Has 3D Film-Making Had Its Day? 436
dryriver sends this hopeful note from the BBC:
"'It's three years since audiences around the world swarmed into cinemas to see James Cameron's Avatar. It rapidly became the biggest grossing film of all time, in part because of its ground-breaking digital 3D technology. But, in retrospect, Avatar now seems the high-point of 3D movie-making, with little since 2009 to challenge its achievement. Three years on, has the appeal of 3D gone flat? Nic Knowland has been a respected director of photography in Britain for 30 years. He's seen cinema trends and fads come and go, but never one for which he's had so little enthusiasm as 3D. 'From the cinematographer's perspective it may offer production value and scale to certain kinds of film. But for many movies it offers only distraction and some fairly uncomfortable viewing experiences for the audience. I haven't yet encountered a director of photography who's genuinely enthusiastic about it.'"
It's not true 3D (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not popular because it's false advertising. Holograms or bust.
Re:It's not true 3D (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not true 3D (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the 1950s there has been 3D after 3D after 3D but all anyone wants is the hologram of Princess Leia from the movie.
There are lots of problems with stereoscopic "3D". Your eyes (actually your brain)determine distance both by rangefinding and focus. When the two don't match (and they seldom will in a stereoscopic movie), many people get headaches.
Then there's the stupid glasses you have to wear.
Then there's the fact that 3D isn't really necessary.
But if you like 3D, never fear, it'll be back. It always is. As soon as a new crop of kids come around who think "3D" is new it will ressurect, just as it's done for over sixty years now.
Re:It's not true 3D (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the 1950s there has been 3D after 3D after 3D but all anyone wants is the hologram of Princess Leia from the movie.
There are lots of problems with stereoscopic "3D". Your eyes (actually your brain)determine distance both by rangefinding and focus. When the two don't match (and they seldom will in a stereoscopic movie), many people get headaches.
Then there's the stupid glasses you have to wear.
Then there's the fact that 3D isn't really necessary.
But if you like 3D, never fear, it'll be back. It always is. As soon as a new crop of kids come around who think "3D" is new it will ressurect, just as it's done for over sixty years now.
I think you hit it with focus part. I always thought the reason I liked the 3D in Avatar was that it was environmental, it wasn't the focus of your attention as much as just there. They might have better luck with it if they kept the 3D to the edges instead of trying to jump your primary focus out of the screen, or at least reduce my headaches. I know I am altering the literal sense of the word focus from your intent, but I still think it applies.
Re: (Score:3)
This author may not know any photographers who are enthusiastic about 3D, but I don't know any people who care about it. I teach kids, and even they seem not to care, and many are hostile toward it (due to headaches). Beyond their apathy, it's apparently not even good for young kids to watch. Who's it marketed to, then?
More importantly, it's dangerous! (Score:5, Informative)
Government studies on stereoscopic viewing shows that viewing artificially created 3D can lead to a loss of depth perception. I built 2 different 3D CAVE/powerwall systems at the DOD. Engineers were limited to 5 hours per week which was considered the safe exposure rate. Viewing generated 3D can be used in some cases to treat strabismus, but normal eyes it's known to cause strabismus (more easily termed, permanent lazy eye).
Of course Hollywood would never tell you about such dangers since it would hurt their bottom line. Here [avsforum.com] is a link of note, which is important to note " 1 + 2 = if you use stereo 3D routinely and intensively, you will develop strabismus, period. Government studies showed that damage is not always from "routine" and "intensive" viewing. 8 hours a week had a very high rate of eye damage which is why we limited Engineers to 5 hours.
Re: (Score:3)
"Greedo Texts First!" (Score:5, Funny)
* Don't worry. George has sold it to the Mouse. He can destroy your child hood memories no more.
Re:"Greedo Texts First!" (Score:5, Funny)
Well the Death Star would have its own facebook page with millions of people "liking" it for sure.
Ooh, just imagine Facebook as it would be run by the Imperials - oh, I guess not a lot of change after all. nm
Re:"Greedo Texts First!" (Score:5, Funny)
"I am altering the Terms Of Service. Pray I don't alter them any further."
