Can we get over 3D now please?

[M Most]

Both sound and color were possible LONG before they were widely adopted in film, just like 3D. So the analogy doesn't really hold.

Furthermore, 3D really requires digital capture, digital post and digital projection to be practical -- all of which we have now and didn't 60 years ago. From where I'm sitting, more and more films have a 3D release today, not less, and there is no sign of that stopping.

Color and sound are rather natural phenomena and don't require any artificial apparatus to experience (i.e., glasses). Stereoscopic 3D (which, I might add, is NOT really 3D.... but I digress..) not only requires this, but is itself an unnatural experience because it's basically tricking your brain into seeing something that isn't really there by artificially forcing your eyes to see completely different images. That's why it's physically uncomfortable for many, especially over the length of a typical feature film. I wouldn't call seeing color or hearing sound (even when it's rather loud) unnatural or physically uncomfortable experiences, so I just don't see the similarity.

I'm not making any predictions about the future of stereoscopic 3D, I'm just pointing out that these comparisons don't really have much merit.

[Dan Hudgins]

I HAVE seen the 3D movies of the 50's in synchro interlock two projector with good pola glasses.

I have seen Dial M for murder in 3D color, Kiss me Kate in 3D color, and the first two black and white 3D movies of the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and several others. I have also seen various single projector versions of those films and others in 3D as well as anaglyph prints projected of the same movie.

For me seeing black and white in good interlock stereo is BETER than seeing a 2D color movie, the surface textures in the 100% uncompressed 35mm stereo without any computer induced blur of the micro features is a geat thing to experence. Those films were shot on fine grain stock and the prints were is good shape.

Kiss me Kate is a very wild film in 3D and the parts were she sings "too darn hot" is not the same in 2D.

But syncro interlock, just like IMAX film based 3D, cannot have weave free stereo projection and your eyes get tired of trying to track the two images as the weave around causeing 3D weave rather than just the 2D weave that film projectors always have.

Todays Digital projection and cameras can be weave free, and so produce much less eye strain if the cameras were kept parallel and the other aspects such as not getting things too close to the camera were followed.

Two projector interlock cost twice as much for the prints, but did not double the gross, so that is why it was not a "success", not so much that it did not produce good results because you got twice the light from using BOTH projectors light houses the images were not as dark as todays projection since carbon arc lights could be cranked up higher than most Xenon light houses today are run at.

Today ther cost of projection is the same for 2D or 3D movies as the same single projector is used for both, but the 3D movie can draw a few extra people into the theatre, so 3D today does increase the gross and so as long as it makes more money than 2D films in the SAME theatre with no extra cost, the growth will be toward 3D rather than 2D productions.

Some people cannot see 3D and experence the joy of seeing 3D texture on surfaces, my Brother says he has a hard time seeing any 3D and that one of his eye's views looks darker than the other. I can understand that for people who are 3D blind, that the degraded 2D projection would look worse rather than better. The percent of people how have problems seeing 3D are quite large perhaps over 10%, but some people are also color blind and I would hope color blind people would not oppose movies being shot in color. Color was less sharp and had more grain than the good black and white movies (Technicolor had color weave as well that was quite large even in just the IB prints if not the 3 strip camera as well.), if I was color blind, I might enjoy seeing sharp black and white movies over the soft and grainy color moves.

==

About the un-natural part of 3D viewing, it is possable to get better results than we see today, there is no mystery or technological advance required, people are just doing things wrong because they make more money that way, or they don't care, or they don't know what they should be doing.

[Tom.Wong]

pirates had a 90 million dollar opening weekend in the U.S., over 300 million dollars now world wide in a little over 4 days. If people didn't want 3d, people won't watch it in 3d plain and simple. I don't pay extra for imax when I know it wasn't filmed on imax cameras, 65 mm, or a resolution beyond 2k projection. I also don't pay and watch 3d when it's post converted. The public will pick and choose what they want to pay for, and there will always be 2d showings if you don't want the 3d, simply because there are a lot of people out there who literally can't even see in 3d. that's money they don't want to lose.

