A couple of months ago I was going to the cinema with some girl I knew who turned out to be a pain in the backside. I was quite excited at the time because I was going to see my first ever 3D film: Coraline. I wasn't particularly excited about the plot, more the concept of 3D in cinema and how it would work and of course getting into her pants.

Both I found really underwhelming. At some points in the film I felt genuinely disorientated, as if I was falling forwards in my seat and I suppose if I had gone for a few drinks before the film I would've felt nausea too. The best part of the experience for me is when a hand came out of the screen towards us and a child of around 9 or 10 years had to be removed from the cinema by his parents because he was bawling his eyes out in fear. The advertising for Coraline was slightly misleading as it wasn't really something you'd take your young kids to see.

If you've been paying attention to popular blogs such as Engadget and Kotaku in the past six months you'll be aware that 3D gaming, cinema and sports coverage are finding their way into the home via the new 120Hz HD sets that show double the number of frames and require specs. This means if you already have a HD set you'll have to upgrade to another if you are that interested in 3D. Playstation 3 owners will be able to use their existing console hardware to watch bluray movies in 3D with the right TV and they are seriously considering becoming "the leaders" in true 3D gaming also.

The subject of this discussion is how do you personally anticipate this?

Some friends of mine tell me they get motion sickness from playing existing games that are projected in 2D so I imagine that category of people will feel the same way about 3D sets. I find the feeling similar to that of the motion sickness you get sitting in the back of a car which has low suspension. If I look out the front window I feel fine but if I look out the sides there's a certain feeling of physical untruthfullness as if my body doesn't believe the world is really passing by and it doesn't like that it can't feel the wind passing by and I get nausea. Like when you have been on a roundabout in the playground and the fluids in the semicircular canal within your ear are still spinning - your vision spins too but you know that your body is still.

I think if they made perfect VR that interfaces with bodily senses through an understanding and connection to the central nervous system the 3D would seem ok. Until then my opinion is that the sensual incompleteness of it all is going to make it unpopular with a large number of people who experience the same thing I do when watching Coraline in 3D.

I've not seen any full films in 3D, just those cheesy ride-type ones where it's like a LOG FUME or something with moving seats and it only lasts like 15 minutes.  I never got motion sickness from them, but they're very short.  However, I hesitate to see a full film in 3D because plenty of 2D things have done that to me, just like you said.  The last one I can remember is the end of The Conformist, which has very shaky camerawork.  For the same reason, I would hesitate to play 3D games, especially since I'm sure it'll be a while before they perfect this.  All of this leads me to not be all that excited about 3D games.

i saw avatar in 3D and it was really cool but i felt really dumb the whole time wearing the glasses. 

Well my experience with 3D is that I once made a pseudo game in blitz 3D that rendered what each in game eye saw alternately because I had a red-cyan glasses lying around, I'm interested in this technology they've invented because I think it's the same thing I did

ps: how do they solve the eye focusing problem I've experienced?

Well my experience with 3D is that I once made a pseudo game in blitz 3D that rendered what each in game eye saw alternately because I had a red-cyan glasses lying around, I'm interested in this technology they've invented because I think it's the same thing I did

ps: how do they solve the eye focusing problem I've experienced?

With True 3D the glasses themselves are not tinted any color. I believe that they just filter a different part of the image out from each eye, allowing your mind to perceive a 3D image. I've heard that this eliminates the headache problems that some experienced with the traditional 3D glasses. (Yeah, sounds like exactly what you did).

If someone capitalizes on this technology and creates a videogame with it, it HAS to be a TRON game.

They render each eye alternatively but they use some kind of circular polarizing magic instead of different colors that's really cool

The cinema uses polarised glasses. NVidia use 120Hz screens with shutters that alternate on the glasses you wear. I get the feeling the shuttered one would feel better than the one that uses your brain's perception of colours in terms of reducing nausea.

Real-D make the polarised glasses at the cinema I have some on my shelf. ATARI's right you do look like flowerpower wearing them.

I can see how using the polarized lenses would help with the nausea, but that still doesn't cut down on nausea/motion sickness just caused by THINGS MOVING TOO FAST, so there's still an issue there.  I can't say for sure but I would imagine that if a game did that to you in 2D, it would be even worse in 3D.  I guess this is more of an issue with games in general than 3D technology though.

