Is 3D dying

[Maciej Orman]

Yes, 3D is back on the storage shelf again, thanks to total ignorance of stereoscopic vision rules. Why would anyone adopt something that distorts reality and is in conflict with human brain? Would you adopt continuously distorted sound or pictures which always have false color? 3D producers quickly make up an excuse saying that 3D is an art tool and every movie is or must be an artistic and unreal to catch an interest of general audience. Well now you got it. Consumers cannot be fulled when it comes to realistic 3D content. Naturally they rejected as it confuses their size and depth perception ability making the experience of 3D movie watching, annoying. Realistic 3D content on the other hand is viral and addictive. Anyone who has experience realistic 3D content is hooked up for life. Unfortunately realistic 3D content can only be seen in small circles of 3D enthusiasts who know how to produce it an have custom 3D viewing systems which allow realistic 3D viewing. What's left of the 3D boom of the 2010 is the 3D equipment which will some little custom work can be adopted to produce and display realistic 3D content. Yes, it is a small market but unlike the gimmick 3D, realistic 3D will never die. http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/3d-boom-fizzling-and-ticket-prices-leveling-study-finds-60996

 

[Mark Toia]

It's already dead to me...

I don't even bother going to a 3D film anymore. My kids also have had enough. Cheaper ticket, same movie without the darkness and the headache. WIN WIN.

 

[Mike Garrick]

Answer to the thread heading ................Yep !

 

[Michael Romano]

"Is" makes me think it's still alive, just not all the way dead. I think it might be totally dead. Just read yesterday that ESPN3D is going off the air soon, citing lack of consumer interest and, consequently, inability to attract advertisers.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I hope so.

Most films would be better of if they spent that extra money on story writers / better plots and things like it. Even the heavy VFX films I think benefit heavily from not being done in cumbersome 3D. The "3D experience" is also very much limiting the camera work, the set designs and pretty much everything if the 3d should look good. So to me there is pretty much not a single film that actually benefit from being done in 3D.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

I am not a fan of 3D. Having said that there are financial/International distribution issues involved. Planet of the Apes is shooting natively. Jurrasic 4 will be native.
The project I am working on here in Hong Kong is partially native. All for the foreign theater deal. China is a hard nut to crack and studios have to do what they can to insure markets.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

ESPN just recently announced they will cease all 3D acquisition for sports by the end of this year, just fulfilling current obligations.

Most of my work is corporate and when 3D recently had its revival, many of my bigger clients expressed interest in shooting 3D, but the logistics never worked. Wasn't worth the extra expense, extra time, extra issues with presenting it. I can tell you this though, when the day comes where the technology lets us see truly 3D projected images without the need for special eyewear and primary determined viewing positions, it's going to take off. We're several years, if not decades, away from that at this point. The no-glasses 3D demo at NAB this year was a joke. There were some pretty big names attached to that and I'm absolutely shocked that some of those people would have let their name go anywhere near that stuff. We have a long way for the technology to progress...

 

[Mark Toia]

I hope so.

Most films would be better of if they spent that extra money on story writers / better plots and things like it. Even the heavy VFX films I think benefit heavily from not being done in cumbersome 3D. The "3D experience" is also very much limiting the camera work, the set designs and pretty much everything if the 3d should look good. So to me there is pretty much not a single film that actually benefit from being done in 3D.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Shane Betts]

3D was always just a way for the studios to force cinemas to dump film and go digital. Now digital screens are reaching significantly high numbers there's no need for the studios to keep spending all that money of 3D production. They'll let it die a natural death over the next few years IMHO.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Unless there is some biological change were people are turning into cyclopses, 3D will not die. It is just a long road to get to 96 fps at 8k resolution, and I think RED is on that journey.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Some 3D films do very well in 3D, and some people do like 3D. I think it has settled into a certain percentage of releases, maybe 15% or so, and it will stay there. I for one would not welcome the headache of shooting in 3D, but it has its place.

