Dimensionalized features WTF?

[Ross Isaacs]

I just went to see Ironman 3 and was very very disappointed in the 3D. What the hell are Hollywood producers doing eroding the 3D industry away with this line up of pathetic dimensionalized 2D to 3D features? Don't they know they are having a negative impact on the movie going public? Movies like Ironman 3 and all of the dimensionalized 2D films I have seen are preventing the industry from flourishing in my opinion. What does everyone else think of this?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I hear you loud an clear, and because of this and much more, like the fact that I have honestly seen so much crap in this past years and so very badly managed Movie tethers in 3D showings, that I have begin to steer away from 3D... SADLY!!

 

[paulherrin]

have you seen titanic or jurassic park in 3d?

there's a lot of bad s3d out there - whether it's captured that way or a cheap conversion - the technological process is not the problem in either case.

 

[Louis Maddalena]

3D is mostly ruined for me... I always see movies in 2D first now, and if I liked it I give 3D a shot.. I rather see a movie and decide if I like it or not with the variable of quality of 3d removed.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Having worked as a senior compositor at IMAX3D on 7 stereo conversion films, I can tell you first hand that's it's not the the technology that the problem. IMAX was a company that really believed in making 3D a great experience. It is 90 percent artist driven. IMAX recruited the best artists in the business to work on these films and it was no surprise that it costs a lot to do it right. There will well over 100 artists to do 30-40 minutes of conversion in 3-4 months. 3D films come out the same day as the regular films, and film release schedules rarely change. The window from getting final cut of the film to making a conversion is so short. To do a complete film properly would take 6-7 months, and no studio is going to give yo that time. So, guess why IMAX is no longer doing this? They can't compete with prices from overseas. And no surprise, the quality suffers big time as so many corners are cut to get it done on time. Oh how I miss those days, the pay was quite handsome

 

[Ross Isaacs]

I just don't understand why producers would go to the trouble of getting their film cheaply dimensionalised when it looks so bad on the screen? The first 'Clash of the Titans' was a perfect example of a reasonable film destroyed by this process. Ironman 3 looks horrible....flat 3D, dark image apart from the chaotic storyline....what is up with these Hollywood producers.... is it all about short term profit and not about the art at all? These monkeys are destroying our industry and should be held accountable in some way.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Because it still generates a lot of dough.

I just don't understand why producers would go to the trouble of getting their film cheaply dimensionalised when it looks so bad on the screen? The first 'Clash of the Titans' was a perfect example of a reasonable film destroyed by this process. Ironman 3 looks horrible....flat 3D, dark image apart from the chaotic storyline....what is up with these Hollywood producers.... is it all about short term profit and not about the art at all? These monkeys are destroying our industry and should be held accountable in some way.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I just don't understand why producers would go to the trouble of getting their film cheaply dimensionalised when it looks so bad on the screen? The first 'Clash of the Titans' was a perfect example of a reasonable film destroyed by this process. Ironman 3 looks horrible....flat 3D, dark image apart from the chaotic storyline....

Where did you see it, Ross? I saw it in 3D Imax here in LA and it looked fine to me. I had no issues with the picture quality at all. To me, the 3D has to always be in service of the story and characters, and as long as the latter are done well, I don't give a crap about the 3D either way. I believe it's just an enhancement of the essential core of the movie, not something to watch in and of itself.

 

[Mark Toia]

Simple answer is... It's cheaper to do than to shoot stereo 3d for real.
Production especially ...
They send it all off to India or Argentina cut it all out for 50c per hour. Seen it with my own eyes. Cost savings of more than 90% over all and the studios can still sell it as 3d to the theaters.
I wouldn't expect to many more films being shot in 3d for real as time goes by. Nab this year there was no sight of any 3d camera rigs. Consider it a dead man walking.

 

[Ross Isaacs]

Gee Mark thanks for the vote of confidence I have put all my resources into 3D equipment I hope that you are wrong my friend.

 

[Mark Toia]

Sorry man... I hope Im wrong too. but....

 

[Johnny Friday]

Gee Mark thanks for the vote of confidence I have put all my resources into 3D equipment I hope that you are wrong my friend.

