Is 3D dying

[Ketch Rossi]

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.

While you are correct, I would hardly called just a new re-introduction... As it surely can't be compare by far to what it was in it's early days of Film ridiculous yet incredible trials... Today's 3D implemented technologies, while yet based on the very same concept, are so far a part I could really hardly compare the two, ever.

 

[Paul Harb]

God please no.

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.

 

[M Most]

While you are correct, I would hardly called just a new re-introduction... As it surely can't be compare by far to what it was in it's early days of Film ridiculous yet incredible trials... Today's 3D implemented technologies, while yet based on the very same concept, are so far a part I could really hardly compare the two, ever.

Sorry, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see any difference other than the fact that the images are produced digitally. You're still watching two images that are separated in front of your eyes by glasses with different polarization. And while you've now got a higher refresh rate, you've also got sequential projection of the two eyes (at least on most of the delivery systems) so there's a temporal difference as well. Everything other than weave and grain that was annoying in previous systems is just as annoying now. Digital may equal a bit better, but it doesn't equal different.

 

[Björn Benckert]

3D will come and go even in the future. For stills there have been some really good / easy to apply options for a long time but still most people find it a bit easier to view imagery flat if they have the option. If not, then there would be more people interested in viewmaster gear than in normal cameras etc.

Not so many people care for this stuff: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trk...viewmaster&_nkw=viewmaster&_sacat=0&_from=R40

I see 3d as a gimmic / copy protection stunt from the studios. 3D films are not available on the release date as "screeners" on pirate bay. That's what I think is the main reason. That is also likely to be part of the reason why 3D films gross as well as they do. Simply you can not get a bootleg copy of it as quick as you can get a copy of a mono showing film.

 

[paulherrin]

It's been popularized and ultimately rejected by the movie-going public at least 3 times that I can remember.

mike is right that stereoscopic imagery has a long and winding history, it really hasn't changed very much, although personally i'd say that our language proficiency and technological advancements have significantly improved the experience, potentially at least. but mike, your personal feelings on the matter aside, rejected is a harsh judgement and over-simplification that i'm not sure is 100% accurate.

bjorn, why would people who know about file sharing and have the option of 2d screenings choose to go see 3d movies? yes, 3d has many times been primarily a business decision and usually those movies suck - and usually not just because the 3d sucks. in any case the business is they can charge more and people will pay it. i just don't think the anti-piracy thing holds a lot of water. some people prefer stereo...

please pardon the pun, but this is a polarizing issue and i know some people 'just don't like it', that's fine. but there are quite a number of folks who really love and prefer the format. i realize there are a lot of bad examples out there + bad business + bad stories, nobody can argue with that. but i honestly think any tech advancement has creative potential and i hope we will let it grow up without complaining about its immaturity every other release. those that intrinsically despise it (read hfr, digital, stereo, color, sound) have made that very clear, just stop complaining... or find something better to say. or both. if it's gonna die just let it die in peace and go your way

 

[M Most]

but mike, your personal feelings on the matter aside, rejected is a harsh judgement and over-simplification that i'm not sure is 100% accurate.

Fair enough. Feel free to substitute "ignored" for "rejected." :glare:

 

[David Cole]

3D is racking up a staggering number of flaws and critical mis-steps, if mass-adoption at home or the theater is the goal. This is my rant list:


1. Shuttering left and right eye images (either at the projector lens OR the glasses) causes some viewers discomfort. Perhaps the discomfort fades over time, perhaps not.


2. Motion blur causes occlusion vs parallax rivalry that causes some viewers discomfort.


3. Lipstick-on-a-pig 3D conversions put a stink on theatrical releases that is hard to remove.


4. Beyond the obvious eye-strain, 3DTV shutter glasses mostly suck on all other counts as well (comfort, price, reliability, cross-talk).


