is 3D a gimmick or here to stay?

I would like to start by saying that what we call 3D is actually a technique called Stereoscopy. All this does is provide a higher illusion of depth by basically providing each eye with a different image. I don’t believe that this technique has ripened enough to be called 3D. Our vision already provides several ways to perceive depth such as position, perspective, size, etc. Filmmakers have already mastered these techniques and have done a wonderful job at it. There really isn’t any need for this stereoscopic technique to be added to film. When I think about what 3D images should look like, I think of holograms such as the one in Stars Wars or similar Sci-Fi movies. I definitely don’t think of the headache I got after watching Avatar, which has a horrible story by the way. Think Pocahontas here.

It is pretty obvious this better version of “3D” is thrown at us by manufacturers trying to sell the next big thing. There is a lot more money involved on it this time than when JAWS came out. We got more content this time around including sports, home made movies and photos, and several Pixar films and the like. Movie theaters are cashing in big time because tickets can be sold for higher prices as the consumer seems to believe it is worth it. Either that or they have 6 years old nagging to get into the 3D showing. However, I do not think 3D is all that bad. 3D actually requires you to have an HDTV and a Blu-ray player that are 3D capable. Several consumers do not see the difference between DVD vs Blu-ray or HD vs SD which blows my mind. But, 3D might provide that little nudge that make them jump into these newer technologies and abandon those old CRT sets.

3D sales seems to be improving at a steady gait but I still can not help but think that this is nothing but a gimmick that I hope eventually goes away.

Copyright 2010 Christian Rios

All trademarks and copyrights contained in this document are owned by their
respective trademark and copyright holders.