ohhh thank god.. 3d becoming a joke!

[Elsie N]

http://www.thebuttkicker.com/downloads/brochures/Berkline_Buttkicker_Catalog_Page.pdf

Yikes, wonder if that is hazardous to your "boys"?

 

[Bruce Watson]

3D might actually be physically dangerous

3D might actually be physically dangerous

Audioholics has a story out that says 3D can actually damage your vision. Especially vulnerable are kids younger than 7. And of course, kids are the target demographic for most 3D pictures. Sigh... Waiting for the lawsuits, which will end 3D whether it has any merit or not.

I personally object to 3D for aesthetic reasons. I think it's almost always a distraction from the story. I didn't like it with Avatar; it pulled me out of my "suspension of disbelief" many times to make me stop paying attention the story and pay attention to the 3D effect. That, and polarized glasses compress the color gamut and to some extent crush shadow detail too. Not pleasant.

Then I rented a BD of Avatar 2D. I've got to say that watching it in 2D on my much smaller 50" plasma was a much better experience. I had no idea that Avatar was such a bright and colorful film. It was beautiful and engrossing in 2d. Even my wife liked it better in 2D.

Not paying for 3D in the theaters again. If that means I'm done with theaters, oh well. I'll miss it. But not that much.

 

[Mark Collins]

Let's bring 'The Tingler' back


"Percepto!" was a gimmick where William Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of several seats in movie theaters where The Tingler was scheduled to be screened. The buzzers were small surplus vibrators left over from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was predominantly used in the larger theaters.

D-Box. As far as I know, a few Cineplex theatres in Canada are trying out the D-Box motion controls on certain films. Not sure how it's going though.

As for the article, I like Jon Favreau's comment that western's should only be shot on film. I like that comment for the simple reason that rather than being loyal to any particular camera or brand he simply goes with whichever style and format will give him the best look for the story, which is how cinematography should be.

 

[David Rasberry]

You lose the equivalent of two stops of screen brightness with 3D, one from the glasses and one from doubling dark intervals between frames. 3D equipped theaters should have projectors that can run at different illumination settings for 2D and 3D. You need around 60 ft lamberts for 3D compared to 15-20 for 2D.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Uh, no it's not. 3D has been annoying us for quite sometime now (pre 1950's)... It's like a virus that lies dormant for a bit and springs up to attack every so often...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#History

We NEED stories, not gimmicks, suit and tie folks at the studios who choose what we see (along with all the ticket buyers located in the fly over states)...

It has been here way before that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_ancient_Greece


It is a new medium because it has finally reached a usable phase. It's not a gimmick.

 

[Elsie N]

Thought Michael Bay's comment that he might shoot part of his next Transformers in 3-D was interesting. Maybe scene-specific 3-D is the way forward. This gives the plot a rush at a certain point and the viewer a rest at other places in the movie. Of course, this would work better if they didn't have to stop the projector and announce "please put on your glasses".

 

[Shawn Booth]

It's not a gimmick.

Yes, it is. It does nothing to push the story forward. It's a gimmick to sell tickets. Always has been.

JAWS 3D - crap movie that went 3D during the 3D fad of the 80's to sell tickets.

Gimmick.

Holographic on the other hand... Looks amazing, and provides total immersion for the viewer - without stupid glasses to wear. But even this is facing an up hill battle... But it is achieved with a single camera and no additional/heavy rigs required.

Storytelling and great stories are harder to achieve and make these days because of fear and the risks involved with making a movie that fails. So they decide to distribute (or even shoot in) in 3D...

I have yet to meet or speak to anyone who actually likes and enjoys the 3D experience...

Maybe a movie about 3D in 3D would work well...

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Yes, it is. It does nothing to push the story forward. It's a gimmick to sell tickets. Always has been.
Gimmick.
Storytelling and great stories are harder to achieve and make these days because of fear and the risks involved with making a movie that fails. So they decide to distribute (or even shoot in) in 3D...
I have yet to meet or speak to anyone who actually likes and enjoys the 3D experience...

