Glasses-Free 3D

I don't want to play the grumpy old man and point out that not every movie *needs* to be in 3D. You'll find a lot of people on the internet squawking about that. The bottom line for me: I enjoy 3D but the technologies are still evolving while every studio and home theater manufacturer seems to be trying to quickly cash in on some perceived "new craze" for all things 3D. That sucks and buyer beware.

Let me just get this out of my system...

BRIEF HISTORY OF 3D
3D movies have been around for a long friggin time. From the 1950s into the early Double-Ohs, the classic "red & blue" ANAGLYPH METHOD was used (excerpt from HERE):

Anaglyph is a type of stereo 3D image created from two photographs taken approximately 2.5 inches apart, the center distance typically between human eyes. The Red color field of the left photo is combined with that of the right photo in such a way as to create the illusion of depth.

The cardboard glasses are cheap and the effect worked well enough for black & white movies but color film really muddies the picture. It's still used today, for home versions of 3D movies like "Polar Express" and "Coraline".

The SHUTTER METHOD is a higher end system wherein a mechanical shutter built into the glasses alternately blocks light in conjunction with the projected image. You get the 3D effect without muddying the color of the movie. This was used in some 3D IMAX movies, and found its way onto a home videogame console in the late 80s in the form of the SegaScope 3D Glasses for the Sega Master System. Great effect, expensive glasses.

The POLARIZATION METHOD is what you can find in most movie theaters these days. From the Wiki: "To present a stereoscopic motion picture, two images are projected superimposed onto the same screen through different polarizing filters. The viewer wears low-cost eyeglasses which also contain a pair of different polarizing filters." Great effect, cheap glasses.

A number of films have used POLARIZATION before the monster success of James Cameron's AVATAR. But Hollywood—being the group-think machine that it is—sees the success of AVATAR and the lesson it chooses to learn is, "A movie needs to be in 3D to pull in these big numbers... we should make every movie in 3D! Until audiences are literally puking!"

But again, judgment aside...

ANAGLYPH: Cheap 3D, works with current TV technologies. Muddy colors.
SHUTTER: Pricey glasses, slightly dimmed picture.
POLARIZATION: Cheap glasses, slightly dimmed picture.

You usually get a dimmed picture because theaters don't compensate for loss in light by burning brighter projector bulbs. The need for special glasses in general kind of sucks. But you go out to a movie theater, slip on those special shades and it feels like more of an "event". Like wearing protective goggles for some amazing new technology demonstration.

3D HOME THEATER
Wearing those 3D glasses at home, though? Lame. You don't want to be encumbered by that. You don't want to need the right number glasses in case you have a few friends over. I love my HDTV. It's a truly garish possession that I bought as a reward to myself after getting my big break into Hollywood. But even if I had the disposable cash, I'm not tempted by the idea of one of these new 3D HDTVs. Because of those damned glasses.

But there's hope for 3D Without Glasses...

Companies have been working on technologies that would enable a glasses-free 3D effect for years. This 2008 article talks about a Philips 3D HDTV that wouldn't require glasses.

Many of the technologies implement a screen with two layers, to replicate the job of the glasses. But there are a variety of different methods that have unique pros and cons.

This informative video clearly shows you how "head-tracking" technology can achieve the effect of 3D without glasses. It's impressive but the glaring shortfall (as shown in the video) is that the effect only works for one person:



The next iteration of the handheld Nintendo DS ("Gameboy", for the non-gamers) will probably use some sort of head-tracking implementation to achieve its glasses-free-3D:


I think it's all cool but there's just no "standard" yet.

A lot of people have compared this 3D film revolution to the shift from black & white to color film. I've resisted that idea—because not every movie benefits from being in 3D—but let's play out the comparison a bit.

Color feature films evolved over time. Technicolor went through different processes that would eventually inform the look of digital photography. Initially used for big spectacle event movies, filmmakers learned to use color effectively for smaller-scale movies. The language of film changed with color...

... as it needs to change with 3D. And that's potentially cool and exciting. I'm sure the theater-going experience in 20 years should be pretty epic.

But honestly, does a documentary about a text font need to be in 3D? Do we need all film cameras to sport two lenses for that sterescopic effect? It just seems unnecessarily cumbersome... and AMURRIKKA NEEDS TO WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!