New 3d consumer cam from panasonic leaked

I understand how expense can be a problem, too, but that doesn't represent the majority of the market. What I can't understand is how a person can spend $100 for a four person movie trip. Unless prices are hugely different elsewhere. Or they need to buy every snack available.
 
Ironically, 3D movies pull me out of a movie and remind me that I'm sitting in a theater. This is exactly what I don't want. I like to get sucked in by a film and after a while the screen disappears. 3D is fun for amusement park rides and the such. But personally I hope the fad dies again really really soon. I preferred Avatar in 2D myself.
 
"The only reason companies will keep using 3D is:"

The reason for 3D was/is to force cinemas to get the new Sony 4K digital projectors.


As for Avatar, I saw it in 3D, then on Bluray in 2D, I watched like 10 min of it in 2D, it looks much more unrealistic, the CG is like a game, so if youre not 'there' in 3D its not as good, all the shots have been composed fro a perspective more suitable for 3D as well.

Not only that, Avatar is a boring movie, I only watched the entire thing the first time in cinema since the 3D itself was a new experience.
 
Athiril said:
Stereoscopy has been around since the 19th century (1800s)
Click to expand...

That's my point. Why would 3D succeed now? The audience does not perceive it as something that would improve the cinematic experience. It's not a natural progression of the medium. It's not sound and it's not color. It has always been a gimmick. We had tons of 3D releases in 1953. It didn't change the way we see film.

3D is nowhere near realistic, but assume we develop a technology that allows smell to be reproduced in cinemas. That would be realistic right? The audience wouldn't want that and those who will invest in it will fail. Or, would you like the be suffocated when the firefighter enters the building on screen? That would also be realistic, right?
 
Otis Grapsas said:
3D is nowhere near realistic, but assume we develop a technology that allows smell to be reproduced in cinemas. That would be realistic right? The audience wouldn't want that and those who will invest in it will fail.
Click to expand...
Not sure how old you are, Otis, but maybe you missed SmellOVision the first time it came around. Or Sensurround. Or AromaRama. Or John Waters' Odorama (scratch 'n' sniff cards included with Polyester).

Theaters have always tried gimmicks to get people to see their films. You know the biggest, most successful gimmick in cinema history? WIDESCREEN. And by widescreen, I don't mean 2.39:1, I mean 1.85:1. Prior to the introduction of television, movies were all 4:3. Why is TV a 4:3 format? Because film is a 4:3 format!

After TV was introduced, movie producers panicked and tried all sorts of things to make the movie experience different enough that people would keep coming to the theaters. They tried 3-D, etc., but the one that stuck was widescreen.

And the funny thing is -- we're so enamored of widescreen, but it actually represented a significant DROP in quality. How do we get the widescreen image on film? By cropping off chunks of the picture, and blowing up what remains. We actually "letterbox" the 4:3 film frame to make the 1.85:1 picture.

But hey, it stuck, people like it, and now television has evolved to accomodate 1.85 (with 16:9 TVs). So it's not really any surprise that they're trying new things -- mainstream releases in IMAX, for example. Thirty years ago IMAX films were all twenty-minute documentary films, things like "undersea adventures" or "roller coasters of America". Now you go to Inception in IMAX (or Liemax) and pay an extra three dollars or more per ticket. Or you go to 3-D, and shell out an extra $3 per ticket.

It's all the same game as it always was -- trying to find something, anything, that an audience would be willing to pay more for.
 
event46_img3l.jpg

event46_img15l.jpg

SOURCE
http://magazine.kakaku.com/mag/camera/id=246/
Interesting stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top