scarbrtj - not true at all, I have a 3d monitor at home, I won't mention the brand since that can be construed as spam, but anhoy it costs 599$. UT3 + stereo3d + 5.1sound = Da bomb!

yuriythebest

The cynic in me says studios want 3D because 3D is difficult to recreate at home... it's a tech that might get people back into theatres en masse.

scarbrtj

that came out too hatefull lol

yuriythebest

dingus - one day the earth shall be cleansed of people like you

yuriythebest

I have no stereoscopic depth perception. Screw you all.

dingus

awesome news! and shame on everyone who is to embarassed to wear glasses!

yuriythebest

@scarbrtj: I'm convinced that studios want 3D because people think that 3D will make shitty movies good, just like the 3D computer animation craze that resulted in a lot of 2D animators getting the boot.

Kaiser-Machead's WALL-E fetish

@jewsrock: Just have the doctors adjust your retinas so one sees blue and one sees red.

Kaiser-Machead's WALL-E fetish

@jewsrock: you do need glasses.

Adrian Covert

i dont get it. if you dont need glasses to see it than why cant i see it as 3d in that last pic of the tv?

jewsrock

Indeed you do need glasses to view polarized 3D content.

For home viewing, the easiest method at the moment is to use LCD Shutterglasses, which flip back an forth between the left and right images while covering the other eye. This happens so fast no flicker is perceivable. It works with all CRTs and some back-projection based tvs like DLP, however flat panels like Plasma are out because they're refresh rates can't be synchronized with the glasses properly. I have a shutterglasses setup at home, it cost me $75 and works perfectly.

For theatrical presentation, there are two major brands out there at the moment. RealD, which is the most popular, uses a combination of time-based and polarization based stereo technologies to product the 3D effect. Dolby also has its own system, which is anaglyph (color based, like the classic Red/Blue glasses) but instead of using brightly colored filters it uses colorless filters that seperate light into primary colors. Both technologies are digital and are about equal in quality (though Dolby's should have less light loss since they aren't using polarization). Both of these are proprietary however and wont be seen at home any time soon.

If one were so inclined, however, it's fairly easy to build your own 3D home theater. All you need is two projectors, some polarizing filters and glasses, and a special silvered screen (regular projection screens dont reflect polarized light properly). All of it can be run of a laptop, and the quality (depending on the projectors of course) is comparable to what you would see in a theater, only on a smaller scale.

Alternatively one could also use one projector and shutterglasses, though not all projectors are 3D capable. Many are though which makes this a simpler option.

There are also several 3D monitors out there, mostly aimed at the gaming market. Some use polarized glasses, like the one seen in the article. Also out there however are monitors featuring Autostereoscopic technology- meaning you don't need any glasses at all. So far though no one has been able to scale the technology up to a full theater, with all the different viewing angles being a bit problem.

The issue at the moment with 3D everywhere is content- there is a limited amount of 3D content being released to theaters, with many more in the pipeline for the next few years. There's basically nothing released on home video however- mostly some old 50s and 60s B movies and some IMAX 3D movies that have been released.

What you really want in a released is HQFS (High Quality Field Sequential) format, which folds the left and right video feeds into one interlaced video feed. This can then be digitally split and presented using whatever format you want. Dimension is the only studio that's actually released DVDs in that format- Spy Kids 3D and Shark Boy and Lava Girl. They also released the movies in Anaglyph format of course, with the Red Blue glasses.

Disney just released they're popular Hannah Montana Miley Cyrus Best of Both World's Concert film on DVD, including the 3D version, however it's anaglyph only. Using editing software it will probably be possible to seperate the Red/Blue anaglyph feed into two seperate feeds, but the quality will never be quite as good as if it was presented in interlaced format to begin with.

C33

Those cameras don't look like "Red"'s to me. Fail.

FrankenPC

If Hollywood would tell a story that was worth a damn, shadow puppets would be a sufficient medium. In the meantime, they're chasing after some magic tech that will make their latest worthless maga-budget remake watchable somehow.

AdmNaismith

whenever I watch 3d movies it constantly flips between being in 3d an being all blurry- I think my eyes focus and defocus too often involuntarily. I think that is why I have never seen a magic eye poster either, they are just a bunch of fractals to me.

entropyman

I don't really like it. There's no way watching a bunch movies like that can be good for your eyes. I think 3D movies are a gimmick and belong in theme parks and nowhere else. Besides, it's just another way for theaters to bump up the cost for ticket prices. ($10.50 to watch Beowulf in 3D?)

WolfDemon

holy crap ! they have an Ewok that works for them, he looks partially shaved but im pretty sure that is an ewok.......

jdizzle1337

@dingus: I feel you, I have mild amblyopia so while my depth perception isn't totally shot, it still isn't great, and it makes 3d films annoying to watch. I, for one, hope that this technology never makes it mainstream. Or if it does, maybe they will come out with a revolutionary procedure to fix lazy-eye.

omureadhaigh

@scarbrtj:

yup wrong, its easy. dlp or other displays just need a lcd shutter glasses and 3d content for 3d. its not that technically hard if you get all 3 pieces together. its just a matter of whether that niche market can support itself and have enough media releases to justify its existence. and no, its not hard on your eyes. the lcd shutter glasses totally isolate each frame for each eye making the experience even better.