I personally think 3d is just a different way of story telling, and cinematography. Pirates 4 I thought was really great example of 3d, and proof you don't need a butt ton of CGI to make a 3d movie compelling. It used the 3d tastefully and made the movie more fun for me.

[Dan Hudgins]

Here is a link about stereo blindness,

http://www.mediacollege.com/3d/depth...ereoblind.html

I have noted that sometimes you show people a stereo display or test, and the ones that say "wow" right away are probably able to see 3D, the others look a bit confused and then pretend to have seen the 3D effect, so its hard to tell how big the problem is if people hide their disability or don't even know that they have a issue and just play along and wear the glasses.

I was at a show and one guy in the row in front of me said that he could not see 3D to his friends but put the glasses on so he could "fit in" and see something...

[M Most]

Actually, it's interesting that you would use Pirates 4 as an example of this. If you look at the trades this week, the general feeling is that if anything, Pirates' performance in the US is showing that interest in 3D is waning. For the first time in a "tentpole" 3D release, more people saw the picture in 2D than in 3D, and many analysts are saying that the picture might have actually done better with fewer 3D screens. This is not necessarily the case worldwide, nor is it in itself a pattern (this summer will determine that), but it does have a number of studios thinking about whether they're killing the golden goose, or whether that goose even exists.

[Tom.Wong]

Actually, it's interesting that you would use Pirates 4 as an example of this. If you look at the trades this week, the general feeling is that if anything, Pirates' performance in the US is showing that interest in 3D is waning. For the first time in a "tentpole" 3D release, more people saw the picture in 2D than in 3D, and many analysts are saying that the picture might have actually done better with fewer 3D screens. This is not necessarily the case worldwide, nor is it in itself a pattern (this summer will determine that), but it does have a number of studios thinking about whether they're killing the golden goose, or whether that goose even exists.

also U.S. grossings alone don't define trends, or the way Hollywood works either. If it makes a trillion dollars international, and 500 bux in the U.S., and 3d was on top to make that trillion dollars world wide, you clearly get the idea.

I think there was a huge article posted awhile back on these boards, why Hollywood makes such obvious films. sequels, mindless block busters, same formula over and over again. Biggest reason is cause international ticket sales are huge with those movies, same with 3d. America may be getting finicky with it, but the world still loves it. I think the bigger issue is freakin ticket prices. I really think the box office as a whole really needs to get THAT under control.

33 dollars to go see pirates 3d for my wife and I, that could have been a really nice dinner, or half way point to a new hard drive :P

[Peter Moretti]

I think what will change a lot of people's attitudes is when the first large, really well-done dramatic non-effects-driven features are released in S3D. A director who really understands S3D and how to create dramatic scenes with S3D in mind...

Best example I can think of is "Dial M For Murder." It was shot as a 3D movie with 3D in mind, but was almost never seen that way. Seeing that movie in S3D with a master like Hitchcock at the controls is an "a-ha" moment - how dimension can really be used in a controlling emotional context. That hardcore boxed-in feeling of so much Hitchcock is made more visceral... the birds-eyes are distorted and bizarre...

We will soon see more movies like that - dramatic S3D with *good* S3D.

Lucas

Lucas,

If "Dial M for Murder" works in 3-D then why don't you guys at 3ALITY arrange some type of 3-D screening?

I'm serious. If you want people to believe that drama can work in 3-D then you're going to have to show us something we can see with our own eyes.

Just a suggestion, but I think a good one.

