3D Is The New Stereo?
Avatar hype train gathering speed. Related stories (more)Ubisoft Want To Combine Natal & 3D
Sony Shows Off 3D Tech
TC’s Massive Poll: 3D
Article written by Watchful in PS3 News, Xbox 360 News, on Monday, November 30, 2009 at 10:15.
With James Cameron’s Avatar: The Game releasing at the end of this week, Ubisoft have understandably been out and about talking to anyone who will listen. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the game is something that very few of us will be able to experience.
Avatar is the first console title developed from the ground up to use the new 3D-capable displays which herald the beginning of the end for watching 3D TV while wearing cardboard-and-sweet-wrapper anaglyphic glasses. Though with many of us having recently bought HD TVs it may be a while before we can be convinced to upgrade again to 3D-capable ones.
Given that 3D is all about adding depth and, at least in theory, immersion to the pictures we watch it was curious to read about a Ubisoft representative comparing it a 2D analogue audio technology that dates from the 1970s. Speaking to the Financial Post the chief executive of Ubisoft’s Montreal subsidiary,Yannis Mallat, said
3D is to pictures what Dolby Stereo was to sound. No one wants to go back to mono.
Surely he has picked the wrong audio technology for comparison? Personally I found the step up to discreet channel surround, Dolby Digital 5.1 et al, to be a much more immersive advance with its creation of a 3D sound field. Once you have heard the gun battle outside the bank rage around you while watching Heat or heard zombies charging up behind you in Left 4 Dead you will not want to go back to stereo.
Comments
Please note that all comments are the opinion of the individual author and not TheSixthAxis.
DJ Judas | 30/11/2009 10:24
Epic
368 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
This re-ignition of the 3D burner is merely a stop-over for me. It’s still displayed on a 2D surface and on a pre determined path.
The day I can look in every which direction and still be immersed in the experience is the day I’ll agree to it having the title of 3D.
hazelam | 30/11/2009 19:27
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
have you been to see a movie in 3d?
sure it’s not true 3d in that you can lean over and look past something, but the feeling of depth it gives to an image can make a big difference.
until they invent true holograms the only way you’ll get the kind of immersion you’re looking for is some sort of head mounted display.
wedgehog | 01/12/2009 15:46
Friendly
560 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Exactly! Watch Avatar this christmas then you’ll see what we mean.
Goldrusher | 30/11/2009 10:36
Member
37 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2009
When it comes to enhancing the experience, stereo had a much bigger impact than surround.
color > stereo > widescreen > surround
cam the man | 30/11/2009 14:06
Member
1861 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
I don’t agree.
If you have a decent surround system it totally immerses you into the game. That never happend with stereo.
Raen | 30/11/2009 10:43
Team TSA: Writer
3449 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
I think what he’s saying is that once they move to 3D everyone will want to use it. For example whilst 5.1 is available not everyone uses it, but pretty much everyone uses stereo. Could you imagine a TV show/band going for mono unless it was for some weird ‘artistic integrity’. He’s not saying that stereo is immersive, just that no one wants to go back to mono from stereo and that the 3D tech is the same. Do I agree with him? No.
jtuck | 30/11/2009 15:10
Member
67 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
While it’s true that everything is stereo these days, that’s only because it’s been around so long and it’s really easy to implement. A speaker on either side of a device and you can produce stereo. For Surround you need to wire in separate speakers to sit behind your head and add a sub. It’s the logistics of the matter rather than stereo being so ground breaking.
When you’re watching Telly can you tell the difference between mono and stereo? A marginally different sound is produced either side of the TV rather than the same coming out of each. It’s negligible.
There’s a huge difference just between Dolby Pro Logic and Dolby Digital. Mono and Stereo… not so much.
Try out Dead Space in Dolby Digital with the lights out – (It won the Bafta for best sound) it’s a whole new game in surround sound!
This is my analogy … that I’ve just made up (so probably isn’t very accurate, but what the hell)
Mono is like a light aircraft with a single propeller on the nose.
Stereo is like a light aircraft with two propellers and engines (one on each wing).
Dolby Digital is like a 70s / 80s fighter jet like the F-14 Tomcat (see Top Gun)
Dolby HD is like an F22 Raptor or Eurofighter
Raen | 30/11/2009 21:57
Team TSA: Writer
3449 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Listen to a modern music track in stereo and mono. It’s a vastly different experience. Whilst you are right about why stereo is more prevalent, I don’t think it’s the point he was making still. It’s more the fact that everyone adopted stereo and didn’t look back. The same can’t be said about 5.1 really, at least not yet. A lot of stuff is still produced in stereo. Sure lots comes in 5.1, but it hasn’t been as significant a jump and I can happily switch between listening to 5.1 and listening to stereo. I can’t say the same about stereo to mono. It makes tracks sound flat and they loose a lot of depth.