Re: (Score:3)
See Vador wouldn't do that. Vador isn't like that at all. Vador is all about having an order to things. Structure. Reliability. Every sysadmin should look up to Lord Vador for his sense of order. Vador is someone you can trust to set things straight.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if the Star Wars universe was "updated"* to reflect the latest recording technology.
"A long time ago"
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3)
You say that as if Disney acquiring Star Wars makes some sort of difference in how the copyright on Star Wars is handled. If Disney hadn't acquired Star Wars, the copyright on Star Wars would still be extended every time Disney successfully lobby for laws to extend copyright term.
I don't think it will matter anyway. Currently the copyright on the first Star Wars movie won't run out until 2072. Most of the people who grew up with the original three films as part of their childhood will either be dead or t
Films shot in Technicolor (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor [wikipedia.org]
When "Technicolor" was first announced to the world it was BIG NEWS.
Folks flocked to watch movies shot in "Technicolor" just because they were not black and white.
Even lousy movies, movies that are worthless/meaningless, raked in truckloads of cash, just because they were in color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Technicolor [wikipedia.org]
Then, the fancy died down.
This 3D thing is of course no different.
Re:Films shot in Technicolor (Score:5, Insightful)
Difference is that color actually added to the ability to tell a story, using color to evoke emotion or focus the viewer's attention.
I have yet to see any 3D scene where the 3D is used as a storytelling device rather than just a fancy special effect.
They're still figuring 3D out (Score:3)
Difference is that color actually added to the ability to tell a story, using color to evoke emotion or focus the viewer's attention.
There is no reason why 3D cannot do the same thing if used properly. 3D can create a sense of space or vastness or depth. Flight is inherently a 3D experience which is hard to properly capture in 2D. Just because movie makers have done a generally poor job of using the technology does not have anything to do with the potential uses of 3D if done well.
I have yet to see any 3D scene where the 3D is used as a storytelling device rather than just a fancy special effect.
There's nothing wrong with fancy special effects (color is one) though I understand what you are saying. Bear in mind that movie directors mostly still don
Re:They're still figuring 3D out (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily - as others have pointed out there ARE good 3D movies out there. I saw the IMAX 3D Oceans movie a while back and it was incredible. It's just the Hollywood directors that haven't figured it out, and that's almost to be expected. Look at what they've done with every other special effect technology to come along - do they use cheap 3D rendering to add quality special effects for a fraction of the cost and focus their budget on telling a better story? Very rarely - instead they spend even more on the effects to get this years biggest, most vivid explosions in a movie so bad they should be paying us for the time wasted watching it.
Color took off right away and stuck around because even half-assed color cinematography will add something to your average film, and overdoing it like a lot of the early technicolor films doesn't really detract too much. 3D is a much more complicated beast, and as others have pointed out current technology only addresses binocular vision and not focus, so our brains tend to rebel at getting conflicting depth signals which becomes distracting and even painful when overdone. Restrict directors to a 3D camera with a fixed* 63mm (average adult pupil distance) between lenses so they can't easily screw it up and 3D might start to actually contribute something beyond novelty.
* okay, so you'd probably actually want something tied to the zoom lens to create a proper close-up effect, but still. And even then you'd have problems since the stereoscopy would look flat to people with a larger pupil distance and overdone to people with a narrower one - our brains are wired to factor in our own biometrics when interpreting depth information. Short of a holographic screen or true 3D projection there's no way to make a stereoscopic film look right to a majority of your audience, any more than you can make a non-adjustable ergonomic chair to average dimensions and expect it to be anything but a torture device for most people.