[Cliff Hokanson]

for one you think Cameron is 100% wrong, OK so let him make his Millions and you can CRY and make your $42k a year (before taxes)

[Jake Bastian]

Color and sound are rather natural phenomena and don't require any artificial apparatus to experience (i.e., glasses). Stereoscopic 3D (which, I might add, is NOT really 3D.... but I digress..) not only requires this, but is itself an unnatural experience because it's basically tricking your brain into seeing something that isn't really there by artificially forcing your eyes to see completely different images. That's why it's physically uncomfortable for many, especially over the length of a typical feature film. I wouldn't call seeing color or hearing sound (even when it's rather loud) unnatural or physically uncomfortable experiences, so I just don't see the similarity.

I'm not making any predictions about the future of stereoscopic 3D, I'm just pointing out that these comparisons don't really have much merit.

The third dimension is a natural phenomena, and our eyes DO see two different images in each eye - it's how we see depth. Even if it is a faked method of "seeing" three dimensions, it's not really fair to say we shouldn't do it because we are tricking ourselves into seeing something that isn't really there because that is literally what our entire industry is based on. I've also seen colors and heard sounds that were physically uncomfortable experiences for me (cartoon-induced mass seizures anyone? Death metal maybe?), I see that as having more to do with the skill of the person delivering those sensory experiences. We're learning more about how to deliver 3D in a way that will feel more natural to us, it just takes time.

[Kevin Rasmussen]

Can we get over color now please?

Can we get over talkies now please?

Can we get over moving pictures now please?

Mr. Rasmussen, have you ever seen a well-shot, properly stereo-imaged, appropriately projected 3D film? There is a huge difference between the crap AMC projects and what 3D should look like. Bad presentation will look bad whether it is 2D or 3D. I prefer to watch 3D at RealD theatres (better brightness, no ghosting) or on official iMax screens (not at converted cineplexes).

Like sound or color, 3D is another tool in the storyteller's toolbox. It can be done badly or it can be done well. (And with digital cameras we can shoot at 48fps with the motion blur of 24fps by using a 360 degree shutter. If you have never seen 48 frame projection, you should. It has an amazing solidity that adds an nice level of reality.)

I also have always generally gone to realD 3D theatres, it didn't take long for me to notice how much better their presentation of 3D is. Ever single 3D film I've ever seen, I still always get headaches, I did in Avatar, even animated films like Toy Story. Usually about half way through the film. My sight is fine, I don't wear glasses. If Jim Cameron had his way I'd never be able to watch another movie.... which would be a pretty bleak world for a guy who loves cinema as much as me.

I agree that it's a tool in the toolbox and for those of you wanting to shoot 3D that's all fine, I leave you to it, go have fun in the sand box. Just don't assume that the rest of us desire that Cameron utopian future, and don't assume our films would be better in 3D. My original point, is that despite all the hype and bullshit and all the people telling us what we as audiences would prefer, the audiences are rejecting 3D which is completely contradicting that theory. I think it's only reasonable that directors be allowed to choose whether they shoot 3D, and I think it's only fair that a 2D presentation of equal quality be offered in theatres. Both of which seem to be becoming a common issue.

Do you think Terrance Malick could shoot a film as good as 'Thin Red Line' in 3D, working so spur of the moment the way he does? I don't see it happening. It's not at all about the quality of the presentation or the work, it's about taste and how you like to tell your stories and if most of us don't want to tell our stories in 3D we shouldn't be forced to or pigeon holed into a corner of the industry because we feel that way, as artists or audiences. We should always have the choice. The process of shooting 3D is so unappealing to so many of us that we'll never go for it simply because we as artists, don't work as well that way, we get in the flow, things happen in the moment that can't be captured in 3D.

I'm going to continue exploring and painting in 2D, where my eyes can relax and allow my mind to get drawn into the story without trying to dodge rocks and tree branches flying at my face until my head is pounding.

The day that an S3D movie comes along that uses 3D in a truly artistic "Hitchcock-ian" style and my eyeballs don't feel like they're melting you can say "I told you so." And then I'll still go see it in 2D and like that better. Apparently the majority of film fans and audiences around the world agree with me.