3D had a rough Holiday Season

[Joel Kaye]

"...In fact, the latest data from Nielsen confirmed that a majority of North American consumers might have become disenchanted with 3-D TV technology. Only 3 percent of consumers surveyed said they would definitely buy a 3-D set in the next year.

On the international level, a survey of more than 27,000 potential buyers found that less than one-quarter are likely buyers of 3-D sets, and less than 10 percent of consumers worldwide said they would be buying a 3-D set over the next year..."

http://blog.broadcastengineering.co...ppointing-3-d-tv-sales-during-holiday-season/

Interesting that Americans are less likely than anyone else to want 3D. Maybe we're just more broke right now.

I've heard sets that don't require glasses are starting to look pretty good... maybe that's what 3D needs. Or maybe better scripts are what Hollywood actually needs. :Angel_anim:

 

[Julio Quintana]

I would MUCH rather have a large 4K TV than a 3D TV any day. But I have yet to see a movie where the 3D enhanced the storytelling experience for me ("Avatar" included).

Julio

 

[Thor Melsted]

I would MUCH rather have a large 4K TV than a 3D TV any day. But I have yet to see a movie where the 3D enhanced the storytelling experience for me ("Avatar" included).

Julio

I look forward to seeing what Scorsese does with it in Hugo Cabret.

 

[Mark Collins]

There are only maybe 3 or 4 movies that you can find that are actually in 3D, and there's next to no content available in the home to warrant buying 3DTV's.

The problem is that most people just got HDTV's within the last 3 years, and have no reason to upgrade for another few years. The price is another factor dissuading people from buying them.

 

[Richard Foster]

I must agree with Julio. I prefer excellent storytelling, direction and cinematography. Great lighting is the best "3D" - look at some of the great paintings, photographs or films. 3D in films so far has the feeling of being forced for the most part. If you want real 3D go to a live theater performance.

 

[Austin Glass]

Well, if 3D tvs become big, then maybe the prices on the 1080 tvs will drop to where I can afford one. Don't tell Jim I said this, but for now, that's good enough for my home theater.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I must agree with Julio. I prefer excellent storytelling, direction and cinematography. Great lighting is the best "3D" - look at some of the great paintings, photographs or films. 3D in films so far has the feeling of being forced for the most part. If you want real 3D go to a live theater performance.

Ditto.

I'm making 3d equipment and shoot some myself, but in truth it, at least so far, is still a gimmick - that pulls you out of the "suspension of disbelief" as often as it immerses you.
Quadrophonic music didn't last- even though it makes more real world sense sense than stereo "3d" movies and hasn't come back even though many people now have surround systems that could handle it.

I think it is because cinema is about emotion, creating moods and feelings. Having more to work with doesn't necessarily make it better. Many great still pictures would be ruined as a movie scene - that instant of light and shadow and the ability to take the frozen scene in discreetly over several seconds for a scenic - or that instant of posture or expression in portraits, would be diluted over 60 frames. And for the most part, I think 3d provides too much ancillary information.

I'm sure there will be some excellent uses of stereo 3d that will create those feelings and be classics, but in general I think once the novelty and added ticket prices are gone - most producers will find it isn't a real enhancement and not worth the extra expense and effort even if the costs come down dramatically. I think it will be more relevant in the gaming world where the whole point is to immerse yourself in a virtual world that you interact with constantly.

 

[Jim Collins]

Nothing Worth Buying Yet

Nothing Worth Buying Yet

I agree with Julio above that I would rather have 4K than 3D, but I am interested in 3D, I just haven't seen a 3D TV that I thought was worth buying. The whole point of 3D is to watch movies and that means you need to have a big screen. For me that means 100" or more, which means a projector. But all the 3D TVs I have seen have been pretty small flatscreens. A few of the big brands have "3D Ready" projectors but I am not sure what that means. (All the "HD Ready" TVs a few years ago weren't something you would want to buy.) So the fact that 3D TVs aren't selling well may be more a factor of the products not being ready yet than people not being interested.

While there aren't many 3D Blu Ray discs available yet there are a lot coming out in the next few months so that is going to change quickly.

