One of the main problems with the concept of 3D is people don’t like wearing those annoying glasses. Sure, they have improved over the years. I remember seeing one of the early MAX 3D films with this big hunking plastic helmet (something larger than Darth Vader would ever wear) which cramped my neck. Real D and IMAX now offer low weight plastic glasses, but I’ve still heard complaints of eye strain (although I’ve never ever suffered such). I’ve always said the future of 3D is a glass-less solution. A few years ago at E3 I saw some early versions of televisions which offered 3D without glasses, and while the prototypes were early at best, I knew then this is where we’d be heading.
MarketSaw is reporting that billionaire maverick Mark Cuban and Ed Meyer of Digital3-D.com have been negotiating with a glass-less 3-D for Cuban’s Landmark Theater chain. The site claims there “may be an announcement soon.” I’m not sure the accuracy of this report (for now let’s classify this as rumor), as I’m still under the belief that we’re a few years off. But it will certainly be interesting to see what kind of technology is needed for such a solution. And how good will it look compared to the normal glass-wearing solution we’re all use to.
Would you see more 3D movies if you didn’t have to wear glasses?
January 12th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
yes. fullstop.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever considered going to see a 3D movie, one of the reasons being those dumb glasses. I didn’t even know a technology like this was in the works.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Those 3-d glasses work different for different people. They are designed for a person with 20/20 vision in BOTH eyes. Unfortunately for people like me who have a drastic difference in eyesight between the two eyes (I have an astigmatism in the left but not the right) 3D glasses don’t work all that great because you need both eyes to perceive the depth perception that the glasses force on your eyes. Those glasses end up making me focus 3D with one and a half eyes, which makes quite a strain.
Mind you, I got used to after maybe half an hour; it was the initial ‘force focusing’ that my eyes had to get used to. Also, I am aware that I should wear the glasses that I never wear.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Oh, therefore, I would see 3D movies more often if they were ‘glassless.’
January 13th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I would think you’d need a different multi-screen set-up or something in the air (like smoke) to pick up the projections. The Lincoln Museum in Springfield IL has a glasses-less 3D film. It’s pretty sweet. It’s all smoke and mirrors though (actually smoke and glass) interacting with real people.
Otherwise, we’re talking Start Trek holodeck type stuff.
January 13th, 2008 at 6:07 am
3D is the future…and that’s something I know a while ago…
January 14th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
3-D doesn’t make a movie better, no matter what people thought of Beowulf. And I hated the small glasses that I was given to see that. They didn’t fit properly over my regular glasses, creating an obnoxious glare that gave me headache. And 3-D won’t make me go to the Landmark here in L.A. again. I went for the first time recently and it was a miserable experience.