Will we all watch 3D TV in the future, or will it remain a niche product meant for science fiction movies, video games, or special sporting events? As we’ve seen with the breakout success of the movie Avatar, there is definitely consumer willingness to enjoy 3D at the movies. But, it is still an open question whether consumers will buy a 3D experience for the home. Here are ten reasons why in-home 3D TV may never achieve mass market appeal.

1. 

   Glasses
   Need I say more. Who wants to buy them, keep track of them, or even wear them? Are you eager to wear geeky 3D glasses and sit silently in front of a TV in a darkened room every night?

2. TV Watching is Social
   Home TV watching is in many ways a social experience. You watch with your family or friends with the lights on. You may talk about the show or something else. Multitaskers may even be on the Internet, chatting, tweeting or texting from their phone. 3D viewing abruptly alters the social nature of TV watching.
3. Compatibility
   Think the brand new flat panel TV you bought recently will show 3D? Think again. You will need to upgrade just about everything including the cables.
4. Lack of content
   Even if you are fortunate enough to buy a 3D TV when they first come out, along with a 3D Blu-ray player, you won’t have much to watch. Even if you could watch more, what do you really have to watch in 3D?
5. Confusion
   3D adds a new layer of complexity to the already complicated TV, satellite/cable, dvd player hook-up process. New technical 3D jargon will further confuse consumers. There are currently different ways to capture and display 3D, which can require different types of glasses and/or equipment. Confused yet? So am I.
6. Health risks
   3D viewing can induce headaches, disorientation, nausea, or eye-strain for some people. 3D tricks the brain and puts your eyes through a serious workout. Nobody knows yet, since there have been no major studies what, if any, long-term effects extensive 3D watching may cause.
   
7. Unwatchable 3D Footage
   3D video is unwatchable without special glasses. If you were told right now your TV would only work if you wore special glasses, how many of those TVs do you think would sell? Admittedly that is an untrue example, but it’s still the same question consumers will answer with their purse strings.
8. Just Good-enough Syndrome
   This is not a disease, but many people are quite happy with their new flat panel TV purchase of recent years. At the same time everything is not yet broadcast in full HD and the majority are still happy with regular DVD quality. Even the blu-ray market has yet to take off. Convincing consumers to adopt a new format may be a tough sell.
9. Discs are dying
   No funerals please. With improved streaming capabilities and greater digital home storage, inevitably discs (cd, dvd and blu-ray) will be replaced with on-demand streaming. It may take another decade, but how we consume media will likely not include discs. This isn’t necessarily bad for 3D, but it takes 2-4 times more storage and greater download speeds to stream 3D. Bandwidth limitations are likely to be an issue.
10. History Lessons
    Bringing sweeping change to home TV watching takes time, a very long time. It took HDTV about 20 years to achieve market dominance with the help of a government mandate. For better or worse, I don’t expect government involvement this time. The electronics and entertainment industries will have their work cut out for them.

We polled the six major TV makers who announced new 3D models–LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, and Vizio–to help with some answers. Although many of the questions came back “we’ll get back to you on that,” we did learn something. With asking the manufacturers, and some judicious trolling of Web resources (special thanks to AVS forum and the friendly folks at EngadgetHD), we came up with the following. It will be updated and expanded as–inevitably–parts are proven wrong or we’re actually given some hard information; however, in the meantime feel free to leave a comment. Or at least vote in the poll.

1. What is 3D TV?

3D TV is a generic term for a display technology that lets home viewers experience TV programs, movies, games, and other video content created with a stereoscopic effect. It adds the illusion of a third dimension, depth, to current TV and HDTV display technology, which is typically limited to only height and width (“2D”).

2. How can you get 3D from a 2D screen?

A 3D TV or theater screen showing 3D content displays two separate images of the same scene simultaneously, one intended for the viewer’s right eye and one for the left eye. The two full-size images occupy the entire screen and appear intermixed with one another–objects in one image often repeated or skewed slightly to the left (or right) of corresponding objects in the other–when viewed without the aid of special 3D glasses. When viewers don the glasses, they can perceive these two images as a single 3D image.

