Jump to content

Is 3D really here to stay?


George Ebersole
 Share

Recommended Posts


  • Premium Member

I don't think 3D will really become a de-facto format. Not only for experience reasons, but also economic reasons. It's more expensive, to create, and consume. Yes, we may have some special 3d experience films--- but, overall, from all the people i've spoken to, there is a certain disinterest in 3d. What I mean by that is that most of them will see some films in 3d which seem important in 3d (like the upcoming Hobbit) and then pass on most of the others.

For me, I'd love to try to shoot 3d, but in truth, it doesn't much interest me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have to admit, that I stream all of the stuff I watch, or rent it. I can't remember the last time I really watched TV. Last year?

 

Still, 3D is the issue though. I don't see it thriving much longer. I see it staying around for unique stuff, but it doesn't strike me as being worth the extra cost. It doesn't seem to have the same impact that sound and color had film when they came around.

 

Just my opinion, though.

 

No one else, huh?

 

what happened to all the veterans that used to like to show off their egos at a has been like me? :)

 

Come on, guys, where are you? Speak up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

That's an interesting article, Phil. For me 3D just seems to be more of an impressive gimmick than something that's really fundamentally changed movies and film making. For some reason, and you can call me crazy, I just don't see the benefit of a 3D image over your standard 2D movie.

 

Even when stuff if flying at you from the screen, or suspended in some way, it almost feels like cheating to use 3D to get an effect that you should be able to achieve with regular 2D film stock (or hard drive).

 

I guess that's just me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got to be kidding me. No one else?

 

I don't think anyone has much to say about it. 3D is preety much close to dead now.

Heres a BBC report to this effect and how the industry is now focused on 4k/8k.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm

 

[apologies for some of the tacky BBC "humor" in this video there is some interesting stuff amongst the drivel tho]

 

3d will continue in cinema for a while because it is propping up the industry. Essentially a lot of people go and watch 3d on a tidal wave of hype and then the pay a premium to see the film in that format which leads to much increased profits. It doesn't really matter if people are into 3d or not as long as they keep paying extra for it.

 

It's a bit like all the people who moan about there not being any quality intelligent sci-fi movies and then feel compelled to go and watch transformers 4 (even tho they know they are not going to like it) and give the little quality sci-fi films a miss.

 

People have power, they just give it away to others.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Never really got the whole 3D thing poking things at the audience seems to be It's greatest achievement.

Until I saw transformers 3 on a big screen that for me is where 3D cinema belongs.

As a cameraman I would love to shoot something like that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't think anyone has much to say about it. 3D is preety much close to dead now.

Heres a BBC report to this effect and how the industry is now focused on 4k/8k.

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/9774380.stm

 

[apologies for some of the tacky BBC "humor" in this video there is some interesting stuff amongst the drivel tho]

 

3d will continue in cinema for a while because it is propping up the industry. Essentially a lot of people go and watch 3d on a tidal wave of hype and then the pay a premium to see the film in that format which leads to much increased profits. It doesn't really matter if people are into 3d or not as long as they keep paying extra for it.

 

It's a bit like all the people who moan about there not being any quality intelligent sci-fi movies and then feel compelled to go and watch transformers 4 (even tho they know they are not going to like it) and give the little quality sci-fi films a miss.

 

People have power, they just give it away to others.

 

love

 

Freya

That's a great piece. Thanks for that, Freya.

 

I'm very impressed with the 8k television report. Thanks for that link. It confirms some hunches I had about imagery in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3D does nothing for me Ridley Scott said when shooting " Prometheus" all films should be shot in 3D no matter the subject ! Interesting that his new film now in post has not been shot 3D.

 

I find Ridley a little strange. I think he says a lot of things that are more about keeping the studios happy. He has said as much. However I don't get that as he is soooo powerful at this point, and he surely has enough money to even fund his own films.

 

I guess it's about not wanting to rock the boat or the status quo or becoming settled with a certain situation.

 

Makes me feel sad tho. If you can't feel free when you are that significant and powerful...

