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 :)

Is 3D dying

Ken Wilson said:
Dreamwork pioneers, Sony any major brand you name it you got it, all are moving into it like frantic crazy.
Click to expand...

That statement might have been true 2 or 3 years ago. It's not particularly true today.
 
Nick Morrison said:
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.
Click to expand...

They also share tricks, share a knowledge of aesthetics through hit or miss. You can see in teh Great Gatsby a truly mature and charming use of 3D that married well with the film.
 
it's a zombie at this point. a corpse that doesn't know it's died already. I wish they'd expand true IMAX. I've always loved the immersive power of true IMAX certainly over 3d.
 
I've always felt most progress happens with our gear because we want/demand it. Better resolution, better color, better sound, more efficient work flows etc. . It has always felt to me like 3d is being pushed down the pipe rather than people pulling for it. Ways of extending theater life, selling more gear, selling more everything.

I've seen impressive 3d. But it still remains a novelty to me and not much more. Maybe someday.

I'd prefer more compelling stories.
 
3D might take off when lightfield sensors become practical. I think the next big 3D push will be along with VR ala Oculus Rift etc. Simply shooting stereo though won't cut it for an oculus like experience.
 
I think that well thought out 3D drives a certain style of edit where we have different intermediate steps from shot to shot than are visually acceptable to the audience than in a 2D film.

As in, most audiences find jump cuts jarring and also find that going from wide to tight close feels strange in the theater. Tracking or continuous shots seem to work ok, however..but if you are making a 3D project as director, think over how you are getting from a-b-c and beyond in pre-pro. If you don't you may be the one with bad reviews.
 
We regard 3D as another format which clients choose to work or not work with. The most important issue is we understand it are equipped for it and can do it well if and when its required. Some of the work we have been privileged to work have had a real boost from the format. Other projects which we have worked in 2D may not have lent themselves to 3D for all sorts of reasons.

As for displays or theatre's we await for a glasses free world.
 
One more example of something with potential being thrown away due to misuse.

Glasses are the least of issues, being the most obvious limitation they are just used as something to put the blame on, because most people are unable to verbalize the main issues. People would wear turtles on their heads if it was worth it but this approach, which could be described as a travesty of stereographic imaging, obviously isn't.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
One more example of something with potential being thrown away due to misuse.

Glasses are the least of issues, being the most obvious limitation they are just used as something to put the blame on, because most people are unable to verbalize the main issues. People would wear turtles on their heads if it was worth it but this approach, which could be described as a travesty of stereographic imaging, obviously isn't.
Click to expand...

There certainly are other issues and misuse I agree. Like it or not glasses are perceived as an issue and for some perception is reality. Cumbersome kit and bad mirrors is another issue, it drove us to build some of our own 3D kit in the end.

I hope the 3D doesn't go away, we need to keep working and making it better.
 
Yes to Movies but for video games no, 3D is perfect for video games and love it!!! Drake Uncharted 3 in 3D is amazing :)
 
Dave Blackham said:
There certainly are other issues and misuse I agree. Like it or not glasses are perceived as an issue and for some perception is reality. Cumbersome kit and bad mirrors is another issue, it drove us to build some of our own 3D kit in the end.

I hope the 3D doesn't go away, we need to keep working and making it better.
Click to expand...

They are obviously perceived as an issue. Why they are perceived that way has multiple causes. One of which is the fact that an average viewer after experiencing eye strain or headaches, most likely caused by poor approach to stereography, immediately connotes glasses as being the cause and not what was in front of them, being unaware of the scope of technical factors which can affect these issues. The other is that if 3D content brings no major benefit, which in most cases doesn't, the additional task of wearing glasses just to be able to enjoy content becomes frustrating. One other reason is the glasses design, with poor isolation of external light and inner reflections. There are many factors but most of them seem to be related to poor utilization of technology and not the fault of glasses approach.