Re:Films shot in Technicolor (Score:5, Interesting)
While it is true that 3D has been largely either "poke you in the eye" or "show it in 3D, even though the director refuses to acknowledge it", there are SOME examples to the contrary. The main one that stood out was Coraline, which I made a point of seeing recently. The director, in an interview, confirmed how I took his approach to be:
http://www.studiodaily.com/2009/02/director-henry-selick-on-coraline/
"There was a learning process – mainly not to overuse it. We ultimately used it to help draw the audience into the Other world as Coraline is being drawn into the Other world. The sets in the Other world are actually deeper. In her real world, it’s crushed space with steeply raked floors. For example, the kitchen in her real world is one foot deep. The kitchen in the Other world is four feet deep. I wanted to use 3D in a more subtle way to show what Coraline is going through, that there’s a sense of spaciousness in that Other world. We have a few shots where things poke you in the eye, but when the Other world goes wrong, we crank up the 3D almost to an uncomfortable level to enhance the storytelling."
Great usage of 3D in my book. It's too bad not many good directors are taking 3D seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed. Who cares if 99.9% of the 3D films are absolute rubbish? There's a small handful of educational documentaries that use it well, so we should STFU and appreciate the fact that Hollywood is converting movies shot in 2D into 3D regardless of how shitty that conversion is!
Re:Films shot in Technicolor (Score:5, Interesting)
I was the stereo supervisor on 30% of Transformers 3, and did a lot of research into stereo as part of that project.
It's obvious once you think about it that stereo 3D is most useful and appropriate at arm's length -- that's what our stereo perception has evolved to do for us. We want to be able to bash that wolf with a club, or pick up a glass of water, or shake somebody's hand -- all things that happen within 5 or 8 feet.
I believe you were being facetious, but My Dinner with Andre would be perfect for 3D. You would be absolutely in the world of that tabletop; many more of the natural depth cues would work synergistically. Give me 6 or 10 million dollars, and I'll prove it :)
Porn is another obvious example that would work for the same reasons. According to people in the market, though, the viewer typically wants to be at some distance from the performers -- they want that wall to be there.
Re:Films shot in Technicolor (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes sense. Generally that is when we use 3D in a utilitarian sense. We are mostly able to derive depth information at a distance in a 2D using clues like relative size and it only for up close fine tasks that we need the precision of true visual 3D depth data.
I have no idea what parts of Transformers 3 you might have worked on but I own that film on 3D Bluray and the 3D is quite nice for most of the film. There are still a few flickery parts though. I think a big part of it is that film makers like to focus a character in the foreground and put the background out of focus for artistic effect. But anything out of focus in 3D flickers. Possibly because digital blur, or digital compression of something blurry isn't going to match in the two opposing frames. I can only speculate but it is possible to keep the full frame in focus and that makes the flickering go away or it has in the films I've seen that are made that way or have shots done that way.
In summary, we need more 3D porn. tyvm.
Re:Films shot in Technicolor (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent says 3D isn't used as a storytelling device. And in an attempt to contradict him you use non-fictiaonal documentaries?
You underlined his point.
Likewise with IMAX. It's great for documentaries and experiences. Not much use for drama.
Re: (Score:3)
You can add color without much of a loss. It is closer to the move to High-definition TV.
The current 3D you don't get much out of it, and they are tradeoffs to get it.
Most movies are done on smaller sets, so you will need to digitally alter movie to give the correct 3d effect, now when you digital alter something you can run into the Uncanny Valley where any slight imperfection could make the viewer feel ill.
Next they are still required to wear glasses. Now if you already have glasses that adds more discom
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is different. Technicolor looks like real-world color. It makes the illusion of cinema much better than black and white. It doesn't cause eye strain and it doesn't require each viewer to use special eyewear just to see the movie.
But I get your point. Peter Jackson just spent a buttload of money making The Hobbit in 3D. All wasted. He should have spent more hiring actors and makeup artists to create believable orcs, choreographers to make credible combat scenes and editors who knew the differenc
Re:Films shot in Technicolor (Score:5, Informative)
See also the new HFR High Frame Rate stuff in Hobbit. Not a damned thing seemed odd about that, but then I've been watching TV recently. Who wants artificially-forced degradation?
I do, surprisingly often.
One big problem is that TV and movie sets are just that - sets. They're cardboard and gaffer tape and spray foam and quick drying paint. They are good enough for the medium they're produced for, but nothing better.
