Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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

Freya said:
Well I think it's definitely the end for 3D on TV now but the movies is a different thing as Kim at the BBC suggests:

http://www.redsharknews.com/distribution/item/869-bbc-turns-away-from-3d

3D at the movies may not be popular with a lot of people but it brings in the extra revenue and that's what counts.

Freya
Click to expand...

I enjoy 3D at the movies. Some theatres and movies are better than others. If the question is does 3D make money the answer is, yes, and it seems guite a lot of it too.
 
From what I'm seeing 3D is big in Asia, specifically India and China, where a lot of 3D stuff is being shot in 3D on RED cameras. Not so much anywhere else where post-conversion is the norm.
 
While back it was hard to spot a 3D rig on eBay but now there are many Worldwide.
 
Alec Morris said:
To say you can't adjust IA in post is an argument in semantics. Thats like saying you can't change the zoom of a lens in post. While technically true, every day people are cropping and applying zooms in post production. Up to 10%? Again, while technically true I guess, that is an insanely inflated percentage in practice.
Click to expand...

No it's an argument of physics, being able to move a cameras position sideways in post is not at all like cropping or a push in on a image. By moving a real camera sideways on set you create parallax and would be able to see behind something that is close to the camera. Do you really believe it is possible to change the IA or IOD even one inch in post to see slightly behind something that was previously obscured in the frame???? If you ever figure out a way to move a camera and change its position in post I would like to see it turned around 180 degrees to see the crew on a old Hitchcock movie and watch them work...... but I don't think it's possible..... even with quantum physics.

Everyone is speculating on why 3D cinema and 3D TV has become such a epic disaster http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/13/why-3-d-tv-has-been-an-epic-failure.aspx no content, too expensive, people hate glasses, dark screens, greed... etc.

I think it really comes down to the fact that it is a one trick pony, a gimmick, very cool the first time you see good S3D but then its magic wares off and like a good magic trick it is only amazing the first time you see it, by the 20th time it gets down right boring. But still, maybe it could have succeeded.

This was the first 3D comeback where it was technically possible to make good S3D AND there was a good way to view at home, in fact S3D on a TV is a significantly better experience then a dark 3 or 4 foot lambert theater, millions of 3D TVs sold, hundreds of 3D bluray titles available (we have every one), a couple of 3D channels and a force of cinematic nature... Avatar..... still it did not catch on. One reason 3DTV failed is that except for two Pixar movies and a few Discovery and Nat Geo titles none of the 3D blurays were made to be watched on small screens, the 3D has a very card board cutout feeling with no depth, even Avatar which had great depth and volume in the cinema seems flat on a 65" 3DTV.... the reason for that once again is physics, those bullshit rules that keep Hollywood from doing awesome stuff.

As everyone knows, when shooting stereo you need to do your calculations for the largest screen it will be viewed on but when the same footage that looked great on a big screen is viewed on a smaller screen all the roundness, depth and volume that you designed for is lost forever by the fixed IOD you used for the big screen and as we know the IOD can't be changed in post. For a CGI or conversion show it should be easy to hit render with the home video math and have a great version for home video but do they do that? No. To this day the best 3D you can see on 3DTVs are the demo reels shot by 3D production companies specially for the smaller screens.

I agree that a good movie is a good movie..... it's just better in 2D!
 
Ive never been completely happy with a 2D to 3D conversion from a 2D only image. Show recreated from component parts that were created with 3D objects have worked much better. Thats not to say a single shot wont work but whole sequences are less likely to work. The other issue is 3D to 2D versions, if just taking the hero eye, probably the left eye works OK, but then theres the issue that most 3D is shot with extended depth of field to create more 3D volume which renders a less satisfactory 2D version of the show. Then of course theres the shot composition which is often not optimal if shot 3D and rendered to create a 2D version or shot 2D and converted to 3D. As pointed out you need to know your target screen size for shooting 3D at the outset to create optimal 3D. I could go on but all Im trying to convey there is a big can of worms in 2D to 3D and 3D to 2D versions here.

