Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Does 2D have a future?

agreed.. but when i say 3d, i mean when it will be as comfortable to watch as 2D.. perhaps without glasses and perhaps even holografic as some mentioned..
i feel the day will come.. Color was mocked too, critics said that color films made people look like salmon.

Of course, its all for stimulating an interesting discussion. You've all had me at "eye strain", im sold for the epic already :)
 
I have seen the movies this year in 3d and in 2d...

Bottom line: 3D does not impress me or my kids. None of my boys ask for a movie in 3d, they don't care, and 3d does not offer enough.

I have smart kids.

If I had to pick one, I liked UP in 3d simply because they did not throw it in my face

Jay
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
But it's a kid's movie... :cool:

Yeah, the story was a bit lame, but my daughter (6) loved it.
Click to expand...

Mine's 2 on Friday. So it might have been a bit Scary. Plus it was meant to be one of those evenings to ourselves.

The irony of taking an evening off being a parent and going to see a kids movie is not totally lost on me BTW. :idea:
 
The biggest problem with 3D movies is that the movie is freaking out the brain's interpretation of the information coming from the eyes. It looks like something is coming very close to the viewer because of the difference in targeting between the right and left eyes; that's okay, but the problem is that then the brain is telling the eyes to focus on something close, but is confused because then the image would be blurry because the screen is actually far away. Some people have trouble seeing after watching a 3D movie because their brain has been getting accustomed to this paradox of targeting distance versus focal distance. One way to reduce this effect is to not go too extreme on the targeting difference between eyes with the 3D.

Of course that would ruin the whole point of 3D movies: to try to sell more tickets at more expensive prices. We've seen this movie before, pun very much intended. It's all about differentiation; I'm not against this at all in principle. I love going to a great theater with a huge screen to watch movies. Sound, color, widescreen, surround sound - these were all true enhancements that had intrinsic lasting value. 3D as we know it is interesting, and novel to some people, but I prefer the 2D experience. Maybe there will be some new technology that will be a true enhancement, but I don't think that the current state of the art is more than another 3D fad. I am well aware of the statements made by James Cameron and others, and I'm not saying I know more than they do, but I am saying that the viewing experience is physiologically flawed and therefore I wouldn't place all my bets on it.

To me, the biggest difference with current 3D versus the past is the ease of production and post - way easier than before, so everyone can dabble in it. Let's see what the consumer chooses over the long run.

Matthew Verkler
 
rodbradley said:
And as David Mullen and others point out, it is completely inappropriate and would destroy the necessary identification and suspension of disbelief required by any serious drama.

Maybe good for "joke" or gimmick movies or maybe commercials -- but I don't even think it will be that effective in horror or action even when executed by the more skilled technical directors. I imagine this fad will quickly loose steam. Perhaps it will invade the gaming world where it might be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Hitchcock filmed "Dial M for Murder" in 3D and when you see it as originally intended you understand you were loosing half of the film.
Both my retinas offer a spectacular view of a regular day. I'm used to it.
 
Jay A. Kelley said:
I have smart kids.

If I had to pick one, I liked UP in 3d simply because they did not throw it in my face
Click to expand...
looooooooool you won dude..
the best post is yours.. ehehehehehe
 
I just saw UP this weekend and the 3D was alright. Honestly, I'd rather have gone 2D. The digital projection was nice though.
 
I've heard people say here and I've thought it too, that 3D will really take off ONLY when you don't need funky glasses to put on.

What would that take to get that effect in a movie theater...to feel like 3D without having to wear 3D glasses? Could it be done today? And if not, how many years away are we from this kind of technology? Any guesses?
 
Personally, I don't think 3D is that great. I see it more as a marketing tool to combat piracy and get more people to go to the theaters.

A pirated movie (camera in a theater style) won't be able to preserve the 3D look since the system works on (to what I understand) is a polarizing system, especially the RealD projection systems, making going to the theaters more of ane xperience worth paying for.
 
Stefan Christou said:
The irony of taking an evening off being a parent and going to see a kids movie is not totally lost on me BTW. :idea:
Click to expand...