This sort of technology comes off as gimmicky to me. Things pop out of the screen, but that's about it. The images are still 2D, so this is not true 3D at all. If you're looking for a true 3D experience, you'll need to have volumetric displays which actually render in 3D space like this one:


These will not give the viewer motion sickness since the 3D isn't just a trick, it's actually 3D. For more information, there is always Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_display
When reading the article on Wikipedia, I also stumbled upon Virtual Retinal Displays which beam images directly into your eyes. This is said to create true 3D imagery as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display

the only 3d movie I saw that wasnt with red & blue glasses was an underwater movie at iMax. It made my head hurt from the weird way that they force your eyes to focus. All it seemed like was that the projected the movie with 2 layers slightly off center and the glasses focused them together, like that picture topic we had and the guy shot the same picture from two different eye-level perspectives and put them in a gif.

i cant see 3d.

This sort of technology comes off as gimmicky to me. Things pop out of the screen, but that's about it. The images are still 2D, so this is not true 3D at all. If you're looking for a true 3D experience, you'll need to have volumetric displays which actually render in 3D space like this one:

These will not give the viewer motion sickness since the 3D isn't just a trick, it's actually 3D. For more information, there is always Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_display
When reading the article on Wikipedia, I also stumbled upon Virtual Retinal Displays which beam images directly into your eyes. This is said to create true 3D imagery as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display

if you're looking for a true 3d experience go to a stage show, your point is stupid. we don't see in three dimensions we have two eyes presented with a 2d image and depth is implied, which is what these 3d things do

There are a number of reasons for why a true 3D display is preferable to a fake 3D visual effect. I'll list a few:
1. No need for silly glasses.
2. No motion sickness caused by the pop-out effect.
3. Ability to view a scene from multiple angles depending on physical viewing angle.

As for the whole stage show thing, wouldn't that also apply to this fake 3D shit? I don't see the point in either technologies, but at least a true 3D display is more than just WHOOOAOAOAOA IT POPS OUT! If a physical 3D display is too much, then the virtual retinal display does everything better than anaglyph/polarized/whatever glasses.

Those RealD polarized glasses work pretty slick. In fact - I demanded my money back when I accidentally went to a theater that was showing Avatar with the cyan and orange glasses (I had seen it previously in RealD so I knew what I was missing). The orange and cyan ones hurt my eyes and the 3D effect was much less convincing and I think it gives 3D movies a bad name in general.

I didn't feel any motion sickness... and you shouldn't... the movies in RealD show at 144 fps, or 77 fps for each eye - faster than most LCD monitors.

Also hobo2 you aren't even really making a point other than saying we should be striving towards better tech. It's not like true 3D displays exist for movies... or will even conceivably exist within the next decade.

There are a number of reasons for why a true 3D display is preferable to a fake 3D visual effect. I'll list a few:
1. No need for silly glasses.
2. No motion sickness caused by the pop-out effect.
3. Ability to view a scene from multiple angles depending on physical viewing angle.

As for the whole stage show thing, wouldn't that also apply to this fake 3D shit? I don't see the point in either technologies, but at least a true 3D display is more than just WHOOOAOAOAOA IT POPS OUT! If a physical 3D display is too much, then the virtual retinal display does everything better than anaglyph/polarized/whatever glasses.

Volumetric display would only be useful for

1. tomographies
2. designing engines

Those RealD polarized glasses work pretty slick. In fact - I demanded my money back when I accidentally went to a theater that was showing Avatar with the cyan and orange glasses (I had seen it previously in RealD so I knew what I was missing). The orange and cyan ones hurt my eyes and the 3D effect was much less convincing and I think it gives 3D movies a bad name in general.

I didn't feel any motion sickness... and you shouldn't... the movies in RealD show at 144 fps, or 77 fps for each eye - faster than most LCD monitors.

Also hobo2 you aren't even really making a point other than saying we should be striving towards better tech. It's not like true 3D displays exist for movies... or will even conceivably exist within the next decade.

I don't get motion sickness either, but apparently some do, so it's a problem that exists when using this technology. What I'm trying to say is that the current 3D technology is gimmicky at best and efforts should go towards developing a more worthwhile technology.

Volumetric display would only be useful for

1. tomographies
2. designing engines

3. gaming

Lmfao it's not useful for gaming if you can see through the images!!

maybe he means like table top gaming/yu gi oh