Here’s what a 3D video game looks like without the glasses.

(Credit: Jeff Bakalar/CNET)

The system relies on a visual process called stereopsis. The eyes of an adult human lie about 2.5 inches apart, which lets each eye see objects from slightly different angles. The two images on a 3D TV screen present objects from two slightly different angles as well, and when those images combine in the viewer’s mind with the aid of the glasses, the illusion of depth is created.

3. How is the new 3D TV technology different from older 3D?

Most people are familiar with the old anaglyph method, where a pair of glasses with lenses tinted red and cyan (or other colors) is used to combine two false-color images. The result seen by the viewer is discolored and usually lower-resolution than the new method.

The principal improvements afforded by new 3D TV technologies are full color and high resolution–reportedly full 1080p HD resolution for both eyes in the Blu-ray 3D system, for example, and lower resolution in the DirecTV system. However, we still expect lower-resolution 3D to look quite sharp; see HDTV resolution explained for some reasons why.

A pair of LC shutter glasses

(Credit: Panasonic)

New 3D TVs require active liquid crystal shutter glasses, which work by very quickly blocking the left and then the right eye in sequence (120 times per second systems like Panasonic’s Full HD 3D). The glasses, in addition to the liquid-crystal lenses, contain electronics and rechargeable batteries (typically good for 80 or more hours), that sync to the TV via an infrared or Bluetooth signal.

(Note: For the remainder of this article, any mention of “3D” refers to the new full-color, high-resolution version, not the old anaglyph variety.)

4. How is it different from 3D in the theater?

Many viewers have also experienced newer 3D presentations, such as IMAX 3D, in movie theaters. Though the technologies differ somewhat–most theaters use passive polarized 3D glasses, for example–the main practical difference between 3D TV in the home and theatrical 3D is the size of the screen. In the home, the image is generally much smaller, occupying a lower percentage of viewers’ fields of vision. Among TV makers we asked, only Panasonic recommend a closer seating distance (of 3x the screen height away–about 6.2 feet from a 50-inch screen) for a better experience; however, we suspect sitting closer or watching on a bigger screen will definitely help with any home 3D presentation. Smaller screens also can present other issues unique to 3D, such as a relatively narrow viewing distance range.

5. Can everyone see 3D?

No. Between 5 percent and 10 percent of Americans suffer from stereo blindness, according to the College of Optometrists in Vision Development. They often have good depth perception–which relies on more than just stereopsis–but cannot perceive the depth dimension of 3D video presentations. Stereo blind viewers can usually watch 3D material with no problem as long as they wear glasses; it simply appears as 2D to them. (Related: See Rafe Needleman’s TV industry turns blind eye to non-3D viewers’ article.)

6. I’ve heard 3D causes headaches. Is that true?

Most viewers of 3D suffer no ill effects after a brief orientation period (lasting a few seconds as the image “snaps” into place), but in others, 3D can cause disorientation or headaches after extended periods. Viewer comfort is a major concern of 3D content producers, because too much of a 3D effect can become tiresome after a while. Producers of 3D movies for children also have to account for the fact that children’s eyes are closer together (about 2 inches) than adults.

7. Does everyone watching a 3D TV need to wear glasses?

Yes. Every member of a family sitting around the 3D TV must wear glasses to see the 3D effect. If they don’t, the image on the screen will appear doubled, distorted, and, for most practical purposes, unwatchable. Currently, there’s no technology that lets a single TV display both 2D and 3D content simultaneously without glasses.

8. Do I need a new TV?

Yes. None of the TV manufacturers we spoke with said that its current HDTVs can be upgraded to support the new 3D formats. We’ve heard that slow LCD response times, processing power, new phosphor requirements, and an inability to accept the necessary 120Hz input signal (not to be confused with 120Hz and higher display refresh rates) cited as reasons why existing sets are stuck in 2D. We’re not ruling out such future upgrades, perhaps by third party add-ons, but as of now, it’s basically impossible as far as we know.