5. Except for 3D Blu-ray and a very few lucky NetFlix customers who can receive their MVC streams, home 3D distribution SUCKS. Frame-compatible broadcast and VOD reduces stereo quality and increases eye-strain immensely. It is staggering to see the difference between the live feed from a 3D production truck and the crap that the cable company delivers, side-by-side.


6. Point-of-sale for 3DTVs (big box resellers) SUCKS! Have you ever been to a Best Buy where the 3DTV demos actually worked? It's very rare. It's also bizarre because - at least for the passive TV manufacturers - point-of-sale could be spectacular. They could promote that you can just bring your glasses home from the movies. Minimizing the "curse" of having to have/wear glasses should be a priority for point-of-sale, and it's totally doable for LG and Vizio. Demos could included home video and promotion of the inexpensive 3D camcorders on the market… "capture life's most important memories in 3D." Incredibly, it looks like 4K POS is going to be just as bad!




And still, there is a charm to 3D. Even at home, it's more fun than 2D. It feels like you brought a little of the magic of an amusement park into your living room. Novelty? Maybe… but it persists. I have friends and relatives whose kids would consider seeing a 2D movie an atrocity.


So… is "charm" and a generation of entrenched moviegoing kids enough to carry the 3D day? No idea. But, it's seems to me that 3D adds enough value for enough people that it merits the continued efforts of those who like to work in the medium.


David Cole
Next3D

 

[Ivan Kovax]

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?

I would check that out out of curiosity, but my issues I stated above with 3D still persist even with 8K...

Ivan, while I absolutely must agreed with you on that viewing a UHD imagery on a true 4k/8k Monitor makes a giant difference and does give a certain dimentionality to the imagery, it brings color, contrast, dynamic range and all that is good in an image ot life in such a way that is a feast for the eye... However it does not bring the layers of Depth as 3D can do...

I respectfully disagree. Even well shot 3D far too often spoils the illusion of cinema for me and ends up looking like cardboard cut outs moving within a 3 dimensional space. It is a technical sense of depth, but it doesn't feel "textured" or "rounded" (for lack of better terms).

While you are correct, I would hardly called just a new re-introduction... As it surely can't be compare by far to what it was in it's early days of Film ridiculous yet incredible trials... Today's 3D implemented technologies, while yet based on the very same concept, are so far a part I could really hardly compare the two, ever.

While technology has advanced, the human visual cortex needs far more time to adjust accordingly so the intrinsic physiological problems of 3D shall remain for most people. I believe that until there is such a thing as holographic technology that physically presents a scene in a 3D space, that the technology will not be entirely successful.

Sorry, not trying to pick on you! Just interesting points you raised that deserved a response

 

[Jason Goodman]

The notion that the stereoscopic cinema of today is using "exactly the same approach" as it did in 1950 or 1980 is flatly wrong and shows a total ignorance of the topic on the poster's part. In the 1950's a select few 3D cameras existed, all were huge and largely immobile, and none were on beam splitters as most 3D cameras are today. This dictated quite a lot about how shots could be composed and what level of 3D effect would be achieved. Systems like Natural Vision had huge Mitchell cameras facing each other looking into mirrors. That is BOTH cameras looking into mirrors, not a one way mirror like modern beam splitters.

http://markhardin.com/naturalvision/

There were vast differences in finishing tools, projection technologies and other aspects. In the 1980's, almost all theatrical features were shot with the above/below format using lenses like Stereovision, Arrivision etc

http://www.netmoviebank.com/history.html.

These approaches had their own limitations and technical challenges. Parallels can be drawn to what happened then and what's happening now, but the initial statement is just plain incorrect.

Not to mention, 3D is far from dying. It was responsible for 33% of all global box office in 2012, and it's on track to beat that in 2013, so I do not think anyone is turning their back on it so soon. It's true the 3DTV roll out in the US has been completely botched, possibly worse than any other tech innovation in recent memory, but 3D is still MAKING A LOT OF MONEY. Maybe not from the children of that vocal minority who hate it, but that is of little consequence.

