Is 3D dying

[Jason Goodman]

Companies that are reassuring the public that practical autostereo TV is right around the corner are setting everybody up for a huge letdown. Although 4K screens make for much better aS3D displays, getting quality content onto those displays is something that has yet to be adequately addressed. Despite what they would have you believe, if you really want good quality, autostereo content will need to go through a process very similar to current 2D - 3D conversion. EVEN IF YOU SHOOT NATIVE 3D.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

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.

2-3 3D features per year over 5 years is hardly an overwhelming amount given how much porn is actually produced in the US. But point taken.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

The sooner it dies, the better.

Stephen

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I never understood this hate for 3D. Yes, it's bulky, it's uncomfortable to wear those glasses etc. etc.
But I never thought it looked bad. I have a bad time feeling good about 48fps, but 3D I love. The immersion you get with it is greater then the overrated surround sound that people seem to love so much.
I don't know why there is such a great despise for it.

And when glass-free 3D panels goes down in price and become great in picture quality, I really don't see what the problem is. I for one don't want 3D to die out and I seem to be quite alone professionaly in this opinion.

Why the audience seem to choose 2D over 3D is I think that the marketing campaigns ruined the reputation of it. Every time something is marketed as "Title of the movie - 3D" it turned out to be a really shitty movie. But whenever there wasn't any 3D in the title, it was usually because the film was really good and the 3D added to that experience.

Maybe the hype is just going down and 3D is becoming more standardized. There is this notion that the era of blockbusters is dying out and looking at it, 3D is really something that's only used on those movies. I want to see dramas and independent movies about every day life made in 3D, I want to see filmmakers using 3D as a tool rather then just putting it on their movie like a FCPX filter.

It's such a waste of potential technology and all this hate will just throw back cinema a step in the wrong direction. Mark my words, if people struggle against innovation this much, movies will die out.
The gaming industry is marching forward stronger and stronger each year and we are now seeing truly exceptional storytelling in games such as "The Last of Us". If games mature more and more in this rate, it will take over the throne of moving image art. With each old generation dying out, movies will die out if innovation isn't taken care of. I know a few filmmakers who look upon the video game industry as their future in the long run, because some of them realise that this train will be difficult to jump on once it's taken speed.

So, I don't hate 3D, I love it and I think this hate or despise of cinematic innovation is conservative in the worst possible way.

 

[Brad Ferrell]

I just got through the thread. I'm putting together a small private franchise and we're going for a Digital 4K WS 3D anamorphic master to exploit interntionally using DIY marketing and distribution techniques. Why 4K? Why 3D? Why anamorphic? These are the territories of the majors and we want a piece of the action. I've looked to G. Lucas for over a decade now as a successful independent. He didn't mess around with compromises from a studio. They dragged their feet and loss out on billions of dollars of revenues due to their negligence and greed. 4K is here. 3D is here and I like it (Man of Steele was good.) and who doesn't love the look of true anamorphic lenses? What I don't understand is the negativity in this thread. #beyondme

 

[Maciej Orman]

One needs to face the reality. 3D is dead and it will not save the cinema theaters because it makes 3D content look distracting by revealing the wrong size of objects, actors and scenes.
No one likes to see actors of a skyscraper size with inertia of Styrofoam box. Worse of all the cinema 3D content plays miniaturized on home theater screen and how is the viewer supposed to get immersed in
AVATAR which plays as if the content was shot using ToysRus version of props, actors and scenes. Horror movie with Barbie size actors will not scare anyone, period.
My local DEPOT had at least eight different brands of 3D TVs and today there is not a single 3D TV on display nor in their warehouse.
3D can enhance 2D content but only if shot and viewed using Realistic 3D rules.
Parallax optimized 3D AKA Gimmick 3D is counterproductive and confuses viewer brain thus killing the original intention of enhanced immersion.
Realistic 3D on the other hand is what the World is yet to see.
To learn more about R3D (Realistic 3D) see this thread: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...listic-3D-content-with-single-RED-Epic-camera

 

[Marc Wielage]

One needs to face the reality. 3D is dead and it will not save the cinema theaters because it makes 3D content look distracting by revealing the wrong size of objects, actors and scenes.