The one exception applies to the 3D compatible DLP and plasma TVs released in the last couple of years. Mitsubishi will release an adapter box this year that lets its 3D DLP TVs work with new 3D sources, including Blu-ray players. The resulting picture quality after the upgrade is an open question, and Mitsubishi hasn’t said whether its box will work with 3D-compatible DLP TVs from other makers. Samsung, which made 3D compatible DLP TVs through 2008, said it has no plans to release a similar adapter nor make its “3D-ready” plasma TVs, namely the PNB450 (2009) and the PNA450 (2008), compatible with new 3D formats, like 3D Blu-ray.

9. Do I need a new Blu-ray player, cable box, game console, or AV receiver?

With one notable exception–the Sony PS3–the answer for Blu-ray players is “yes.” No Blu-ray player maker has said it will upgrade existing standalone players to work with Blu-ray 3D movies, so a new 3D Blu-ray player will be required for many viewers to view the new 3D Blu-rays.

Sony told CNET at CES that the PS3 will support 3D Blu-ray playback with full 1080p resolution to each eye via a simple software update, available later this year. On the other hand, other manufacturers, including Panasonic, have told us HDMI 1.4 is required for full HD 3D, and as far as we know the PS3 does not have HDMI 1.4. As a result, we’re skeptical of Sony’s “full resolution” claim, although we are fairly certain the PS3 will support 3D, both Blu-ray (at some resolution) and for gaming, at some point this year. We’ll update this article when we know for certain.

As for the Xbox 360 and the Wii, neither Microsoft nor Nintendo has outlined its plans for 3D gaming.

DirecTV has said that its lower-resolution 3D system will require only a free software update to the company’s current HD boxes. No other TV provider has announced 3D yet, but we assume some will follow suit and enable 3D without a new box.

Unless you use your AV receiver for switching between HDMI video sources, you won’t have to upgrade to enjoy 3D Blu-ray movies. You can instead opt for a Blu-ray player with dual-HDMI outputs, such as the Panasonic DMP-BDT350, or forgo high-resolution audio (Dolby True HD or DTS Master Audio) that requires an HDMI connection to the receiver. If you do want to retain HDMI switching on a receiver with even a single 3D source (with the possible exception of the PS3), it appears that you will need to get an AV receiver that’s HDMI 1.4-compatible. We expect them to start appearing on the market later in 2010.

HDMI 1.4 cables are coming.

(Credit: Dong Ngo/CNET)

10. Can I use my existing HDMI cables?

Probably not for “Full HD 3D.” Most TV makers we spoke with specified that to get full 1080p resolution in both eyes, all of the involved devices (player/source and TV, typically) need HDMI 1.4 connections. 3D TVs and players have HDMI 1.4, and we expect most cable suppliers (including the low-priced online merchants that CNET favors) will offer compatible cables soon. We’ll also be sure to test for certain, when said equipment becomes available, whether you can use old cables and still get the full HD 3D experience. DirecTVs’s 3D system does not require HDMI 1.4, so you can use your existing cables and AV receiver for that.

11. Can I watch current 2D shows, movies, games, and other content in 3D?

At CES 2010, Samsung and Toshiba representatives both said their sets would include 2D to 3D conversion processing that will allow viewers to “watch everything in 3D.” However, we don’t expect these systems, especially in their first generation, to come close to the realism of true 3D content. We checked out a canned demo of Toshiba’s process at CES and it seemed to work, but it certainly could stand improvement.

No other TV manufacturer or third party has announced a mainstream conversion system we know of yet, although given the lack of true 3D content, we expect to hear about more soon.

12. Can the 3D feature on a 3D TV be tuned off?

Yes. All 3D TV makers we spoke to said that their sets would display 2D HDTV content with no problem, and we don’t expect their picture quality in 2D to be any worse than the equivalent 2D HDTV. The Blu-ray 3D specification calls for all such discs to also include a 2D version of the movie, allowing current 2D players to play them with no problem. We’re not sure whether DirecTV’s 3D channels will be viewable in 2D, but it’s not likely to be an issue since we expect most of that content to be available on 2D channels.

