When someone whose opinion I trust and respect told me, after reading my review of Nvidia's new 3D Vision Surround platform, "It sounds like you just don't like 3D," I was somewhat shocked. Had I indicated that somewhere in the piece and forgotten about it? Rereading the review, I still didn't think so—I thought I merely sounded less than thrilled with the hoops you have to jump through to get 3D, or how much you have to pay just to get the hoops in the first place. Is that really the same as hating 3D itself? Then it occurred to me: In the current climate, yes, it sort of is.
By no measurable standards, however, would I consider myself anti-3D with regards to the technology itself. Quite the opposite: With movies, TV shows, books, what have you, I'm big on immersion. The more you can directly involve me in the world of a story, the happier I am. That's one of the reasons I so respond to BioShock, for example—the details of the world of Rapture are so precise, down to the architecture and the incidental music, that you feel as though you've traveled back in time. That's what I want from any kind of entertainment.
For me, that's what you get from 3D at its best: complete involvement in the physical realm of the story. I can remember as a relatively young kid being amazed at how much different (and scarier) movies like Friday the 13th Part III or Jaws 3-D looked from behind those red-and-blue-lensed glasses compared to garden-variety thrillers. You may not actually believe that the shark is going to bite off your head, but for a split second it seems possible—and that's more than enough. Even now, when I'm presented an opportunity to put on some special glasses and see something loaded with pop-out-of-the-screen effects, I always go for it. Until hologram entertainment takes over, it's the best way to feel directly involved with the action.
The question for me with regards to 3D in the home is: What are you getting, and how much is it really worth? These issues, which may be negligible at a movie theater, take on a great deal more weight (and financial significance) if you're planning to trick out your PC or home entertainment system. Though 3D has been in sporadic use in movie theaters for about 60 years, it's still new enough at home to be a novelty at best and a gimmick at worst—and there are some major concerns that anyone considering 3D hardware will need to address.
Chief among them, of course, is cost. The 55-inch Sony Bravia KDL-55HX800 we recently reviewed lists for about $3,400; you can find a non-3D Sony model for about $1,300 less. In terms of 3D Vision Surround, you won't have to factor in the cost of your computer, but to push all the proper pixels you'll need two matching high-end Nvidia video cards (like the GTX 295, GTX 285, GTX 480, or GTX 470), and that will set you back some serious cash. That's to say nothing of the three 120-Hz monitors you need, each of which costs $370 on Newegg, and the $200 3D Vision kit itself (containing one pair of glasses and the IR emitter that lets the glasses and displays interact).
The issue of cost might be moot if you could be sure you'd witness something really spectacular with your hardware, but right now there's a lot more promise than delivery. I spent some time with John R. Delaney while he was testing the Bravia KDL-55HX800 in Ziff Davis Labs, and though the Blu-ray movies he was viewing (Monsters vs. Aliens and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) looked nice, there was nothing earth-shattering about them. The TV, the 3D Blu-ray player, the movies themselves, and the extra pairs of glasses totaled nearly $5,000 altogether—doesn't someone deserve more than merely an adequate experience for that kind of money?
I had the same basic reaction to 3D Vision Surround. With two graphics cards running in SLI and three monitors connected simultaneously, the games need to be groundbreaking. And, through no fault of Nvidia's, they aren't at the moment. The closest thing to a good implementation I saw was Metro 2033, which utilizes lots of shots characters interacting directly with the player and hundreds of subterranean mutants leaping directly at your face. But for most of the other titles, 3D was ornamentation, attractive but seemingly an afterthought. Isn't that bound to make the full package a tough sell?
Over at ExtremeTech's sister site, PCMag.com, John C. Dvorak spells it out very simply in his column today titled "3D, Who Needs It?":
In the late 1950s, when filmmakers were starting to get serious about 3D, a monster would come flying out into the audience, or a spear would poke at you constantly. The technology was taken to an extreme with the various 3D productions shown at Disneyland and Disney World, beginning with Captain EO. When you watched these films, you could tell they were shot from afar, so objects could hover a foot or two in front of your eyes, clear and sharp.
The frame rate and resolution were both high. Serious thought was put into these productions. I was expecting that sort of thing with Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, but got nothing close to it. I recommend going to any 3D movie shown at either of the Disney parks to see what can be done with this technology.
When Hollywood makes the same movie backward compatible with 2D, it takes the fun out of the equation. If it continues to do so, 3D will fade away as another expensive gimmick. I do have a solution, however. Edit two movies, instead of worrying about backward compatibility.
Exactly—the problem with 3D isn't 3D itself, it's everyone that doesn't have it. Unfortunately, because that's almost everyone at this point, 3D suffers just when it should thrive most. If companies like Nvidia and Sony want their 3D tech to go mainstream, there have to be more reasons for more people to want to use it. As long as what they're seeing is just glorified 2D video, a powerful justification is going to be hard to come by.
The impetus is on game manufacturers and movie studios to make 3D something people will want to view in their homes as well as at the multiplex. The technology may be making major inroads into the living room, but it still has a long way to go before it will find a permanent home there. We're getting closer all the time: There have been a few top-tier 3D movies over the last year or so—Disney and Pixar's Up and Toy Story 3, and obviously Avatar—but their 3D seldom felt as necessary or exciting as the quality of their animation and special effects. I'm a huge fan of subtlety, don't get me wrong. But right now, it isn't doing 3D any favors. The viewer who has to put on a pair of uncomfortable, unfashionable glasses that make the screen (and everything else) look darker is going to want something tangible in return.
If I hate anything about 3D, it's only that I haven't yet seen game companies or movie studios willing to take it as far as it can go and prove that it's something that should be in the home year-round. Maybe, like so many other technological advancements are at their earliest stages, home 3D is just ahead of its time right now, and will catch fire in a year or two when the content producers start taking it as seriously as hardware manufacturers already do. Hopefully, by then, there will be a lot more options of all kinds for me—and other 3D mavens everywhere—to love.
What's your opinion of 3D on the PC and in the living room? Is it worth the money now, do you think it will be in the near future, or is it destined to be little more than a gimmick? Let us know in the comments.