Look at any television show from the 1960s that has been recently re-released on digital media - Star Trek, Hogan's Heroes, Mission: Impossible, or whatever. These shows were shot on high resolution film that captured the sets in all their hokey glory: cardboard; tape; foam; runny paint; a vast array of visual sins are painfully visible. The directors relied on their being broadcast in NTSC's System M with its 483 lines of video for TV. The technology of the day hid these flaws because the video was so degraded during delivery. Converting them to digital has revealed just how bad the original sets were, which I personally find very distracting.
I see a couple of choices: I can watch the films in high definition 1080p and be bothered by bad sets, or I can watch them in NTSC and assume the faults I see are of the technology and not of the filmmakers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not true 3D (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nor will it EVER have its day until there is a real 3D display system.
Now, stereoscopic filmmaking may be over, but that's hardly 3D except in the eyes of the bewildered.
I guarantee you, when a 3D production can be made, distributed and enjoyed, the day of 3D will begin, and it isn't likely to *ever* go back to 2D (or the pale imitation that is stereoscopy.)
Also, happy solstice + 3. I wish you a suitably bacchanalian event, complete with frolicking, consensual partner of your choice.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if there were real 3D, how would you make use of this properly? Current story telling only works because you can limit and control what people see. How will a horror movie work if half the audience can already see the guy hiding behind the rock before he leaps out? (This is just one example of a ton of problems that would arise)
I'm not sure that most people who want 3D know what they are actually asking for - personally I think 2D is perfect just leave it alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there were real 3D, how would you make use of this properly? Current story telling only works because you can limit and control what people see. How will a horror movie work if half the audience can already see the guy hiding behind the rock before he leaps out? (This is just one example of a ton of problems that would arise)
I'm not sure that most people who want 3D know what they are actually asking for - personally I think 2D is perfect just leave it alone.
You can still have true 3D and mise en scene at the same time. True 3D film would still require a director's eye to progress the story, focus the attention of the audience, and deliver some degree us suspense and drama. One could have true 3D, and not at the same time have it basically be a Holodeck program where the viewer sees everything.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess I was misinformed and all magicians only exist in 2 dimensions.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if there were real 3D, how would you make use of this properly?
Ever seen a play?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the play. Most plays take place on the stage, remote from the audience. A few take place across the theater, including in the rows (mostly comedies, but also works well for horror). The former is not a substantial difference from a 2D movie; the latter is a HUGE difference, with huge potential for telling stories in different ways.
Deep Screen (Score:5, Interesting)
I would *love* to see more 3D done using a "deep screen" effect rather than the "things popping out" effect that is commonly used - i.e. the stereoscopy is calibrated to make it look like everything is *behind* the screen instead of in front of it, like you're looking through a window. It's a more subtle effect, but far more consistent. When you try to put stuff in front of the screen you inevitably end up with large borders where only one eye is getting an image of something that both eyes should be seeing, and personally I find the effect quite distracting and uncomfortable. Not that it doesn't have it's uses - when I saw the IMAX 3D Oceans there were incredible scenes where sea snakes, cuttlefish, etc. were floating right in my lap / the center of the screen, but then a school of fish would try to swim across the theater and go all wonky except for the narrow window where both eyes were getting the proper image. Avatar had the same problem - the 3D was actually pretty good, but you still had large, wonky borders because stuff was floating in front of the screen and going invisible to one eye.
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It's because Hollywood maxed out on special effects in the late 90s. CGI got so good there really wasn't anywhere left to go, but then they stumbled on the wobbly camera and using editors with ADHD. Your brain fills in what your eyes can't keep up with and it looks good, until you buy the DVD and notice that this time it looks a bit ropey.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it is less important to fix the problems with the 3D itself and more important to focus on transitions which are softer on the eyes and brain. Just watch films from before smooth transitions. You can see how much better films became when a simple smooth transition method came along.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care much for stereoscopic imaging, mostly because of the ever increasingly uncomfortable glasses.
However, the 48fps increase I await with much enthusiasm. It is not revolutionary at all but 24fps one of the things that annoy me most about movies these days. As soon as the scene is moving, everything is blurred out and choppy.
