3D Androids: The Way of the Future?!?!

[Rominucka]

I've got plenty of geek friends, from electronics, computers, to physics geeks and every time I bring something up or show them something that I can do with my phone the most common response I get is, "Who cares? As long as I don't have dropped calls."
Idiots I tells ya. Don't they understand that mobile devices for internet browsing is (as Howard Hughes would say it) the way of the future, way of the future, way of the future.....?

Now this forum is filled with my kind of geek, so I'd like to know what everybody is thinking about the upcoming 3D phones coming to the United States.
3D Smartphones: Gamechanger or Gimmick? | PCWorld

I'm personally all jazzed about it. I think the Nintendo 3DS is brilliant, especially for its ability to take 3D pictures which these new phones will be able to do. It's less annoying and less straining than 3D TVs for sure, and as long as they give you the option to switch to 2D (which I know the first Samsung 3D phone does) I can't see anything but up-sides to this.

I don't view it as a gimmick. That's like saying color as opposed to black & white is a gimmick. This is the next step in entertainment which will eventually lead to fully realized holograms, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

So....what do ya think of the 3D phones concept, do ya love it?
I do.

 

[RiverOfIce]

It is a gimmick. The bottom line with 3d. It gives about 30% of the population headaches and is pointless unless you have have a screen that is larger then 3/4 the distance from the screen. Which means if you hold a phone 12 inches from your eyes, you need a screen that is 9 inches or bigger. If you have a 60 inch tv, you need to stand with in 45 inches of the screen. 36 foot screen does not show up well unless you are with in 27 feet. If you have have a smaller screen, the 3d is more like a cheap halo gram. It seems to float, but not come off the screen.

 

[Basis]

It is a gimmick. The bottom line with 3d. It gives about 30% of the population headaches and is pointless unless you have have a screen that is larger then 3/4 the distance from the screen. Which means if you hold a phone 12 inches from your eyes, you need a screen that is 9 inches or bigger. If you have a 60 inch tv, you need to stand with in 45 inches of the screen. 36 foot screen does not show up well unless you are with in 27 feet. If you have have a smaller screen, the 3d is more like a cheap halo gram. It seems to float, but not come off the screen.

I don't think I could have said it any better than this even if I tried.

 

[A.Nonymous]

It is a gimmick. The bottom line with 3d. It gives about 30% of the population headaches and is pointless unless you have have a screen that is larger then 3/4 the distance from the screen. Which means if you hold a phone 12 inches from your eyes, you need a screen that is 9 inches or bigger. If you have a 60 inch tv, you need to stand with in 45 inches of the screen. 36 foot screen does not show up well unless you are with in 27 feet. If you have have a smaller screen, the 3d is more like a cheap halo gram. It seems to float, but not come off the screen.

This. I played with the 3DS in Best Buy a few weeks ago. Gave me a major headache. I will never ever buy a 3D device. I know a lot of people who are the same way. It's a complete and total gimmick.

 

[sonofaresiii]

I've never understood the "As long as I don't get dropped calls" thing. I've never in my life had a *problem* with dropped calls. Go Verizon?

And as for 3D-- I hate it. I hate it with a PASSION. I haven't met anyone who doesn't. But it's STILL. HERE. It's taking over, in my movies, my TV, my videogames and my phones and I don't know why.

But buying a phone that is 3D only is a dealbreaker for me. So let's hope it doesn't get too popular, or I'll be on my Droid X until the day I die.

(or the day it dies, whichever comes first)

 

[Rominucka]

It is a gimmick. The bottom line with 3d. It gives about 30% of the population headaches and is pointless unless you have have a screen that is larger then 3/4 the distance from the screen. Which means if you hold a phone 12 inches from your eyes, you need a screen that is 9 inches or bigger. If you have a 60 inch tv, you need to stand with in 45 inches of the screen. 36 foot screen does not show up well unless you are with in 27 feet. If you have have a smaller screen, the 3d is more like a cheap halo gram. It seems to float, but not come off the screen.

Actually, to me it seems to go in as opposed to out. And I totally agree that the screen has to be huge in order for the effect to...be effective. A friend has a 60 inch 3D TV and everything on the edges and corners always felt pinched.
But I don't think it should be banished. Yes, it is certainly technically flawed. Once they start getting around the whole distance between the cameras vs the varying distances between people's eyes, the headaches will go away. And I'm also sure they can figure a way to have it where the distance from the screen (at least with handhelds) isn't a problem.

