Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

James Cameron: Tablets will Push 3D Into Homes

By - Source: TechRadar | B 26 comments

Tablets and smartphones sporting glasses-free 3D technology will push the 3D industry into the every-day lives of consumers according to the "Avatar" director.

Film director James Cameron, who seemingly rebooted the 3D industry with the release of his film Avatar, says that glasses-free, portable 3D is the key to pushing the technology into homes and part of our daily lives.

"There is a lot of technology that has to be worked out before we have high quality, full resolution autostereoscopic screens that are big screens, in the 40, 50, 60-inch range," he told TechRadar during an interview at this year's International Broadcasting Convention (IBC). "Now smaller screens that are in the desktop, laptop, tablet size, where it is basically a single user model, you can do those right now. And you are going to see a lot more of those products coming to market over the next year and so."

Eventually consumers will begin to think of 3D as a technology that doesn't necessarily require glasses in every application -- just in certain circumstances. "I think ultimately the tablets and laptops, people can toggle between 2D and 3D, and it will just become part of their diet," he added.

Also key to mass adoption of 3D in homes worldwide is the introduction of passive glasses. "Instead of having to pay a premium at the cinema, the general public have to fork out on the glasses which are expensive," he said. "Passive glasses are here and the quality is improving all the time. The fact that they are throwaway means this technology could be critical."

To read the full interview, head here.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Streaming Video & TVs forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 13 Hide
    titan131 , September 14, 2011 2:41 AM
    Personally I don't see the appeal of 3D because after 10 minutes of watching a 3D movie I completely forget about the 3D and just enjoy the film. If anything, when I do notice the 3D it takes me out of the film.
Other Comments
  • 13 Hide
    titan131 , September 14, 2011 2:41 AM
    Personally I don't see the appeal of 3D because after 10 minutes of watching a 3D movie I completely forget about the 3D and just enjoy the film. If anything, when I do notice the 3D it takes me out of the film.
  • -4 Hide
    serkol , September 14, 2011 2:48 AM
    40 years ago people said the same about color TVs, and before that - about color cinima.
  • Display all 26 comments.
  • 9 Hide
    wiyosaya , September 14, 2011 2:50 AM
    Cameron's assessment is divergent from what is happening at movie theaters. Many movie goers are opting for 2D screenings of 3D films. To me, this indicates that people do not see the value in 3D, and would rather pay less for the same film in 2D since 3D adds little to the film. About the only thing that 3D does is drain money from movie goer pockets and infuse that money into the pockets of theaters and movie makers.

    I find it interesting that people like Cameron and other people who earn a lot of money are consulted like they are experts. Cameron makes good films, but in my opinion, he should stick to film making. His area of expertise is narrow just like that of most other people who have made a ton of money from pursuits that are very narrow. As such, those people are only experts at what they made money at, e.g., Cameron and film making, and not at the broader areas that the media "consults" them on.

    Personally, I thought the 3D for Avatar was purely bling and added nothing to the film. I am not saying it was not a great film; it was, however, a great story for which 3D does little.
  • 3 Hide
    trip1ex , September 14, 2011 3:23 AM
    Guy is drinking too much 3d kool-aid. It is failing in the marketplace. And the problem with the glasses-free stuff is the viewing angle.

    Other problems exist as well. For games on handhelds the problem is you need twice as power to render a 3d game as the same 2d one. And that means shtty battery life or lesser graphics than you could do otherwise or a more costly device for those that just want 2d.

    And the cost to film events and make true 3d movies is higher.

    It's a gimmick still. It will go dormant again soon.

    3d has to be perfect to gain acceptance because not being perfect means visual distortion and/or glasses.
  • 2 Hide
    legacy7955 , September 14, 2011 3:25 AM
    Yet again the marketing folks trying to "lead" the consumer, but the economy sucks and people don't have the extra cash to buy into this expensive gimmick, I don't think it is "just" the money issue though. I think many people realize the lack of actual value in 3D, I personally think 3D is a poor value.
  • 0 Hide
    titan131 , September 14, 2011 3:27 AM
    @serkol this isn't the first time 3D movies have come into fashion but they didn't catch on back then. Maybe it will be different this time but personally, I think 3D is much more of a gimmick than colour tv or cinema.
  • 1 Hide
    fyend , September 14, 2011 4:05 AM
    Until its rendered in true 3D by lasers or something similar so that what you're seeing adjusts as you move your head, etc. it'll always look like what it is ... single angle "3D" i.e. looks like 2D characters floating above a 2D background.
  • 1 Hide
    archange , September 14, 2011 7:08 AM
    wiyosaya
    ...

    About the only thing that 3D does is drain money from movie goer pockets and infuse that money into the pockets of theaters and movie makers.

    ...


