Is 3D Already Dying?

[Eric Lange]

It could be. But kids want all kinds of crap just because you put it in front of them. Like toys in cereal boxes... right? So is 3D just a marketing thing that hooks kids or do kids actually like it better? Have your kids ever picked a 2D movie over a 3D movie?

... phenomenon.

Mine did, a twelve year old and a seven year old.

I wanted to see Despicable Me in 3d but my kids wouldn’t have it.

The problem was a few years ago we went to Disney in Florida where they had permanent “old style” 3d cinematic installations, Donald duck and bugs and the like (not even captain Emo…); The kids complained that 3d makes you sick…and this and that….

I say “no, no, 3d is really good now,…really, they have RealD and all that and the image is really steady as its CG rendered and digitally projected, and it’s not gimmicky stuff that comes out of the screen all the time..”

Young Henry says, “No, I don’t want to risk it and besides I hear the colors are really dark and Zoe will have to hold the glasses on her head the whole time as she is so small…”

“Ooooo K, so we’ll see the 2d version.” (So I’m the disappointed kid).

Kids are more savvy, fickle and discerning than you might think. Bad 3d seems however to leave a lasting impression, given that kids are inherently of an impressionable age. So maybe we need to make our 3d REALLY good in the first place!

 

[Lucas Wilson]

Your points are good points and not to diminish them, but just as a point of interest...

Have your kids ever picked a 2D movie over a 3D movie?

No. Not when there was a choice between 2D and 3D. Not even a close call.

Lucas

 

[Leo Sardello]

According to this article (3rd paragraph from the bottom):

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/26/ready-or-not-the-latest-3d-technology-is-coming-home/

4% of people are physically incapable of experiencing 3D, while another 56% of people between 18 and 38 may have difficulty in getting the whole of the 3D experience. Now if those numbers are correct, in theory I would think we would start to see a drop off in 3D ticket sales at some point as a portion of that 60% discover the experience isn’t worth the extra money for them. I have to think that if the experience isn’t pretty amazing for a person for any reason, they’re only gunna pay the premium to try it a couple of times before they give up. Poor conversions certainly can’t help this.

While the data gizmodo is citing is far from representing an accurate picture of the current state of 3D; I’m curious if this drop off could be related to the above, or due to something else like the lack of a true event movie to drive the extra cost during the summer. Interestingly enough my 15 year old niece claims to see no difference between 2D and 3D and hates the glasses. I on the other hand have thoroughly enjoyed all 3 3D experiences I’ve had (Up, Avatar, and Coraline).

And a problem with 3D in the home is that the HDTV penetration in the US only broke the 50% mark this year. Many of those people who just bought new TV’s are not going to be very interested in purchasing another one so soon. If 3D is here to stay, I think it will be quite awhile before we see any type of broad adoption of it in the home. The local sports bar might be a different matter

 

[jonnycom]

Many of the HD TV's sold in the past year are already 3D ready if they can do 120hz, just add the nvidea kit for $170. But it will really take off when the passive TV's start shipping which are right around the corner. I think the active systems being sold now are just a way to get rid of the old panels. I saw Sony's true 1080 xpol and it was amazing, also a new passive laser TV is getting close to coming out.

 

[Leo Sardello]

That’s true to an extent, but my understanding is that there is a difference between a “3D ready” TV, and a TV that merely has a 120hz refresh rate. Especially when it comes to the new 3D Blu-ray players that pump 3D over HDMI 1.4. The number of TVs ready to accept content from 3D Blu-ray is relatively small, very recent and still rather expensive. Unless the consumer purchased a “3D Ready” labeled TV, their display is unlikely to be ready for the new standards for 3D delivery.

The 120hz 3D Vision compatible TVs listed on Nvidia’s site have used DLP’s 3D technology which makes them 3D ready.

But if I’m wrong on any of this, I hope to be corrected :wink5:

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

I think 3D has a lot of life left to it, that said, I do not see it as ever replacing 2D films. I see it more as an "extended option" for those movies where it makes sense.

