Love it or hate it, 3D has been
on a tear in 2009, and it enjoyed the biggest audience yet over the last two nights with
a quick Super Bowl ad and follow up hour long
3D episode of Chuck, both on NBC. However, given the mixed opinions, and the questionable tech used to bring 3D to homes that aren't really equipped to deal with it, we're not sure if the movement went forward or backwards last night. Our friends at Cinematical and TV Squad have chipped in opinions on the
Monsters vs. Aliens promo (embedded after the break) and special TV event, but what about you? As a glasses-only affair it required an audience a bit more prepared than usual than usual for TV, and there were plenty of chances for problems and misunderstanding. PR reps for theater 3D companies were quick to point out their stereoscopic technology provides much higher quality (
we agree) than you saw on NBC, and while that begs the question why bother at all, it seems like the chance to seed the potential of 3D -- even with a subpar anaglyph display -- was too big of an opportunity to ignore.
Read - I don't care what NBC is saying... 3D on TV still doesn't work
Read - Poll: Did You Like The 3D Superbowl Movie Commercials?
posted Feb 3rd 2009 at 9:44AM
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ack154 @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:03AM
3D for me is just stupid. I have one good eye and one bad eye. So even if I did have the glasses (I didn't, b/c I didn't know about it) it wouldn't have mattered. If they want me (and many other people I know with vision problems) to care, they're going to need to make it work without glasses - or at least with glasses that don't depend on two equally functioning eyes.
I was annoyed to have to watch Chuck in "3D" last night and just have to see something that looked like it was just a crappy quality, non-HD, episode.
Let more people really catch on to HD first. Then if they're happy with that, maybe try out some 3D stuff - but make sure the technology is there - don't just use crappy paper glasses.
Bill Curnow @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:22AM
I didn't watch the Superbowl, but I do normally watch Chuck. I didn't last night because I couldn't track down a pair of 3D glasses. Granted, I didn't try very hard... I'd check the Sobe section if I happened to be in a store that sold it.
So, why didn't I try harder? Well, I don't watch ads, regardless of how many Ds are involved, so I'm certainly not going to track down a press release, find out which retailers are participating in the 3D glasses promotion, then make a special trip to a store I don't ordinarily go to just to pick up a pair of glasses. As for Chuck versus the Third Dimension, or whatever last night's show is called, previous attempts at 3D have taught me that it's gimmicky and never adds anything substantial to the show. Ooh, neat, they threw something at the screen, or handed you something. Yawn. Besides, it's a promotion, and Sobe isn't going to pay money to ensure that the glasses are available everytime Chuck is re-aired. I'll catch a re-run this summer.
Galley @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:29AM
@BIll: I bet if there were more "Double-Ds" in commercials, you would watch them.
Miggity @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:40AM
It sucked. It didnt work well on either TV I tried it on. And both of them are supposedly "calibrated" correctly.
David Hildreth @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:51AM
I didn't have a pair of 3D glasses and didn't feel like googleing where to get em, so I just watched Chuck with out them. It really didn't bother me too much, it was still a great episode.
Bill Curnow @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:53AM
@Galley double-Ds in commercials? What's next, talking animals? Please, you're going to have to try harder than that.
Robert Ebert as a great take on 3D: "There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money's worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we're seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion."
squiggleslash @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:54AM
It was awful. Truly awful. And only part of what made it awful was the particular technology they were using.
1. Watching TV through any kind of glasses that restricts peripheral vision totally sucks. It means having to point your head at an uncomfortable angle rather an a natural one, letting your eyes do the movement.
2. And then there's the whole thing about uncomfortable glasses that MUST be worn in order to watch TV. If you're going to go there, perhaps it might be better to wait until a time where twin 1080 color LCD panels can be built into the glasses themselves?
Then there's the system they were using:
1. The NBC system ruined the colour. It was an experience like watching PAL or NTSC back in the 1970s.
2. The system they were using destroyed the brightness too. We had to put our poor little LCD TV on shop floor demo mode to get anything resembling a naturally lit picture.
Finally, there's the fact the whole thing was utterly pointless. For Chuck, there were few real 3D effects, and they were the usual gimmicks, and THEY DIDN'T EVEN WORK. The knife that "flew out of the screen" split into pink and blue versions almost as soon as it started flying. The subway sandwich was cut off by the bottom of the screen, destroying the illusion.
Did it help or hurt 3D? I hope it hurt it. I realize that everyone is pinning their hopes on "better" versions of 3D, but honestly, it's a great lesson in how little 3D gives you, and how inconvenient any 3D implementation is and how likely it is to go wrong.
Can we stop talking about 3D now? Please? Could we, perhaps, go back to making the sound work on plain old DVDs and seeing what we can do to cheaply improve the image quality?
Rick @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:55AM
It was horrible. My 7 year old took her glasses off because she thought it looked weird. All I saw were purple and green halos with barely any color. Nothing really in 3D. It was dark, flat, unsaturated and the halos were annoying.