I don't think that's true. I think if you release a sufficiently dramatic and visually appropriate production in 3D, people will watch it. The upcoming Gravity in Imax 3D is going to do exceptionally well, because it's brilliantly shot and has a very dramatic, compelling story that I think audiences will want to see.

I think where the studios were surprised was to discover that if you put out a mediocre (or a bad) film in 3D, the 3D won't make up for any shortcomings in the script, the casting, and the direction. I think their hope was that anything released in 3D would automatically make 1/3 more money at the box office, and doesn't always happen.

What is sobering is to look at the top-grossing movies of all time and reflect on which were actually shot in 3D, and which were dimensionalized after the fact. Even the new Amazing Spiderman 2 was shot on film and is being dimensionalized later. On the other hand, Transformers 4 is being shot in 3D on Red Epic, while Avengers​ was shot flat on Alexa. There's clearly several different ways you can shoot big blockbuster films that still appeal to huge audiences and also look reasonably good in 3D.

 

[Marc Dunham]

Personally I'd love to love 3D but I've never once been able to make it through a 3D film without my eyes and head hurting badly. I always feel like I'm straining and it takes away from the film for me. Just my personal experience.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

3D. Dunno...

I think it is in a position to develop into something real this time, after the initial hype now is over.

But I think it will really just come from the next generation filmmakers who grew up with 3D animated films or VFX heavy films where most of the stuff is done in post anyway.

3D in itself does not add a lot to a the soup, but when it becomes (even) more of a storytelling element, like audio is, and (even less) a point in itself, it will probably land this time.

Also.
3D at home is basically a very bad idea (in my opinion) so it is a good way to establish the difference between theatres and home theaters.

That said...

Not a huge fan, and I really can understand why it does not have a big future en TV...

 

[M Most]

On the other hand, Transformers 4 is being shot in 3D on Red Epic, while Avengers​ was shot flat on Alexa. .

Some parts of it are being shot that way. Much of Transformers is being shot on film, both 35mm and Imax 65mm. Other cameras are involved as well. Frankly, it's very, very rare that any production these days is shot using only one type of camera.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Companies that are reassuring the public that practical autostereo TV is right around the corner are setting everybody up for a huge letdown. Although 4K screens make for much better aS3D displays, getting quality content onto those displays is something that has yet to be adequately addressed. Despite what they would have you believe, if you really want good quality, autostereo content will need to go through a process very similar to current 2D - 3D conversion. EVEN IF YOU SHOOT NATIVE 3D.

+1... the acute (bordereing on incompentent) misunderstandings (of display teck, production process and VFX) of partime s3d experts has been one huge nail in the coffin.

3D is dead and it will not save the cinema theaters because it makes 3D content look distracting by revealing the wrong size of objects, actors and scenes.

What interests me about this comment (and it is a very common complaint with some justification) is that I rarely hear anyone criticise the numerous forms of 'miniaturisation' that happens in 2d filmmaking...

S3d at home was always a big ask (outside of a niche market)... I just wish more people actively enjojed a diverse cinema culture. I don't really care about S3d in general.

Michael L

 

[Aaron McLane]

I've heard Avatar 2 is being shot single camera with a post stereo conversion and I suppose when it comes out in 10 years or so 3D might be ready for a another comeback.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I've heard Avatar 2 is being shot single camera with a post stereo conversion and I suppose when it comes out in 10 years or so 3D might be ready for a another comeback.

As far as I know, Avatar 2 is only in the planning stages right now, and Jim Cameron has an ocean of cameras at his disposal. Like the first film the movie will be a combination of live-action 3D capture, motion capture, and CGI, so some of it has to be dimensionalized after the fact.

 

[Eric Santiago]

Watched Gravity preview last night.

Amazing motion picture and yes the 3D helped a little.

I am on the fence with 3D and feel it'll just stay in theaters.