I predict that some kind of facial recognition/distance sensor will be implemented to instantly adjust the 3D so you don't have to be stuck in one position for optimal viewing.

 

[dan330]

i not sure if it is a gimmic or not... but I will pose this....

about 7 yrs ago.. phones started to get cameras on them. they sucked!!! by any standards, they were useless. I would consider them gimmics.. things just for fun.

as time moved on.. and tech got better.. cameras on phones got better and better.

only 3 yrs ago.. did they get good enough for any good quality capture of moments for keep sakes.

will 3D get better?
will in be a must?

time will tell. but my guess it will be a must have.. someday

 

[RiverOfIce]

Yes, it is certainly technically flawed. Once they start getting around the whole distance between the cameras vs the varying distances between people's eyes, the headaches will go away. And I'm also sure they can figure a way to have it where the distance from the screen (at least with handhelds) isn't a problem.

The headaches are caused by the frequency change they use to make the 3d work. You really can not stop that from happening. 3d is not going away, it is here to say, but a lot of gimmicks does not go away.

 

[mikedt]

I think 3D in smart phones may have a place for gaming(as it does on the 3DS) and maybe some photography, nothing more. Street View in 3D could be interesting, if that's possible. As long as the 3D capabilities does NOT impair the 2D resolution or viewing angle of the screen. Something like sending an email/txt or going through my contacts in 3D would have absolutely no benefits whatsoever.

3D in the cinema does have a place, I do like that, just as long as it's used properly and effectively, e.g. Avatar. But NOT for gimmicks as has happened so often with 3D movies in the past. 3D TVs in their current form with bulky expensive shutter glasses are a complete joke though.

I'm sure the camera is NOT going to be any good for 3D though with the Evo 3D. It looks like the lenses are only a couple of centimetres apart. Surely with the size of the phone, they could have placed a lens at each end, and so have spacing similar to human eyes. I see a serious 3D design flaw here, or is it done to simulate how a cat sees the world in 3D?

 

[Gmash]

I have less than zero interest in having 3D on a phone. Yes, of course it will get better, but who cares? The whole idea is pointless. The Evo 3D is going to be an awesome phone, but the giant camera makes it butt ugly.

 

[turiya]

It's just another reason to make phones expensive, and a useless one at that (for me, at least). Another problem I have with 3D is the availability of content, especially on a small screen. I am not even impressed with 3D movies and games, I am not sure what will impress me if used in phones.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I've got plenty of geek friends, from electronics, computers, to physics geeks and every time I bring something up or show them something that I can do with my phone the most common response I get is, "Who cares? As long as I don't have dropped calls."
Idiots I tells ya. Don't they understand that mobile devices for internet browsing is (as Howard Hughes would say it) the way of the future, way of the future, way of the future.....?

Now this forum is filled with my kind of geek, so I'd like to know what everybody is thinking about the upcoming 3D phones coming to the United States.
3D Smartphones: Gamechanger or Gimmick? | PCWorld

I'm personally all jazzed about it. I think the Nintendo 3DS is brilliant, especially for its ability to take 3D pictures which these new phones will be able to do. It's less annoying and less straining than 3D TVs for sure, and as long as they give you the option to switch to 2D (which I know the first Samsung 3D phone does) I can't see anything but up-sides to this.

I don't view it as a gimmick. That's like saying color as opposed to black & white is a gimmick. This is the next step in entertainment which will eventually lead to fully realized holograms, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

So....what do ya think of the 3D phones concept, do ya love it?
I do.

I like anything 3D. In fact, I am prepping images this week on behalf of a client for lenticular printing. I am wondering why the general public is suddenly so fascinated with it. It is as though it is some amazing new idea, but it is as old as the hills, actually.

Here is the interesting thing: some time ago, 3D hard-copy (not lenticular or anaglyph) from a conventional printer was made available. And it quickly fell out of favor with stereo photographers for many reasons, like quality and cost; some say lack of materials (not an issue). This technology came and went before smart phones arrived.

I have been taking 3D images since 1973, with dedicated stereo cameras as well as single cameras on slide-bars and dual camera rigs. My fear is the public will decide it is no longer interesting or worth it, and the novelty will wear off. If history is any guide, the public will loose interest in 3D.

