Six Things You Need to Know About 3D in 2018

Updated on January 9, 2018

When it comes to movies, there aren't many things that are more divisive than the use of 3D (Except for the Star Wars prequels). Those who love it love it. Those who hate it hate it. There's plenty of misinformation and assumptions to be found. But now, over 13 years after the current iteration of 3D made its comeback, how are things faring, how can you use it, and what is it all about? Here are six basic facts about 3D in 2018.

3D and VR are not always the same thing

With the recent VR (virtual reality) trend came some confusion. Most of today's VR devices require a smartphone to be put inside them, with half of the screen showing an image for your left eye and the other half for your right eye. However what is on those screens can differ.

360° content enables you to look all around you in any direction, but most content is flat, 2D. There are some apps, games and even one somewhat pricey consumer camera that enable recording in both 360 and 3D at the same time, but this is the exception.

VR devices can be used for traditional 3D content, but we'll get to that later.

3D is depth perception

One common summarization of 3D in the public consciousness is that it is defined as things coming at you or things leaping off the screen. This can be true, but it's a gross oversimplification.

3D is depth perception, nothing more. It is what you see every day, as long as you have two healthy, functioning eyes. Sometimes things are close up but more often than not they're far away, and stereo vision is always subconsciously used to enhance clarity and our perception of shape and distance.

As such, being both mundane and beautiful at the same time, it can't be arbitrarily asserted that 3D is only suited to certain genres like animated or action films. Actually, 3D's intricacies can be even better appreciated in slower sequences.

3D conversions aren't a bad thing

One myth that has been perpetuated and still has a foothold among some is that 3D is only worth watching if it's filmed in that way from the beginning, with a twin lens camera. However it's worth noting that no 3D movie conversion has ever been done automated, only manually by artists. (I know, because I dabble in this myself.)

One thing that may have contributed to conversion's bad rep was that in the early part of this decade when 3D movies were starting to get mainstream after the success of Avatar, a number of films that were never planned to be released in 3D had a last minute conversion. Due to limited time to complete them and lower budgets, they were usually on the subtle side. That doesn't mean they were bad. I've seen a couple of them and, while not nearly as powerful as other conversions, they were accurate and an improvement nonetheless.

Nowadays though, the whole thing is irrelevant. Not only are most 3D films planned on being converted from the very beginning, but the methods and quality have leaped to the extent that the conversions of today, which make up most 3D movies, look just as good or often better than one filmed that way, giving the filmmakers more creative control.

3D needs to be 3D

On that note about conversions, it's worth emphasizing that at this point in history there is no software in existence that is capable of converting media into 3D without human intervention.

If you want to watch 3D, you'll need a 3D movie on Blu-ray, a 3D video game with everything set up properly, a 3D stream from cable or internet or 3D content you record yourself with a 3D camera or camcorder. The automated 2D to 3D feature on your TV or that great cheap 2D to 3D software you see online is for a fact too good to be true.

Outside of Blu-ray 3D, stereoscopic video is usually delivered with the left and right eye views squeezed into a single HD video, with side by side being the most common and over and under coming next. One thing to beware of is that some YouTube videos have been converted to so-called 3D by simply putting the same video side by side for viewing on a VR device. Please note however that the resulting video will still be flat, as 3D images are slightly different than each other, from different perspectives.

3D tech is established, so don't wait for glasses-free

Anaglyph 3D, the kind where you wear red and blue glasses, has always been a compromise that degraded the picture quality and lessened the potential effect. However what many don't realize is that the two major quality 3D viewing methods used today have been in place since almost the very beginning.

Shutter glasses, which flicker the left and right views in sync with electronic eyewear, were first used almost a century ago and resurged for home consumer use in the 1980's with the invention of LCDs. They have been on the market ever since.

Polarized glasses, which are simpler and allow a brighter picture, were used back in the 3D craze of the 1950s all the way up to the present. Now however, they're the most popular format used in movie theaters worldwide and on 3DTVs.

If you're waiting for that elusive glasses free 3DTV that's always just around the corner, you may be in for a long wait. While such technology does exist on some cell phones and most notably the Nintendo 3DS, such screens are intended for one viewer at a time. Working with a bigger screen with multiple viewers and viewing angles that wouldn't overwhelm an average consumer is something that a whole other article could be written about. Suffice it to say, don't hold your breath. The technology used today is probably older than you are and provides the best picture quality for the best price. Maybe sometime down the road, just maybe.

