Comments on: How 3-D TV Will Go From Hasselhoff To Must-Have

By: Alfred Poor

Alfred Poor — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:49:04 +0000

I agree that 3D has remained a gimmick in many recent movies: “Oooh, look what I can do with this effect!” We have not yet found the Alfred Hitchcock of 3D cinema yet, though I have high hopes for Cameron’s AVATAR. I expect that directors will soon tire of playing with the new toys, and learn how to use them for dramatic effect, just as they’ve learned about lighting, depth of field focus control, and framing the image.

3D should be like a spice in cooking. You should know that it is there, but it should not dominate the creative work.

By: Michael Wolf

Michael Wolf — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:07:32 +0000

@Simon – 3D enabled theaters are seeing significantly higher revenues this years vs non-3D. I do think 3D into the home has some work to do, but over time it will simply become a feature on HDTV.

By: Simon Mackie

Simon Mackie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:54:10 +0000

I don’t know — I saw Coraline in 3D at a theater a while back, and while it was fun, it still struck me as a bit gimmicky, and the 3D didn’t seem to be used to fullest effect, apart from at the end credits. plus the glasses were uncomfortable and it made my eyes feel a little odd after a while. However, as you say, the experience was much better than the tacky old 3D of old.

theaters must love the resurgence of 3D as it a draw for the punters (Coraline was the first time I’d been out to the theater in ages), but I still think of it as a gimmick rather than a technology I would want for my home.