Josh @ Feb 3rd 2009 11:07AM
My wife and I were like...."this sucks". 3D is lame, just broadcast uncompressed 1080p signals and bag the tricks. I completely agree with Rick, the halos or glowing edges is so distracting it nearly makes me sick.
Josh @ Feb 3rd 2009 11:04AM
My complaints are as follows. I have a dedicated home theater room with a properly calibrated Panasonic 700 of the 50" variety. During the Superbowl I watched the commercials, note it was still light outside, so I had the only window in the room open (fresh air is nice). I figured it would be a better viewing experience in total darkness, wrong.
I truly think 3D is just a gimmick to cover up the fact that Hollywood cant produce more than 2 good movies a year. Also, who wants to wear glasses while watching a movie or TV? Anyways, my personal experience is that the screen looks weird, the objects have a ghost affect and the color if off. I enjoy watching it for 2 minutes and a time, then I feel cross-eyed. What are your opinions?
Chad @ Feb 3rd 2009 11:04AM
I couldn't find the glasses so I didn't get to watch in 3D. On another note. I thought the laughing your butt off ad was funnier than anything I have seen on NBC Thursday night in a LONG time. Chuck is pretty good though
The Fuzz 53 @ Feb 3rd 2009 4:21PM
I take it you don't know who Michael Scott and Dwight K Schrute are then.
wreckedchevy @ Feb 3rd 2009 11:35AM
i thought it was really lame. the sobe comercial was okay but dreamworks ad and chiuck in 3d sucked
KraziJoe @ Feb 3rd 2009 11:56AM
Sorry, but Big Bang Theory, HIMYM and House were the things that needed to be seen first, even with the 3D gimmick.
Michael Sterling @ Feb 3rd 2009 12:05PM
Did anybody else almost get a headache from looking through those glasses for too long? THAT'S a wonderful TV experience, NBC! Sheesh.
bobjfs @ Feb 3rd 2009 12:50PM
I still have a headache from watching. My eyes are crossed. And the ice in my freezer isn't cold enough.
The best 3-D effects I ever saw where in Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder," and, God help me, "Captain Eo" at Disneyland.
"Dial M" was projected in an old Paramount studios screening room on an actual 3-D projector (dual lens projector).
The technical aspects of "Captain Eo" were amazing. Lasers shot from the back of the theater onto the screen and then, via film 3-D effects, continued into the screen "and beyond." It was outstanding.
NBC, it was a nice experiment. But it clearly failed. I saw a mostly dark, black-and-white image on my HDTV. I had to turn off the lights in my room to even stand a chance of seeing it well. Last year's experiment with "Medium" worked much, much better.
nihillasohen @ Feb 3rd 2009 1:23PM
It will hurt sales for the movie Alien vs. Monsters no question. They are dressing up old tech and saying its so much better, they aren't fooling anyone by changing the hue of the lenses. Unless its in digital 3D your just sending the wrong message.
Negativecool @ Feb 3rd 2009 2:10PM
The effect didn't work for me. I had some Red/Blue 3D glasses on. I didn't see any 3D effect whatsoever. All I saw was a fuzzy picture split up into red and blue parts.
I had high hopes that it would be cool, but It was a TOTAL bust for me.
foxb @ Feb 3rd 2009 2:34PM
It doesn't work with your old red/blue glass. You need new glass that's been handed out for free before the game.
Justin Maldonado @ Feb 3rd 2009 2:11PM
Well, the depth was really nice on my 42" samsung, and I never saw any ghosting except maybe for the knife. Still, the glasses screwed with my eyes and gave me a headache. Sad part is, I really don't think the RealD for My Bloody Valentine was all that much better. With polarized lenses the color doesn't get all screwed up, but it still doesn't look quite right and makes the screen darker. I've still yet to see the promising looking shutter glasses in person, but until then 3d is just a fun little gimmick.
DeadPlasmaCell @ Feb 3rd 2009 2:38PM
The Mosters vs Aliens trailer was ok at first, but then after 20 seconds it was like "meh." I think the Sobe one was the best out of all of them, which isn't saying much, but I think they pulled it off better.
Michael Sterling @ Feb 3rd 2009 2:41PM
The best 3-D I've ever seen was Chicken Little 3-D at the theater. Aside from the slightly dimmed image due to the glasses, it looked incredible even without the need for things to hurl through the air at the screen.
I was talking to my boss today about all of this and we both agree that R&D money might be better spent skipping 3-D altogether and jumping straight to developing holographic projection technology.
Loban @ Feb 3rd 2009 3:48PM
3D with polarized glasses is great, 3D with blue and red glasses is stupid. Don't even bother making shows "3D" until we have TVs capable of polarizing the image.
lucyfan62 @ Feb 3rd 2009 4:11PM
Not a fan of the red/blue glasses (the blue is too dark) and the quality of the ones I got at the store weren't that great. However, the CHUCK episode worked just fine for me. Lots of depth but not really much of anything coming out of the screen. Yes, the red/blue lenses throw off the color of the actual program a bit, but I still saw everything in pretty much the color it was supposed to be and I didn't get a headache. I do remember many years ago a 3RD ROCK episode in 3D that used some type of polarized glasses but I don't think that worked very well at all unfortunately. The best 3D on TV I've seen so far was the MEDIUM episode a couple of seasons ago. It wasn't the entire show, just the flashback/dream sequences and objects actually did come out of the TV screen to a good degree. The worst 3D on TV is the new JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH movie with Brendan Fraser. Even on Blu-ray, it sucked hard due to the dark magenta/dark green lenses that were required. Those gave me a headache!
