Is 3D Already Dying?

[Lucas Wilson]

But I also know that any serious filmgoer will refuse to wear a contraption in order to view a movie.

I wear corrective glasses for my astigmatism and an awful lot of my friends wear contact lenses, bifocals, trifocals, magnifiers, etc. We all go to the movies a lot.

Now what was that about wearing contraptions? ; )

Lucas

 

[Paul Watt]

The growth of 3D will also be pushed by sports broadcasts, and action sports. A few years from now, most tv and computer screens will be 3d because it will cost very little more to include the technology. There will be lots of different content choices, as the costs of production come down too. I agree that we're seeing the very beginning, not the end.

 

[Jose Lomeña]

dying?... In my opinion 2010 is the challenge year.

This year the number of movies in 3d are awesome. Great and bad movies...

For me, 2D vs 3D, is like sound, Stereo vs 5.1

Is dying 5.1?, The most TV is Stereo, but all new movies are in 5.1. You can decide if you want to listen stereo or surround. Stereo is the past, surround the future.
For me 3d is the future for all contents. And I think the future of cinemas. 3D is a very great experience in cinemas, but, no so great experience in a small TV. 2D cinema is good, but i prefer my TV in my house for this contents.

Why a drama in 3d?... I like the face of actresses in 3d. This is what I most like. The effect in 3d for me are very distracting, like in sound. But the third dimession are great, its an inmersed experience.

Any of you saw "Street Dance"?... I recomend to see it in cinema. 70% with redone?. Low buget movie, but a great 3D movie.

This is only my point of view.

Saludos,

Jose.

 

[M Most]

For me, 2D vs 3D, is like sound, Stereo vs 5.1

Is dying 5.1?, The most TV is Stereo, but all new movies are in 5.1.

In the US, nearly all prime time television, both broadcast and cable, is mixed and aired in 5.1. The fact that the vast majority of homes have not equipped for it, and the additional fact that most people don't seem to even know about it, to me only strengthens the argument that 3D in the home might likely encounter a similar degree of apathy from the general viewing public.

 

[Tim Morten]

Great to hear all the opinions!

Charts can definitely be "spun", so I have to agree that the data presented is not proof that 3D is dying. Still, the data is thought-provoking. I don't have a horse in this race, but I will watch with interest as this plays out in the next year.

My personal perspective: none of THIS consumer's dollars will be going towards 3D in the next year. My super-un-scientific poll seems to indicate that the majority of people I talk to outside of production feel the same way.

For a theatrical experience, glasses are clunky (even if you already wear corrective lenses as I do). Germophobes hate them. The image is dim. Many people complain of headaches and nausea. The premium that gets charged for the tickets reminds people why they stopped going out to theaters in the first place.

For a home experience, you won't have enough sets of glasses at home for a superbowl party, and the glasses aren't compatible across different TV manufacturers. There is visible "shuttering" on home sets that I find interferes with the viewing experience. Even though the tech is "easy" to add to components, manufacturers are charging a premium.

Bottom line: there is a "gee whiz" factor that gets people to try 3D. After the "gee whiz" wears off, most people don't seem to feel any more immersed than when they watch 2D. There are still obvious frame edges, and there is still a distance between viewer and subject (which changes with every cut) that undermines any attempt to make the audience feel like they are actually on the set themselves. Many perspectives are exagerrated to play up the 3D, resulting in distortion of the world that feels unnatural.

I found Avatar in 2D to be every bit as entertaining as Avatar in 3D, and in a lot of ways, less distracting. Unfortunately, the script didn't improve in either format.

The industry is SO behind 3D, I'm sure it's not going away. But I do believe it's going to have a minority audience... time will tell. New tech always excites me, and 3D production appeals to the engineer in me. But I believe those factors are unrelated to actually providing long-term value to consumers after the "gee whiz" wears off.

Best,
Tim

 

[Dustin Cross]

I think 3D looks great until fast motion and then it annoys me. Even on the animated movies, fast motion ruins the 3D.

I just saw Avatar on Bluray and thought it looked ten times better than the 3D I saw in Imax. It looked very much like video and amazing animation, but I thougth it looked better than 3D Imax.

