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

Yes, thank God.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
You don't like it? Don't go see it, just don't hope for a great Medium to get scrapped just because you don't like it, there are plenty that do like it... Me included... ;)
Click to expand...

Too true! It will be really interesting to see what big directors that have shot in 3D go back to 2D. My guess is - not many.
 
Met Hrovat said:
I wish they would do 3D in the way that does not give you a head ache or make your eyes hurt after 2-3 hours of it.
Click to expand...

I think I need to clarify this for some of us. This is not to say anything against the 3-D because I absolutely love it. Of course it's not dead nor is it dying ,... it's only going to evolve.
However some 3-D technologies are obviously better than the others. And probably much fault for a 3-D Cinema projection that make my eyes hurt at the end of the movie goes to the projection technology and the set up parameters they are operating with and maybe they don't do the best job in setting it up properly.
 
If 3D is not dead yet, someone kindly take a sharp knife and put it out of its misery... or come up with a way for us to see it without the glasses.
 
I will echo what seems to be a unanimous, "I believe so".

Most people I know, filmmakers or not pass over the idea of watching a 3D movie, and prefer 2D... I think the market has spoken, and 3D wasn't accepted by consumers well enough.

Of course Avatar 2 will come out, and there will be a short lived hype once again with other production trying to ride on the wave of Avatar 2's success... but that too, will be short lived.
 
Last edited:
I just do not like it. Especially not for movies, I do not want to strain my eyes when watching moives. I have seen a lot of 3d, in stereo googles and such that are supposed to be the best but still. I think watching a movie with 3D depth and not being able to control the focus with my eyes is far more difficult than just watching a flat picture. A flat picture is like a painting, a 3D/stereo image is closer to reality but since the focusing in not there it really bugs my eyes. And to me it's not something I get used to I seen quite a but if 3D unwillingly, I work with 3D (as little as I can) but still I really find it annoying. It's fun to play with, make post budgets sky rocket and such but in the end, the result (to me atleast) is just that you get less even though it takes a lot more effort.

You limit your camera work, post work and storytelling so heavily so why on earth would you like to go there just to get that dizzy feeling of depth.
 
I guess I am either so well trained in 3D viewing that my Visual Cortex muscles are built up for it, but I in fact weirdly enough, contrary to what some say, I (when 3D is properly done that is) not only enjoy it, but come out of it fresher then when I went in, and I have more visually detailed dreams every time after I watch a 3D film or Documentary... ;)

Nonetheless, I do wish for either the standardization of controlled exhibition of 3D films, in only qualified and certified Cinemas, and only authorize the release of films that are done well and there for do not will not cause any issues, or the closure of it all, but of course I sure do not hope for the latter, but something must, needs to be done NOW!!

Either way, economics permitting, I will shoot my projects in 3D... ;)
 
The truth of the matter is no matter how good the 3D, the brain stops seeing it after about 20 minutes. So given this factor plus all the other negatives raised on this thread plus the increase cost of watching something with all the attached discomfort, no wonder audience share in 3D is decreasing.
 
The audience share is decreasing because 3D was overused and misused, and the infatuation with the medium has weakened, allowing the development of criteria.

Mike Garrick said:
The truth of the matter is no matter how good the 3D, the brain stops seeing it after about 20 minutes.
Click to expand...

?
 
A lot of people here have been discussing why 3D has been making people "sick" or giving them "headaches". Many have mentioned poor stereography, lighting and camerawork.

Walter Murch suggests and entirely different reason: that our brains are simply not wired to deal with this. As long as there exists 1 plane at a fixed distance yet we demand our brain to adjust focal points, confusing and overworking our visual cortex, most people are going to have negative physical reactions until we evolve as a species to adjust to this, though this probably will not happen for several hundred thousand years...

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
 
Ivan Kovax said:
A lot of people here have been discussing why 3D has been making people "sick" or giving them "headaches". Many have mentioned poor stereography, lighting and camerawork.

Walter Murch suggests and entirely different reason: that our brains are simply not wired to deal with this. As long as there exists 1 plane at a fixed distance yet we demand our brain to adjust focal points, confusing and overworking our visual cortex, most people are going to have negative physical reactions until we evolve as a species to adjust to this, though this probably will not happen for several hundred thousand years...

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
Click to expand...

+1 but I do not want to adjust to this, I think the lytro kind of cameras and then a eye scan that sees where we focus and than apply the focus accordingly in real time would be the way. But that demands individual showings and quite a bit of computer power as the lytro stuff kind of divide the camera resolution by at least nine or so. and the computer power to drive the imagery fas enough might be a trick to achive but further more. I do not know if that's what we want can not imagine having to sit and look around on frames to see whats interesting in the shot. Still stereo with fixed interest point and focus hurts my head. So basically I jut like flat imagery.
 
Here in Tokyo I saw an 8K 60p display of the last Olympics. To be honest with you, that looked far more real and engaging to me than S3D. It was as if I was looking into a window. Somehow my brain actually interpolated the physical depth cues and created a tremendous sense of 3D.

Mind you, I still think S3D will have its place in the world. Animation is amazing in 3D. Pixar etc. Games will be bitchin in 3D, as would sports and nature.

In the end, years from now, i think the obvious progression for both 2D and 3D will be that variable frame rates will be the standard. A system that automatically switches to HFR during action scenes, then keyframes down to 24 in slower scenes...

One can only wonder!
 
RE audience discomfort

RE audience discomfort

It's important to recognise that 3D films are being shown in theatres designed for 2D. The seating layout is such that in certain positions it is physically impossible to see the 3D effect, leading to significant discomfort for those audience members as their eye-brain mechanism desperately try to make sense of an impossible-to-process-image.

Yet despite this theatres sell tickets for those seats - and then wonder why audiences are getting smaller.

People often complain about the glasses but (generally speaking) when I ask them what seat they were in guess where they were?

Then when one includes poor stereography and, above all, poor script, storyline, poor film what can one expect.

IMO 3D is a new medium significantly different to 2D film and IMO we as creatives haven't quite got our teeth into it yet. Often productions are hedging bets by -understandably- shooting 2D/3D hybrids. We need to see productions that are, from the ground up designed solely for the 3D experience - from script to distribution.

All the best

JohnF
 
Ivan Kovax said:
Here in Tokyo I saw an 8K 60p display of the last Olympics. To be honest with you, that looked far more real and engaging to me than S3D. It was as if I was looking into a window. Somehow my brain actually interpolated the physical depth cues and created a tremendous sense of 3D.

Mind you, I still think S3D will have its place in the world. Animation is amazing in 3D. Pixar etc. Games will be bitchin in 3D, as would sports and nature.

In the end, years from now, i think the obvious progression for both 2D and 3D will be that variable frame rates will be the standard. A system that automatically switches to HFR during action scenes, then keyframes down to 24 in slower scenes...

One can only wonder!
Click to expand...
That may be so but can you imagine how extraordinary it will be when you can watch 3D 8K this has to be the ultimate?
 
JohnF said:
IMO 3D is a new medium significantly different to 2D film and IMO we as creatives haven't quite got our teeth into it yet.
Click to expand...

One can say a lot of things about 3D, but it is hardly a "new medium." It has been around in the motion picture industry since the 1950's in various technical guises, but with exactly the same approach. And it's been around in still form since Victorian days. It might be new to you, but he fact is that it isn't "new" at all. It's been popularized and ultimately rejected by the movie-going public at least 3 times that I can remember. The current digital incarnation is just the latest in these re-introductionss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top