Re: (Score:3)
If the hobbit is any indication 48fps is the best thing to ever happen to stereoscopic 3D. 100% flicker and headache free. The image was at least as smooth and easy on the eyes as any 2D content I've seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy some circular polarised lenses for your frames of choice then. Just make sure you get the left and right ones the right way around.
The problem with 3D isn't the technology (Score:3)
48fps made the 3D better, but the 2D version of the hobbit was still better.
The problem with 3D in The Hobbit is that they created a bunch of unnecessary quasi-floating environments where none really needed to be. There really was no reason for the goblin caves or the dwarf kingdom of Erebor to be a bunch of platforms suspended the way they were. Logically it makes little sense (think about the physics of hollow mountains) and there was no storytelling reason to do that. They did it simply to make it "more 3D" and I don't think it helped the story at all. 3D is fine but it stil
Re: (Score:2)
Daleks don't frolick. :-p
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are the ones missing out. :-P
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a very common opinion, but it's wrong. I've done everything from good old 2D 24 FPS through interactive live theater. Live theater is a close analog to what you are talking about, where you can move around and see shifts in perspective. The experience changes depending on what you do. It'll be an interesting tech demo when we get holoprojectors and holocameras. And, certainly there will be some people who use it to great effect.
But, a key part of the reason that film is so much more popular of a medium than live theater is the fact that the director and cinematographer can ove the camera and make you look at exactly whatever they want you to see. It's an incredibly powerful storytelling tool to be able to show your audience a very specific image. If you look at the original "A Few Good Men" and the movie version, you will see that the writing had to change quite a lot. I think it's a particularly good example of how storytelling changes for the cinema. You didin't need as many expositional monologs in the movie version because the camera could just show you something. That "show" vs. "tell" distinction is fundamental to why just taking a play and shooting it doesn't make a good movie. And, that distinction is why taking away the Director's ability to show you very specific images doesn't improve storytelling, even if it is more 'natural' and more technologically sophisticated.
Stereo cinematography isn't what it could be, but don't assume that it's just a technical problem. It's largely a business problem because doing a great 3D picture, where the cinematography isn't interesting in 2D simply isn't a good business plan. You need to be able to sell tickets in 2D theaters, and you need to be able to sell DVD's in order to make a profit. So, the 2D version has to have primacy, and that means that 3D cinematography takes a back seat. You won't see big studios really interested in 'artistic' stereo until stereo displays are ubiquitous enough that selling a 3D picture is a given.
Re: (Score:3)
3D sucks as a feature in a television, as television manufacturers have found out. A few years ago they were plugging 3D like crazy. Now they've backed off
They backed off because consumers found out that 3d sucks as a feature in a modern television, and aren't buying it. Nobody bought a 3dtv except people who got them at little or no additional cost, or a bunch of smug gits that I laughed at when they told me they bought one (if they have to announce to the world every new thing they get, their poor little hearts are otherwise empty, so I try to pity them rather than go with my first instinct) and who now don't watch any 3d movies because the whole system is
Re: (Score:3)
No, the true future of 3D is what we have now, but tweaked and refined so that 3D objects don't often intrude beyond the front of the screen (there's a gimmick we can well do without). Combine that with a decent frame rate, and a more enveloping view (bigger screen horizontally AND vertically) and then we can talk.
Re: (Score:2)
If creating a sculpture took the same amount of time and effort as painting a painting, they would.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
You shouldn't downmod just because you disagree, anyway.
life of pi (Score:2)
it added nothing and enhanced everything -- a lot.
"3D" has it's uses as does high FPS and resolution (Score:5, Insightful)
The use of such high visual fidelity should be for things where visuals trump all. Sports (god I hate sports) benefit because you're watching the action. Nature shows (various National Geographic things or the Planet Earth series) benefit because... it's fucking nature and the only sensory experience you can get from a TV is sight and sound. Action flicks or CGI wankfests (Transformers, blah), again, because you're watching the spectacles, not the shitpoor Bruckheimer dialogue & acting.