There is a bigger issue I'd like to address. Do all of you rabid 3D haters realize how ridiculous you sound? I'm trying to think of anything I hate so much that it would drive me to seek out a forum in which enthusiasts discuss facts and share experiences, and go on there and just trash whatever that thing is with baseless opinions. I am unable to think of anything because guess what, only an extremely negative person with nothing to do who likes to irritate other people would do that. Do you realize how foolish and petty it makes you seem? Do you have so much time on your hands that all you can do is look at other people's chosen field of artistic expression and simply say, "I hate it, it's crap, I wish it would go away"? If you dislike it so, why not simply avoid or ignore it? Surely there are enough other areas of motion picture production for you to occupy your copious free time with.

Comments, like "I hope 3D dies" "I hate 3D" "I don't know anyone who goes to 3D movies" are useless and dumb. If you truly despise 3D, you should go to the eye doctor immediately and have one of those offensive globes in your skull removed. Or save some money and just staple one eyelid shut. You can then enjoy the world and the rest of your life in glorious 2D.

I think we would all welcome discussions about disappointments with the technology used to create or display 3D films, or discussions about shortcomings in any particular film, but this constant negativity, the hate mongering of 3D is useless, stupid and boring. Going about it in a 3D forum is antagonistic and a waste of everyone's time. I am writing this to officially request that if you do not have something constructive or interesting to share, if you do not have some actual NEWS, if you do not have a question about 3D, if you do not wish to discuss topics that could contribute to the understanding of, creation of or analysis of stereoscopic cinema FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR TIME THAN BORE AND ANNOY THOSE OF US THAT DO.

 

[M Most]

The notion that the stereoscopic cinema of today is using "exactly the same approach" as it did in 1950 or 1980 is flatly wrong and shows a total ignorance of the topic on the poster's part..

Uhhh, pardon me, but while I might consider myself to be many things, I don't take very kindly to being called "ignorant." I am well aware of what these systems have included over the years, and I am well aware of the differences in terms of physical rigs, their size, their mobility, the use of polarization rather than anaglyph in projection, etc., etc., etc. But I would still make the same points. Stereography today consists of two taking lenses - exactly the same as it's been for years. It consists of projecting those two images through a viewing system that then separates them using some kind of viewing device (usually either polarizing glasses or active shutter glasses, but in almost every case, glasses..) just before they hit the viewer's eyes. Those factors alone are enough to warrant calling it the same approach, because it is. The fact that some technical glitches have been solved over the years, largely by replacing film with digital images and thus limiting the random grain (that was different between the two eyes), random movement that was different between the two eyes (although this was largely eliminated by using over/under systems on film as well), and increasing the light level (albeit not by much) justs says that it's gotten better. But you could say that 1980's 3D was "better" than 1950's 3D because of some technical improvements as well. But the fact is that all of these incarnations used the same underlying methodology of creating two images that are then presented to the viewer's eyes separately, and with often imperfect separation mechanisms.

I would argue that the main difference between now and then is that it's gotten progressively "easier" to do at whatever quality is available at the time. And technical limitations have gradually been minimized. But it's my belief that the system itself is fundamentally flawed in that it is simply uncomfortable for many human beings to watch. Not for all, but for many. If we actually had 3D imagery, in the form of holography or some other technology known or unknown, we might have something really interesting in terms of a presentation mechanism. But we don't. We have stereography, which is a "brain teaser" that tries to convince the viewer that they're seeing 3 dimensions when in fact they're looking at two slightly different 2 dimensional images, with the inherent limited viewing angles, object depth of field, and perspective that such an arrangement inevitably allows. And therein lies the problem.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Name calling is not a cool thing form any one to any one!


At the end is clear that no matter what one can agree or disagree on , there are those of us that like 3D and will say anything of the positive aspects of it to make other like it, and there are those that don't like 3D that will say anything of the negatives to make people dislike it as well.