13. Do 3D TVs use more power?

No manufacturer we asked would say one way or another, although two other sources (the head of USC’s Entertainment Technology Center, as well as Bruce Berkoff of the LCD TV association) said they do not. On the other hand, it’s true that the active LC shutter glasses effectively block half of the light arriving from the screen, and the lenses are not entirely transparent to begin with, so logically a TV displaying a 3D image could use more power than the same TV to produce a 2D image of equivalent brightness. But it’s just too early to know until we can test one.

Panasonic’s TC-PVT25 series, shipping this spring, will probably be the first 3D TV to hit stores.

(Credit: Panasonic)

14. What 3D TVs are going to be available this year?

Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, LG, Vizio, and Toshiba, among others, announced 3D TVs that will ship in 2010. See CNET’s CES 2010 TV wrap-up for more information, or check out the videos.

15. Do 3D TVs come with glasses? How many pairs?

Among TV makers we polled, only Sony, Panasonic, and Toshiba went on record saying that their models, the LX900 series (two pairs), the VT25 series (one pair), the and CELL TV (number of pairs not specified), respectively, would include the necessary glasses. We expect most other TV makers will follow suit and include glasses, at least with their flagship 3D models.

16. What 3D movies are coming out this year on home video? 3D TV channels? 3D games?

Blu-ray movies announced this year in 3D include “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” “Monsters vs. Aliens,” and “Disney’s A Christmas Carol.” More movies are sure to be announced.

DirecTV will be the first TV provider with 3D content, announcing three 3D channels of its own. ESPN and Discovery each said it would also launch 3D channels this year, although no provider, including DirecTV, has yet announced carriage of either one.

PCs have been able to deliver 3D games, many converted from 2D versions, for the last few years to some compatible TVs. However, no console games specifically designed to work with the new 3D TVs have been announced, aside from Avatar: The Game. We anticipate 3D versions of existing games to be announced this year, perhaps with an “upgrade path” allowing existing owners to not have to repurchase the game at full price, but nothing’s been officially announced yet.

17. Will 3D TVs work with all 3D formats?

Unlike with Blu-ray versus HD DVD, there doesn’t seem to be a major ” war=”" between=”" various=”" methods=”" for=”" delivering=”" 3d.=”" of=”" tv=”" makers=”" spoke=”" specified=”" that=”" their=”" upcoming=”" sets=”" would=”" work=”" with=”" blu-ray=”" format,=”" expect=”" them=”" all=”" to=”" support=”" directv=”" s=”" 3d=”" channels=”" and=”" the=”" well-established=”" reald=”" format=”" as=”" well.=”" when=”" we=”" asked=”" about=”">other 3D formats, including ones that use side-by-side, checkerboard, and top-and-bottom modes, and 3D found on current sources devices like PCs using Nvidia’s 3D Vision, TV makers who responded either specified their sets would be compatible or implied they would be by launch time. In short, compatibility shouldn’t be a major hurdle for 3D TVs.

18. How much does all of this cost?

We don’t know for sure, but the first 3D TVs won’t be as expensive as the first HDTVs were, for example. With the exception of Vizio, no HDTV maker has yet announced pricing on its 3D-compatible HDTVs. Though all TV makers are placing 3D only in their more-expensive models this year, we don’t expect 3D TVs to cost much more than existing high-end plasmas and LCDs. The same goes for Blu-ray players (there’s no word yet on how much, if anything, the PS3′s promised 3D upgrade will cost) and for content itself (it’s anyone’s guess whether 3D Blu-rays will cost a couple bucks more than normal versions).

Again, no TV maker has specified costs for its 3D glasses, although Toshiba came closest when it told us “Glasses may cost $99.99, but this is not yet final” and LG also estimated a price of about $100. Compatibility between glasses and TVs will be left up to individual manufacturers, although we do anticipate the third-party 3D glasses market taking off in the next couple of years.

19. Seriously, is 3D TV any good or just the latest gimmick to get me to buy new crap?

In our early opinion, informed by the limited demos we’ve seen, the new 3D TV technology seen under the right conditions can be very impressive and definitely delivers a “wow” factor that will appeal to fans of immersive home theater, gamers, and other early adopters. Aside from screen size the experience is very similar to what you’ll see at the theater.