 

[Jason Goodman]

3D is far from dead as it is still making a lot of money for studios. It will stick around because the technology to make it work is no longer black magic. Theaters and TVs have productized the exhibition. Many studios and indies have produced crap, but some have made really great work. 3D may wane in popularity from its Avatar height but it will never truly die as long as humans have 2 eyes. Gravity, Transformers 4, X-Men, Avatar sequels, another Ang Lee film, many many 3D movies are still to come.

 

[L. Langer]

I think we'll see native 3D make a resurgence along with 3D conversions in general simply because the cameras are getting smaller and the computing power and storage is getting better every year for both native 3D and 3D conversions, the latter of which can be done with a single 1U rack-mount appliance.

 

[Alec Morris]

From Variety:

While Warner Bros.’ “Gravity” may not hit stratospheric heights this weekend at the box office, the 3D space epic starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney is displaying exceptional pull with audiences in 3D, with tracking suggesting a $40 million-plus Stateside opening.

According to online ticketing site Fandango, “Gravity” is on track to score record 3D pre-sales, outpacing “Avatar” with 91% of tickets sold in stereo..

Just saw it and it was stunning. Absolutely stunning. If you can't see the breathtaking beauty of the 3D in this movie then you are just being a spiteful prick. The stereo truly is a work of art.

Btw it's pretty sad that this thread has more replies than any other thread in the 3D section. I invite all of you that are so hellbent against 3D to give it another chance with this movie. It will show you how incredible it can be when it's not slapped on as an afterthought.

91%. Seems 3D is alive and well.

 

[Paul Russell]

Really looking forward to seeing Gravity this afternoon in 3D IMAX.

We have a 64" plasma 3D in the TV room. Repeated viewings of 3D movies often get played in 2D at the majority family request, mainly because wearing the glasses can be annoying more than anything else. But we don't regret the investment because when it's done well it's really good. Once 4K 3D TV screens and media are available I think the experience will be much more immersive, especially with features shot in native 3D and not postconverted.

 

[Jason Goodman]

Well said Alec. 3D will never die for those who enjoy making it and enjoy watching it. If you don't, simply ignore it. I will never understand the energy expended in hating this beautiful art form by people who's advanced hypothesis consists of '3D sucks'.

There is great significance in what's happened with Gravity. It shows that audiences aren't tired of 3D as presumed. They were tired of paying top dollar for substandard product. If you make a good movie with good 3D people will want to see it in 3D.

It's long been said that 3D can't make a bad movie good and that is true. But bad 3D can make an otherwise good movie unwatchable or unpleasant. Shot or converted, 3D needs to be thoughtfully executed by experienced, dedicated experts like any other aspect of a production. It cannot be applied against the director's will. It cannot be learned in three days. It cannot be automatically created with a black box.

 

[Maciej Orman]

From Variety:

While Warner Bros.’ “Gravity” may not hit stratospheric heights this weekend at the box office, the 3D space epic starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney is displaying exceptional pull with audiences in 3D, with tracking suggesting a $40 million-plus Stateside opening.

According to online ticketing site Fandango, “Gravity” is on track to score record 3D pre-sales, outpacing “Avatar” with 91% of tickets sold in stereo..

Just saw it and it was stunning. Absolutely stunning. If you can't see the breathtaking beauty of the 3D in this movie then you are just being a spiteful prick. The stereo truly is a work of art.

Btw it's pretty sad that this thread has more replies than any other thread in the 3D section. I invite all of you that are so hellbent against 3D to give it another chance with this movie. It will show you how incredible it can be when it's not slapped on as an afterthought.

91%. Seems 3D is alive and well.

Yes, it is true that 3D should yield more adrenaline and it is "work of art" but not immersive reality. The gigantic floating actors will be even larger when placed beyond the screen surface.
On the other hand on home theater screen the scene and actors will be perceived as floating barbie set in aquarium size scene.

If the creators really understood the power and true advantages of 3D then they would have done it using Realistic 3D rules and filming techniques as well as allowing for true realistic projection methods for home and theater size of screens. This way the viewer would see real size actors playing in real size scene where horizon ends at infinity and not few feet behind the screen in the theater or few inches behind the screen at home.


Finally, if you would actually see at least one Realistic 3D movie you would not ever want to see AVATAR and other 3D gimmick movies any more.