The Fuzz 53 @ Feb 3rd 2009 4:13PM
Besides being an awful show, Chuck in 3-d sucked last night. I really hope this is an idea that dies a VERY quick death. Watching it with the glasses sucked and without them sucked. It was suckiest bunch of suck that ever sucked.
Mark M @ Feb 3rd 2009 5:23PM
I'd never watched "Chuck" before (its like the TV show in the movie "Idiocracy" called "Oww My Balls" but with even worse acting and lack of story). I'd already picked up the special blue/amber glasses, so I gave it a try on my calibrated 1080p set (my NBC local broadcasts OTA in 1080i). I'm a 3D fanatic, and thought that the results were pretty grim; when looking at just the blue side there was serious strange fringing around everything - not to mention the tremendous loss of brightness. People are missing the point that this system is designed so that it can be watched simultaneously without glasses in 2D without too much distortion; unfortunately it doesn't work very well. From The Source Of All Truth, Wikipedia:
ColorCode 3-D is a new, patented 3-D Stereo system. It presents the stereoscopic image as red & green (amber) for the left eye and blue for the right eye. These colors use aspects of normal visual perception to reduce the distortion apparent with red/cyan or red/green anaglyphic images. Because a human eye has a single lens the focal length for blue light in somewhat shorter than red and green light, which is known as chromatic aberration. We accommodate this by primarily using the red/green image to perceive detail. With the ColorCode 3-D system the left eye sees a detailed red/green image, while the right eye provides depth clues from the blue portion of the image. (Because the right eye sees almost no red/green light the blue image is in focus.) When viewed without anaglyphic glasses the blue image provides color without distorting the perceived image too much. The ColorCode 3-D system also modifies the basic stereoscopic image through sophisticated calculations to enhance image quality and depth perception.
Jeremy @ Feb 3rd 2009 5:56PM
I'm a big fan of stereoscopic photography and stereo-cinematography. The most important two elements for a favorable image is the photographer's ability and in the method used to present the final picture. It is often the latter that leads to the 3D falling flat, so to speak. Field sequential and polarization are by far the best method for rendering an effective 3D experience for a large audience. The red/cyan anaglyph (if anaglyph has to be used
) are best for providing bright true color 3D. The drawback is that for those with out glasses the color fringing is very distracting. The yellow and violet color fringing seems to be less distracting for those not wearing the glasses. I thought that the episode had good depth but the out of screen stunts failed due to the anaglyph technique used. Also the glasses distort the color and the violet filter is so dark, at times I wondered if some of the depth perception may be coming from the Pulfrich effect rather than true stereo vision.
hood gangstaz @ Feb 6th 2009 12:10PM
well isaw the commercials and chuck in them 3d glasses i think it could be better but for what its worth it was good in my oppinion it was cool for the moment but it could compete with the 4d i saw at my shedd in chicago last yr they showd spongebob of all things and that was fun cuz u saw the cartoon come to life like never before it felt we were part of the ocean seeing things swimming around....... we dont have long before it reaches the mass and i cant wait til it happens this or next yr
Cheesehead Dave @ Feb 3rd 2009 7:22PM
I tried to watch Chuck last night. I made it through about ten minutes before my right eye hurt too much to continue.
Gary in Florida @ Feb 3rd 2009 8:16PM
I didn't even make 10 minutes before the headache came over me. Ended up reading a book. Actually, the book was pretty good, maybe I'll give up TV..........I'll certainly give up on 3D.
Spiza @ Feb 3rd 2009 9:06PM
I finally watched the 3D episode of chuck tonight and I thought it was pretty good. I have a Panasonic 42pz77u that I calibrated using the DVE: HD basics blu-ray. I sat on my couch 10ft till the commercial break, and it was awful. I started to get a headache as well. I then moved to a stool less than 4 ft from the TV and the screen basically filled my field of view. It was much better. Now the colors were off on a lot of scenes, mostly notably to me were shades of red and white. To get the best effect and to alleviate headaches, focus on what the camera has in focus. I did not like it as well as my Bloody Valentine 3D because of the colors being off and it was still as dark as MBV3D.
Art @ Feb 3rd 2009 10:43PM
The 3D was completely unnecessary for Chuck, and the whole 3D thing really kills the HD experience. I don't care if things can "fly out", I just want to see nice crisp 1080i :).
/rant
Spiza @ Feb 3rd 2009 11:33PM
They didn't do a lot of flying out. There was one knife throw that I remember and that is it. It didn't take away from Yvonne Strahovski.ass in the dream scene.