James Cameron says 3D being propelled by video games

@(Unverified)

^This

@Specks

LG 's glasses cost $25 (passive) ~$70 (active)
Vizio's glasses cost $40 (passive)
Samsung's glasses cost $50 (active)
NXG's glasses cost $55 (active)
Toshiba's cost $90 (active)
Everyone else's cost ~$130

Where are you getting $300 from?

Since when have they ever costed $300? Hooray for making up numbers on the internet

@(Unverified)

saying 3D glasses cost $300 TODAY is also like saying a PS3 the is cheapest Blu-Ray player as well. Its OLD over used and thrown around by people who don't want 3D no matter what.

You can buy a UNIVERSAL one (works with all TV's and even Real 3D movie theaters) for $150 or less online. All you have to say is that you hate 3D and you don't want it but if you're gonna spout costs then at least do some research first. Unless you still think all 3D TV cost $4,000.

on topic, Video Games + 3D will always be a match made in heaven. Who wouldn't love playing all games in 3D (Skyrim?) , the only step after that would be Hologram tech.

I welcome our 3D tech with open eyes.

@(Unverified) To nip this in the bud, the glasses will cost $300 or so if you have friends.

The rest of you, please carry on.

@PR0F3TA $150 is still to expensive.

@onan
And you're gonna buy 3D glasses to ALL your friends, just like you do with extra controllers and peripherals, right? RIGHT?

Just admit being a naysayer and stop being a jerk about it.

@SewerShark Home computers were expensive too when they were new. And those things never got cheaper or better. They should have thrown the concept of computers out the window back in the early 20th century. What a gimmick microchips are, right?

@Mr Hett
Why are passive glasses $40?

Just keep the $2 ones you got from the last time you saw a 3D movie at the theater instead of throwing them in the recycle bin.

@sigma8

Those LG glasses are currently $25, but they'll be dropping to $10 when the 2011 LG 3DTV's come out.

The price difference is mostly because of the brand name, but also because of the build quality. Those Real D glasses you get from the theater are designed to be "recycled" after the movie is over, but they work fine with Vizio's, LG'S, and Samsung's upcoming (2012/2013?) passive 3DTV's. Keeping the Real D glasses is a no brainer, but I wouldn't mind paying $10 for a pair that are durable.

@TheShaper

"And you're gonna buy 3D glasses to ALL your friends, just like you do with extra controllers and peripherals, right? RIGHT?"

Uh, yeah. How else are we going to get a full game of Rock Band going?

...Wait, are you telling me you have your guests bring their own game controllers and plastic guitars? ...and you'd tell people visiting to order 3D glasses before they came over? Wow. That's... kinda douchey, I'm not going to lie.

@onan

Most TVs come with a set and if it's passive tech, the glasses are as cheap as $5 on Amazon. I spend more on rawhides for my dog to rip apart (so he doesn't chew my 3D glasses, lol).

@onan How many times have you heard someone say "games can go out the window when the controllers cost $300"? Both controllers and 3d glasses cost around $50 so if people dont mind buying extra controllers then whats the issue with glasses? Unlike controllers glasses are optional as you can still play in 2d with your friends, your friends cant play shit without a controller.

@Mr Hett
Gotcha. Yeah, better build quality would be nice, but the good thing about theater ones is they generally work well when placed over glasses... And as many have mentioned, you can't really get by with just a pair or two of glasses. Movie glasses can at the very least serve as extras for guests.

I'm curious if there would be any downsides to polarizing prescription lenses in this fashion...well, other than, like, looking at LCD monitors.. which would look "off" in one eye. I guess that's a significant downside...but for stuff driving or just general existence stuff, I wonder if getting a different polarization in each eye would be harmful to the eyes due to focus and/or eyestrain issues..

Maybe they can make a pair of circular "john lennon style" glasses where you could rotate the lens to get the right polarization >_> Then just rotate it back when you're done.

@Mr Hett
Technology is escalating at impressive rates. I suppose it can be done within the next decade.

You can play it in 3d on the PC (all games can be made 3d vis the drivers). I have my PC hooked up to a 3dtv and its pretty good, I wouldnt say its any more "wow" than standard FPS games in 3d, the portals just look like regular doorways.

@spyder
I propose an experiment: we'll leave 3D technology and you left for dead in a desert to see who passes away first. Either way, YOU'll get rid of 3D. Deal?

Some people...

@spyder Since you're not using one of your eyes for anything, you should just have it plucked from your skull. I mean it's just a waste of resources and energy, right?

@spyder
Nope. It's too good.