So from my experience with 3D the only movies I think should be shot in 3D are dramas, and a drama in 3D is the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

I am ready for 3D to go, except as a gimmick in Horror movies. It actually takes away from the movie experience right now.

I have no problem working on movies shot in 3D, I just don't want to watch them in 3D.


Dusty

 

[Jose Lomeña]

In my opinion the big problem of 3D is bad movies and bad projections.

Bad movies = headache
Bad projections = headache + lost of illussion

What projections do you use to watch movies?

I like XpanD with christie projectors. I think is the best. All movies i watch with it, are perfect, I never saw ghosting.

XpanD are planning a new glasses X103 compatible with all consumer tv.

http://www.xpandcinema.com/news/43/

Maybe it can change a bit the illusion in 3d. I don't like Samsung glasses, it has a lot of ghosting.
I don't like polarize glasses too.


My recomendation is only watch 3D movies in good projections cinemas. And only watch movies if other recomend to you.


I'm not assuming here, only my opinion.


Saludos,

Jose.

 

[Eric Lange]

Tim I really liked your post.

I do have a couple of horses in this race. For fifteen years I have been working with advanced stereo photogrammetric VR applications for basically recording things and re-presenting them as accurately and realistically as possible in various ways.

The problem here is a sort of chicken and egg. Consumers are not going to demand 3d especially at home, as they have not yet experienced anywhere near the potential that 3d has to offer. So to close this gap the relevant industries particularly SONY have to push this on everyone first so that at least a certain percentage of consumers get the chance to experience what it’s all about. That hasn’t quite happened yet and it’s clear that after enough “pushing” and deployment of “systems” that a certain critical tipping point MAY be reached where the consumers WANT to take up the technology and create an actual demand.

I think the best “cultural” value that 3d has to offer is for live 3d broadcast and “edutainment” or even a combination of the two. I think the combination of immediacy and immersion is very powerful.

Imagine Nat Geo or Discovery, Zahi Hawas, “makes a new discovery” of a tomb in the Valley of the Kings; and we get to follow Zahi to open the tomb or the mummy or the whatever, for the first time in four thousand years. I think broadcast 3d has the potential for a truly immersive experience where you can in essence almost experience much more fully the “moment” of discovery. 2d is not so experiential in this way.

A lot of the work we do is focused on very high quality and high res work because the fields of application demand it; but fundamentally a 2d image is ambiguous and visual “data” is literally missing. (Artistically of course this ambiguity is exploited by Cinematographers). In terms of documentaries and educational (type) media the perceived third dimension offers so much and enables one to present very complex visual information that would be impossible to communicate in 2d. Or the ability to present environments that can not normally be accessed in a much more immersive and physical way, such as the deep sea, space or the red carpet on Oscar’s night. I think what people conceptually miss about 3d and S-3d is that the perceived third dimension offers a much a higher form of visual communication than 2d in terms of spatial understanding as well as enabling the unambiguous perception of very complex scenes and situations in three dimensions. This is why nature invented a spatial sense and stereopsis. Football players need stereopsis and a spatial sense to gauge position and distances, and similarly a 3d version of the game removes nearly all of the spatial ambiguity of dimensions collapsed onto an arbitrary 2d plane.

Sports, learning and documentaries, and live events with or without the stars, that’s where it’s at ( I believe), the focus is going to shift from movies to broadcast; bring it on!

 

[Rob Delafonte]

A bit of a side note here, but at CES 2008 (yeah, over two years ago) every major both - Sony, Microsoft, Intel, PC vendors - were showing off 3D movies and games (Monsters vs. Aliens, WipEout HD on PS3) running off LCD displays using REALD 3D tech... as in Non-powered, borderline weightless $0.25-a-pair, polarized glasses. Fast forward two years, and all the consumer TVs available require expensive ($150!?), heavy, battery powered shutter glasses... As in the same tech we've had for two decades with none of the benefits of the polarized method of 3D that theatres are currently using.