Right now, people are stuffing anything they can find into 3D to make some extra coin. This could be the killer for 3D. If enough crappy product is released, then overall sales will go down and studios will lose the incentive (thank you "Last Airbender").

"Avatar" made a statement: "This is how you do 3D right". But the movies which would follow Avatar's example are still in production. We'll have to see how this all shakes out.

As a consumer, I no longer see a movie in 3D just because it is. I check to see if it was shot in 3D or just messed with after. As for films like "Toy Story 3" My kids do not give a rip about 3D, and my 3 year old will not wear the glasses. HOWEVER we saw "Dispicable Me" in 3D and they loved that, especially the end credits.

Jay

 

[Petri Teittinen]

But if I’m wrong on any of this, I hope to be corrected

You're not wrong. There are two worlds of consumer 3D around at the moment and it gets confusing. PCs attached to a 3D monitor capable of 120Hz refresh rates use "time-sequential" or "page flip" structure, i.e. the graphics card is simply pushing 120 frames per second to the display. New HDMI 1.4 consumer 3D HDTVs are unable to process 120fps time-sequential video streams, so you can't connect a PC to a HDMI 1.4 3D HDTV and expect it to work.

Nvidia is working on a piece software called 3DTV Play which is supposed to bridge this gap.

Blu-ray 3D uses "frame packing" structure where every frame has a resolution of 1920x2205. It contains both left and right eye images inside a single frame with 45 'empty' pixels in between. Blu-ray 3D players output these frames at 24p which the new HDMI 1.4 3D HDTVs are designed to display.

Time-sequential 120Hz monitors and older 3D DLP TVs are unable to process or display "frame packed" video from a stand-alone Blu-ray 3D player.

 

[Eric Lange]

According to this article (3rd paragraph from the bottom):

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/26/ready-or-not-the-latest-3d-technology-is-coming-home/


And a problem with 3D in the home is that the HDTV penetration in the US only broke the 50% mark this year. Many of those people who just bought new TV’s are not going to be very interested in purchasing another one so soon. If 3D is here to stay, I think it will be quite awhile before we see any type of broad adoption of it in the home. The local sports bar might be a different matter

The big players are looking at 3d TV as a long term investment, so minimally let’s say a fifteen year arc to see a real return on investment. Very different from a movie production that may get its money back in four years after initial investment.

A few years ago at a major stereo conference they had the inventor of the DLP give a presentation. He was saying at that time there were 2 million 3d capable TVs in people’s homes in the US; (interdigitated 3d). It’s not hard to see that in the next few years there will be at least 10 million 3d capable TV’s in people’s homes. Maybe a third of those owners will stump up for the extra kit to actually experience s-3d. To manufacturers that may be of the order of $500 (additional) per unit x 3 million users = $1.5 billion additional dollars at point of sale. That’s pretty conservative and that’s just the US. The big players don’t really get to see much of the revenue created by a $7 increase in ticket price at a 3d movie (it’s a bit of closed loop, and the cookie jar is not that big).

I think over the next 15 years a broader uptake of S-3d in the home will be unavoidable. Anyone who grew up in the 60’s or 70’s will probably appreciate the fact that very few of the promises of the FUTURE ever came to pass. We don’t fly around in fusion powered automobiles, or have weekend trips to the moon, BUT for $500.00 we can have 3d TV???? That’s a no brainer. I used to be a millionaire, but regardless of how much money you have I think you are pretty careless or decadent if you buy a 60” plasma. I think with s-3d you get a lot more bang for your buck, and fifteen years from now most people will have junked their 2d HDTV’s. I think within five years the psychology of keeping up with the Jones’s or the Rendons is going to take over and within ten years at least quarter of American homes COULD have 3d capability. Advertising of course is going to pay for most of this which is what pays for most of the channels and programming we have; in the first few years people will be captivated by Big Macs spinning slowly in their living room that appear to drip ketchup onto the living room carpet. I think only fifteen years from now can we say yup 3d worked or became a major flop.

