BobY

They don't have to look bad. If a polarized system is used (for theaters--LCD shutter glasses will be used for the home), with enough light and a high enough frame rate, it should look fine.

I don't doubt that most films will end up being shot in 3D, as it won't really add much cost by then to shoot in 3D.

There will likely be many 3D theaters as well, as it's an opportunity to provide a unique experience in theaters that won't be available in the vast majority of homes.

But I still find it unlikely that consumers will bite. I have watched some of what was regarded as the best 3D around, including "Captain EO", "Space Station" in IMAX, and numerous high-end tourist attractions in the US and Canada and I still don't find it very compelling--it's not like real, immersive 3D, it's like a bunch of flat objects floating at different depths--kind of the effect I get with binoculars. Then you have the problem of what happens when something goes off the edge of the screen and the 3D effect collapses.

I have never seen a 3D presentation where say, someone pointing their arm or a spear directly out into the audience actually looked like their arm or the spear was a three-dimensional object coming at me. Instead it looked like a weird, flattened thing floating in the air in front of me.

Now, I wear eyeglasses, but so do a lot of Americans (around 120 Million in 2002 according to industry statistics), so if wearing glasses is the problem, it's going to be a widespread problem. IMHO, it's a limitation of the technique and eyeglasses just add an additional discomfort issue.

We're going to check out "Bolt" in Digital 3D, which is supposed to represent the state-of-the-art, so we'll see. I have to say, though, I can't think of many films I'd want to see in 3D--the discomfort of wearing glasses over my glasses and the (what I expect will be) unnatural quality of the depth presented will likely be distracting to me and ruin the enjoyment of the film.