3DTV programmes, and 3D games (although the latter is more forgiveable). Toy Story 3 3D was impressive (as I implied before)... but at the time my expectations of 3D technology were different to what they are now. With it being my first "3D experience" I wanted the technology to knock my socks off; it had to obvious; the evidence had to be clear... and TS33D certainly had no problems in meeting those expectations! At every moment it was saying to me "Look at me! Look at me! I'm in 3D!"
The thing is, 3D in the real world isn't so loud; that's why I percieve it as natural. However, the visual results of 3D technology thus far have been anything but natural... For instance, in TS33D, there was no shortage of 3D depth in the visuals - but also that was the problem... There was just too much 3D depth in the visuals, and many areas simply looked as if the 3D depth had been forced. It was almost as if the movie was making more of a statement about the technology than the concept of 3D itself. For instance, in one of the scenes, even the smallest of items lying on the floor in Andy's bedroom had so much 3D depth as to appear unnatural... almost as if they were hovering rather than sitting. Maybe some people are OK with that, but personally I don't want to be treated like a child who's never seen 3D before... I mean I live in it for God's sake!
But even though I have certain issues with 3D technology... I'm still in favour of it. I only hope that future movies, TV programmes and games stop advertising the technology and start considering the idea of using it more appropriately to relflect 3D in the real world.
Anyway... thoughts anyone?
But... somehow, a few weeks later I found myself forgetting about the 3D visuals of TS33D. So, in an effort to remember the experience, I walked into a Sony store and decided to try out their new flagship 3DTV model with a pair of so-called "active" 3D glasses. Surely enough, the 3D sensation that impressed me in the movie theatre was all here as well - to say nothing of the visual quality. But... and this a big but... the flickery display was horribly jarring... and no doubt the reason I ended up with a splitting headache afterwards. Side effects from these 3D glasses were not on my list of expectations - and the unpleasant nasal sensation around my eyes and forehead took the best part of an hour to go away afterwards. Sony claim that their active 3D glasses are superior to passive (i.e conventional) 3D glasses; their argument being that active 3D glasses can pass full-resolution (1080p) 3D images as opposed to passive 3D glasses, which can only pass interlaced (1080i) 3D images. Unfortunately, and as I discovered, the technology that supposedly makes active 3D glasses better is also the reason for the flickery display of the percieved 3D images; hence the following headache... But however meaningful Sony's claims may be, it seems they're trying to justify the higher price point of their 3D glasses, which clock in at around £50. Passive 3D glasses on the other hand are sold for as little as £0.80 in movie theatres. As for comparing image quality between the 2 types of 3D glasses, well... I can't say I noticed any difference at all.
3D glasses aside though, there is one other thing about 3D technology that does concern me: Well, to be more specific, it's not that I have a problem with the technology itself; but rather, I have a problem with how it's applied in 3D movies, 3DTV programmes, and 3D games (although the latter is more forgiveable). Toy Story 3 3D was impressive (as I implied before)... but at the time my expectations of 3D technology were different to what they are now. With it being my first "3D experience" I wanted the technology to knock my socks off; it had to obvious; the evidence had to be clear... and TS33D certainly had no problems in meeting those expectations! At every moment it was saying to me "Look at me! Look at me! I'm in 3D!"
The thing is, 3D in the real world isn't so loud; that's why I percieve it as natural. However, the visual results of 3D technology thus far have been anything but natural... For instance, in TS33D, there was no shortage of 3D depth in the visuals - but also that was the problem... There was just too much 3D depth in the visuals, and many areas simply looked as if the 3D depth had been forced. It was almost as if the movie was making more of a statement about the technology than the concept of 3D itself. For instance, in one of the scenes, even the smallest of items lying on the floor in Andy's bedroom had so much 3D depth as to appear unnatural... almost as if they were hovering rather than sitting. Maybe some people are OK with that, but personally I don't want to be treated like a child who's never seen 3D before... I mean I live in it for God's sake!
But even though I have certain issues with 3D technology... I'm still in favour of it. I only hope that future movies, TV programmes and games stop advertising the technology and start considering the idea of using it more appropriately to relflect 3D in the real world.
Anyway... thoughts anyone?