Like the “graph” the s-3d movies will come and go in waves like the ebb and flow of the tides. Next year will see a glut and over saturation of 3d movies, but ultimately S-3d at home and many billions of advertising dollars will carry the general use of S-3d and that will ultimately spill over to the cinema. Who knows maybe people go to see 2d movies just as a relief to get away from all that bloody 3d!

Cheers,
Eric

 

[Tim Morten]

Possible.

Or it could be a fad, despite the best efforts of the consumer electonics marketing departments.

Time will tell... I'm sure we'll see an uptick in consumer 3D capability (you can only go up from zero), and it may eventually add so little cost that there's no reason NOT to have a 3D set.

I guess the question to answer is: will 3D content be the de-facto standard, or will it only garner a minority audience who continue to harbor enthusiasm for it?

Some believe the former, some the latter... I'm definitely in the second camp.

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Rick Burnett]

What amuses me is here you can get a 3D system for your home television in 1987!

http://books.google.com/books?id=Au...resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I remember even earlier, the Atari ST had 3D shutter glasses available as well. This tech has been around for A LONG time.

I agree with one thing, so far, 2D to 3D conversions have been horrible. I really disliked the 3D of Alice in Wonderland, as they did NOT do a good job of building a realistic 3D experience. Avatar on the other hand was MUCH better done (obviously recorded in 3D).

Not that a better 2D to 3D is not possible, but clearly it's not trivial either. With something like a pair of Scarlet 2/3 running, I have to imagine acquisition will get easier with smaller gear. For post, yeah, that's a tough one. Especially for VFX work where you are doing things like rotoscoping dual viewpoints. I don't envy the person compositing those shots.

One thing I will point out that many of you might not be aware of but gaming is going to be really pushing 3D technology for NON 3D purposes. Sony is working on a system where two players can watch two different full screen images on a 3D set for multiplayer modes. This is AWESOME as split screen has always been so horrible.

All that said, I have NO desire to get a 3D projection system or TV. I'll just go to IMAX with my power pass and see 3D films for $5.

 

[Leo Sardello]

Sony is working on a system where two players can watch two different full screen images on a 3D set for multiplayer modes. This is AWESOME as split screen has always been so horrible.

I too was reading about that. Totally sweet concept! :cornut:
And certainly the more ways the technology can be applied the more reasons to buy into it.

There’s also a demo of a Microsoft display that can track two people and display a 3D image to them independently for their viewing angle, without glasses. That’s got some potential.

Although, another thing I’ve noticed for myself in the theater is that the screen really has to cover my field of view for the 3D to be very effective for me. Not that I don’t see an effect farther back, but it just kind of looks like a moving diorama to me when I can see the frame. This will definitely affect my decisions in purchasing a home display if I ever choose to do so. I wonder if this is true for other people too.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I too was reading about that. Totally sweet concept! :cornut:
And certainly the more ways the technology can be applied the more reasons to buy into it.

There’s also a demo of a Microsoft display that can track two people and display a 3D image to them independently for their viewing angle, without glasses. That’s got some potential.

Although, another thing I’ve noticed for myself in the theater is that the screen really has to cover my field of view for the 3D to be very effective for me. Not that I don’t see an effect farther back, but it just kind of looks like a moving diorama to me when I can see the frame. This will definitely affect my decisions in purchasing a home display if I ever choose to do so. I wonder if this is true for other people too.

Absolutely! This is why I only go to the IMAX for 3D and sit in the middle.

 

[jonnycom]

The future is already here.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Very interesting piece on TheWrap.com about "The Dark Side in 3D's Bright Future":

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/3d-progress-lost-dark-19392

No question, the article is written with a negative slant, but the essential facts are true: you do lose more than half the light in a one-projector/polarized system. I think this will eventually be solved, but there are a lot of tough challenges for theatrical 3D projection.

 

[Miltos Pilalitos]

No matter what the companies want or what kind of technology is developed, the only thing that counts at the end is what the audience wants.

