Freya Black Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Thank Goodness! http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/13/tech/gaming-gadgets/3-d-hype-bubble-finally-busted/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5 Of course just because only a tiny percentage of people go to see 3d might not change things because they pay a premium for it. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Joseph Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I think the format has had a rough chance with all the post-conversions. The three films that I thought were shot and made well in 3D which out of memory have been Avatar, Hugo & Prometheus. I have so far liked those. I'm also looking forward to The Hobbit, Life of Pi & Gatsby (which I got some insightful experience on). I feel like there's more potential for it, I'm not a complete skeptic of it being worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 I think the format has had a rough chance with all the post-conversions. The three films that I thought were shot and made well in 3D which out of memory have been Avatar, Hugo & Prometheus. I have so far liked those. I'm also looking forward to The Hobbit, Life of Pi & Gatsby (which I got some insightful experience on). I feel like there's more potential for it, I'm not a complete skeptic of it being worthless. It's wothless for me as I don't want to have to sit in a cinema and wear silly glasses. The cinema experience is becoming uncomfortable enough already, I mean what next, installing church pews? I want to have a good time at the cinema and to relax. Don't think I will be seeing the Hobbit in 2d or 3d, it's starting to look preety awful from what I've seen so far. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Stevens Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Once again, 3D ruined a 2D film for me as SAVAGES was presented in Sony 4k DIM-version, with the 3D rig in place for a 2D flick. Happens every damn time I go to the movies now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted July 15, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2012 I think the format has had a rough chance with all the post-conversions. Well, there are Post-Conversions that are obviously a "me-too" afterthought, and there are Post-Conversions that have been carefully planned that way from the beginning. The main problem with using twin cameras is pretty much the same problem of shooting 2K or 1080p - the 3-D effect you shot on the day is all you're ever going to have, just like the resolution you shot on the day is all you're going to have. With good post-conversion, you get a lot more opportunities to "tweak" the 3-D effect. It's quite striking that in movies like The Avengers, a lot of the time there is no 3D effect, but you don't even notice, because they only use it when it would be noticeable in real life. The three films that I thought were shot and made well in 3D which out of memory have been Avatar, Hugo & Prometheus. I have so far liked those. I'm also looking forward to The Hobbit, Life of Pi & Gatsby (which I got some insightful experience on). I feel like there's more potential for it, I'm not a complete skeptic of it being worthless. Well, Avatar was almost completely computer-generated (well the memorable parts were), very little if any of Hugo wasn't CGI-ed, and although the 3-D and cinematography in Prometheus were adequate, it was generally just a crap movie as far as I was concerned, and it wouldn't have mattered how it was shot. I saw a 3-D trailer of The Great Gatsby, and it was all "animated cardboard cutout" stuff. I don't know, maybe the entire film wasn't like that, but you can't blame crap 3-D on a poor trailer. It seems a strange choice for a movie like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted July 15, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2012 It's worthless for me as I don't want to have to sit in a cinema and wear silly glasses. It's interesting to ponder whether sound would have taken off as quickly if it meant you had to wear earphones :rolleyes: The cinema experience is becoming uncomfortable enough already, I mean what next, installing church pews? If they think that will justify charging you more money, why ever not? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravi Kiran Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Its hard to say 3D is on the wane this soon into the post-Avatar 3D filmmaking era. Just like Avatar was an important benchmark in 3D filmmaking, I think The Hobbit, with its faster framerate, will be another. Personally, I don't see more than one or two 3D films a year, but I'm not going to write off the public demand for it just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravi Kiran Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Also, what I've read indicates that 3D is doing well outside of the US in countries like China and Russia. Edited July 19, 2012 by Ravi Kiran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Also, what I've read indicates that 3D is doing well outside of the US in countries like China and Russia. Russia has had specialty stereo theatres since the mid 40s. & probably the best stereo film system, Stereo 70, a super 35 sized stereo pair in a 70mm frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Thompson Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 3D is peado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now