Man, you better chill a little, there's plenty of us in this forum that have made a significant investment in 3d, in equipment, software, learning, etc, precisely because we believe it is NOT a gimmick. I truly believe it adds to the experience, especially when the material suits 3d, when it is shot natively in 3D, and done tastefully. And I have been shooting professionally since 1984, shot film, every stock of it, and every flavor of digital camera. And yes, I think 99.9% of all movies today are absolute crap, but if you think eliminating 3D and every other "gimmick" will pave the way for a return to quality cinema, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. Yes, studio executives will use, and abuse, 3D and every other option that comes their way, if they think if gives them a chance to sell more tickets. But movies are crap because that's what their average audience has the patience, and brain, to digest. That simple. And 3D has nothing to do with that appalling lack of quality...

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

The IMAX 3D Hubble film is a good example of how the format can succeed. Given the subject matter and the awesome power of those images, the technology slips away and it's a different experience.

 

[Brian Petrie]

I say bring back odorama

 

[Tom Lowe]

I bet 90% of the "3D Haters" out there who will see TRON will see it in 3D, not 2D.

How many 3D haters who saw Avatar twice in the theater chose to see it the second time in 2D? I bet not many.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Yes, it is. It does nothing to push the story forward.

It's a medium for the story, not an add-on.
Medium doesn't push the story. Storytelling in that medium does.

It's a gimmick to sell tickets. Always has been.

This is a separate subject. It's being used as a gimmick. Misuse of the medium is not a flaw of the medium.

 

[Gavin Scott]

So I was moved to register and post on this topic as I find the whole 3D debate rather fascinating.

For myself, I have no strong opinion on whether 3D is worth it since I've seen 3D that I enjoyed and which was at least fun to look at (Avatar in IMAX 3D (more than once)), and also seen painful gimmicky 3D of course. If Mr. Cameron were to tell me I should see one of his films in 3D I would have no hesitation to do so.

But what interests me is the fact that a lot of people seem to take on face value that "Stereo 3D is the obviously next big thing", when I think they're making a fallacious assumption.

I believe Stereo is a fundamentally different information channel from things like color, and that the way the brain processes it may suggest that it's going to be very difficult to leverage it to heighten the emotional experience or "move the story along".

If the process of "watching" a scene is something like this:

Raw Information -> Brain's spatial analysis -> "What's Happening" -> Brain's higher functions -> "Emotional Experience"

Then the key may be the "spatial analysis" step where your mind takes all the data it gets and outputs a "what's happening" description that is basically the scene reconstructed in your mind where it's actually "watched".

The raw information you get is stuff like shape and contrast (like a B&W image might give you), color, sound, motion, and anything else that can be used to figure out what you're seeing.

A primary goal is to break apart the scene into the things it contains and their spatial relationships. Stereo vision is an input to this, but I don't think it's critical. Your brain uses lots of tricks to determine what's where, and the stereo information is used when it is available and makes sense, but a lot of the time I think it may simply be discarded in favor of other clues.

Beyond 10 meters or so, the amount of information you can get from stereo becomes much less too.

So while adding color to a scene gives you new perception that you can't really get any other way, feeding the viewer stereo information doesn't necessarily let you "see" anything new. Thus people who compare color vs. B&W to 3D vs. 2D fail to consider that they are actually very different kinds of things. The resulting argument that "If color is better than B&W then OBVIOUSLY 3D must be better than 2D" seems completely unjustifiable.

While watching both How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3, I found that often I would stop noticing the 3D effect as my brain seemed to give priority to its own analysis of the scene depth over the stereo data it was being fed.

So what I'm getting to with all this is the following:

I suspect that the analyzed scene description that's fed (in my made-up diagram above) to your higher emotional and intellectual functions is going to be fundamentally the same whether the spatial analysis was done using stereo information or whether it was done by inferring depth through all the other available clues. Thus a person's emotional interpretation of what they're being shown is going to be the *same* whether you show them a 2D or 3D version of it, and a few minutes later, their memory of the scene will be virtually identical regardless of which way they viewed it. Thus, it may not actually be possible to substantially change the viewer's experience (apart from gimmicks) through the use of 3D.

All of this is on top of the other problems 3D has, uncomfortable glasses, brightness, some people unable to perceive it, and so many bad 3D films coming out trying to get a piece of that extra $3-$6 per ticket.

Now, the above may all be total nonsense of course, but I really think there's something like this going on, and until people really understand *why* 3D is different, there's not really going to be a good chance of exploiting whatever possibilities it does have.

