Is 3D a passing fad, again?

3D has its merits, but its not a mass market technology. Its a niche technology. 3D can work as a cinematic tool if its used as part of the language: not only cheap trills with " jumping at you " scares or other gimnick shots, which get old and bore audiences, but as part of a new cinematic language. Cameron gave a glimpse of that in Avatar. Haven't seen Hugo but seems like the 3D works there. However, 3D needs true master filmmakers to embrace the technology without compromise- you want to make a great 3D film you neeed 3D mise-en-scene and 3D DOF (Deep), as well as 3D friendly frame rate (Like Jackson's "Hobbit") This will make the 3D experience very compelling, but will not work in the 2D space- Films will look like soap operas or news reports in regular 2D displays. Personally, I think 3D just doesn't have the "power" to end with traditional 2D storytelling. Its a different thing altogether, too much of a specialty to be embraced by the masses. I'm saying this even without considering the glasses part of the equation.
 
For those in the "glasses free 3D" camp... Without glasses you lose the pop out effect, and that would just plain suck. I wouldn't even want a glasses free 3D TV...

For animation, I prefer watching in 3D, its a great enhancement... We'll see what an experienced filmmaker like Peter Jackson can do with the Hobbit.
 
Madp said:
For animation, I prefer watching in 3D, its a great enhancement... We'll see what an experienced filmmaker like Peter Jackson can do with the Hobbit.
Click to expand...
You say that as though James Cameron is not experienced?
 
Hugo was generally acclaimed as having great 3D and a great story for both kids and adults. Yet watching it in 2D I was immersed in the story.

I think one important part of great story telling in a movie is to not do anything that interupts your ability to suspend your disbelief. Unfortunately 3D movies often have things in them that jar me and then I lose the story because I don't believe it any more.
 
Haven't seen the movie, but I saw an interesting article about how Scorsese had to change almost every shot. He would storyboard and shot block one way, but when he got the camera in and the 3D tweaked. I wouldn't look or work right. Very big, on set leaning curve, for sure for all that.
 
All I know is, regular movie tickets are too expensive as it is (at $18 for a single adult here in Australia) let alone paying several dollars more for a 3D premium.

Add that to the fact that I recently saw Tintin in 2D and it was one of the most satisfying cinema experiences I've had in years, the audience was gasping and cheering and even clapped as the credits rolled (whilst I heard very mixed reviews about the film from reviewers who saw it in 3D), and I tend to agree that it simply doesn't add enough to a film to justify it's pitfalls (except in the case of Avatar, where its use intrigued me enough to see the film twice theatrically, even though the story was utterly underwhelming).
 
Main issue with 3D is it never manages to go from "just" cool looking, to actually improve the storytelling. 8K 3D on LSD, whatever... the more you push it in obvious, "unnatural" ways (like the market pushing for 3D) the more people are gonna start watching black & white movies. The effort only justifies as a quick-fix entertainment -- I'm yet to see the memorable movies.
 
3D without glasses is already being used in advertising by some big companies. I know that Toshiba will be releasing a no-glasses 3D TV later this year. This is something to look forward, knowing that they will be using a 4K resolution on a 47-inch and 55-inch models.
 
Last edited:
why so much hate for 3D??? I love it when its used right. I was a HUGE IMAX buff back when that was something new. I saw all the short films that used to play in the NYC IMAX theater (I believe on 42nd?)

When a story is written FOR 3D, it works, when its Spiderman 6 and just put in 3D because they can, its a waste.

Avatar was beautiful in 3D, so was Polar Express, saw that in IMAX 3D. Also ToyStory. All of these movies were stunning and wouldn't have had the same effect without it. I think the reason people dont enjoy 3D as much as they could is because hollywood is converting movies just for the hell of it, some movies never even intended to be 3D, so the fast paced editing really hurts the eye when converted.

I was taught by Sony how to shoot 3D, and when to use it and how. These are VERY important to the enjoyment of the film. Do I think there's a lot of bad 3D out there... yeah kinda, but at the same time, theres just a lot of bad movies out there in general.