But that screen size difference is huge, and final versions of 3D TVs shipping later this year might perform differently from demos. And we have no idea how home viewing conditions like ambient light, seating distance, viewing angle and other factors, which figure less prominently into the theater experience, affect 3D in the home.

And of course, like any new technology (or product for that matter), 3D is in essence intended to get you to buy more stuff. Years of underwhelming 3D implementations and misguided marketing earns 3D more of a right than other technologies to bear the description “gimmick.” Again, we recommend seeing 3D in the theater, under ideal conditions, then considering the differences between that and 3D TV in the home, before writing 3D off or becoming a fanboy/girl.

20. I’m thinking of buying a new TV. Should I wait for 3D TVs?

Not unless you’re an early adopter or a die-hard 3D fan who simply can’t wait for the next best thing. 3D content will be rare in the first couple of years. Glasses, 3D gear, and of course the TVs themselves will command a premium price. And like any technology, we expect it to improve quickly–although glasses-free 3D is still a few years away. Getting a new, non-3D TV now is still a pretty safe bet, and you can be sure to enjoy it even after 3D becomes more common. Even when 3D is available on just about every TV–something we expect to happen within the next few years–viewers will probably don the glasses mainly for special events like sports and movies, and not necessarily to watch the evening news.

So there you have it: the basics of what we know about 3D TV today. We’re still receiving more information from manufacturers, so we’ll update this article when it becomes out-of-date, and add new questions and answers when appropriate. In the meantime, feel free to sound off in the comments section if we missed something major, think we did a good job, or you just feel like venting.

Jimi Hendrix explodes onto the screen in the Central Hall of the Las Vegas Convention Center. It’s an iconic, well-worn sequence of archival footage from Woodstock, the stuff of retrospective montages and ’60s music anthology infomercials. Only now, it’s in 3D. Hendrix seems to pop out from the screen, while the stage and band members are mashed flat behind him. A crowd shot reveals not so much a massed sea of fans, but sliding layers of them. Just before the Sony logo appears, one of those fans flashes the peace sign. It doesn’t look like a three-dimensional hand. It’s more like a cardboard cutout, jutting out into space like a half-finished work of hippie origami.

This breaking up of old footage into somewhat arbitrary layers is the opposite of remastering. And it’s one of many problems with 3D entertainment. Sometimes 3D is eye-popping. But not everyone fell in love with Avatar‘s 3D wizardry—with so much groundbreaking digital performance capture and panoramic CGI on display, why suffer through the migraine-inducing view from behind a pair of RealD passive polarized glasses just to experience the occasional moment of vertigo? Even for those who were unabashedly amazed by Avatar, did the magic of its 3D elements really last past the two-hour mark? And sometimes, as in the case of Jimi Hendrix, 3D is just a bewildering parlor trick. In either case, it never manages to be more realistic than 2D, since it can’t copy the way the eye flickers from foreground to background, or mimic the more complex cognitive function of processing depth. In movies and on TV (and with all due respect to Avatar‘s $1.3 billion box office) 3D will never be much more than a gimmick. But everything that makes it so wrong for television and movies makes it perfect for video games.

At CES last week, the atmosphere at Sony’s 3D gaming area and at Nvidia’s panoramic 3D Vision Surround gaming demo stations was totally different from that at the many booths with 3D TVs on display. Middle-aged regional distributors slip on the same glasses that they had just used to watch animated characters over-emote in Monsters vs. Aliens on Blu-Ray, and looked at the same LED-backlit displays, but now they were grinning like children, belting out things like “whoa” and “that’s cool!” Some games looked better than others in 3D—Avatar: The Game, ironically, featured strangely flat, 2D water effects, while the downloadable PlayStation Network title Super Stardust HD, with its tiny arcade spaceships and ball-like revolving planetscape was awesome. One of the most impressive glimpses of 3D gaming, though, wasn’t playable. A demo reel at Sony’s booth showed 3D footage from various games, including the off-road racer MotorStorm Pacific Rift, and a spine-quivering jump from a cliff. It’s not the first video-game stunt to induce vertigo. But it might be the first to inspire a complete stranger to turn to me, bug-eyed, and say, “Holy s**t.”

