On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alex Deucher <alexdeuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps, but what's to say the 4k uptake will be any better than 3DTV?
4K doesn't have a lot of the intrinsic problems that 3DTV has.
It's just higher-res TV. 3DTV brought a ton of baggage to the party;
you had to have glasses for everyone viewing, for a start.
The biggest problem with 3DTV, though, is that the whole idea is
fundamentally broken. Bring in 3D, and suddenly the image is no
longer obviously projected on a 2D plane in front of you, so your
perceptual system starts to behave as if you were looking at something
with actual depth. Inevitably, you subconsciously try to focus on
background things in the scene. You can't bring fake-3d gaussian blur
depth of field (or even real camera-based depth of field) into focus,
so eyestrain and headaches ensue.
The studios also have to reshoot or post-process old stuff to get
anything out of 3D, and unless they're willing to pay for really good
post production people the result looks like something out of a
Viewmaster or a budget 80s cartoon; cardboard cutouts with parallax.
A lot of studios apparently weren't prepared to spend the money on
proper post-processing, or else it's even harder than it sounds.
In contrast, 4K is just a clearer picture.
4K could tank; nothing is inevitable. But I don't smell the
stench of death hanging around 4K that haunted 3DTV even before it
launched.
Todd.
--
Todd Showalter, President,
Electron Jump Games, Inc.
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
