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?

C

cinemano

Banned
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello

Just wondering if it would be wiser to get the Scarlet 3D set rather than a epic x? Everything we do will seem so flat and old fashioned once everyone else shoots 3d. Or will it mainly surive for animations for now?

Would be clever to have a scarlet 3d reward for those who want to go 3rd dimension rather than more lines..
 
Both have a future.

Graeme
 
3D still photography has been around for a long time and has not in any way replaced 2D photography.

3D movies are nice for a change some time but the viewing experience is seriously flawed. You either have to wear uncomfortable goggles or sit still in one place. And the frame around a movie gets in the way of true 3D.
 
2D isn't going away for the typical dramatic films. I don't see a movie like "Revolutionary Road" or "Frost/Nixon" being shot in 3D.

Get a 3D rig if you seriously plan on making 3D movies, but not because you think that all movies are going to have to be 3D, because they won't.
 
Of course, 3D movies are not 3D, they're stereoscopic, and that's not quite the same thing... What would drive 3D movies is true 3D and no-glasses display, but I don't see that being a practical reality any time soon.

Graeme
 
sander kamp said:
3D movies are nice for a change some time but the viewing experience is seriously flawed. You either have to wear uncomfortable goggles or sit still in one place. And the frame around a movie gets in the way of true 3D.
Click to expand...

Yep. And let's not forget the bit of eye-strain that many people endure because the inter-ocular distance used within the films doesn't quite fit with their own. But all that can be done in that situation is use an average measurement and they do a pretty good job overall these days.

3D will not replace 2D. Many films would not be served well by going 3D.

OTOH, I do see studios looking for new ways to boost the visual appeal of upcoming film productions. I think the use of larger formats is going to play an increasingly bigger role as it has in the two recent Batman films. So I think larger formats will definitely play a role, especially as higher resolutions and more options for digital projection come available.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Yep. And let's not forget the bit of eye-strain that many people endure because the inter-ocular distance used within the films doesn't quite fit with their own. .
Click to expand...

Or people like myself that don't have binocular vision.
 
cinemano said:
Would be clever to have a scarlet 3d reward for those who want to go 3rd dimension rather than more lines..
Click to expand...

Simply getting two cameras and a rig will NOT be enough, contrary to popular expectations. 3D is way more complex and has its own set of rules.

I expect a large abuse of 3D.


Noah Kadner said:
I'd ask if 3D has a future-
Click to expand...

Go and see next Dreamworks 3D release (in RealD, NOT in Dolby3D) and you'll get the answer.


Jeff Kilgroe said:
Yep. And let's not forget the bit of eye-strain that many people endure because the inter-ocular distance used within the films doesn't quite fit with their own.
Click to expand...

I tried doing some perceptive tests in some 3D projections and it seems like it is not just the interocular which causes eye-strain, but also the convergence.

In some scenes, it was logical to concentrate on certain parts of the picture (object in the foreground), while convergence was set to different part (background). Feeling of eye-strain passed when watching the background.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Of course, 3D movies are not 3D, they're stereoscopic, and that's not quite the same thing... What would drive 3D movies is true 3D and no-glasses display, but I don't see that being a practical reality any time soon.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Exactly. Personally, I don't understand the appeal of stereoscopic movies, and would much rather watch a 2d movie.

Call me when 3D means 3D...
 
There is also a logistical issue. Surround sound, for example, has been around for a long time but is still not available to everybody for one reason or another. It will continue to cost people money on top of their original investment and that takes a long time for new technology to become integrated into average Joe's home. People are still getting converter boxes for their TVs. Until there is a clear economical option things will take a while to change.
 
well.. i mean 3D when it stops being a 'magic' thing but a normal thing.. when tvs no longer require glasses and dont give us headaches.. when directors stop having objects flying by the camera lens to amaze the audience, but rather be carried 100% by the story.. 3D when it becomes just as taken for granted as is colour today. Perhaps serious films will also use it. Lets lot forget when 'colour' was newish in hollywood films, it was used for the wizard of oz at the fantasy world scenes. I know 3d kept failing in the past, but technology is bringing us 3D without giving headaches, double-visions, and i believe will soon become the norm in our lifetime.. I'm just wondering if playing it safe by shooting 3D for the footage, even if just using footage from one lense; so that the film can be seen in the next decades the way people will exept later, is worth it.
 
Especially these days in Hollywood, because of the nature of the executive greenlighting imagination (or lack thereof) and a perverse financial reward system that is rather like that of Wall Street, the technical ability to do things means they will be done -- not because it contributes to the expressive depth of the project, but because it has the cache of the latest gimmick or feels "important" and new.

I think a lot of camera movement these days has that same kind of doing it because it can be done feel -- razmataz for the sake of razmataz whether it makes sense or not. I think sterescopic (so-called 3D) films are by and large in that category. Form over substance. It has invaded our culture in a very big way on all levels, and this is just one more example.

And as has been pointed out, it isn't just getting a rig, there are a lot more issues involved on the technical side.

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.

The last 3-D (so-called) movie I saw, an Imax underwater exploration, made a lot of people queasy -- and I would've much prefered viewing it in 2 dimensions and provided the perspective of depth on my own with the help of good cinemaphotography.

I'm guessing 3-D will almost automatically dictate a lack of depth in the content itself -- if content is a concern. No way will 2-D go away.
 
cinemano said:
Hello

Just wondering if it would be wiser to get the Scarlet 3D set rather than a epic x? Everything we do will seem so flat and old fashioned once everyone else shoots 3d. Or will it mainly surive for animations for now?

Would be clever to have a scarlet 3d reward for those who want to go 3rd dimension rather than more lines..
Click to expand...

Wonder how you came to this weird conclusion. 3D movies are kinda circus attractions made for popcorn movies (my opinion) - there`s no way it can totally replace 2D ones - just tell me where the sense would be to shoot comedies, romantic movies, dramas, thrillers of the type of "Se7en" and almost anything else except animated films, kids movies or a small amount of science fiction??
 
cinemano said:
well.. i mean 3D when it stops being a 'magic' thing but a normal thing.. when tvs no longer require glasses and dont give us headaches.. when directors stop having objects flying by the camera lens to amaze the audience, but rather be carried 100% by the story.. 3D when it becomes just as taken for granted as is colour today. Perhaps serious films will also use it. Lets lot forget when 'colour' was newish in hollywood films, it was used for the wizard of oz at the fantasy world scenes. I know 3d kept failing in the past, but technology is bringing us 3D without giving headaches, double-visions, and i believe will soon become the norm in our lifetime.. I'm just wondering if playing it safe by shooting 3D for the footage, even if just using footage from one lense; so that the film can be seen in the next decades the way people will exept later, is worth it.
Click to expand...

Here you`re talking about something different - technology like this doesn`t exist now, must be kinda 3D geometry and raster image capture combined and I don`t see how a current "3D scarlet" would make any sense to do this.
 
I left my little girl at home and took the wife to see Coroline in 3D (she's into Tim Burton type stuff). The story is a bit lame but visually it was really great. There was a serious wow factor.

I didn't dig things "flying past" my face and there were eye strain issues, so it's not something I could watch all the time, but I really did think it added to the experience.

Film is a visual medium after all.

But will it take over? Not yet IMO. And the current technology wouldn't let the average person watch an evening's TV without them feeling like they're going blind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top