2 ms·
Wasn't Avatar 1 also available in 2D ? When 3D was NOT an amenity ? Anyway, yeah, arguably even color wasn't "transformational" (sound probably was ?) But the
by BlueTemplar 4y ago
Wasn't Avatar 1 also available in 2D ? When 3D was NOT an amenity ?
Anyway, yeah, arguably even color wasn't "transformational" (sound probably was ?)
But then 3D films and TVs are pretty much offtopic anyway - unlike VR/AR compared to 2D (or even 3D) monitors, they don't radically change the mode of interaction compared to 2D films and TV... (not to say that VR/AR will be successful)
- wpietri 4y ago3D films are relevant in that they are an example where something that was technically better was not transformational. And where there was a lot of hype but it turned out that people didn't really care. Which is important, because Meta is betting tens to hundreds of billions that facehugger VR will be transformational. If you go back to the Brewster stereoscope, I count 6 waves of people expecting that stereoscopic 3D would change the world. Each time, there was lots of investment and lots of hype. Each time, it turned out that people were fine mentally reconstructing 3D from 2D without stereoscopic assistance. My point here is that Meta's efforts could well be failed wave number 7.