In many cases much of this is caused by pushing 3D everywhere just to bring additional profit, being perceived as just an attractive addition to 2D imaging instead of completely new medium with many different rules. As something enjoyable exactly as 2D but with glasses, instead of a special experience with special requirements and limitations. Not only major productions are propagating this circus, but TV manufacturers as well. I've been on enough manufacturer presentations only to see that the faulty premise is the same, the premise which misleading the customer eventually bounces right back to the face of the ones counting on that premise.

Regarding the glasses-free 3D TV technology, which most people understandably seem to want and expect, few years back I had an interesting talk with one of the developers of it, and few people understand what it actually takes to manufacture it and how difficult it is to reach the level it is on today. And today it is easily perceivable how limited it is and that all this effort is used to create a solution which only partially works and introduces tons of other issues and limitations. Whether caused by physics of light, materials or viewing. Many seem to be taking it for granted as just another cool extra feature which someone will develop just like that, just so one wouldn't have to put the glasses on.

Proper auto-stereoscopic screen would have to have a membrane able to re-direct light into hundreds or thousands of angles. With two combined yet never overlapping images, perfectly offset for IO and viewer's position to screen. Latter being variable. The membrane and its micro-lens would have to be able to accomplish all this with light coming from the source under it, while providing UHD feed with unaffected sharpness, contrast, color precision and light intensity, while the panel should be 2xUHD in resolution, have great light intensity, picture quality and motion rendition. And the whole screen should allow being manufactured very fast in very high quantity with long life span.

Not exactly a realistic expectation at this point. And all this is easily replaceable simply by...putting the glasses on.
If there is one example of a waste of time and resources in recent technological discoveries, this would be it IMO.

Rigs and mirrors are a consequence of another circus, caused by "bigger is always better" type of mentality, forcing movie makers to compensate. If there was a properly designed 16 mm camera, with an adequate prime on it, something technology allows today, this would not be necessary.
 
I would have to say purely based on the number of friends have have working on 3d projects versus 2-3 years ago, absolutely. I also do not know anyone who likes 3d movies. Not a single friend or acquaintance. My bartender said he liked the 3d in Statrek, but that in general he hates it.

Nick
 
Well, I guess it'll make me a bit of a pariah, but I really liked the Hobbit in 3D HFR. After getting over the unusual somewhat clinical look, I really got into it. It was easy on the eyeballs, and looked bright and sharp in the theatre I was in. I kinda hope to see an action sports film in 3D HFR. I know I'm a minority in this regard though.
 
Paul Watt said:
Well, I guess it'll make me a bit of a pariah, but I really liked the Hobbit in 3D HFR. After getting over the unusual somewhat clinical look, I really got into it. It was easy on the eyeballs, and looked bright and sharp in the theatre I was in. I kinda hope to see an action sports film in 3D HFR. I know I'm a minority in this regard though.
Click to expand...
I have watched the Hobbit in : Imax 3d, real3d, 2d theater, blu-ray 2d, blu-ray 3d ... and i enjoyed it in all the formats. I think fans love all the different formats, and get something out a bit different from each experience. I just worry about the day when all the Hobbit's have been shot. I also think fans like me will buy the hobbit when it is available in a few years in 4k 2d and 4k 3d.
 
I think so. The last 3 films I saw that had 3D options were ignored.

I've been privileged enough to see the 4k projector at RSH, the detail and depth in that picture was much more enjoyable than any 3D movie I've seen. So immersive. Once 4k projectors is the standard, 3D will really start to vanish I think
 
I think by the definition of the word "immersive" it really relates to being immersed in a 3D experience as in the depth of the three dimensions...the next obvious step that everyone seems to be ignoring is 3D 4K and eventually 3D 8k which will have the advantages of both experiences.
 
Jean-Luc Godard's new film is in 3D.

But what does he know about filmmaking anyhow ;)
 
I am one of the lucky wretches who can watch 3D without getting a headache, going cross-eyed, developing schizophrenia or driving down the wrong side of the road. Keep the good ones coming but please, genuine 3D of controlled action drama, not ersatz wrought out of 2D. That is a product substitution racket, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top