Yeah, big difference when they're 2. And I've lived through that same irony myself.

sbcooler said:
What would that take to get that effect in a movie theater...to feel like 3D without having to wear 3D glasses? Could it be done today? And if not, how many years away are we from this kind of technology? Any guesses?
Click to expand...

It's all science fiction right now. There are various theories about how to do such things. Even some promising lab tests, such as intersecting lasers in 3D space to vaporize microscopic moisture droplets in a "pixel-sized" flash of light.

I think the technology is possible, but to guess how long just seems like an exercise in futility... Where's my flying car?
 
3D and 2D are two separate mediums and should be treated as such.

Its like saying that once 3D printers (zcorp.com) start being mass produced for the home, everyone is gonna be printing out scultpural pictures instead of printing out a clean flat photo you can put in their wallet.

It has its position, as sculpture does in art. Sculpture never killed the painting. The photograph however, forced the painter to become more creative. So maybe this new exhibitory trend will force filmmakers to think outside the square a little.

Lets not forget, cinema is above all a product, and as a commercial product it seeks competitive qualities for it to sustain marketplace position.

Being 3D also becomes additional collateral to please investors. It makes good business sense.
 
The horsless cart will never catch on
TV will never replace radio
A black man will never be presedent.
3D will Never catch on.

Never is a strong word

3d has its problems it not great right now, but thats how it starts!
Don't be so quick to dismiss new things on the first outset. it's the poeple who see the potential early are the ones who make the $$$.
 
Jay A. Kelley said:
Bottom line: 3D does not impress me or my kids. None of my boys ask for a movie in 3d, they don't care, and 3d does not offer enough.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to know if a movie being in 3D vs. the same movie in 2D ever sold an extra ticket due to the 3D factor. Maybe there's "some" novelty value but I think the studios are simply trying to differentiate their product any way they can. Face it, we've got RED so they can't really go make Sideways for $5 million today. They are better off putting the $5 million into the next $400 million dollar spectacle (2D and 3D versions)... which literally everyone will see.

That's what I'd be doing if I was a studio exec. But 3D down at the low budget level? Not sure that makes much sense.
 
Tom Mitchell said:
The horsless cart will never catch on
TV will never replace radio
A black man will never be presedent.
3D will Never catch on.

Never is a strong word

3d has its problems it not great right now, but thats how it starts!
Don't be so quick to dismiss new things on the first outset. it's the poeple who see the potential early are the ones who make the $$$.
Click to expand...

TV didn't replace radio, and isn't about to do so, even 50+ years after it's introduction...
 
Charles Angus said:
TV didn't replace radio, and isn't about to do so, even 50+ years after it's introduction...
Click to expand...

True, but when people sit down for their evenings for entertainment, is it a TV your watching or a radio your all listening too? The Role of the radio as a medium changed with TV!

When I wrote that statement I had a feeling at the time someone would say just that. The point I’m making is that I don’t think that 3D is the B all and end all to film. But saying it will never catch on is also a naive statement! Because as a technology it’s constantly evolving, at the moment it taking it first steps, but as more people go to watch more 3D films then there will be more money in 3D R&D.

And radio is still around today because of the advances in technology that made it portable, I don’t think it would still be quite as big if you couldn’t listen on the move!:violent:

The idea of 3D is nothing new! Just because someone comes up with an idea dosen’t mean it’s a good one, there are other factors involved. The Old Red and green anaglyph method was obviously flawed in that fact it took more away from the viewing experience then it ever added and was just a novelty that died out. But there are also the social implications to technology as a society you have to consider.

:couch:To keep people going to the pictures, when they have their big plasma screen home cinema systems, and bittorrent, there needs to be a reason why someone would get in there car and hand over hard earned cash to see a film. 3D and Imax seem to be what’s happening to combat that!

:yikes:Young kids are great market to target at first, because if they want to go you have to have a parent go too, and you automatically have an extra bum on a seat. Kids then grow up watching 3D making it there norm. So when they become the 17-25 olds in about 5-10 years time they will be the mainstream Hollywood market. Now I’m no expert on such matters but it just seems that that’s the way it’s going to go.:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top