Can we get over 3D now please?

[Jake Bastian]

I don't think it's that hard to understand. Less than a year ago, that percentage was over 60% on nearly every 3D release. The considerably lower percentage on recent releases to me clearly indicates that either the novelty is wearing off, the audience doesn't feel the ticket price premium is worth it, or both. Personally, I think it's both, along with the fact that much of the moviegoing public has now experienced stereoscopic 3D at least once, and just didn't find it that compelling. Or, in some cases, found it distracting and annoying. Once again, take your pick.

I don't think it's going away. I do, however, think that you're likely to see fewer, rather than more, releases in the future, with the studios less likely to order every picture to consider it regardless of the merit based on content.

I see the point, but Pirates is one movie. Ticket distribution on a single movie is more useful for discovering who is going to see Pirates 4 movies than it is for gauging reception for the 3D market as a whole. It represent a single data point on the latter.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

I seriously just don't understand how so many cinematographers and camera department people in this thread can willingly subscribe to a technology that completely limits their craft and doesn't offer anything that 2D can't do.

Because they disagree with you, and think it expands their craft.

I have had the pleasure of talking to several Academy Award-winning DPs and Directors that have visited 3ality Digital - artists at the top of their game. Those that I've spoken with believe in the creative possibilities of S3D and how it can enhance a story. I've said it before in a few threads and will repeat it... when features start coming out that are non VFX-driven and use S3D as a powerful dramatic tool for storytelling, it will change perceptions. Not everyone's, of course, but a lot of people.

The tests that I've been looking at recently with great acting talent and camera crews that really believe in S3D and a DP/Director that embrace it from the beginning as an integral part of storytelling - yes, it absolutely does make a difference. Looking at the scene in 2D is still great, but the S3D component adds a visceral feel and an intimacy that doesn't exist in 2D.

You can still play with 3D perspective in 2D! I mean, just watch Last Action Hero (it was just on tv here). Yes, it's a terrible and cheesy movie, with everything, including the cinematography, going way over the top. But look at the kind of shots they did. Deep focus, objects constantly coming out at the audience, exaggerated depth. You don't need 3D to play with these aspects of space!

But you need S3D for it to be S3D. It's a qualitatively different experience. Some people don't like that, and that's fine! Don't equate the two - they're really not the same.

Coming from a music background, it's sort of like saying, "You don't need a Steinway to play piano!" Which is true, but it's still not a Steinway. Qualitatively different.

Best,

Lucas

 

[Rob Lohman]

Loved Avatar in 3D, loved Pirates in 3D (digital Imax), loved the new Transformers trailer in 3D (space & destruction never looked so good) and I've loved every single animation movie in 3D. So does my family and my girlfriend.

The one I didn't really like was Beowulf a long time ago. I also tend to like polarized better than shuttered because of the heavy weight of the shuttered glasses

To each their own?

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

You know, I think the only thing in 3D that I fully 100% enjoyed besides the Muppets 3D movie/ride that used to be at Universal, was the Phish 3D concert film.
"Loving Cup" in 3D was epic with the horn section and background singers

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

I guess a nature documentary that takes you into the jungle to look at exotic animals you will never see in the wild would be served better by 3d capture than something like a feature film with a narrative.

Trevor, you point to a question that I've had in mind the last weeks. I'm in wildlife documents and trying to make up my mind whether should shoot the next big project in 3d or not. In this context big means that the project will take several years, but still, will be shot by a small group of people.

There are definitely situations in wildlife shooting where the stereoscopic image adds a significant additional value, and guess many people would and will appreciate this "extra dimension". While saying this, for me the crucial issue is, is there going to be a portion large enough in the audience who will appreciate or even demand 3d images? Correspondingly, my own preferences are very much a side issue.

The difficulty in making decisions lies in the additional effort needed to shoot in 3d. And I'm not worried of the technical issues but instead on the different practices 3d bring with it. That is, as is well known, long telescopes do not fit well in 3d shooting. Consequently, one should get the cameras close to the animals while being hided oneself. The extra weight implies the tripod & fluidhead, dollies, crane, cable carts etc. should be sturdier, and needless to say, this means also literally quite an additional load of equipment to carry out there. Hence the question, will 3d provide one with a unique advantage in wildlife shooting, will there be a demand making 3d a necessity, or, the other way around, will the current wave diminish in the next years or not? In other words, "to be or not to be" ...

Making predictions is always difficult, especially making predictions of the future.