3D movies that were written and directed and cut AS a 3D story will always be amazing. Films that are converted as an after thought for extra ticket sales is whats causing the problem. Though I have to say I've yet to see a 3D movie I didn't really enjoy. IMAX 3D films were amazing and offered a real special feel back 10 + years ago. IMAX really had something special back then when they did these 45min short films in 3D. I loved them, and the IMAX film crew's were the best of the best.

I think 3D without glasses is stupid. It will never look as 3D as with glasses on. Plus thats kind of the whole fun of it. You put these magical glasses on and boom you're in another world. I remember the old IMAX glasses were HUGE and weighed a ton on your face, they had all kinds of electronics in them and they hurt your face if you wore glasses underneath. We've come a long way. I dont want to see the glasses go, because then you wont have that special feeling anymore.
 
Without massive push from many big companies (with Sony upfront) 3D would be already dead. To many companies spent to much money to give up- they will do everything to push it, but it's more forcing than real demand. HD was natural step after SD- current 3D technology is not natural step after HD at all- it's fake, works only with some content and makes many people tired of watching it+ with glasses it will never be at "every home", as it's simply impractical! How many pairs do you need at home- 3,5? What about when you have friends coming to you- do they need to bring their own :)
Avatar was good in 3D, but for me it wasn't anything special. Weak story which even 3D effect can't cover :) Most 3D showing off content are Disney's animations.
3D makes some sense, but only in cinemas or for enthusiasts.

I would prefer 4K resolution (even for HD content) in every TV over 42inch- it make image so smooth and organic. All big plasmas/LCD have to small resolution- pixels are to big and visible. In the same time people are amazed with quality of iPhone etc screens, because screens are tiny and resolution is already close to HD! This what makes it so nice to look at.

I'm waiting for 3D holographic projections- this is more like a next step.

http://www.musion.co.uk/

Now- tell all these people that they need to put glasses and enjoy only once wearing them- hehe :)
 
Last edited:
display3d said:
3D without glasses is already being used in advertising by some big companies. I know that Toshiba will be releasing a no-glasses 3D TV later this year. This is something to look forward, knowing that they will be using a 4K resolution on a 47-inch and 55-inch models.
Click to expand...

It's being talked about for more than 3 years already- all current solutions are simply crap.
 
FilmDude said:
why so much hate for 3D??? I love it when its used right. I was a HUGE IMAX buff back when that was something new. I saw all the short films that used to play in the NYC IMAX theater (I believe on 42nd?)
Click to expand...

For me 3D was an attempt to lure me into the story, but has always broken my ability to believe in the story when something didn't feel right. Sure I had some cheap thrills in IMAX when the sharks seemed to swim out in the audience but that's the same sort of cheap trick that caused it to be a fad in the early 60's.
 
kolak said:
Without massive push from many big companies (with Sony upfront) 3D would be already dead. To many companies spent to much money to give up- they will do everything to push it, but it's more forcing than real demand. ...works only with some content and makes many people tired of watching it+ with glasses it will never be at "every home", as it's simply impractical! How many pairs do you need at home- 3,5? What about when you have friends coming to you- do they need to bring their own :).Most 3D showing off content are Disney's animations.3D makes some sense, but only in cinemas or for enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

This is a load of crap... Companies can't force purchase of 3-D content! People are buying it because they want to see movies in 3D. So to hear you say it's "impractical" because, it works with only some content, and amount of glasses needed, etc. when people are buying the content just makes your statements false.

Did you try purchasing Panasonic 3D glasses during the holidays?!?! If you tried, you would have noticed that they were unavailable everywhere while selling upwards of $100 per pair. PER PAIR!!! That's called demand :)

Despite your thoughts about Avatar (best picture nomination), if that gets released tomorrow in 3d/bluray, its on amazons blu-ray top ten list. You're simply wrong when you say there's no "real demand".
 