Bob Bob Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

It is a gimmick. The bottom line with 3d. It gives about 30% of the population headaches and is pointless unless you have have a screen that is larger then 3/4 the distance from the screen. Which means if you hold a phone 12 inches from your eyes, you need a screen that is 9 inches or bigger. If you have a 60 inch tv, you need to stand with in 45 inches of the screen. 36 foot screen does not show up well unless you are with in 27 feet. If you have have a smaller screen, the 3d is more like a cheap halo gram. It seems to float, but not come off the screen.

The reason some people suffer has to do with many factors unrelated to the fact that the scene is shot in 3D. Sometimes the 3D is crappy and poorly composed. Sometimes it is due to the projectionist and improperly aligned polarizers, sometimes it has to do with the glasses, and sometimes people only think stereo gives then headaches and 3D gets a bad reputation.

Phones are different. Most people using them will not shoot with a stereo eye. That is to say, they will not compose their images specifically for 3D. I wont bother you with discussions of inter-occular distances and the Stereo Window. I will simply say that great stereo images take effort and they simply cannot be approached the way most photographers approach a non-stereo scene.

When properly presented, 3D is a By God thing of beauty. My fear is crappy stereo "cameras" and bad stereo photographers will help kill the stereo wave until it is rediscovered next decade.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

I think 3D in smart phones may have a place for gaming(as it does on the 3DS) and maybe some photography, nothing more. Street View in 3D could be interesting, if that's possible. As long as the 3D capabilities does NOT impair the 2D resolution or viewing angle of the screen. Something like sending an email/txt or going through my contacts in 3D would have absolutely no benefits whatsoever.

3D in the cinema does have a place, I do like that, just as long as it's used properly and effectively, e.g. Avatar. But NOT for gimmicks as has happened so often with 3D movies in the past. 3D TVs in their current form with bulky expensive shutter glasses are a complete joke though.

I'm sure the camera is NOT going to be any good for 3D though with the Evo 3D. It looks like the lenses are only a couple of centimetres apart. Surely with the size of the phone, they could have placed a lens at each end, and so have spacing similar to human eyes. I see a serious 3D design flaw here, or is it done to simulate how a cat sees the world in 3D?

Generally speaking, lenses should be separated by roughly 2.5 inches. But, it depends on what you are shooting. I note that 3D is available only in 2 MP. One important component of stereo images is their sharpness and color fidelity. In the film world, the best films for 3D were the Kodachrome because they are (were . . . RIP Kodachrome, ye shall be missed) extremely sharp and grain free. If you used films like Ektachrome, grain and less sharpness became a huge problem for fine quality stereo images.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

And as for 3D-- I hate it. I hate it with a PASSION. I haven't met anyone who doesn't. But it's STILL. HERE. It's taking over, in my movies, my TV, my videogames and my phones and I don't know why.

But buying a phone that is 3D only is a dealbreaker for me. So let's hope it doesn't get too popular, or I'll be on my Droid X until the day I die.

(or the day it dies, whichever comes first)

I can point you to more than a thousand 3D enthusiasts that will vehemently disagree with you; not to mention more than 30 companies that deal with 3D products.

My name is Bob, and I am a stereo photographer . . .glad to meet you.

If you think about it, 2d images are not natural because most of us see in 3D. I will agree, however . . . 3D is not for everyone. It is and will likely always remain a specialty, even among professional photographers.

I am glad to see manufacturers making stereo cameras. But this is nothing new. Search for 3D/stereo digital cameras and you will discover several. So the EVO is not new, just interesting to see that it is more mainstream. My guess, however, is manufacturers are running out of features to distinguish themselves in the marketplace so why not a 3D camera phone.

Here is the problem with 3D and the mainstream. The process is blamed for problems that are not stereo's fault. The fault generally belongs to projectionists, amateur stereo photographers, bad 3D camera setups, silly technology, and lazy people that avoid the simple requirements for great 3D images.

3D photography is well understood by most stereo photographers but sadly, the basics are quite often avoided by rank amateurs. It is not new; 3D has been around for more than a hundred years.

I could project 3D for you and you would be flabbergasted and amazed and you would definitely want more. Unfortunately, not everyone who dabbles in stereo uses the proper techniques or equipment so their efforts often suck.

Some people love lenticular which is good, but it sucks when compared to polarized projection. Or they swear Anaglyphs rule when they really do not when compared to other projection systems.

I am glad to see 3D in the public eye. Perhaps I'll repost my old 3D book on some web site and ride the wave of fortune and profit.