Ross, like you...Bob and i see the 3d world quickly closing down. As Mark mentioned, NAB had virtually nothing new 3d. 3ality breakup with ET is another big sign. I see it going back to what it was....the odd 3d IMAX film now and then.....but big features and 3d television-i think those are at the end of their road. And, just no production funds for our costly setups. We see it as get some under our belt now before things change drastically and our rigs are no longer useable. I think 4k production for television is of the next big wave to stick. That's what i am working towards and we are seeing a lot of interest in our docs shot at 4k by distributors--NOT because there is a 4k distribution pipeline yet, but because they see it coming and folks like Off the Fence who widely distribute nat. hist. docs want to be first to offer an HD and 4k version of such a show....This is what's been screaming the past few months for me.....I'm selling quite a few underwater 4k clips to television companies lately and for a while they wanted 3d clips, but that is all now a dead end.....so if the television companies making 3d clips no longer want clips, then it's just one more sign of the marketplace shifting...---yes it sucks for our investments and what we planned for....work is non-existent our side of the pond. Our rates are just unaffordable. In fact had a ridiculous request last week to produce and deliver a 3d 40minute television underwater doc for $150k. I had to tell them that post production would surpass even their budget for the whole show. They just don't get it....Atlantic and Colossus asked Bob and i to make a bid for the underwater portion of Galapagos 3d---they fell out of their chair when we bid it....so, they bought 4mins of my 2d footage and dimensionalized it....So, the market seems to only be able to afford a well written and produced for IMAX show.....well, that is my opinion. Bob will likely tell you the same thing. That said, we're shooting piece by piece now on our own dime Bob's show until we secure funding. But we realize we have a finite window of opportunity before something changes the equipment market.

.....i'm in your court....i hate it. I invested big as well...but now requests for 4k are coming up all around and i feel really good about this.

 

[Johnny Friday]

oh...and I agree. I think 3d is RUINED due to such terrible 3d work or 2d to 3d conversions which most that i have seen are horrible and just not the "3d experience" like at IMAX say watching a Howard Hall show.

 

[Liana]

3D was always a gimmick. Still is. And it always will be.

Very few categories of content -let alone movies- actually benefit from 3D. But every decade or so we get some innovation and the accompanying media hype that assures us that, yes, this time it is for real. Except it never is, because 3D adds so little to the visual experience and has plenty of potential to distract rather than immerse in the story. Which defeats the very purpose of the third dimension....

Good to see that the current 3D wave is dying as reflected in box office performance of "3D" movies and also and in 3D TV sales. Now everyone can go back and focus on making content the proven 2D way for another decade or so. Just because something is old does not mean it is inherently broken and needs to be replaced. The wheel is an ageless invention, and so are the 2D images projected on screens and TV.

 

[Johnny Friday]

I think 3d targeted IMAX productions (big budget) are the exception with your statement though.....good 3d IMAX experience is something people go to see with the family.....and good 3d is COSTLY---and more so underwater and underwater good 3d is good when shot properly. Howard Hall has proven this time and again with his underwater productions....but there are not so many 8million dollar budgets floating around out there these days.

 

[Joachim Hoge]

As my 8 year old daughter asks before going to the cinema : "I hope we don´t have to wear those stupid glasses to watch this movie?"
I have to agree with Liana.
It might benefit IMAX, I never seen 3D in an IMAX, but howow many countries have IMAX theatres?

EDIT: I actually enjoyed the HFR 3D in the Hobbit, but it did interfere with the film IMHO

 

[Drew Baird]

I think 3d targeted IMAX productions (big budget) are the exception with your statement though.....good 3d IMAX experience is something people go to see with the family.....and good 3d is COSTLY---and more so underwater and underwater good 3d is good when shot properly. Howard Hall has proven this time and again with his underwater productions....but there are not so many 8million dollar budgets floating around out there these days.

I would say that the only use for 3D that gets me excited is underwater IMAX. There is a whole other world beneath the surface of the ocean that I don't normally get to experience, so I would happily pay the extra few bucks for 3D in that scenario.

That said, I cannot stand seeing blockbuster films in 3D. The only 3D film I have seen that I felt it actually added to the experience was Coraline. Great film, and they used the 3D in a way that fit the story.

 

[Bob Gundu]

For the record, I loved watching U2 in 3D concert film.

 

[Maciej Orman]

I bet none of you Ladies and Gentlemen have ever seen realistic 3D content much less 3D movie.
But if your argue then please name the 3D content, screen size it was projected on and and aprox. screen distance.

Maciej Orman

 

[Christopher Mills]

That emperor's wardrobe looks a little over priced, guys!

That emperor's wardrobe looks a little over priced, guys!

Bluntly, I can't watch 3D films without developing a major migraine. Literally, not figuratively. I wear corrective lenses due to having radically different vision acuity in each eye.
stereoscopic viewing glasses interfere with my vision in a way that is cripplingly painful. It does "work" in that I can percieve the 3D effect with the glasses, but I can not enjoy it at all.

I am far from alone in this, and for people like me the extra price of a ticket to a 3D film adds insult to injury.

For me it is a defective product.. though perhaps I am a defective consumer.
RIght now, I am trying to find 2D screenings of the curent round of big fx driven movies so that I may see and enjoy them