    Umm... which IS exactly the point??!? - Correct me if I'm wrong.
  • 0 Hide
    Wish I Was Wealthy , September 14, 2011 10:31 AM
    That's all cool! Let's hope that it comes in sooner than later.
  • 0 Hide
    Wish I Was Wealthy , September 14, 2011 10:34 AM
    Legacy7955 is right though,but I still think that the sooner they get it up & running the more competition will eventually make this product more superior.
  • 0 Hide
    acadia11 , September 14, 2011 10:55 AM
    Until it's the holodeck, I won't give a ....
  • 0 Hide
    dib , September 14, 2011 11:31 AM
    Every time I see 3D video tv or moive theater, I just think "Shark Night 3D" a way to justify making a crappy movie. There are 3 important things to me in a good movie 1. Story, 2. Sound, 3. Video. Nothing will save a movie with a bad story and 3D is not important because if I can see the picture and its clear then I am happy.
  • 0 Hide
    AIstudio , September 14, 2011 11:37 AM
    ¬¬Personally I find this 3D concept painful. What I mean by that is headaches and eye strain. 3D isn't main stream enough, or been around long enough, to be able to determine its full impact and damage on the human eye and brain.
    At the end of the day the human eye was never meant to view things that way and this forced scenario WILL have implications if used for long periods and frequently enough.
    I think if this 3D fad is pushed we will see a LOT of people with eye problems in the future. There are already reports and studies being done on this, especially with the Nintendo 3DS!!!
    Things aren't always good just because it looks good and we can do it!!
    Just my thoughts on the whole 3D arena........
  • 0 Hide
    demonhorde665 , September 14, 2011 12:27 PM
    don't you just love it when people who arn't in the actual tech indsutry make broad sweeping assertions about a given technology.

    first off tablets already run the gammut of price ranges from 400 to 800 dollars , seriously who the hell will want to throw that kind of money down just to watch 3d tv ona screen that is smaller than my ----. who does this guy think he to make such a claim about what wil push a cheesy flaky a-- tech to the masses.

    ask me this guy is just high on smug , the best damn movie he ever wrote was over 30 eyars ago (alien , aliens). Titanic sucked , and Avatar really sucks in hind sight of watchign it three times. he just ripped out the story line of pocahontas and inserted funky tall blue aliens on top, threw it all in a blender and wham every one is acting like he is the second comming,

    so sick of hearing about this guy ,there are far beter directors out there and far beter writers as well. how this guy managed to make the two top grossing movies of all time is a f---ing mistry to me. ok well no it's not really , considering the attention span of the younger generations these days , throw a lot of neat effects on screen and you got an instant hit with most the sheeple. just sad.
  • 0 Hide
    demonhorde665 , September 14, 2011 12:31 PM
    wiyosayaCameron's assessment is divergent from what is happening at movie theaters. Many movie goers are opting for 2D screenings of 3D films. To me, this indicates that people do not see the value in 3D, and would rather pay less for the same film in 2D since 3D adds little to the film. About the only thing that 3D does is drain money from movie goer pockets and infuse that money into the pockets of theaters and movie makers.I find it interesting that people like Cameron and other people who earn a lot of money are consulted like they are experts. Cameron makes good films, but in my opinion, he should stick to film making. His area of expertise is narrow just like that of most other people who have made a ton of money from pursuits that are very narrow. As such, those people are only experts at what they made money at, e.g., Cameron and film making, and not at the broader areas that the media "consults" them on.Personally, I thought the 3D for Avatar was purely bling and added nothing to the film. I am not saying it was not a great film; it was, however, a great story for which 3D does little.



    totally agree with youa botu 3d tech , totally diagree with youa botu jame's movie making abilities and how good avatar was , 1 ajmes didn't write that story he jsut yanked off better and older version of the story (pocahontas). 2. msot every movie he has done since The Abyss has sucked and lacked utterly and completely in any creativity or originallity IMO. i though avatar was an Ok movie , but cerainly not desreving of all the money movie goers dumped on it
  • 0 Hide
    demonhorde665 , September 14, 2011 12:37 PM
    trip1exGuy is drinking too much 3d kool-aid. It is failing in the marketplace. And the problem with the glasses-free stuff is the viewing angle.Other problems exist as well. For games on handhelds the problem is you need twice as power to render a 3d game as the same 2d one. And that means shtty battery life or lesser graphics than you could do otherwise or a more costly device for those that just want 2d.And the cost to film events and make true 3d movies is higher. It's a gimmick still. It will go dormant again soon. 3d has to be perfect to gain acceptance because not being perfect means visual distortion and/or glasses.



    I agree this tech wil die out eventually , and wil actually be rendered useless in a matter of 20 years fiolks in labs right now are working on a holgraphic display system, maybe that wil pan out but maybe not , it wont be like star trek style holgrams or any thing do soem research on it , some of the ideas are intriquing but i doubt it will replace flat tv's any time soon given it's limitations. but it might actually piss of the cornflakes of ol 3d tech at least in teh rich circles. but no teh biggest killing factor to 3d is teh rediculous price hike companies put on any thing that says 3d , especially given that europe and US are both on the brink of another great depression if our goverment's don't play thier cards right to prevent it.
  • 0 Hide
    reactive , September 14, 2011 12:38 PM
    Agree with all the above - 3D is pointless this time, just as it was last time (remember Jaws 3D?). Who wants to sit wearing some silly and/or nausea inducing glasses to watch a film? Not me. Not in the cinema or at home. And who actually fills their home living space with the audio equivalent of 3D - 7.1 speaker systems? Not me. Decent stereo is perfectly good enough.

    The studios and cinemas would be far better off investing in projectors that focus the image properly on the big screen, and setting the volume to a sensible level for the film, rather than the usual pain-inducing levels. I've given up with cinema becasue the experience is so universally poor (and grossly overpriced). 3D just keeps me way for sure.
  • 0 Hide
    gorehound , September 14, 2011 1:07 PM
    3D is pointless is something I agree upon.Try making some decent films that are not remakes/reboots
    make some decent and intellligent films.
    leave the 3D for the HOLODECK.
  • 0 Hide
    dark_lord69 , September 14, 2011 1:56 PM
    if people keep buying them...
  • 0 Hide
    bv90andy , September 14, 2011 2:57 PM
    Am I the only one who thinks James Cameron has an obsession with 3D?
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter
  • add to twitter
  • add to facebook
  • ajouter un flux RSS