I still do like 3D and I still like 2D but it needs to be used to enhance and not get in the way of telling the story or putting the viewer with in the action depending on what the director wants to achieve.
 
Optimal viewing conditions for stereography dimension-wise depend on both screen size and distance.
Screen size alone doesn't guarantee proper viewing as the viewer can still be too close or too far.

Screen size and distance for this purpose can be represented by one value. Which is the angle of view.
One more rule disregarded or likely even unrecognized by many...to add to the list of causes for this circus.
 
So, essentially... there is optimal viewing for only a few/several rows in the theater, but for the majority of the theater (who are giving these movies "record profits") they are basically viewing from sub-optimal seats? That seems highly counter productive and intuitive.
 
Ivan Kovax said:
So, essentially... there is optimal viewing for only a few/several rows in the theater, but for the majority of the theater (who are giving these movies "record profits") they are basically viewing from sub-optimal seats?
Click to expand...

It depends on the type of scene and stereography, but yes.
Smaller optimal viewing area compared to storytelling on canvas.

Ivan Kovax said:
That seems highly counter productive and intuitive.
Click to expand...

As I said, this medium is very specific yet very generalized and misused. And the viewer pays the price.
Negative reactions are logical.
 
Aaron McLane said:
No it's an argument of physics, being able to move a cameras position sideways in post is not at all like cropping or a push in on a image. By moving a real camera sideways on set you create parallax and would be able to see behind something that is close to the camera. Do you really believe it is possible to change the IA or IOD even one inch in post to see slightly behind something that was previously obscured in the frame???? If you ever figure out a way to move a camera and change its position in post I would like to see it turned around 180 degrees to see the crew on a old Hitchcock movie and watch them work...... but I don't think it's possible.....
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about major changes, we're talking about minor adjustments. It is a commonplace practice.

Say what you will about 3DTV. I won't argue with you. But a statement like "3D cinema is an epic disaster" has about as much evidence as a statement like "Lebron James sucks at basketball".
 
Ivan Kovax said:
So, essentially... there is optimal viewing for only a few/several rows in the theater, but for the majority of the theater (who are giving these movies "record profits") they are basically viewing from sub-optimal seats? That seems highly counter productive and intuitive.
Click to expand...

I've seen it myself with my own two eyes. Call it a "Cone of Visibility" if you will. From certain angles in a theatre outside of that cone, 3D viewing really feels like 2D with a little bit of 3D pop every now and then. That's why the smaller premium theatres like Alamo Drafthouse are great for 3D viewing.
 
Well, home media 3D is heating up. Fox is going to release Predator in 3D in December, Universal is going to release Jaws 3-D (the Jaws film shot with ArriVision 3D) in the next year or so, and a bunch of classic - as in anyone knows the movie when you say the name - are being converted to 3D by Warner Bros, Fox, Paramount, etc. and Lionsgate is doing 3D conversions on their past 15-years of films as well. Rumor abounds of a Terminator 2 3D release as well.
 
If you saw the new Sony 55" 4K OLED at NAB, that was as close to 3D. Theater 3D(Stereoscopic) looks like a pop-up book to me...resolution, now that's where it's at.
Not to worry though..."3D" will be back again in 25 years.
 
According to the latest reports 3D is very alive and doing its best!!!
 
Ivan Kovax said:
The Adult Entertainment industry seems to be of two minds about 3D and seem to be focusing more on online or mobile content these days according to this article:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401017,00.asp
Click to expand...

Well, the adult industry has done around a dozen or so 3D features over the past five years - all shot using 3D camcorders or RED cameras - and glasses-free 3D is getting closer and closer to a reality because of high-resolution displays. There's a new tech nearing market ready called "Ultra D" and it seems to hit where previous glasses-free 3D failed because it uses the greater resolution of UHDTVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top