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 :)

ohhh thank god.. 3d becoming a joke!

Bruce,

FWIW, my non film friends, relatives and acquaintances have about a 50% aversion rate. About half the people I ask, usually about Avatar 3D - have some aversion to the glasses, experience, or presentation vs. 2D. Most often, the usual - headaches, not comfortable with the glasses for various reasons, did not like how it flew with their own eyeglasses, etc. Of the half, 25% have some strong-ish aversion, while the other half is mildly annoyed. Of the 50% reporting positive, I have not heard one that was REALLY happy with the 3D presentation, there were some that were generally pleased.

Even if 1/4 have an aversion - isn't that a deal killer? Really? And there are recent polls out there suggesting the percentage of average viewers with some negative feeling about it is higher than 25%.

Its NOT like scope, or digital, or 5.1 - scope did not result in physical discomfort and the need to place a foreign object on your head.
 
Shawn Booth said:
3D is a fad that comes and goes. It is often times a misused layer of the medium. I wouldn't say it was a medium in and of itself. Film is a medium. Video is a medium. 3D is a visual effect within the medium.
Click to expand...



Stage, canvas, binary stage.



3d2010visualization.jpg
 
Hrvoje - If I knew where that graphic came from and the detailed info behind it, sure, I get it. I do understand what you're saying with it and if I take it as face value, then I humbly retract the comment about it being a visual effect within a medium - but then again, it's just a graphic representation without any details or more info.

I'm not afraid of 3D, or buying stuff, or working with it... I just don't like it. Never did. Still don't.
 
Anson Fogel said:
Bruce,

FWIW, my non film friends, relatives and acquaintances have about a 50% aversion rate. About half the people I ask, usually about Avatar 3D - have some aversion to the glasses, experience, or presentation vs. 2D. Most often, the usual - headaches, not comfortable with the glasses for various reasons, did not like how it flew with their own eyeglasses, etc. Of the half, 25% have some strong-ish aversion, while the other half is mildly annoyed. Of the 50% reporting positive, I have not heard one that was REALLY happy with the 3D presentation, there were some that were generally pleased.

Even if 1/4 have an aversion - isn't that a deal killer? Really? And there are recent polls out there suggesting the percentage of average viewers with some negative feeling about it is higher than 25%.

Its NOT like scope, or digital, or 5.1 - scope did not result in physical discomfort and the need to place a foreign object on your head.
Click to expand...
It was still the highest grossing film ever. That grabs attention.
 
Shawn Booth said:
Hrvoje - If I knew where that graphic came from and the detailed info behind it, sure, I get it. I do understand what you're saying with it and if I take it as face value, then I humbly retract the comment about it being a visual effect within a medium - but then again, it's just a
Click to expand...

I think Hrvoje is suggesting holographic movies in the future, a form of 3D even I can see...

Or he is just describing the theatre. I like that, too...
 
(Off topic, Pirates $300 mil budget is mostly because of the 3D... One reason they're here rather than the actual Caribbean.)
Click to expand...
The extra cost of 3D is a real concern. Does it add to the movie or not? Though whether you are adding A list talent, location, or a 50' crane, what does it add to the product. Some times it will. That is good. The more tools in the tool box the better. While some are trying to figure what is wrong with it, some are imagining what they can do with it.
 
Last edited:
Shawn Booth said:
Hrvoje - If I knew where that graphic came from and the detailed info behind it, sure, I get it. I do understand what you're saying with it and if I take it as face value, then I humbly retract the comment about it being a visual effect within a medium - but then again, it's just a graphic representation without any details or more info.

I'm not afraid of 3D, or buying stuff, or working with it... I just don't like it. Never did. Still don't.
Click to expand...

If there weren't differences in preferences and taste it would be extremely boring on this planet. :)

I absolutely respect yours. I did the graphic.


Gunleik Groven said:
I think Hrvoje is suggesting holographic movies in the future, a form of 3D even I can see...

Or he is just describing the theatre. I like that, too...
Click to expand...


First one represents a theatre, among others, which is why the "stage" naming. Because the art which we revolve around started on the stage.

Not suggesting holographic. I'll be happy to clear out any confusion if by any chance this is not clear enough.
 
Each layer is a medium. A channel through which you are able to communicate information.

