Ethan, > If you think $700 for a computer video card is too much, think about adding > that incremental cost to every DVD player sold.
But that's missing the point. IF there emerges mass-market demand for Stereo 3D, then it's a safe bet the per-unit cost will end up being negligible since the unit volume will be tremendous (relative to today). Indeed, the Stereo 3D HTDV we recently purchased in order to add PyMOL 3D HDTV support didn't cost anymore than the non-stereo-3D capable DLP next to it. The input 3D signal is industry-standard 1080p with stereo on alternate pixels in a crosshatch pattern. Unfortunately, those displays have another unforeseen defect (~20-50 missing pixels on all edges) which renders then unsuitable for anything other than presentation use. The reason nVidia can charge $700-3,000 stereo 3D capable graphics cards is lack of competition, which is itself a consequence of the market being too small. Anyway, I just got back from seeing "Up" in 3D a few minutes ago, and both my wife and I had the same reaction: Stereo 3D cinema is an enhancement, but not a convincing must-have. 3D movie have come a long way from the anaglyph "Creature from the Black Lagoon" but once the movie gets going, you almost forget about the 3D effect. Shucks! Cheers, Warren -----Original Message----- From: Ethan Merritt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sat 7/11/2009 1:31 PM To: Warren DeLano Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Best 3D stereo combination On Saturday 11 July 2009, Warren DeLano wrote: > Along those lines, did anyone see "Up" in Stereo 3D? Does stereo 3D enhance > the experience enough for this to strike you as more than just a passing fad? > The future (cost) of stereo 3D molecular visualization may well lie in the > response of your kids to what has been happening lately in theaters. If it > takes off, then we're set for good! If not, then it's up to the "gamers"... Yes I saw "Up" in 3D, and yes I think 3D animated films will become the norm. Shooting a traditional film in 3D is hard enough to not be worth doing, and even a stop-motion animation like "Coraline" in 3D is tricky. But for a purely computer-generated film it's dead easy - you just render each frame twice. I'd bet that doubling the CPU time is trivially cheap compared to the rest of the production costs. But it's not clear to me that a 3D animation film can be delivered in a useful form for viewing at home on a typical DVD player. If you think $700 for a computer video card is too much, think about adding that incremental cost to every DVD player sold. Ethan