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Ridley a little strange. I think he says a lot of things that are more about keeping the studios happy. He has said as much. However I don't get that as he is soooo powerful at this point, and he surely has enough money to even fund his own films.

 

I think he's probably just showboating for the media; don't forget that he started out as an add man and knows his way around a good soundbite!

Edited by Geoff Howell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... the industry is now focused on 4k/8k.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm

 

....People have power, they just give it away to others.

 

love

Freya

 

 

Freya,

I had a look at that BBC report on 8K. Without a whimper from the human population this will be fed to us as a kind of ultimate refinement. The human eye can't resolve finer than that etc. I think this is rubbish. It represents a sort of, perhaps ultimate particularization, in terms of the fine objective value of the image, but ignores finer values of perception and the value of whatever we are able to ingest through the eyes without being literally or objectively aware of it. To do with that, or taking it further, it's as if ignoring the sophistication of the human eye and nervous system.

 

Simply adding more pixels is a simplistic approach to refining the image. What value is there in using a computer to simulate or interpolate in order to turn those crude discrete signals into something akin to an image from a piece of film, or worse, a real object ? (rhetorical question). The engineer in the interview had a faint glow, as though he had just quietly cured cancer. Sad and ironic.

 

I think relevant to this.....Over on the Film vs Digital, Impact on Art, Culture, Experience I tried to make a start point for considering that comparison in a new way. Focusing on extremely refined processes in the photographic event and more subtle, subjective layers of experience. You were one of the ones I hoped might be curious at those ideas.

 

Mostly people have responded there as though it's just an invitation to the same old emotive arguments. It patently isn't, though I understand why it happns. But you don't need to be quantum physicist or an ocular specialist in neurophysiology to sense something about it or to offer thoughts.

 

Thinking of writing something about this 8K idea over there.

 

Cheers, Gregg.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, 8k would allow acquisition of patterns at half the dimension of what would cause moiré in a 4k sensor...

 

But... yeh - not sure if that's really on top of the list of concerns for most folk.

 

Also, you could have a 'wider than wide' screen at the same viewing resolution - perhaps more suited to other products than cinema - I'd like to say entertainment and/or artwork, but it's just going to be advertising ...

 

Reminds me of the time I took my retina macbook pro into the shop as it had a dead pixel - the guy quite casually told me 'it cant be a dead pixel, you cant see the pixels'

 

f u c k i n g idiot :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f u c k i n g idiot :rolleyes:

 

I'm glad we are allowed to say that word. I've been busting to. I'll save it up. I actually started some objective research for my F vs D theme. I was reminded that photons have no size in the common sense, but I think of them as vey tiny packets of light. Saw a reference to an experiment showing that rods in the eye can respond to single photons. A conscious response by the subject...So how many photons/frame do we think are coming from each pixel on the 8K screen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad we are allowed to say that word. I've been busting to. I'll save it up. I actually started some objective research for my F vs D theme. I was reminded that photons have no size in the common sense, but I think of them as vey tiny packets of light. Saw a reference to an experiment showing that rods in the eye can respond to single photons. A conscious response by the subject...So how many photons/frame do we think are coming from each pixel on the 8K screen?

 

we're not - hence the s p a c e s.

 

photons per pixel per frame ? no idea

 

and keeping with the retina/space theme:

 

http://www.crackajac...etina-in-space/

Edited by Chris Millar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

photons per pixel per frame ? no idea

 

and keeping with the retina/space theme:

http://www.crackajac...etina-in-space/

 

I'll be more careful to label my r h e t r i c a l questions in futre. I hoped it would be assumed to be a large number. Larger than 1 anyway. It was a slightly forced illustration.....Solar particles causing flashes or streaks on the retina of astronauts, wow. How big are they? (rhetorical question)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basic requirements for an Astronaut Pilot include the following:

 

1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering, biological science, physical science, or mathematics. An advanced degree is desirable. Quality of academic preparation is important.