But now what's the point of high FPS in a drama? Would Downton Abbey be that much better in 3D? Is a comedy going to be more hilarious in 1080p?
Re: (Score:3)
Saying that high resolution, fps, and 3D don't belong in a drama is like saying a high quality sound system is only appropriate for rock and hip hop and what is the point of using one to play Mozart. The problem with 3D isn't that it is a gimmick it is that it's been marketed as one and it is a relatively poor gimmick. It isn't some stunt to deliver better graphics. Watching a movie in 2D vs 3D is like watching a play vs watching a movie. You are suspending belief which is fine and there is content worth su
Re: (Score:3)
What I mean with drama is that the kind of subtleties, the emotional responses, the dialogue, those things are not enhanced with greater FPS, resolutions, or stereoscopic "3D". It's a seriously flat plateau as far bang for buck when it comes to quality in genre. Yeah, you probably don't want to watch an old realmedia video with massive blocking artifacts and muffled sound but once you hit SD resolution and stereo sound, that's enough. Minor jump in enjoyability for DVD quality but then after that is just a
Probably the future...I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They killed F@#$%ING BRIGHTNESS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kill it. Kill it now lest it does any more damage! (Score:5, Insightful)
The sooner it goes away the better.
The primary deleterious effect of 3D in my local movie theaters is that the 2 or 3 popular movies at any time now occupy 4 or 6 screens, for the 3D and non 3D versions. This pushes out 2 or 3 other options, so there are fewer options available. This is not a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
The sooner it goes away the better.
Seconded. I *always* go see the 2D version of any movie I want to see.
And even those suffer, because of the scenes that are so obviously a gimmick for the 3D version. Very distracting and annoying, even in 2D.
Like so many other applications of technology, we need a better reason than "because we can".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are you blaming better technology for what is in essence just bad film-making?
I hated the sounds of early CDs, I was a vinyl lover, and it was only later when talking to a hardware engineer who'd worked in the digital audio field that it was revealed to me why I hated the sound - because they were deliberately engineered to sound as unlike vinyl as possible. And in part, that meant deliberately screwing up the frequency response. So it wasn't
Re: (Score:2)
The sooner it goes away the better.
3D isn't going away for two big reasons:
1. Theaters have already invested in expensive new projectors and they're going to get their money's worth out of them, come hell or high water
2a. Animations look good in 3D. Old animations can be cheaply/easily re-rendered in 3D and put back into theaters.
2b. Because of 2a, even if everyone else forsakes 3D, kid-oriented animations will keep the pipeline full.
Re: (Score:3)
I have the impression that around 50% of the people like 3D and the rest doesn't. Because theaters have invested a lot in 3D this means it won't go away for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... having to wear silly glasses on top of glasses *FOR THREE FRIGGING HOURS* doesn't make it any more fun.
TFTFY. Happy Holidays and all that. :D
Re: (Score:2)
This is what the original article claimed as well.
If you have differences in depth of field for your eyesight, particularly if you've had your eyes lasered into monovision, then yes, I could see it being uncomfortable; however, that's easily solvable by not watching in a 3D theater or by using equal polarization in both eyes so you simply don't see the 3D effect at all, and get the same polar frame in both your eyes. And yes, such "2D glasses" do exist.
You can also get 3D prescription lenses, which, if you
Re: (Score:2)
Polarized glasses work fine with Real3D system which uses frequency-based 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
TVs (Score:2)
More to the point, why are people paying so much to buy 3D TVs? What a complete and utter waste of your hard earnt money...
Re:TVs (Score:5, Insightful)
People aren't buying expensive TVs because they are 3D; they are buying high end TVs which mostly happen to have 3D.
Now if these 3D TVs had real 120 Hz input (for two frames of 1080p60 in 3D using shutter glasses) it might be a useful feature to use without the glasses on. But so far I think they all only support two frames of 1080p30 at most - standard HDMI doesn't have enough bandwidth, and newer spec hardware and cables are required.
With 48 fps movies, we may see more TVs using 240 Hz, but probably none with any high-bandwidth inputs, especially if 3D goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
Expensive 3D TVs are expensive because it tends to be a gimmick added to high end televisions.