 

[Steve Das]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]US sports broadcaster ESPN will shut down its three year old 3D channel by the end of this year.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] There is a lack of viewer interest in watching 3D content at home. ESPN 3D's audience ratings were below Nielsen's measurable threshold.[/FONT]
​

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/espn-dropping-3d-channel-eyeing-567624

We are committing our 3D resources to other products and services that will better serve fans and affiliates," the company said in a statement. "We continue to experiment with things like Ultra HD TV production tools to produce our current ESPN family of HD channels

__________

Vince Pace says Glasses-free 3D makes business sense

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/nab-vince-pace-says-glasses-437013

 

[Brad Webb]

With ESPN backing out, 3D TV is dead. 3D cinema is still making money. However the consumer has gotten smarter about 3D movies. Post converted movies do not do as well in 3D at the B.O. as movies shot and developed for 3D.

IMAX does great in cinema and that is the true future. 4K + and giant cinema screens.

 

[M Most]

With ESPN backing out, 3D TV is dead. 3D cinema is still making money. However the consumer has gotten smarter about 3D movies. Post converted movies do not do as well in 3D at the B.O. as movies shot and developed for 3D.

.

Really? Iron Man 3 and Star Trek didn't do as well as....what? I think a lot of people here who are either involved in or want to be involved in stereoscopic production would like for what you state to be true. Except that it isn't. The public is interested in what they're interested in, and it has a lot more to do with the movie itself than whether it was post converted or shot stereo. And from where I sit, the 3D pictures that do the best 3D business are animated features - which aren't "shot" at all...

 

[Nick Morrison]

3D is not going anywhere. It´s a proven money maker, and all tent-poles are embracing it. It´s too much a of a money maker to pass up. Its also an experience, especially in IMAX, that is very difficult to replicate at home, which is another very strong SELL.

As more film-makers embrace it, the medium will get better. Remember, most director´s have only taken one crack or maybe two at 3D. Wait until until some of our best directors and DP´s have shot 4 or 5 pictures in 3D....their syntax will only get better, and their pictures stronger. Like any medium, it will get better with time.

 

[Mike Garrick]

Personally I always assumed 3D in cinema was an anti-pirates measure. Now with digital distribution the need for it is dwindling. Plus there are too many non original capture 3D movies which have sullied the 3D name . I still remember "Clash of the Titan's " with the hero's ear grafted onto his shoulder in glorious 3D, made a motza but looked appalling. For broadcast it was never going to happen, mainstream anyway, too much like looking like an ant farm with little people running around inside. So are paying audiences really going to miss it , will they pay the extra dollars to see it, are producers going to miss the extra dollars required to make it happen, are cinemas going to miss running that extra projector & halving the costly bulb life in a climate of diminishing demand ?

I believe that's a emphatic NO on every front.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Personally I always assumed 3D in cinema was an anti-pirates measure. Now with digital distribution the need for it is dwindling. Plus there are too many non original capture 3D movies which have sullied the 3D name . I still remember "Clash of the Titan's " with the hero's ear grafted onto his shoulder in glorious 3D, made a motza but looked appalling. For broadcast it was never going to happen, mainstream anyway, too much like looking like an ant farm with little people running around inside. So are paying audiences really going to miss it , will they pay the extra dollars to see it, are producers going to miss the extra dollars required to make it happen, are cinemas going to miss running that extra projector & halving the costly bulb life in a climate of diminishing demand ?

I believe that's a emphatic NO on every front.

You may be right about the early growing pains of 3D, but this doesn´t change the fact that Hollywood has embraced 3D, and just about EVERY SINGLE tent-pole movie is REQUIRED to deliver in 3D. It´s almost like the studios consider it fiscal suicide to give up the extra $$$ they are making on those screens. I have to imagine if they were LOSING MONEY, they wouldn´t be doing it. But clearly, it´s creating revenue, so they are plunging full speed ahead. Here are some interesting quotes from this article in Business Insider:

First of all, 3D seems to be making money...