 

2. At least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft. Flight test experience is highly desirable.

 

3. Ability to pass a NASA space physical which is similar to a military or civilian flight physical and includes the following specific standards:

  • Distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected, correctable to 20/20 each eye.
  • Blood pressure: 140/90 measured in a sitting position.
  • Height between 62 and 75 inches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Getting back to 3D;

 

My basic thoughts on 3D are this; we mostly see things in a relatively 2D fashion. We have 3D perception, but it isn't in your face constantly that you're aware of it. As I sit and type at my computer, the glass of water next to my monitor and keyboard is a different distance to those objects than my mouse, but when I pan my head back and forth between the two my 3D perception isn't fundamentally called into action nor really disturbed. I might as well be looking at a super-hi-def photo of the entire setup.

 

As such I think 3D is an overestimation of what would interest the movie going audience. I think the real issue isn't image quality nor presentation, but good content. You can have the most crisp and clear image on the screen with a resolution that only a Hawk, Falcon or Eagle would love. But without a good story you might as well be shooting something for Youtube; a car wreck, fight on a bus or train, dogs doing stupid stuff, animals attacking people, what have you.

 

I just don't think that the human 3D perception is all that engaged and significant to a human being. Sure, we see things with the understanding that there's a third dimension, and we can gauge distance and size of things, but we're not awed by it. 3D in film is trying to awe us, the audience, with something that really isn't all that extraordinary.

 

I think NHK is right in that 8K presentation might be the final say in image resolution, but in the meantime the US domestic market (and international market too I guess) is cranking out blockbuster stuff for ages pre-teen to thirty. I don't think that's sustainable, especially since those people are, at some point, going to grow up and want something other than big explosions and other SFX.

 

3D is interesting, but I'm not seeing it as a step forward for all films. I think some films benefit from it, but I think the content has to be right for it. I mean, I wouldn't want to see "Casablanca" updated for 3D, nor "Gone with the Wind", but I can't really imagine not seeing "Avatar" or one of the other CGI toons in 3D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Simply adding more pixels is a simplistic approach to refining the image. What value is there in using a computer to simulate or interpolate in order to turn those crude discrete signals into something akin to an image from a piece of film, or worse, a real object ? (rhetorical question). The engineer in the interview had a faint glow, as though he had just quietly cured cancer. Sad and ironic.

 

One of the things I like about 8k is that people can finally get the whole obssession with resolution completely out of their system in one huge binge.

 

I think relevant to this.....Over on the Film vs Digital, Impact on Art, Culture, Experience I tried to make a start point for considering that comparison in a new way. Focusing on extremely refined processes in the photographic event and more subtle, subjective layers of experience. You were one of the ones I hoped might be curious at those ideas.

 

Mostly people have responded there as though it's just an invitation to the same old emotive arguments. It patently isn't, though I understand why it happns. But you don't need to be quantum physicist or an ocular specialist in neurophysiology to sense something about it or to offer thoughts.

 

Well I don't feel like talking about it because I see it as already being a done deal. It's too much in the realm of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Film has already been largely been replaced with digital 3d. If you want to see film projection now, you will need to seek out experimental films on 16mm prints or you might find arthouses that still sometimes screen of 35mm, but they are finding it harder and harder to do so.

 

I have also heard arguments similar to this before. Often including the nature of the shutter in the projector as well as the nature of the film itself.

 

The thing is that none of this magical stuff can be quantified easily, because what is special about film is the magic and that cannot be really quantified.

 

The big question now that we have killed film projection, is whether we can make cinema in it's new form viable.

For me it has ceased to be cinema without film but then people said things like that in the silent era. They were of course right too but cinema moved on and became something else. The question is as to whether cinema can move on an become something else. At the moment it's being propped up by 3d and to some degree by origination on film. It's possible that live events could become more the thing for cinemas. 8k screenings of football matches on the huge screen etc. Anyway, whatever it's becoming, it's really not for me. I used to go to the cinema to see film screenings. I can watch video projections at home and that will probably be the future for me. Why would I pay a fortune to watch a digital projection in a cinema when I can watch in more comfortable surroundings at home.

 

I tend to find the subject matter essentially quite negative and I don't want to dwell on bad stuff that happened in the past.

To be honest I'm still really shaken by the Fuji thing too.

 

It is what it is...

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...