There's a new 3D technology being rolled out into cinemas (presumably it will also come to high end home cinema projectors and maybe tv's in the future) that uses 6 lasers instead of the traditional lighting methods to produce an image that's just as bright as a 2D image.

Furthermore, flicker is eliminated as both eyes receive the same frame simultaneously rather than having the frames flicker from one eye to the other.

This is achieved by using a lens in each side of the glasses that filters out the laser wavelengths intended for the other eye.

Full details here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29212026

It's a hi-tech, high priced version of passive polarised 3D which skips the polarised bit. If it catches on it'll be a miracle.

I saw that on BBC Click. The industry dude said people don't go to the cinema anymore, and that 3D is a way of getting them back. Speaks volumes - same old cr*p, but with 3D gimmicks to pull the punters in. They don't want to make art - they want to make money.

What we need is good content, not rubbish with special effects. Two movies that have blown me away recently - Frank, and The Zero Theorem are examples of good content. Avatar and Gravity are examples of boredom spiced up with computerized 3D.

Mind you - there's people on this forum who claim to watch 2D in simulated 3D on their TV using a 20 quid box from fleaBay . . .

I think it's too late to save 3d now. And I agree with Mr Dos about avatar and gravity. How did they win so many oscars????

having been at IBC and seen "Life of PI " using the Christie 6P and Dolby ATMOS , it us a very different and comfortable viewing experience .....
It is brighter and has more dynamic range ... And with laser primaries a wider gamut ...
But what makes it was the ATMOS audio ...

This just shows how people's taste in movies differ - I rate Avatar as one of the best movies ever made.

I haven't seen it in 3D so can't comment on the effects.

I did see World War Z at the cinema and whilst I didn't rate the film, the 3D was all very good apart from 1 frame of a stupid animated butterfly that flew out of the screen. All very good, but it looked like a drawing. However, the rest of the film had no noticeable 3D effects but definately had more realism and depth than a 2D film.

Personally, I think 3D can be a great effect, but it has to be done properly.

Inteesting to hear Technologists feedback on this tech.

The problem with 3D is that it adds very little to the actual film. Which is why nothing really worthwhile was shot in it. Anything that was done in 3D was all about the effect and not the storyline or anything else. Hence mainly animation and poor action films.
I doubt an expensive new format can turn that around.

I would disagree there.

In World War Z, apart from the stupid butterfly, the 3D was unnoticeable in the whole film as 3D.

What it did do though, was add a lot more depth and realism to the film as it felt more like you were there than watching a flat image.

However, it's as we've both said, it's how it's implemented.

I think interest on domestic tv may wain in any event when 8K gets here if it has the expanded colour space, and that looks 3D and realistic without glasses or effects.

Then again, 8K 3D????? Who knows what that will look like!