Last edited:
Madp said:
This is a load of crap... Companies can't force purchase of 3-D content! People are buying it because they want to see movies in 3D. So to hear you say it's "impractical" because, it works with only some content, and amount of glasses needed, etc. when people are buying the content just makes your statements false.

Did you try purchasing Panasonic 3D glasses during the holidays?!?! If you tried, you would have noticed that they were unavailable everywhere while selling upwards of $100 per pair. PER PAIR!!! That's called demand :)

Despite your thoughts about Avatar (best picture nomination), if that gets released tomorrow in 3d/bluray, its on amazons blu-ray top ten list. You're simply wrong when you say there's no "real demand".
Click to expand...


Yes- it's all drive mainly by marketing- and as we can see it works :) At least half of people, who bought 3D TV/player done it because that's what all adverts tell them and also person in shop will say - this is the next thing. Many of them won't watch 3D for next few months, even if their equipment is 3D ready. France after trial removed 3D channel, as did not see big interest at all. BBC wanted to show a lot 3D from Olympics, but after analysis moved back- there will show only 100meters final in 3D and some summary programmes at the end of each day. Most TV companies sell 3D TVs under costs, add glasses for free- just to attract client and push 3D, as they already made big investment in it!

Avatar has nice visuals, but that's it- it's very poor movie! Best Picture nomination and.... lost to 2D REAL movie:) This is shows exactly that 3D is not for every content and has NOTHING to add to make EVERY movie itself MUCH better. It's just a visual experience, which also makes many tired of watching it- as it tricks your brain.
Up to now the only content where 3D does add something to whole experience are Disney's animations.

Your "real demand" is represented by fans of 3D, people who are easy to manipulate by adds- even so this is still TINY amount of population and 3D needs something new/special to go further.
AVATAR is not popular only because of 3D- it's more director and fact that it's 1st big 3D production and also massive advertisement. You can have worse movie ever, but do clever prmotion and you will have millions in cinemas just in first week- this is enough to get money back and make some. More important/sad- this is exactly what most new movies are about!
What are the other 3D movies, which people buy in millions and how many of them are there?
 
Last edited:
Madp said:
Despite your thoughts about Avatar (best picture nomination), if that gets released tomorrow in 3d/bluray, its on amazons blu-ray top ten list. You're simply wrong when you say there's no "real demand".
Click to expand...

Do you know how you get to top 10 chart on amazon? I can't/don't want say it loud, but you can guess :)

With whole respect- you know nothing about film/production/distribution industry- way how it works and what is it about :)
 
kolak said:
It's being talked about for more than 3 years already- all current solutions are simply crap.
Click to expand...

Sound was crap for decades before it got acceptable... but I do like having the option to add sound to my movies!

Ergo, why give up on auto-stereoscopic 3D now?

Take a look at what Paul Debevec is doing with his experiments into arrays of pico projectors. THAT is going to be insane. EG not just two views but a vast number, determined by where you're looking from. Like a hologram.

And for smaller numbers of viewers - yes, some sort of head tracking combined with a very high resolution display (2K for handheld, 8K or so for TV with lenticular or parallel barrier) might work decently.

No harm in trying. Why the scorn?

kolak said:
Your "real demand" is represented by fans of 3D, people who are easy to manipulate by adds
Click to expand...
Or people like me who've actually seen good 3D and think it's the future. I'm not that easily manipulated by 3D ads...
1. I work on movie trailers for a living so am a bit immune to the hype
2. I don't watch broadcast TV at all really

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
kolak said:
Do you know how you get to top 10 chart on amazon? I can't/don't want say it loud, but you can guess :)

With whole respect- you know nothing about film/production/distribution industry- way how it works and what is it about :)
Click to expand...
I make the statement that if Avatar came out tomorrow in 3D it would sell a **** ton of copies and your response is that the studio producing Avatar will will use an Amazon trick to make it appear as so.
WHAT A JOKE!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top