This is a report from last day's ComiCon about Cowboys & Aliens:

Favreau told the crowd that he wanted to do a straight up John Ford-esque Western with old school sci-fi elements reminscent of films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He also insitigated a monstrous cheer from the crowd when he announced the film wouldn't be in 3D. A sign of what's to come? Perhaps

 

[Justin Armstrong]

In response the 1st post, god I hope so. Watching a 3d tv display at best buy is cool for a good 5 minutes, but that's about it in my opinion.
I think this kind of technology goes hand in hand with the idea of people thinking everyone will have a 4k tv in their living room tomorrow. It's not gonna happen...for a long, long, long time. (if not, longer)

If you think about it, how many people actually have HDTVs? And then, what is the much smaller percentage of people who have it hooked up to a bluray player or HD input.
Seriously, the average joe is fine with just a big LCD tv and the up-rezing of a standard def source. I seriously dont see this changing for a long time, let alone 3d or upwards of HD resolutions.

This is why I think Jim is "before his time" so to speak.

Sure, 4k, 5k and 128k is beautiful to look at and cool to think about but the only people who really give a damn are those who are in the digital/film industry and a few visual-philes (and a few people who are just so rich they need to say they have a 4k display for their security system on their private island :laugh.

In the future will it be here, probably. The very distant future.

No matter what the companies want or what kind of technology is developed, the only thing that counts at the end is what the audience wants.

I can completely agree with this...

So you can smack me with all your statistics about your "idealistic market" and what not, and trust me it all sounds cool, but I'm just being realistic here.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Very interesting piece on TheWrap.com about "The Dark Side in 3D's Bright Future":

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/3d-progress-lost-dark-19392

No question, the article is written with a negative slant, but the essential facts are true: you do lose more than half the light in a one-projector/polarized system. I think this will eventually be solved, but there are a lot of tough challenges for theatrical 3D projection.

Maybe that explains why I liked the 2D version of Avatar so much.

Darkness aside - I just don't think watching a movie in 3D is a particularly enjoyable for 2 hours.

I mean, if Comicon crowd cheers when a movie that probably warrants 3D is NOT in 3D then who the hell is the audience? Just think about that for a second... that kind of public reaction is really, really, really bad. It's a story that's going to travel. The second 3D becomes uncool for the techno crowd (early adopters) is the same second it's over. People start getting a negative feeling about it and it's going to be hard to fix that.

I still think the studios are going to keep trying... but if big, powerful Directors like Nolan keep saying NO - that'll be the end of that.

 

[Leo Sardello]

I mean, if Comicon crowd cheers when a movie that probably warrants 3D is NOT in 3D then who the hell is the audience?

That point could be debatable. To play devil’s advocate… The Comic-con audience is very sophisticated when it comes to genre. It could simply be that they see a “John Ford-esque Western with old school Sci-fi elements” as better suited for a 2D release. They may just get that vision and were worried about that particular film being made in 3D. I mean this is the same target audience that packed in to see 4 min. of Avatar last year just to come out praising its 3D brilliance.

Though either way I completely agree that kind of perceived backlash will spread fast and only adds to the general negativity toward 3D being espoused in the media right now.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

It hasn't even been a year since Avatar was released, so it will take some time for true 3D features to start hitting screens. Those should have better looking 3D effects, and hopefully they're actually good movies too. Hollywood could kill 3D by making the audiences fed up with paying extra for dim 3D conversions with a poor 3D image. The Average Joe probably doesn't know that Avatar was shot in 3D, while Clash of the Titans wasn't, so they may end up thinking that all 3D sucks.

IMO the only way 3D will become as ubiquitous as color is if they get rid of glasses, the image is bright enough, and we don't have to pay extra for 3D. I still think 3D is going to be a niche presentation format primarily used for horror, fantasy, and children's films. Unless the above three conditions are met, I doubt you'd get a lot of people to see a dialogue-heavy romantic comedy in 3D.

As for 3D TV, I think 3D needs a big screen to actually be immersive. When you can see the framelines and your surrounding room (unlike in a movie theater), it doesn't exactly feel like you're in the movie, even with 3D.

 

[Erica Garcia]

Guys I might sound stupid, but give me The Godfather 1 in 2 D and I´m happy. I particularly find 3D disturbing but I accept that a lot of people like it. I just think that 3D is another genre , it will evolve as a genre, let´s see...