Back on topic, that kind of backwards (or at least non-progressive) thinking is only holding back 3D tech. More over, it *almost* seems like the current crop of consumer 3D tvs were only pumped out to ride on the success of Avatar (made more believeable by the wave of shot-in-2D-converted-to-3D movies that followed Avatar's release) . So regardless of whether or not it's here to stay, it seems like vendors aren't even trying to give the customers the best 3D experience (the exception being Nintendo.)

On the flip side, if all current TVs supported 3D (with cheapy RealD style glasses) then no one would have a problem since, at the very least, it would be considered a cost-free bonus to the consumer. As it is now, you have to pay quite an expensive premium just to have access to a technology that is neither fresh or exciting (since it seems so hacked together and the only worthwhile effort has been Avatar or CGI movies).

I think 3D tech *could have* capitalized on the new-found excitement that Avatar brought, but vendors tried to use it as a cashcow even though no one really wanted to pay for it. As for shooting 3D; I'd only do it if I honestly felt the movie would benefit from it (e.g. it was a big budget action/adventure movie like Avatar) OR it came at little-to-no extra cost to the production (which is, currently, wishful thinking).

 

[Jose Lomeña]

A bit of a side note here, but at CES 2008 (yeah, over two years ago) every major both - Sony, Microsoft, Intel, PC vendors - were showing off 3D movies and games (Monsters vs. Aliens, WipEout HD on PS3) running off LCD displays using REALD 3D tech... as in Non-powered, borderline weightless $0.25-a-pair, polarized glasses. Fast forward two years, and all the consumer TVs available require expensive ($150!?), heavy, battery powered shutter glasses... As in the same tech we've had for two decades with none of the benefits of the polarized method of 3D that theatres are currently using.

Back on topic, that kind of backwards (or at least non-progressive) thinking is only holding back 3D tech. More over, it *almost* seems like the current crop of consumer 3D tvs were only pumped out to ride on the success of Avatar (made more believeable by the wave of shot-in-2D-converted-to-3D movies that followed Avatar's release) . So regardless of whether or not it's here to stay, it seems like vendors aren't even trying to give the customers the best 3D experience (the exception being Nintendo.)

On the flip side, if all current TVs supported 3D (with cheapy RealD style glasses) then no one would have a problem since, at the very least, it would be considered a cost-free bonus to the consumer. As it is now, you have to pay quite an expensive premium just to have access to a technology that is neither fresh or exciting (since it seems so hacked together and the only worthwhile effort has been Avatar or CGI movies).

I think 3D tech *could have* capitalized on the new-found excitement that Avatar brought, but vendors tried to use it as a cashcow even though no one really wanted to pay for it. As for shooting 3D; I'd only do it if I honestly felt the movie would benefit from it (e.g. it was a big budget action/adventure movie like Avatar) OR it came a little-to-no extra cost to the production (which is, currently, wishful thinking).

Shutter glasses are expensive now. But I think the price will decrease. How is possible that a glasses cost like a 24" tft monitor?... this is crazy!.

Only time I think. But polarized system, at least for me, is not the present or future, for me, is the past. Because the vision angle and ghosting are a big problem that you can't fix easily with cheap monitors. Do you know any polarized single lens projector for home cinema?

Saludos,

Jose

 

[Rob Delafonte]

Shutter glasses are expensive now. But I think the price will decrease. How is possible that a glasses cost like a 24" tft monitor?... this is crazy!.

Only time I think. But polarized system, at least for me, is not the present or future, for me, is the past. Because the vision angle and ghosting are a big problem that you can't fix easily with cheap monitors. Do you know any polarized single lens projector for home cinema?

Saludos,

Jose

I don't think there are any consumer-level (affordable) polarized single lens projectors, but I was talking about LCDs (or LED TVs) that were displaying polarized images (they worked with REALD-branded polarized glasses.) As far as ghosting, I think it'd be because the image resolution would need to be dropped to 540p in order for a 1080p display to show both images simultaneously, but it looked really good even at 52" (or whatever size the demo TVs were.)

Also, not that I tested, but isn't the viewing/vision angle supposed to be awesome with polarized images, or is it only awesome with projected polarized images?