But whether you are looking at a film as a single audio-visual pipe or breaking it down into a zillion individual fibers, it always comes back to striking a balance that speaks your story. The more layers in balance, the more effective the film.
 
C.H.Haskell said:
Agreed. 3D is not the problem here, and its not going anywhere. The decline of quality story telling is real issue. Lets work on that. ;)
Click to expand...

The decline of quality story telling is real issue and is a result of camera and lenses contempt...
cleardot.gif
 
I don't know if you really know Mark Kermode in the states... I'm guessing not. Anyway he's a film critic with the BBC and he has quite a good 3 minute video blog discussing the merits of 3D on Toy Story 3. He was contacted by Bob Whitehill (Stereography supervisor on Toy Story 3) and it's quite interesting how Bob surmises the use of 3D in their film.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2010/07/the_3d_guy_writes_back.html

Paul
 
I really would not mind 3D so much if the prices of the tickets did not go up so much. Here in So Cal, ticket prices are already outrageous and 3D adds 3 to five bucks to that. I can not afford to drop $16 on a ticket. For another $4, I can own the film on Blu Ray when it comes out (I would never pay that anyways, I rarely go over $10, for DVD's).

There is a 3D backlash for a couple of reasons. First, there is the ticket price increase. Second, the on average bad quality of the 3D (because of the crappy conversions), not to mention that the majority of 3D films are poor quality in other terms. If they do 3D right and try not to bleed customers dry, I am all for it but all I see now is movie studios ruining interesting technology to make a buck.
 
I agree, think (well wish) that movies converted to 3D in post should be required to have an asterik next to 3D:

Clash of the Titans in 3D*

*pop-up book style
 
In my personal opinion, 3D should be reserved for 3D-modeled films. The best examples of 3D can be seen in films like Up, Toy Story 3, How To Train Your Dragon, Beowulf. Avatar is the gold standard and around 65% of the shots in the film are 100% CG. The CG forest scenes looked much better than the live action stuff which still had that pop up book look to me. 3D is really ideal for computer animation since the video is made in a 3D environment.
 
Bruce Allen said:
My non-filmmaker friends, relatives, etc all LOVE 3D, yet about 50% of my filmmaker friends are against it.
Click to expand...

I've had the polar opposite experience. People don't even think about 3D.

"Fans who have been eagerly anticipating the release of The Hobbit have been lashing out at the idea of a 3D version of the film. “Out of 450 people surveyed, 450 don’t want 3D for ‘The Hobbit,’ ” stated a post on TheOneRing.net regarding fan opinions expressed during Comic-Con."
http://www.myce.com/news/filmmakers-battle-with-hollywood-studios-over-3d-movies-32764/


That shouldn't even be possible. You can't get 450 people to agree the sun is coming up tomorrow.

3D is for CG. I'm not a fan and it's not because I'm intimidated by anything. In fact, the idea of SHOOTING 3D sounds fun. Watching it sucks for me because watching it sucks for me. And a lot of people.
 
I like 3D ... but I'd like to have a higher framerate and sharper picture. The quality difference between CGI and "real" capture was obvious for me in Avatar.
Then again I think that the 3D experiance varies widely between cinemas too. 3D looks horrible if operators cheap out and the picture is too dark or not properly calibrated.
Finally, I hate 3D conversions.
 
I've seen Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3D and in both cases I didn't like it. In both cases my company (mix of filmmakers and non-filmmakers) also didn't like it.

I've talked with people around me, and almost everyone (I'm talking about mostly non-filmmakers now) preferred 2D.

Personally, it just distracts me. It's meant to pull me more into the movie, but it does the opposite. It distracts me more.
Just give me the power of film: a 2D image, with a great story/direction/cinematography/acting/... and great sound. I'll be 100 procent IN your movie and in your story. I don't need 3D for that.
Please... Hollywood... stop this madness. Stop trying to force it.

Keep 3D for attractions in an amusement park.
 
3D is the 8-track of today, soon to be so yesterday. I saw the preview of the Piranha movie last night; Richard Dreyfuss must really need the money to do such violence to the memory of Jaws.

Sure, 3D will hang around after the fad dies, but unless some amazing new technology arrives, it's always going to be a rather tawdry gimmick.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top