The paper of record continues their coverage of the coming of Ralph Kramden's dream, 3D TV, here.
It will come as no surprise that the article hits three main points: excessive hype from sellers, dumb glasses and does the experience merit the cost?
Going out on limb, the Times posits that the hype around the subject is overblown. Overblown hype and technology, when has that ever been the case in the past? Oh right, that's always the case (iPad). So that's not really news, is it?
And yes, you have to wear dumb glasses. Why is this such a sticking point for so many? I have to wear dumb glasses all the time. . . because I'm near-sighted. Stars (and wannabes) wear sunglasses all the time. . . in order to look cool.
The Times also states the novelty factor of 3D wears thin quickly and then sets up a classic 'straw man' argument here: "With the right content, it’s great, but it’s doubtful many will be excited by My Dinner With Andre in 3-D."
Sigh. Why are mainstream tech writers so biased against 3D?
Comments (1)
Great point about the apparatus!
I have had a hard time convincing clients that 3D is an advanced viewing technique, the magic that can happen, the super-power one can possess when looking at anaglyphs... for nearly 11 years.
Glad its taking a turn. Really enjoy reading this blog, I've found it today looking for 3D (stereoscopic) graffiti and look forward to your wisdom on this 'dead format'
Posted by Chu | July 8, 2010 10:00 AM
Posted on July 8, 2010 10:00