I have been impressed by the LCD Shutter Glasses they are making now. Very lightweight and curved with a good field of view. Much better than the clunky flat glasses of a few years ago.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I'm starting to love 3D. I really thought it enhanced "Avatar", in the sense that I felt more immersed.... a sense that I had "visited" or "experienced" that planet. Much more so, anyway, than I would have with 2D. To me, the implications were immediately clear: this is the way of the future.

Since then, we witnessed a kneejerk reaction against 3D, because of nonsense like the Clash of the Titans 3D conversion, and because studios seem to think 3D is some magical way to polish a turd. Not to mention the fact that instead of having 3D be an added "benefit" to the theater-going experience (instead of watching on big HDTVs at home), theaters starting charging huge price premiums for 3D -- a major mistake IMO.

But leaving those issues aside....

A lot of times I will hear people say, "3D is nonsense. It's just a lame fad." I always ask them, "Have you seen HUBBLE IMAX 3D"? None of them have. I've never heard of anyone walking out of HUBBLE IMAX 3D from a proper IMAX theater and then getting on the internet and saying, "3D is nonsense!"

Recently I saw TRON 3D at IMAX. I loved the visuals, and the 3D viewing experience. I would not have wanted to see it in 2D, period. A few days ago, I went and saw TANGLED 3D. It's a CGI children's movie from Disney, but I have to say, I really enjoyed it. Visually, 3D is an entirely different type of viewing experience. It makes 2D seem... well... flat. That's not to say that 2D is dead, by any means. It's just to say that 3D, done right, can be very rewarding.

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

Or maybe better scripts are what Hollywood actually needs. :Angel_anim:

Amen to that. One can get very excited about the news of Epic being used on big Hollywood movies, but it's interesting it's all about sequels (Underworld), prequels (Alien, the Hobbit) or reboots (Spiderman) so far (I'm sure it's going to change soon and we'll see that camera used on more "traditional" productions, so to speak), not to mention the 4th Pirates movie.

Meanwhile, the movies that are considered to be the best of 2010, excluding animated features, are almost all based on "original material" (The Social Network, Inception, Black Swan, 127 Hours, the King's speech, True grit, etc) and not one of them was shot or post-converted in 3D.

I have yet to see a movie where the 3D enhanced the storytelling experience for me ("Avatar" included).

I prefer excellent storytelling, direction and cinematography. Great lighting is the best "3D" - look at some of the great paintings, photographs or films. 3D in films so far has the feeling of being forced for the most part. If you want real 3D go to a live theater performance.

at least so far, is still a gimmick - that pulls you out of the "suspension of disbelief" as often as it immerses you. [...] I think it will be more relevant in the gaming world where the whole point is to immerse yourself in a virtual world that you interact with constantly.

I was about to write something like this, but you guys expressed my point of view way better than I ever could, so thanks! :smile:

I really thought it enhanced "Avatar", in the sense that I felt more immersed.... a sense that I had "visited" or "experienced" that planet. Much more so, anyway, than I would have with 2D.

I think what made Avatar work, at least for me, was the fact that the world was so beautifully designed that it "made sense" almost at a subconscious level, but I didn't like it as a whole in 3D, nor in 2D. I went to see Up! in 3D, and only when I watched it a second time in 2D I realized I was enjoying it a lot more...as Michael wrote earlier, the 3D usually pulls me out of the movie rather than immersing me in it. I don't think I'll go see another 3D movie again, unless a 2D version is not available.

To me, the implications were immediately clear: this is the way of the future.

I think we'll have both 2D and 3D in the future, whenever that is, and I'm sure that in the right hands and with more technical advancements something brilliant could come out of it, if it's here to stay as some predict. For some stories it could work perfectly, for others not that much.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Exactly. 3D will work well for some pictures, and 2D will be better for others.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Exactly. 3D will work well for some pictures, and 2D will be better for others.

Just like B+W works for some content, such as portraiture - it's all about what info should be there to add, rather than distract, and when. It even reminds me of the DOF argument - sometimes thin is best, sometimes deep is best.