It goes in cycles and bursts (Score:4, Insightful)
There are major, but short-lived, bursts of stereoscopic 3D movies seem to come every 15-20 years or so, as another new generation is available to be briefly wowed by a technology that's not new and that doesn't really add anything to the moviegoing experience. People get over it and we move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Imo, it will probably be more likely to become a fixture in video games than in movies. Just the nature of the beast.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, a new equilibrium is found: 3D works great for animated films (they are computer-rendered anyway) and some high-profile pictures ("Cirque du Soleil", "The Hobbit", etc.). Most other films are better off in 2D.
Re: (Score:3)
And the old generation just constantly bitches at these new-fangled 'computers', 'bookfaces' and all that oranges^H apples.
I can reveal to you that it has nothing to do with age.
So many problems for so many people. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So many problems for so many people. (Score:4, Interesting)
So it worked perfectly for us, and we clearly have nothing like normal vision. Certainly astigmatism is nothing to do with your problems. And what's this "[your] eyes can't focus well" bollocks? They don't need to focus - the screen is the same distance away the whole freaking time! Which is the same for 2D and 3D movies. It really looks like you're just pulling random excuses out of your arse.
3d in movies is terrible, 3d in video games is not (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a 3d vision projector. Playing Skyrim in 3d is pretty badass. Video games have to store the render geometry somewhere, so it is available to use to create 2 views into a single render scene. No new tech needed, no hard to use filming techniques required, no massive infrastructure investment necessary.
The same projector, when used in movies, generally sucks. Avatar is basically impossible to buy, and the other movies are mostly terrible. For movies, 3d seems best on documentaries (especially space) where it adds an extra tiny hint of wonder.
Extreme "Meh" (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess shitty movies (Score:3)
can't be made better with 3D.
Instead of remking shit like Red Dawn into a bigger pile of shit 20 year later give us some fucking good shows and fuck the 3D. No wonder so many people pirate. They'd rather pirate in the privacy of their own home then be seen in public watching crap.
Tired (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm tired of another one trying to prove that 3D is money grab scheme, or just pompous extra to pay more for ticket. Essentially, *any* technical improvement ends in that bin, so please stop speculate. It all depends how it's used.
I have seen quite a number of 3D movies for these last years and as usual, it all depends on talent. "Prometheus" was just so well done in 3D - you can discuss about acting, script, but 3D was awesomely done here. Thing there and there, not overdone, but done at right time and place it made wonders.
"Hobit" 3D with all 48 FPS was also beautiful. It took time to adapt, but when I "forgot" that it moves too fast, it was amazing.
"Transfomers 3" in same time was kinda shitty, only few scenes like done specially for 3D looked good, but also not immersion, but "ohh nice 3D demo" wise (not that I'm against nice 3D demos, but that's not worth the ticket).
What about 3D scientific movies (nature movies, ocean movies)? What about Cirque du Soleil new 3D movie, which looks so artistic that I can't hardly see money maker there? What about Life of Pi?
Look, 3D is technology, essentially it's a tool - as 48 FPS, or Doubly Surround. It all matters how it's used. 3D won't make shallow movie enjoyable to me. But it sure can make movie I like more spectacular.
3D movies were never more than a Trojan horse (Score:5, Interesting)
We need more 3D (Score:2)
It's not good enough, yet. It being distracting is evidence of that. Make it better, and it'll join color, high definition, surround sound, and other technological advances in their it-doesnt-make-movies-better-but-it-doesnt-hurt status. As always, story telling and character development will and always matter most.
Money for nothing, (chicks for free) ? (Score:2)
Perhaps if the theaters didn't try to rape our wallets for the 3D glasses (every time), then - to add insult to injury - ask us to "please recycle them". I can't imagine the things the theaters sell cost more than a nickle to make in volume. Perhaps if they let us buy a permanent pair and/or bring our own. Ya, I get that's how they try to recoup their expenses for the 3D projectors, etc, but that's their problem, not mine.