 

[sonofaresiii]

I can point you to more than a thousand 3D enthusiasts that will vehemently disagree with you; not to mention more than 30 companies that deal with 3D products.

My name is Bob, and I am a stereo photographer . . .glad to meet you.

If you think about it, 2d images are not natural because most of us see in 3D. I will agree, however . . . 3D is not for everyone. It is and will likely always remain a specialty, even among professional photographers.

I am glad to see manufacturers making stereo cameras. But this is nothing new. Search for 3D/stereo digital cameras and you will discover several. So the EVO is not new, just interesting to see that it is more mainstream. My guess, however, is manufacturers are running out of features to distinguish themselves in the marketplace so why not a 3D camera phone.

Here is the problem with 3D and the mainstream. The process is blamed for problems that are not stereo's fault. The fault generally belongs to projectionists, amateur stereo photographers, bad 3D camera setups, silly technology, and lazy people that avoid the simple requirements for great 3D images.

3D photography is well understood by most stereo photographers but sadly, the basics are quite often avoided by rank amateurs. It is not new; 3D has been around for more than a hundred years.

I could project 3D for you and you would be flabbergasted and amazed and you would definitely want more. Unfortunately, not everyone who dabbles in stereo uses the proper techniques or equipment so their efforts often suck.

Some people love lenticular which is good, but it sucks when compared to polarized projection. Or they swear Anaglyphs rule when they really do not when compared to other projection systems.

I am glad to see 3D in the public eye. Perhaps I'll repost my old 3D book on some web site and ride the wave of fortune and profit.

I'm not saying there aren't people out there who like 3D-- I'm sure there are, SOMEONE'S spending money on it. I just haven't met a single person who liked it-- I haven't even met anyone that's okay with it.

I'm sure there are ways for 3D to be done properly, I'm sure there's ways it can be done poorly, but in my own opinion even at its best it's just a novelty, not something I'd use practically.


Of course, that's just me.

edit: although, in the spirit of fairness, I'd gladly watch your presentation and hope you change my mind

 

[takeshi]

So....what do ya think of the 3D phones concept, do ya love it?

Gimmick.

 

[Guamguy]

Someday down the line, don't be surprised if you got phones coming out with names like Google Nexus 3D, Samsung Galaxy S 3D, Motorola Droid 3/d, and HTC Desire 3D.

 

[Rominucka]

I like anything 3D. In fact, I am prepping images this week on behalf of a client for lenticular printing. I am wondering why the general public is suddenly so fascinated with it.

Even though the colorless 3D glasses have been around since the 50s, people were only aware of the awful red & blue experience.
Now that they've gotten things right in a mass-marketed way it's worth watching.

So....what do ya think of the 3D phones concept, do ya love it?

Gimmick.

I'll take that as a "yes"

 

[Bob Maxey]

Even though the colorless 3D glasses have been around since the 50s, people were only aware of the awful red & blue experience.

I am not sure what you mean by colorless 3D glasses.

 

[Mickle]

I see it as technological evolution, i honestly can't say i like it myself but if no one uses it then these proper holographic phones might never happen, because really you got to compare technology to war because if millions didn't die in the big wars we could be 50 years behind in medical advances, so yeah it's a gimmick but i am gonna convince people to buy it.

 

[Pochi_X]

No 3D... please!

 

[sdrawkcab25]

In some ways it's a gimmick that many movie studios and other publishing studios are just using as an excuse to charge more money for their products. For example, movies that add 3d after the movie is filmed instead of filming with actual 3d cameras.

On the other hand, current 3d may just be a stepping stone to future technology that will one day become part of our daily lives. Almost every major technology that exists today was at one point just considered a novelty or gimmick by someone. Nowadays technology is pushed out to the masses quicker and more people have a chance to weigh their opinion before the technology reaches fruition.

However, in the end, the gimmicky side of 3d, may leave a bad taste in every one's mouth and doom the technology from advancing until "they" try again in 20 years.

 

[Rominucka]

I am not sure what you mean by colorless 3D glasses.

Not the old red and blue. Even though some types of 3D glasses have some red and blue tint, it's mostly unnoticeable. 3D movies from the 80s and 90s are mostly unwatchable in 3D.

 

[AustinTech]

Gimmick - on TV, games, and phones. Avatar was cool in 3D. That's about it.

On a phone? LOL, come on man, you know that's got to be a gimmick...