I think the situation is different for interactive experiences though. For example in a computer game where you're navigating an avatar through an unfamiliar or fantastic landscape, then the stereo information might actually be preferred by the brain over trying to make sense of what it sees another way. I'd be willing to bet that 3D "capability" will be with us forever on TVs and computer displays, since it costs basically nothing to add the capability to a modern TV. So the video world may see 3D used in sports and special programming more than it is in films.

I will now shut up and disappear back into the ether...

G.

 

[Mark Phelan]

The IMAX 3D Hubble film is a good example of how the format can succeed. Given the subject matter and the awesome power of those images, the technology slips away and it's a different experience.

That was probably the only 3D experience I've ever enjoyed. Most every other time it's not worth the effort, or the headache.

 

[Vladimir Cassel]

I bet 90% of the "3D Haters" out there who will see TRON will see it in 3D, not 2D.

How many 3D haters who saw Avatar twice in the theater chose to see it the second time in 2D? I bet not many.

I can't be bothered to see Avatar in 3D or 2D, but I think I'll make TRON: Legacy my second 3D movie experience. The trailer has me amped, and the subject matter looks like it would benefit from it.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

The IMAX 3D Hubble film is a good example of how the format can succeed. Given the subject matter and the awesome power of those images, the technology slips away and it's a different experience.

I can concur with this.. havent seen that In 3D.. but 3d IMAX pictures that are REAL.. like Hubble, or Everest.. documentary REAL films.. that makes sense..

but a narrative story in 3D just turns me off...
its distracting to the story (in my opinion)
I get headaches (I realize im in a minority group)
and from a film making point of view.. its just an extra hassle..

Ive done 5 3D jobs.. and everytime has just been a huge ordeal. guhhh

 

[R.ChilD]

As filmmakers, seeing sales plummet and other alternatives to cinema, its a fear that the profession for most might go down the drain in the future so I find it quit odd that an unhealthy minority criticize a format that might be able to sustain or actually increase revenue thereby, meaning more work for us professionals......I am yet to experience the nausea and headaches often complained about, as well lots of viewers.....some even mentioned that wearing glasses while watching movie is "weird", as if lots of people dont do that presently........As a poster mentioned, theres lots of 2D movies that suck, we see that everyday, there is no comparison to the faked 3D movies pushed by institutions concerned more about money than the craft.....regardless of how long the technology's been in existence, its still an infantile medium.....what should be done by film makers is research to see how 3d plays with whatever style of film making, 3D done right is still a winner, we dont stop making films in 2D because of the thousands or millions of garbage content put out everyday. I feel holograms' the future of interactive film making, but in the meantime we've got 3D, make the most out of it!!!

just my 2 shillings!!

 

[Andy Jarosz]

I can concur with this.. havent seen that In 3D.. but 3d IMAX pictures that are REAL.. like Hubble, or Everest.. documentary REAL films.. that makes sense..

but a narrative story in 3D just turns me off...
its distracting to the story (in my opinion)
I get headaches (I realize im in a minority group)
and from a film making point of view.. its just an extra hassle..

Ive done 5 3D jobs.. and everytime has just been a huge ordeal. guhhh

A huge ordeal, huh? Just imagine what they thought when sound first came on the scene. Give it a chance beyond what we have now, a few years. It'll get there, it needs time to mature. When color was first introduced, do you think lighting styles changed overnight? Headaches come from improperly done 3D, which again, we need time to nail.

(Why does lightning come before thunder? Because even God waits for sound.)

 

[Alex Kornreich]

There's no question that 3D is the future. It's makes watching movies a more immersive experience. Since we go to the movies as a form of escapism, 3D is the way forward.

However as long as you need to wear glasses (ie S3D), it'll die again as a fad just as it has in the past. The glasses are dirty, uncomfortable, and take away brightness from the screen. Not to mention 25-50% more expensive. People may suffer through that for movies like Avatar and Tron, but for 95% of the other movies, 3D is a nuisance.

Like a couple other people have said, I've yet to meet someone who likes 3D. They enjoyed Avatar and Toy Story in 3D, but not 3D (in its current form) itself.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I think that ONE day.. when you can shoot with 1 camera.. and have a holographic or 3d image that isnt lame (glasses).. thats when it might make sense..again.. IMO