'Honey, Have You Seen My Glasses?'

  • by August 18, 2010

Every day I read an article about a content producer or electronics company developing 3D content, as my own company just did. With all of the recent hype surrounding 3D, a number of questions have arisen about the need to wear glasses while viewing 3D programming. Where will people get these glasses? How many will be needed in the marketplace to meet demand? What type of technology works for which type of glasses? Well, here are some answers...

Different companies are vying for different 3D technology types. Sony is producing content using the Shutter format. Shutter requires a unique pair of glasses that are far more costly than the regular blue and red ones that are fairly common now. From a business perspective, it's a great opportunity for Sony to include 1 pair of glasses with a new 3D-supported TV and sell extra glasses for an added cost to the consumer. It's a model similar to the video game industry's approach to distributing remote controls.

But will the Shutter format win out? What if I buy a Sony TV, yet other electronics manufacturers produce in a different 3D format? How many different pairs of glasses will I need? And I'm not buying just one -- I'd be purchasing pairs for everyone in the household.

There has also recently been discussion surrounding whether or not 3D will be around in a few years at all. Movie producers like Bill Condon have recently said that Hollywood is putting the brakes on 3D production everywhere, including his current project: the next "Twilight" movie. It seems that Hollywood is starting to believe on the whole that 3D is just a passing fad.

For now, one thing is certain: the buzz is all about 3D. Whether viewed on a computer, TV, or in the theater, it's a unique experience to watch content in 3D. But distribution issues and user acceptance are hurdles, and only time will tell how this all plays out.

Personally, I can't wait for the upcoming films like "Piranha 3D" and "Jackass 3D" coming out in the fall!

3 comments about "'Honey, Have You Seen My Glasses?'".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Thomas Siebert from BENEVOLENT PROPAGANDA, August 18, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.

    Hollywood would be smart to eschew the surcharge for 3D movies, especially for the films that had the 3D process added later. I'm sure 'Iron Man' and 'Inception' cost a whole lot more to make than 'Step Up 3D' and 'Cats & Dogs 2,' but the (small amount of) theatergoers paid more to see the latter two pictures.

    I saw "Toy Story 3" in 3D and loved it, but I don't think I would've loved it less if I saw it regularly.

    If Hollywood thinks making a crappy movie into a crappy 3D movie will save them, they're wrong. There was a short window in the Spring and early summer when it was novel and people wanted the experience, but already moviegoers are jaded about it.

  2. John Maher, August 18, 2010 at 2:08 p.m.

    OK, I really hate 3D, because it is discriminatory and it’s against the law. That law being the “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Yes, friends, 3D discriminates against people like me who are uni-ocularly challenged, i.e. single-sighted, blind in one eye, one eyed, one blinky missing. If you can only see with one eye, YOU CAN’T WATCH 3D CONTENT! Not movies, not TV shows, not the new ESPN channel. Those stupid glasses only work for two-eyed people! They don’t work if you fold them over and try to watch through both lenses. Believe me, I’ve tried. THIS IS UNFAIR! If 3D doesn’t go away, I’m going to write my Congressman…Charlie Rangel.

  3. Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, August 18, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.

    3D was all over the CES last January. Besides shutter glasses, I found out there are at least 2 other kinds and they do not work with each other. HD or Blu-ray anyone? For now, the average person is pocket book strapped so .......

Next story loading loading..