Damigos | 30/11/2009 10:46
* Banned *
-828 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2009
I bought a 40” full HD sony Bravia 1,5 year ago, along with my PS3. I’m not changing it for at least 10 years. PS4 will play on that very TV too
bunimomike | 30/11/2009 12:04
Member
3366 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Our banned chum(p) has a point. I spent £1600 on my TV and I’ll be damned if it’s being replaced for a good few years. The early adopters can see how it goes as I’ll be biding my time for now. Also, I look twatty enough in normal glasses…
Equally, we’re still shifting the entire country over to 720p (let alone anything else) so this may well go the way of the LaserDisc for now.
Severn2j | 30/11/2009 11:26
Member
1267 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
While I understand the analogy, Im not sure I agree with it.. I am the kind of guy who likes the latest in TV’s, etc, so if anyone upgraded their 46″ HDTV for a 3D enabled one, it would be me, but I cant see myself doing it in this case.. Maybe the sweet wrappers just spoiled it for me, but I’m just not that impressed by it, and if I have to wear special glasses then Im out. I really dont think these people pushing 3D realise that the market may not be there.. Its not in my case, or for anyone I know.
BadBoyBoogie | 30/11/2009 11:47
Let There Be Rock
2516 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
For me, the move from a mono TV to stereo wasn’t particularly noticeable, but when I got a 5.1 system, I couldn’t believe the difference it made. I had to rewatch all my favourite DVDs to hear them in full surround sound!!!
hazelam | 30/11/2009 12:21
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
when 3d is as affordable as stereo sound, maybe then but 3d becoming standard is a quite a long way off right now.
i have played a pc game in 3d using the old redblue method, it was trackmania, and i does add something to the game, and the red blu glasses give you a monster headache.
so i would love to get a 3d tv to enjoy the game in 3d, but it’ll be a long time before i spend what the 3d tvs will cost.
cc_star | 30/11/2009 12:25
Team TSA: Writer
5868 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Unlike the move to flat panel, this will be a slower process, in fact it may be so slow that it won’t gain the necessary traction and might fail.
3D (of many different types) has been around for many years and has been seen as a novelty.
Even now in the latest biggest budget movies 3D is an ‘extra’ that many people don’t bother with. This is why James Cameron’s Avatar has a lot riding on it shoulders – Can it finally make 3D more than a either a novelty or something seen as superfluous and bring it into a much needed tech, if it does then it may help the adoption of 3DTVs for the home.
The industry can’t reply on games consoles and gamers to drive the adoption, because more than half of the 360’s in circulation are connected to CRT TV’s in teenagers bedrooms, and the PS3 probably doesn’t fare much better.
bunimomike | 30/11/2009 12:57
Member
3366 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
You’ve hit on a thing there. On the right column we have plenty of room for… Polls!!! Be good to see the results to questions like:
“Where is your main console? (eg. Bedroom, lounge, etc)
“What sort of TV do you have?”
“What sound do you have?” (2 CH, 5.1, etc).
Obviously one poll at a time but it would give us a very good picture of real world usage.
Just a thought.
cc_star | 30/11/2009 19:35
Team TSA: Writer
5868 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
If you’re keeping track:
In the lounge under the main TV
42″ 1080i Plasma (1080p was about 3 grand when I bought mine)
5.1 Sony surround sound system, to me 5.1 sound is as much part of the experience as a great HDTV.
carlosfilippsen | 30/11/2009 14:07
Member
1313 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
I’ve had my Samsung 42″ HD in my bedroom for about 2 years now and I think I would happily upgrade to a 3D TV if it means improving gaming
colmshan1990 | 30/11/2009 17:00
Member
945 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
I would love a 3D TV, but I got a fantastic deal on a HD TV in January (€299 for a 32″) and I just don’t see a 3
gazzagb | 30/11/2009 17:21
Master of speling mitakse
2388 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
I wont upgrade to a 3D TV for a while. Besides does 3D really make a difference?
skibadee | 30/11/2009 19:23
Member
1970 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
I was wondering if there is a point to playing this without the 3d TV?
hazelam | 30/11/2009 19:30
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
there will be a 2d mode and hopefully it might actually be a decent game.
hazelam | 30/11/2009 19:28
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
anybody remember when they said virtual reality was the next big thing.
as far as i’m aware there was only one commercial vr system ever made.
the virtual boy, and i think we know how well that did.
Imaruler | 30/11/2009 21:19
Member
202 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2009
I wont upgrade to a 3d one until its price is lower.
Matherz | 01/12/2009 12:48
Member
121 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
It proves a point really. It’s not that it’s a flawed piece of kit, it’s just that it’s too darn expensive for average joe.
The technology for 3d has been around for a while, just that cost and self concious people are always the reason it gets driven into the ground, lets hope this time round that it sticks. Only then will it evolve into the next big thing.