Justifan

@C33: Very impressive and easy to understand presentation. Kudos.

churchmany

@FrankenPC:

For 3D you want to have a large depth of field, the larger Red sensor would be a detriment being you would need to stop it down to get desired DOF. In fact, for many applications a shallow DOF is undesired and the 3CCD approach is more beneficial. For indie film makers that want to recreate analog film type looks the Red is great, but its getting tiresome and silly hearing how the Red should be used for every application under the sun.

Scaramanga

create = creative

damn you gawker and your no edit.

rainsfather

i dont see this working for one main reason- to use a rig that massive directors would have to get create with certain shots and as we all have seen lately directors have lost most of their creativity.

rainsfather

Stereoscopic is not 3D. End of story.
And having to wear special glasses to watch movies is a ridiculous gimmick that surfaces every 10 years and then (thankfully) dies back down.

OleJ

This will be just the thing for the latest unoriginal retelling of a story that was already told right the first time.

strider_mt2k

Wow, Bill Gates has been predicting this for the last 25 years, what a genius. Oh wait, that was the mass acceptance of speech to text programs.
I predict the next star wars trilogy will be all 3D wonderful, thanks Mr. Lucas.

BiZarRroBALlmeR

@scarbrtj: bingo

dumanue

I was told (no substantiated article) that due to the wide variance of the distance between human eyes, 3D becomes painful after about an hour to some people.

FrankenPC

@Scaramanga:

Reading the articles on the new Red's they have enormous depths of field. Exactly the same as film cameras.

FrankenPC

@OleJ:

stereoscopic 3d simulates real-life 3d. It IS real 3d. the flat 3d graphics you see on your regular boring flat screen isn't real 3d. Stereo3d rulez!

yuriythebest

Hmmm, it's interesting. I've seen this kind of 3D cam. It's really big and bulky and requires about 3 people just to operate one of these cameras, and also can't be put onto a crane/jib. They used one of this kind of camera for the Hannah Montana Best of Both Worlds Concert DVD. But most of them were another type.

Yes, another type!

This type used the same principle as your eyes and had both of the lenses/cameras side by side. Just as your eyes sit side beside and create that depth of field & 3D effect that you lose whenever you close one of your eyes. That camera looked a lot more practical. It was also used with dollies and cranes and steady cams. (they had a pretty large work force just to put it all on). Tons of fun.

I was on that tour as part of the regular tour camera crew, so it was really cool to see those cameras in action.

Tezlan

Funny you guys should cover this at this moment. I just wrote a blog post on why I think 3D is going to be successful this time around. It's a factor of better content, reasonable economics, and better tools for film makers. Check out the post:
[blog.daryll.net]

Daryll

daryll

I feel like trying to film a close scene or an action shot with that set up is a bitch.

Dudemeister on the Run

@FrankenPC:

Er, no, a larger sensor will have a shallower DOF. Which is the entire point of the Red camera; it'll give you the 'bokeh' 35mm film-like effect unlike 3CCD sensors. The only way to get a larger DOF in the Red is by using a smaller aperture, but a smaller sensor has inherently larger DOF throughout the entire aperture range. The 3 sensor CCD approach is much more desirable for capturing scenes with large DOF compared to the large one sensor approach; which is why companies are still shelling out ten times more then Red for these cameras. Again, different applications.

Scaramanga

@rainsfather: That's an awfully broad statement. Most of the creativity has been sucked out of Hollywood movies by the money guys and the audience. The money guys cause they're afraid to try something new and creative. The audience because they won't pay to see something if they don't know exactly what they're getting by watching the trailer.

Many directors would love to do something new and creative and many are. In fact, most of the folks involved in filmmaking are artists and act like artists. Also, a director may not be wholly responsible for what you see on the screen, the director of photography and the editor have some input there.

As for 3D, I've never liked it. Maybe it's because I wear glasses, but the 3D effect is always just a little bit off. I can only imagine it's because the 3D glasses are not in the optimal focus point for my eyes because they're either in front of or behind my regular glasses.

rsquared

@rsquared: Your disbelief of 3d could be due to the distance between your eyes being different to the distance between the cameras used to film.

The illest wind

Damn hot gear to blur the regular video :D and named The 3D gear :P Ah I have to wait a 50 more years to see a latest Video Gear to make Live Hologram Videos here in Gizmodo :D

Ben Jacob

Ever since Captain Eo, 3-d Movies give me nightmares.

VideoVampire

I think 3D still has some time before it's going to catch on, but i think it's day is finally coming up. In 15 years we'll be wondering how we watched tv without it

wolfenstein-3d

Didn't MIT just create the 6D experience? Beyond that, which home viewing machine would be best suited for this experience?

HowardPaetus

finally, 3D porn...yeah (gross) yeah!

fitall

What about the people who don't have use of both of their eyes (like me)? Won't this in essence, ruin movies for anyone with eye problems?

D13M

I think this 3D technology is more promising than the kind with glasses [www.engadget.com]

astroman