In either case, I still think they dropped the ball with this current resurgence of 3D. Hopefully, with cameras like epic/scarlet and panny's new one, the cost of shooting 3D becomes so miniscule that it'll make shooting in the format a much easier pill to swallow from a budget standpoint. However (as someone else mentioned above) it's the post production costs that'll drive up the budget.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Totally stupid chart.

Really stupid ;-)

 

[Ravi Kiran]

2D to 3D conversions make 3D look bad. It hasn't even been a year since Avatar was released, so it will take time for movies shot in 3D to hit theaters. The studios could easily cause a backlash by putting out dim, poorly done post-3D films for which people get tired of paying extra. If anything, they should advertise that their true 3D movies were shot in 3D. I think

As for 3D in the home, I haven't seen any 3D TVs yet, but I would think that 3D really needs a big screen to shine. Otherwise, is it very immersive? 3D might be best experienced in a movie theater rather than in the living room, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Eric Lange]

2D to 3D conversions make 3D look bad. It hasn't even been a year since Avatar was released, so it will take time for movies shot in 3D to hit theaters. The studios could easily cause a backlash by putting out dim, poorly done post-3D films for which people get tired of paying extra. If anything, they should advertise that their true 3D movies were shot in 3D. I think

As for 3D in the home, I haven't seen any 3D TVs yet, but I would think that 3D really needs a big screen to shine. Otherwise, is it very immersive? 3D might be best experienced in a movie theater rather than in the living room, but maybe I'm wrong.

I agree with that.

TVs are big enough, in terms of angular field of view, especially now their growing size year on year seems virtually unabated.

It’s not so much about full body immersion like a VR Cave™, but more about eliminating the inherent dimensional ambiguity of 2d images and the perception of fine and complex three dimensional features and textures. I.e. it brings about a higher degree of spatial comprehension and engagement. Whether that translates into dollars or not is really down to the imagination of the producers and content creators. The tools and will are there; the market will come, but can we as technicians, creators and inventors deliver exciting and useful media with the new opportunities offered by this potentially very powerful communication medium? Before long we can’t blame the limitations of the technology but rather the limitations of our creative abilities.

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Joel Kaye]

Is 3D dying? Not for studios. For consumers it was never alive in the first place.

The chart might be stupid but can anybody show any evidence 3D boosted any movies sales? I believe Avatar's sales had very little to do with the fact it was in 3D. It was a great movie. I saw it in 2D first. 3D popped me out of the movie a few times when I did see it that way.

My experience is 3D has ZERO buzz in the real world for real moviegoers. Other than Avatar, I've never heard anyone mention it as a reason to see any movie, anywhere anytime.

Does Inception earn another dollar if it's in 3D? It certainly could have been in 3D. And Salt?

Piranha 3D. Does the audience out there care about the technology? Like fake vs. real 3D? They don't care about 3D at all. Why the would they care if it's real 3D or not?

Are a ton more movies going to be shot in 3D? YES!! 3D is one more thing to talk about and Hollywood likes things to talk about. But to assert consumers give a crap is totally different than saying 3D is important to the studios.

So the author of the article is probably sorta right and those that think more 3D is coming are surely right.

 

[Eric Lange]

Is 3D dying? Not for studios. For consumers it was never alive in the first place.

The chart might be stupid but can anybody show any evidence 3D boosted any movies sales? I believe Avatar's sales had very little to do with the fact it was in 3D. It was a great movie. I saw it in 2D first. 3D popped me out of the movie a few times when I did see it that way.

My experience is 3D has ZERO buzz in the real world for real moviegoers. Other than Avatar, I've never heard anyone mention it as a reason to see any movie, anywhere anytime.

Does Inception earn another dollar if it's in 3D? It certainly could have been in 3D. And Salt?

Piranha 3D. Does the audience out there care about the technology? Like fake vs. real 3D? They don't care about 3D at all. Why the would they care if it's real 3D or not?

Are a ton more movies going to be shot in 3D? YES!! 3D is one more thing to talk about and Hollywood likes things to talk about. But to assert consumers give a crap is totally different than saying 3D is important to the studios.

So the author of the article is probably sorta right and those that think more 3D is coming are surely right.