For the most part, the latest round of films to come out in 3D are earning money. For the most part, the latest round of films to come out in 3D are earning money...

The tent poles are clearly doing well by delivering in 3D.

After looking at the highest-grossing films of 2012, nine of the top 15 were in 3D, helping to make this year at the box office the biggest yet with a projected $10.8 million earnings worldwide.

And then look at this note about how well 3D does internationally:

Jeff Gomez, CEO of Starlight Runner Entertainment, shared another important fact about 3D with us — the lucrative international revenue.

"It's important to remember that 3D does dynamite overseas, accounting for a significant percentage of foreign box office for the studios," says Gomez. "So I don't think the studios will be put off the process any time soon."

If it´s making money and driving the big blockbusters, then I assume...for better of for worse...its hear to stay.

 

[M Most]

... are cinemas going to miss running that extra projector & halving the costly bulb life in a climate of diminishing demand ?

The only common theatrical format that requires two projectors for 3D is Imax. All others, including RealD, Dolby, and XPand, are projected using a single projector, with the only change in bulb life attributable to running the bulb a bit "hotter" to achieve an acceptable light level on the screen through the 3D system.

Personally, I don't see prospects for any real growth in theatrical 3D. I really don't see the number of screens increasing from here on out, if anything, the opposite might very well be the case. The interest in it has already peaked, and unless there is a real technical breakthrough - like, for instance, actual 3D instead of stereography - I don't really see it returning, just as it didn't return the 4 or 5 other times it's been tried in the last 60 years or so.

 

[Ken Wilson]

3D is to film what digital was to photography. Is the future. You want to live in the past... is your choice. Dreamwork pioneers, Sony any major brand you name it you got it, all are moving into it like frantic crazy. These are the Gods of now and near future technology. I have seen 3D that is way better than real life 3D!!! And I do it myself also all the time for yrs now. We have a fixed mm vision. If you use lenses from 6mm to 12000mm that I have used to produce awesome jaw dropping 3D then you will look at 2D like a very Very VERY un natural representation of reality (Even if you have one eye). RED is super smart to acquire Element Technica. I still remember people who were saying that the digital will never catch to film. Now they eat their words. Same thing will happen with all those who claim that 3D is no good, will never catch up etc. Wake up NOW!

 

[M Most]

First of all, 3D seems to be making money.....The tent poles are clearly doing well by delivering in 3D.

One can interpret numbers in many different ways. I would argue that tentpoles would be "doing well" and making money with or without 3D versions. I really don't think the box office on, say, Star Trek or Iron Man would have been any lower in terms of numbers of tickets sold without the 3D version. Those pictures are doing well by delivering movies that people want to see, period. And I think the gravy train of higher ticket prices for 3D is definitely coming to and end.

And then look at this note about how well 3D does internationally

For most foreign territories, the 3D is still a bit of a novelty, just as it was in the US a few years ago. We'll see if that interest continues. My guess is that it very well might not.

If it´s making money and driving the big blockbusters, then I assume...for better of for worse...its hear to stay.

I think it's quite a stretch to say 3D is what's "driving the big blockbusters." The big blockbusters are driven by what they've always been driven by, which is a lot of pent up interest created by either well known characters, a sequel to a popular franchise, or a tie in to something like a video game or comics. I don't think "Oblivion" suffered at the box office one bit by not doing a 3D version. Nor did "Skyfall," "Hunger Games," "Twilight Breaking Dawn," "Ted", "Django Unchained," "Snow White and the Huntsman," or a number of other pictures that were among the largest grossing releases in the last year. Studios make decisions based on either optimistic scenarios or fear, sometimes both. The 3D goose is no longer laying the golden egg every time out, and the studios know it. How much it continues is anyone's guess at this point.