To 3D or Not to 3D

When I wrote my review of James Cameron’s Avatar, I hadn’t yet seen it in 3D. Since then, a chain of local theaters that already had installed DLP projectors for every screen apparently realized that, having made that big investment, 3D would just be icing on the cake. So they sprang to have one of the theaters project 3D, a process virtually synonymous with Avatar. When I saw the 2D version, it was projected from film in a theater with stadium seating. Where I sat, I could gaze at almost the exact center of the screen. The 3D showing was in an auditorium-type theater with a very large screen that took up almost the entire width of the hall. My seat was about 20 rows from the front.

My high opinion of Avatar was neither lowered nor elevated by seeing it in 3D. James Cameron integrates the technology into the film in ways that are not sensationalistic. Freed from having to constantly duck spears, arrows, or whatever else could leap off the screen, I could appreciate the sense of depth, and the solid, tangible feel of all of the creatures, human and otherwise. The few scenes in which images did project out from the screen -- such as the dandelion-like wisps, aspects of the spirit of the planet Pandora, which seemed to float in space between me and the screen -- I found actually distracting; they took my attention away from the story. In sum, I found 3D very good, but not essential to Avatar’s impact.

At present, 3D is just another option for viewing program content, be it feature film, documentary, concert, or video game. But producers of home video are trying to rapidly bring it into our living rooms as if it were the greatest improvement since color television -- something we must have. If it were truly holographic, and could re-create a three-dimensional image in the middle of my viewing room, I’d have to agree -- but we’re nowhere close to achieving that technology yet. While 3D TV will be freed from the atrocities requiring red and blue lenses that we’ve already experienced on DVD and Blu-ray, it will be the same as that currently in the theaters, and that still means special 3D glasses. Those glasses, I think, will be its ultimate downfall, as it has proven to be in theaters, making 3D a phoenix that every once in a while rises from its own ashes, but is not sustainable over the long term.

Although the 3D glasses currently used, with their sturdy plastic frames and large lenses, are a lot better than the cardboard-framed, small-lensed models handed out to audiences for the two-projector 3D showings of the 1950s, they still have drawbacks. They’re unattractive, which seems to bother some folks, although this makes little sense to me -- we all wear them, and we’re all in the dark looking at a screen, not at each other. More important is that the greater efforts by the eyes to focus that are required by 3D glasses can still give people headaches. In the 1950s, it was a given that if you attended a 3D showing, you’d end up with a pounding headache that would render you nearly helpless for a short while. I haven’t had anything like that with the new system, but friends have complained of minor headaches, eyestrain, and near motion sickness. Can you imagine the result of an entire evening’s worth of 3D at home.

Depending on the system used, the glasses for the new home-theater 3D technologies can cost from next to nothing to a projected hundred bucks. If you have a family, you’ll have to spring for glasses for everyone. It’s like the Sony PlayStation 3: One game controller is included, but if you want to play with a friend, he has to bring his own controller along, or you need to provide one.

I sense that home-theater 3D is something that producers are telling consumers they need rather than something they want and need. Many viewers have just finished buying their first high-definition monitors and Blu-ray players. Are they really ready to buy things all over again? No. And, oh yes, I forgot to tell you earlier that the roadblocks to 3D are not just the glasses. Unless you own a PS3, you’ll need a new Blu-ray player -- and worse, unless yours just happens to be one of the few models that are acceptable, you’ll have to purchase a new monitor as well.

And what are you going to watch? The second-rate animated feature Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs has been announced for 3D release, and presumably New Line will be doing all of its recent animation in 3D -- but there’s precious little else, though there are surely a fairly large number of IMAX films that were originally shown in 3D that might translate well. But, by and large, it looks as if the push for 3D from filmmakers is not nearly as great as from hardware manufacturers. And some recent medical articles have revealed that a large number of people can’t even perceive 3D.

This is one bandwagon I’m not going to jump on. High-definition has made great strides. Blu-ray Discs generally look great, with enough definition that most have very satisfying apparent depth even in 2D. HD broadcasts are improving, as is streaming HD video. Assuming that we all pigged out on holiday sales, we don’t need any new equipment to enjoy those developments, except perhaps a set-top box for streaming, and those don’t cost much. The 3D TV revolution is poorly timed.

Avatar is a good movie for many reasons, but 3D is not one of them. Even so, I don’t mind donning a pair of 3D glasses to watch the occasional special event such as this. But darned if I feel like putting them on to watch something at home -- I still think it’s the glasses that will do in 3D TV. I’ll wait for the holograms.

. . . Rad Bennett
radb@hometheatersound.com

• Go Back