The point here isn’t that all games are universally great in 3D. There are bound to be specific 3D effects that work better in some games, and some games that are naturally more or less of a fit for 3D. Gran Turismo 5 is exciting in 3D, but is it exciting enough to justify buying a $50 pair of glasses and high-end LED 3D-ready TV, not to mention a family-size bottle of ibuprofin for the resulting headache? On the other hand, playing Avatar: The Game on Nvidia’s three-monitor setup is completely astonishing: Its use of 3D is more consistent and universally effective than in the movie. Somewhere in the middle is the 3D-ification of Little Big Planet, which was already composed of layers of 2D imagery, now just a little more visually striking with those layers placed more distinctly forward or backward. The effectiveness and overall impact varies, but nowhere in these games does the 3D look bad. There’s no equivalent of the shoddy, cardboard cutout effect seen in that Hendrix clip, or in other hit-and-miss footage from 3D movies or television.

There’s a simple technical reason for the high quality of 3D visuals in games—virtual cameras are easier to control than physical ones. 3D’s central optical illusion is pulled off by either filming with two cameras, which recreates the stereoscopic effect of perceiving depth with a pair of eyes, or else massaging existing footage until it kind of looks as though it has depth. The latter nearly always looks bad—the image is still mostly flat, but now it’s flat in layers. The former, which is referred to as native 3D content, requires incredibly precise double-camera rigs, and generally some amount of post-production cleanup to keep pixels captured by both cameras from straying too close or too far.

On the other hand, maintaining image quality in 3D games is as easy as inserting an additional virtual camera into the game, whether a game is developed in native 3D or retroactively patched for 3D, according to Atsushi Honda, an electrical engineer who worked on Sony’s new 3D LED displays. Developers routinely add in-game independently moving cameras to a given gaming environment, such as in split-screen multiplayer modes. For 3D, the only difference is that both cameras are “grafted” onto each other, with a tightly controlled amount of space between them (enough to accomplish that depth-perception trick). More processor-heavy is the fact that, unless developers are willing to live with a plunge in image quality, the frame rate essentially doubles, to some 120 frames per second. The PS3 should be able to handle this graphical bump to 3D with a firmware upgrade, available later this year. And although everyone else at the Sony booth dodged the question, Honda confirmed that the PS3 will run in 3D on any 3D-ready TV, so long as it’s compatible with HDMI 1.4, an updated transfer protocol.

As important as the PS3′s imminent 3D upgrade might be for the technology to go mainstream, PC gaming has been compatible with 3D for years. “Every PC game, starting from later versions of DirectX 8 [a suite of development applications], had the 3D information in it,” says David Chechelashvili, head of the gaming division at 3D hardware-maker XpanD Cinema. “There was no media, however, to display it.” The dual virtual cameras have been running since 2002, but until recently there was no way to check the quality of the combined footage, or to tweak a given scene or 3D effect. The result is a library of some 400 PC titles that will run in 3D right now, provided you have the right setup: a monitor that’s 3D-ready, a graphics card that can tap into Direct X’s 3D capabilities and active shutter glasses like the ones available from Nvidia. (By this summer, XpanD will sell its own set as well.)

Game developers’ experience with native 3D, plus the inherent precision of virtual stereoscopic cameras, which don’t require NASA-grade stabilization motors to keep out-of-sync frames from melting into an eye-crossing haze, might explain why some 3D games look good, some look great, but none look truly bad. “In terms of image quality and impressiveness, gaming is far, far ahead,” says Chechelashvili. “With movies and entertainment on TV, you see a more varied opinion of 3D. With games, everyone loves it, except for those die-hard skeptics, who aren’t talking about the way the games look. They’re just saying we’re never going to wear those stupid glasses in front of the TV.”