3D isn't dead

One favorite headline seen every year since it's latest rebirth is that 3D is dead. While it's true that the concept of 3D television shows never got off the ground, 3D movies are bigger than ever and a standard release format for most tentpole films that filmmakers don't think twice about. Actually, 3D movies have been released on home video non-stop since the beginning of home video itself, starting with field sequential VHS, Laserdisc and DVD for use with shutter glasses. Since then it has remained a steady but niche market.

With every new 3D movie comes a new Blu-ray 3D, the notable exception being Disney who at times releases particular 3D movies on home video overseas exclusively where the market may be bigger. These can still be imported cheaply, however. If streaming or downloading is more your thing, Vudu offers many 3D features and shorts, some of which are available nowhere else.

Nowadays, if you want a 3D television, the feature is often only available on pricier high end 4K HDR TVs. If you missed out on the wave of cheaper 3DTVs a few years back, other options include the Edison 3D converter box or Nvidia's 3D Vision kit (which converts any HDTV or monitor, respectively, to one that can use shutter glasses). Or if you want to build a home theater, 3D is available on more projectors than it is televisions, and at a much cheaper price.

Going back to VR, any smartphone (preferably with at least (1080p resolution) can be used as a 3D personal cinema for videos in side by side format. Just view videos from YouTube or movies from your own collection (legally, of course) through a VR headset. PlayStation's new VR headset also allows direct playback of Blu-ray 3D discs.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Jonathan Sabin profile image
      Author

      Jonathan Sabin 10 days ago from USA

      jmisbell:

      Yes, I have seen LG's conversion demo on YouTube and it was the same as every other one out there. What you're describing is the holy Grail of all things 3D, and it would blow the industry open if available. Even today's twin lens 3D cameras can't calculate completely accurate depth maps from a 3D image. Maybe you are in the twilight zone lol . . . Or the future! (which would be awesome)

    • profile image

      jmisbell 10 days ago

      Well, its more than that because you can actually see the ball come at you when thrown toward the screen. AND I am not one to easily be conned. I am a natural septic. and have been in electronics/RADAR/ RadioAstronomy/ Seismology andTS military electronics all my life. Have you seen the LG 60" 3D picture in person. They may not still sell the one I have as I got it about 5 years ago. Maybe from the Twilight Zone.

    • Jonathan Sabin profile image
      Author

      Jonathan Sabin 11 days ago from USA

      jmisbell:

      In answer to your question, yes an automated 3D conversion will look blurry without glasses and clear with. However that doesn't mean it's really 3D. What they do is simply push the entire picture back into the screen and/or warp it a little.

      For instance: If I take a photograph and move it back a little, maybe even bend or curve it, it will have dimensionality to it, but there will still be no separation between elements, a person and the wall behind them.

      Another example: I can take a black and white image and make the whole thing look green. Yes, technically now it is 'color', but it's without regard for the content.

      Automated 3D features are similar. They don't typically degrade the picture. They may even add a little 'life' to it, and some enjoy that. But what I'm saying is that it doesn't hold a candle to manual 3D conversion.

      Thanks for your thoughts.

    • profile image

      jmisbell 11 days ago

      I have an LG 60" Plasma TV that was advertised as having 3D capability with shutter glasses. It was inexpensive and actually cheaper than the non-3D version. I bought it with NO expectation of 3D being usable since almost no 3D programing is available.

      But I was very surprised to find it worked on ALL programming. I am an Electronics Engineer with 43 years of programming experience in 13 languages and and I can't imagine how a software algorithm could be developed, and placed as firmware into my TV, to convert flat TV into 3D but they have done it somehow. I am not imagining it. When converted it gives a blurry picture without the glasses and a REAL 3D picture with them. Depth is fully realized. It is most noticeable at a distance of 8 feet or less and on live subjects like sports. But it also is effective on movies. At 12 feet and beyond the effect is lost. I think its magic because in my mind there is NO WAY it can be done without the information for TWO views being recorded in the initial recording. What am I missing here?