@spyder

I've come to notice most people that really dislike 3D have issues with eye convergence ("lazy eye") and that's the main reason they get headaches. Another issue is they already wear really hefty-lensed spectacles making wearing more glasses just feel embarrassing or clumsy. Lastly, some people simply can't see in 3D (even in real life) due to various eye issues. So neither application is perfect for EVERYONE, so you will have naysayers no matter what aside from the people that aren't affected by those issues.

@Chibi Chaingun

Most people who dislike 3D do so because they have pre-existing chronic medical conditions? Nice ad hominem argument. /sarcasm.

There are plenty of valid opinions for people to dislike 3D. In terms of movies, 3D adds nothing save for visual gimmickery, adding little to the storytelling potential. Sure, it adds to the immersion, but this is only really effective in visually spectacular films like Avatar, which of course was an exceptionally expensive film to produce! However, the need to shoot digitally results in a far worse image than an IMAX film shot on 65mm. Personally I think it's worse even than 35mm. Tron Legacy, for example had moments that screamed "shot on video", in a very cheap, ugly, made-for-TV fashion. Not what I want to be reminded of in a mega-budget Hollywood movie.

3D is also used to salvage terrible films like The Last Airbender and Clash of the Titans, as the increased ticket price raises the profit margin. This allows such cinematic turds to achieve profitability and makes studios believe we actually want sequels!

As Christopher Nolan argues, you really couldn't describe a 2D film image as being "flat", as it is full of depth cues. Gaming is also full of these depth cues (and more, thanks to interactivity), so 3D really adds very little to the overall experience. Really, in terms of gameplay potential headtracking would arguably be a better alternative to actual 3D. Then again, that has the problem of only working from a specific perspective, even worse than the restrictive viewing angle of 3D screens!

TL;DR version: 3D allowed The Last Airbender to become the 16th highest-grossing film of 2010... we must end this monstrosity before it's too late!

@CynicalStrike

Wait, didn't Nolan shoot some scenes on 65mm? If I do recall, Inception had some scenes shot and that movie was released in IMAX.

@Chibi Chaingun I don't have a lazy eye, but I do wear glasses. Glasses over glasses is by far very very annoying.. the reason I hate 3D, and not sure if this affects much of the population is....

I see flicker, the image is 3D, but to me it's like watching a really low frame rate.. the motion is not smooth, and I can only assume it's the active shutter I see. Very uncomfortable and not enjoyable.

@spyder

That's unfortunate!

@CynicalStrike

See what spyder said.

@Trimalchio
Yeah, segments of The Dark Knight and Inception were shot using either IMAX, 65mm or VistaVision film stock. All of those film formats are much better quality than the digital video (which I consider inferior even to 35mm film) they use to shoot 3D, which was really my main point. Film is better than digital video, and large-format film like IMAX is better still.

Mainstream films shot on IMAX 3D would be incredible, but given the size/weight of the camera (around 250lbs) and the cost of the film stock it's not going to happen. Just look at it: http://www.libertylightinglimited.com/page3/files/Burke%20with%20Imax.jpg

@Roto13
I suppose not, since it isn't director's cut extended speech yet. It took him only 3h.

@Anticrawl

You need to rename your account to "Anticlimatic".

@CaptainProtonX

That's what she said!

...wait

@Prboi
This.

@Prboi
If you don't learn to cope with this "gimmick", such day will never come, but 3D-haters seem to fail in grasping this simple idea. Technology must evolve and mature, just like... everything else.

@TheShaper

Exactly but They're not making it wantable for me. I would love to get a 3DS but 1) there's no games worthy enough for me to purchase one, and I can only play it a couple of hours at a time due to the headaches people claim they get. I'm not going to be some test dummy just to help Nintendo make a better product later on. Maybe you'd settle for less than what you hope for but I don't.

@TheShaper

3D as it exists today does not interest me or warrant an investment. But I'll gladly let you spend your wallet dry for the next decade on a steady stream of sub-par products so that I can purchase a glasses-free, non-headache-inducing 65-inch 3D television for $300 in 2020, when there might actually be something designed for 3D that isn't completely half-assed.

All sarcasm aside, thanks for volunteering to do that. Quite decent of you.

@freaparn

There is hardly a premium for 3D displays anymore. Most of the extra cost will be in the content, but even that has already come down significantly or at least comes logical bundles like Tron: Legacy.

@Qehb
edit "So he wants to..."

@Qehb

Shouldn't it be the other way around, i. e. Microsoft makes Kinect so people use a motion controlled car? The small thing is supposed to enforce the big thing, if you want to make this a logical analogy.