At the end of the day what always speaks loud and clear are the Box office numbers, which are not doing bad at all considering in percentage the numbers of 3D showing Cinemas vs. standard projection, and no matter what even if 3D was to go to sleep again, it surely had a greater run of success then ever before, and possibly the next time it was to awake again, should it go to sleep now, it would certainly be greater yet.


And while we learn to agree to disagree I will still shoot every single one of my projects in 3D, funding permitting, and always only if it is not a burden to my Storytelling.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Name calling is not a cool thing form any one to any one!


At the end is clear that no matter what one can agree or disagree on , there are those of us that like 3D and will say anything of the positive aspects of it to make other like it, and there are those that don't like 3D that will say anything of the negatives to make people dislike it as well.

At the end of the day what always speaks loud and clear are the Box office numbers, which are not doing bad at all considering in percentage the numbers of 3D showing Cinemas vs. standard projection, and no matter what even if 3D was to go to sleep again, it surely had a greater run of success then ever before, and possibly the next time it was to awake again, should it go to sleep now, it would certainly be greater yet.


And while we learn to agree to disagree I will still shoot every single one of my projects in 3D, funding permitting, and always only if it is not a burden to my Storytelling.

Well said Ketch! 3D, like any technology has its place in the world on some productions. In the end the market will decide, and we are all free to praise or criticise it as we please, as long as we are treating others voices with respect. I have noticed a few people on this thread acting less than what would be considered civil in their comments in this discussion.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Well said Ketch! 3D, like any technology has its place in the world on some productions. In the end the market will decide, and we are all free to praise or criticise it as we please, as long as we are treating others voices with respect. I have noticed a few people on this thread acting less than what would be considered civil in their comments in this discussion.

See Ivan,

it is not only because I actually know many of my fellow Reduser in person, that when I write here, I do so as if I was actually talking to them in person... But I do so with every post I write even when I am in reply to some one I haven't actually met yet, because chances are I might one day, and I sure don't want to have to give apologies for my bad manners expressed in writing in reply to him/her in the past in here!!


And yes, 3D definitely in my firm opinion has it's place and will continue to have it as we progress on with technology, till we get to actual visualization possible without glasses in OFF the Wall or OFF the Screen, but Anywhere materialization of imagery via COLOR not B&W Photorealistic HOLOGRAPHIC Projection... Till then... 3D will be around...

 

[Jason Goodman]

Google the word Ignorance and find that it is defined as a state of being uninformed or a lack of knowledge, this is not name calling. This is pointing out the fact that some are posting on here with a lack of information on the subject and little more than a bone to pick with something they don't personally care for. I stand by the statement. I still wonder why those with such disdain would bother the read the "3D" section of this forum. As an aside, virtually no anaglyph projection was used in theaters in the 1950s and normal film grain does not substantially impact the quality of a 3D projection. In fact, John Merritt has shown in his research that random differing noise in each eye is effectively ignored by the brain and that stereopsys has inherent noise reduction characteristics. Consult the archives of SD&A to read more about John's research. If using two lenses and disregarding all other factors makes it the same, then a model T Ford and a Lamborghini Aventador are essentially the same. Sure there are similarities but they are vastly different in so many ways.

 

[M Most]

I still wonder why those with such disdain would bother the read the "3D" section of this forum. .

Possibly because the name of this forum is simply "3D," not "3D Advocacy." A number of us ultimately have to deal with 3D and its inherent issues at some point, and not necessarily by choice. It' s important for anyone who works in the motion picture and television industry to be informed and have at least a working knowledge of everything that's going on in that industry, regardless of their personal feelings or lack of them. I've lived my entire life and career that way and am not about to stop now.

 

[PatrickFaith]

God please no.

LMAO ... well, I think so. The problem being that 8k/96 fps/non-planer 3D cost around $256k per seat now ... and as a rough estimate, if the cost drops by half every year ... then we are still about 8 years away for a compelling 3D experience. For the next 8 years, my personal opinion is way more focus needs to be placed on giving the editor more authority to cut the crap out of films so the stories make sense(i.e. I think the main problem in film today is that the stories "as shown" are weak, there really needs to be a more independent editing process so the film is not shown until there is a story structure that makes sense - which means drastic cutting of scenes which either people don't want to cut because they are too close to the filming OR they don't want to cut because they threw so much money into the scene).