There’s one other possible explanation, though, for why 3D seems to be such a perfect match for gaming. It’s harder to quantify, and even harder to defend. Here it is: No matter how incredible the graphics are, and how immersive the gameplay is, games are silly. They are unapologetically gimmicky, and only nominally realistic. Ammunition counts and targeting reticles are stamped into your virtual mind’s eye, and peripheral vision is replaced by red semicircles and dinky little grenade icons pointing to incoming threats. You’re a half-blind, half-deaf ghost in every game world, able to hit 120 mph on a dirt road without feeling the engine screaming in your chest and the steering wheel bucking in your hands. Time, space, even physics are all approximations, and you learn how to interact with all three. So when the alien jungle you’re crashing through in 3D looks like one magnificently painted strip of cardboard stacked behind another, or the view from the driver’s seat ignores the windshield entirely, that’s okay. The sense of interactive depth when your pistol rounds streak downrange and thud into an alien creature, or the visceral panic that hits the moment before you drift into a wall—that’s what 3D is for. Think of it as a consolation prize—even if the biggest gamble in consumer electronics crashes and burns, 3D is still well positioned to become the new state of the art for video games.

And if you think gamers can’t bear to put on a bunch of dumb-looking glasses and embarrass themselves in front of each other, consider Dance Dance Revolution, Guitar Hero, Rock Band and every single game on the Nintendo Wii. Gaming is a safe haven for silly. 3D will fit in just fine.

and PRO markets…
]]> http://dscouser.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/cameron-wearing-xpand-glasses/feed/ 0 dscouser 59184376 59184506 59184479 http://dscouser.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/avatar-is-like-the-iphone-of-movies/ http://dscouser.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/avatar-is-like-the-iphone-of-movies/#comments Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:39:07 +0000 dscouser http://dscouser.wordpress.com/?p=59 ]]> Interesting article yesterday in Washington Post.  Michael compares Avatar with iPhone, I think very good comparison, the logi being that both are disruptive, iPhone changed the mobile industry, Avatar is rated to do the same with the movie industry…

Michael Arrington TechCrunch.com

Saturday, December 19, 2009; 9:47 AM

I’ve seen Avatar twice now, which is saying something when you’re talking about a nearly three hour movie that was released 36 hours ago. But we lined up on Thursday night for the first midnight showing. And then I saw it again yesterday at the TechCrunch screening in San Francisco. What do I think? I think I’m going to go see it again this weekend at an IMAX theater. Because the movie is awesome in 3D, but I want to see it in 3D on a 50 ft by 70 ft screen. Movies will never be the same after Avatar. Like the iPhone in the mobile world, this movie disrupts an entire industry. I didn’t know much about the movie until I read an article about it in Wired on a flight to Europe last week. A movie James Cameron has been working on since 1994, but he had to wait until technology caught up with his dream, and he invented a new kind of camera along the way. The amazing thing about Avatar isn’t the story ¿ it’s simply a passable tale that’s part Pocahontas, part Dances With Wolves. But it’s a story played by ten foot tall blue people with tails who fly around on miniature dragons and generally kick ass. And suddenly the special effects in every movie you’ve ever seen seem trite in comparison. Jurassic Park type special effects, which seemed so awesome in the 90s, are now laughably dated. There’s no point in the movie where you can really tell the difference between real imagery and CGI. You become completely lost in the world of Pandora, the setting for Avatar. And if you thought Zoe Saldana was amazing in Star Trek earlier this year, wait until you see Avatar. An entire generation of teenagers are now going to have a lifelong crush on a huge blue woman with a tail named Neytiri. The movie grossed just $27 million in its first day at the box office, which pales in comparison to Twilight Saga: New Moon ($72 million) and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($62 million). But don’t forget that Cameron’s Titanic made just $28.6 million on opening weekend. And that movie did ok in the end. Avatar, like Titanic, is one of those movies you’ll want to see over and over. But don’t wait for the DVD. This is a movie that has to be seen in 3D. And for that you have to go to the theater. Go see it, you’ll thank me later.

I believe 2010 is they year where 3D will start making it mainstream…

SONY 2009 Nov

See the article below:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6920853.ece

Movie trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp9BGs7vGsg

Just learned that Newsweek is having troubles with Russian bureaucrats. They would not let them publish series of billboards making fun of corruption in Russia. Sounds logical, these are the same bureaucrats who are being mocked… See photos…