Saturday, September 17, 2011

Theories on the re-death of 3D

3D. What a great-sounding feature. One that, is actually in competition of an expectation of something consumers already have.


With the extra dimension in these films no one asked for, I always wait for the "surprise". Something is supposed to pop out and threaten my bubble.

Instead, we end up with cardboard cutouts inside of the electronic diarama known as our expensive HDTV's. Even the supersized projected version in the theater does no justice to a psuedo 3rd dimension.

But hey. Technology is fashionable these days. So let's forget about the lack of proficiency of this zombie of a feature. Instead, shift focus to the consumer and what they care about: Bang for the buck, and quality of content.

I'm going to punch that first item squarely in the nose, powered by the force of a condensed black matter ball of expletives. I'll start with the lack of standards on the home-version of the tech. Passive? Active? Different for every manufacturer?

Look manufacturers and content providers. If you wanted to get consumers to fall for this 3D push in the first place, starting with $200 sets of head-inducing, ridculously sized "blinking" glasses isn't the way to go. Turning consumers off further by making those over-priced glasses incompatible with different brands digs the grave deeper for your chances.

Sure, lack-of-standards sometimes works. Look at Blu-ray; no hardware standards there. HD-DVD had standards and lost, unfortunately. If they were still around, EVERY HD-DVD player would probably be able to get an upgrade to 3D. Not with Bluray; most people need to buy another $100+ 3D player right when regular players became reasonably priced.

And we haven't even talked Televisions yet. Confuse consumers further by having 3D LCD/Plasmas priced on par with 2D LED televisions. The sad truth is, the naive (and common) assumption is that price is quality, and current technology. But for what the technical differences are, this is gouging (and trying to recoup R&D, but that would happen anyway). You don't have any more feet to shoot guys.

Most importantly is content. HD is bad enough, charging double or triple just for a higher resolution and more "features" we didn't ask for. 3D then doubles or triples the HD price, which can't possibly be warranted when you are trying to force a technology. $40-60 for a 3D film is hardly the ninja sneak attack to get 3D into homes. You aren't selling Apple hardware; consumers notice care about the price tag when it comes to films.

Am I disgruntled? Yes. I tried; I bought the 57" 3D magic and four sets of headache-inducing blinky-flashy glasses. And of the near dozen 3D films I have, the Shrek movies were the only movies to make a difference with 3D to my eyes. I'm hoping for some more mature content that doesn't suck. Please.

And if my pissy rant isn't enough, this Slate article is a bit more diverse, and contains valid points as well.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Easy Cool said...

very nice blog...

3:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home