I think you make some good points.

Initially the market data a few years ago was trying to make out that 3d means triple the revenue and run time because of the novelty that people go see the movie more than once.

Well to ask the question another way, if it was mandatory that all movies were made in 3d, I think movie goers would be really pissed off and would picket outside of studios and cinemas.

On the other hand If 3d movies were banned then most consumers would shrug their shoulders and go “oh well..”.

I think the big players and manufacturers are looking to 3d as more of “life style” set of applications in the home. So can a die hard sports fan live without his football games in 3d; videos of holidays and happy snaps of the kids in stereo and so on, awesome CG games in 3d and so on. It’s pretty easy to see that the latest offerings from for example SONY (not to go on about SONY too much) in terms of prosumer video cameras (14MP Exmore sensor) etc. NEX-5 etc. seem VERY tweekable for 3d applications and it seems perhaps pretty soon that useful S-3d products will be put into the hands of the consumers. I think cinematic S-3d may become more saturated more quickly than people will imagine but S-3d for the home is where the big players are really thinking towards and that may in turn ultimately boost or continue use of s-3d in the cinema.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

My experience is 3D has ZERO buzz in the real world for real moviegoers. Other than Avatar, I've never heard anyone mention it as a reason to see any movie, anywhere anytime.

Do you have kids? : )

My 10 and 7-year old *absolutely* think 3D is a reason to go to a movie, and given a choice (which I have given them many times) they always choose the 3D movie.

Much of this technology is going to take a few years to mature, and the dollars in this battle are not about us, but about our kids and where their overwhelmingly powerful 18 - 24 demographic dollars will go.

Lucas

Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

 

[Eric Lange]

Do you have kids? : )

My 10 and 7-year old *absolutely* think 3D is a reason to go to a movie, and given a choice (which I have given them many times) they always choose the 3D movie.

Much of this technology is going to take a few years to mature, and the dollars in this battle are not about us, but about our kids and where their overwhelmingly powerful 18 - 24 demographic dollars will go.

Lucas

Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

I have to stop agreeing with everybody.
Lucas I totally agree…

Anyone seriously working in this area is looking to develop technologies and techniques for the long term. It takes so long in some cases to bring things to market you always have to try and plan where everybody is going to be in ten years, not where they are now. You pass the ball to where someone is going to be not where they happen to be now, as nothing is static and we are all moving forward (like it or not). It’s only about now that the various big and smaller players really see that this long term goal is now possible, whereas before everyone was a bit on the side lines. Now we can see that these things are doable and worth investing in or worth pushing for (as for a lot of corporations and manufacturers there isn’t anywhere else to push forward and go right now, in spite of being a bit of gamble). If we weren’t doing 3d (apart from 4k which seems much/a bit further away, what would we be doing “new” right now instead?

 

[Joel Kaye]

Do you have kids? : )

My 10 and 7-year old *absolutely* think 3D is a reason to go to a movie

It could be. But kids want all kinds of crap just because you put it in front of them. Like toys in cereal boxes... right? So is 3D just a marketing thing that hooks kids or do kids actually like it better? Have your kids ever picked a 2D movie over a 3D movie?

From a marketing perspective I'd be making 3D movies if I was a studio - especially kid movies.

Hollywood is the absolute king of selling you something you didn't even want yesterday. They do it every time a new movie comes out. 3D is something to talk about. It's worth doing.

But honestly - have you ever had a normal human adult moviegoer BRING UP 3D? I never have. I've had producers bring it up. The 7D probably comes up 20x as often that. That thing actually is a consumer demand phenomenon.

 

[M Most]

2D to 3D conversions make 3D look bad.

Bad 2d to 3d conversions make 3d look bad. Good conversions make it look good. If you think all conversions are bad, you haven't seen conversions done properly and well. That doesn't mean they don't exist and it doesn't mean more of them won't exist.

The fact is that 3D production is a pain and is quite limiting at this point in time. That's one reason why a number of very large pictures due for 3d releases are going the conversion route, but doing it properly, with good, experienced vendors, sufficient time to do it right, and proper planning and execution during live production.