Perhaps it's how the 3D isn't used to add anything of real value to the plot, mo
Rise of the Guardians (Score:5, Informative)
It may just be that the filmmakers need to learn how to best use 3D, the same way they had to learn using color.
3D isn't always bad (Score:2)
* When you look at good movies like Avatar and Hugo you will notice that there is such a thing as doing 3D right. The problem is that this is not the case for most movies.
* Most movies available are (bad) conversions of movies that where never produced with 3D in mind.
* It is ridiculous expensive not only the movie tickets but you need to see the prices they are asking for one stupid 3D movie here in this country. 28 a 35 euro's...
My comment is in the form of recent trivia (Score:2)
Which film won all accolades last year?
Hints: it is mostly silent, black and white and most definitively 2D.
3D is the overall strategy of the big studios to keep milking the blockbuster, a cinematic product whose cost is spiraling out of control and will continue to make money only as long as the average public is shown new shiny gimmicks.
HR3D (Score:5, Interesting)
HR3D [mit.edu] (high rank 3d display, where rank stands for high rank matrix used in calculations) is the future of 3d displays. It uses the parallax effect, but to much higher extend, using dual or triple stacked LCD displays. Where each display is serving as a special parallax barrier. HR3D is calculation intensive currently, this is why it is not widely adopted. But the computations costs will decrease, and it will become popular. It is not only two viewing angles for two eyes. It can have 16, 25, 36 or even more viewing angles. And you could look from far above, from far below, from far left from far right. And even look behind something. Though generating content for hr3d requires having 16, 25, 36 or even more cameras (each recording from another perspective) instead of just two cameras recording for two eyes. So it is mostly suitable for digital content, or simply put an OpenGL driver to display OpenGL graphics in real 3D. If a movie director wanted to make a movie, with actors, his camera would look like an insect head, due to so many cameras required. Or maybe some special 3D-camera that records everything and recalculated whole scene in 3D.
I am watching their progress, and can't wait when I'll be able to buy some hr3d display with OpenGL drivers for linux. Also if they went IPO I would buy their stock immediately.
Re:HR3D (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually better than that. There are quite a few technologies which will interpolate the "in between" views from several cameras (google "Novel View Synthesis" [google.com]). Don't forget that lightfield capture technologies like the Lytro Camera [lytro.com] also exist.
I've seen projection based glasses free 3D systems that are also quite impressive, such as Holografika [holografika.com].
I really do wish this 3D Hate would end...
3D hard to avoid abroad (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in French, where american movies are usually shown dubbed.
While the dub is usually "quite good", the original version, as played by the original actors, is always better, so I prefer watching films in their original language.
The problem is that now, with 3D, you either have the following choices: French in 3D, French in 2D, or English in 3D.
I don't even know why, since 3D and subtitles hardly go well together.
For this reason I'm forced to either watch sub-par 3D, or listen to sub-par voice-over. Or just download from the pirate bay.
The Art of 3D (Score:3)
Dances with Avatars (Score:3)
Without the 3d, is Avatar just a re-write of Dances with Wolves?
It's OK as a gimmick once in awhile. If it adds to the story, it could be worth doing. But 99% of the movies I'm going to want to see are going to be 2d. They will rely on story telling to compel me to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
For rendered movies are they really conversions and not re-renders?
Re: (Score:2)
Titanic 3D was the best 3D I've seen so far....
Re:God i hope so. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we're starting to see remakes of old movies... BUT NOW IN 3D!
I've seen the opposite. An old classic [wikipedia.org] that was originally filmed in 3D in 1954 was remade in 1998 as a normal 2D film [wikipedia.org].
3D is NOT new, it was tried and failed before. It will fail again and again, it will fail as many times as they try it.
People pay to see an entertaining story, they don't pay to see stupid tricks. Why do they think people will pay again and again to see stuff thrown at the screen, which seems to be the only thing that makes 3D necessary?
Re: (Score:3)
its probably your theater
i haven't seen a movie in a few years and went to see The Hobbit in HFR 3D at a nice NYC theater. It was a lot better than a few years back. the 3d didn't hurt my eyes and it added a nice depth perception to the picture