... A number of us ultimately have to deal with 3D and its inherent issues at some point, and not necessarily by choice.

I think the big issue of what your hitting is that most of the "3D" in the theater is "planer" 3D ... in that it is not real 3D but is only valid on a plane. For example you can't change your 3D perspective by moving your head: when you look down you see the person in front of you and not the film set's ground. Basically 3D will be a compromised experience until it is 8k/96fps/non-planer , the even bigger question is when those technical requirements are met, what are the physical requirements of the venue.

 

[Aaron McLane]

"I believe 3D is designed to kill cinema." Zak Snyder at Pasadena Art School Screening of Man Of Steal

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

It should be stressed that cardboarding is a consequence of the missuse of stereography, related to the usage of telephoto lens, forcing to bring additional stereo experience where there is none, which only leads to 2.5D composite looking circus.

Holographic projection is dependent on scale, hence practically useless for typical storytelling. Even if the current tehnology allowed a viable solution. Therefore, a realistic presentation of anything larger than the venue it is projected in, for example - is unlikely to appear.

In addition, moving one's head to check different angles defeats the purpose of a large portion of storytelling and cinematography.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Google the word Ignorance and find that it is defined as a state of being uninformed or a lack of knowledge, this is not name calling. This is pointing out the fact that some are posting on here with a lack of information on the subject and little more than a bone to pick with something they don't personally care for. I stand by the statement.

I guess the other issue is not so much the fact that you claimed people's ignorance on this thread, but that you coupled it with a rather provokative request for these same people to staple their eyes shut, and remove a globe from their brain so they only ever need to see in 2D... and also basically, "bugger off and don't come back".

There have been many valid issues raised here - psychological, physiological, ergonomical, technical amongst others... and, like you said, some not so valid. That is the whole point of these boards. Discussion, be it approval or dissent to further our knowledge. And whether you like it or not, "is 3D dying?" is a valid question. As valid a question for discussion as whether film, HD, etc is dead/dying.

On the job, I meet scores of people every year who have a rabid loathing of all things Red. MX, Scarlet, Epic, you name it. I have never taken issue with this, or lost my temper because of it. Sometimes their opinions are interesting and valid, sometimes they are not. Either way, generally most these people didn't come to their decisions out of stupidity and ignorance... it was an informed decision that "i loathe this camera for reasons x, y and z" and the fact that I disagree with them isn't the issue. But now I have learned a better way to address a particular issue/topic and/or I have won over a person to my side and/or the discussion ends in mutual respect. Win win.

Without any intended facetiousness, since you run a 3D production house, I would suggest that it may actually be beneficial to understand and study the reasons why many people here and elsewhere do have a dislike of S3D. Whether you believe their opinions are valid or not, logical or not... at the very least it would help you respond to detractors in a less provokative way in the future, and actually win them to your side with your point of view.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

It should be stressed that cardboarding is a consequence of the missuse of stereography, related to the usage of telephoto lens, forcing to bring additional stereo experience where there is none, which only leads to 2.5D composite looking circus.

Yep. You nailed it. That is one of my bigest bugbears. Mind you Scorcase used shallow DOF exquisitely in quite a few scenes in HUGO. Perhaps there is a cardboard boxing uncanny valley, where if you go beyond a certain point it becomes acceptable again. I think this is a big reason for that cardboardy feel, now that I cast my mind back to the various movies I have seen in 3D.

However, on the other hand, when the DOF becomes very wide in S3D I find my eyes wondering around the scene rather than focusing on the main character (as the scene becomes rather interesting to just take in...) so I tend to lose the story. So what is the middle ground?

To mind, the 3 movies that nailed S3D photographically in this respect were Avatar, Up, and Hugo (all for different reasons).