3D in process of going back from whence it came

[Phil Rhodes]

See:

 

http://www.theregist...07/26/3d_films/

 

To summarise, the numbers of people intending to watch in 3D run thus:

 

71% (Avatar)

68% (How To Train Your Dragon)

61% (Shrek Forever After)

56% (The Last Airbender)

45% (Despicable Me)

 

It appears that the audience is slowly realising what a gigantic con it is. Hilariously, just to rub it in a bit more, bwaha, this means that the graph of perceived audience interest looks like this:

 

 

I think we can probably label those five data points as follows:

 

1) Yay, Avatar! It's not for children!

2) Ooer, well, OK, it's for the children.

3) Um, OK, for the children. Ow, my head.

4) My children have all developed a pronounced squint.

5) Will someone please think of the children!

 

P

[John Holland]

Avatar was ok in 3D , but i got a free Blu-Ray copy with a new Blu- Ray player i bought , its looks so much better in 2D . I am so sick of this short lived { it will be } 3D crap .

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'm fine with 3D for any corny Sci Fi film; like Attack of the 50ft woman (which if it doesn't have a 3d version, ought to!)

[Dirk DeJonghe]

I can see it coming: "Watch this film is real 2D, no headaches!"

[Ravi Kiran]

Its too early to start sounding 3D's death knell. After Avatar, the 3D movies have been hasty 2D to 3D conversions for live action films, which of course will eventually sour the audience on 3D. 3D animated films are easier to show in 3D, since they can simply render out left and right eyes. But even those aren't usually composed or edited for 3D. 2D to 3D conversions are the modern equivalent of colorization or "rechanneled for stereo." The audience doesn't know that Avatar was shot in 3D while The Last Airbender was a conversion. They might simply see a crappy 3D conversion and write off all 3D if Hollywood isn't careful. With kids films those 3D surcharges add up quickly for even a small family, so I'm sure a lot of parents would rather not pay for the 3D, or, if they see it in 3D, they might skip out on the snacks.

 

When we start seeing more films shot in 3D I think we can more accurately gauge whether or not audiences are willing to pay extra for it. Pirates of the Caribbean 4 could be a huge boost for the format. Personally I'm not convinced 3D will be as ubiquitous as color or sound. I think it will primarily be used for action, sci-fi, horror, and 3D-animated films.

[John Holland]

Here in the UK Sony are pushing their 3D TVs in ads . That just will never take off.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Same here in the US. I don't know anyone who owns, or expresses interest in 3DTV (after spending a few hundred for a new HDTV!)<br>

[Justin Hayward]

Same here in the US. I don't know anyone who owns, or expresses interest in 3DTV (after spending a few hundred for a new HDTV!)<br>

 

I looked at one in Best Buy the other day. It was a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge. With the glasses off, it looked like a big wide picture of the bridge (of course a bit funky cause of the 3-D). When I put the glasses on, it looked like a tiny model of the bridge sticking out of the TV.

 

Not the same…

[Guest]

Same here in the US. I don't know anyone who owns, or expresses interest in 3DTV (after spending a few hundred for a new HDTV!)<br>

 

Adrian how is any one supposed to make any money if they don't toss out, and then buy a new, TV or computer?

 

These things only last for six months if you're lucky.

 

R,

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Extended warranties :P and the "premier service plan"

[Phil Rhodes]

When I put the glasses on, it looked like a tiny model of the bridge sticking out of the TV.

This exemplifies one of the biggest lies of 3D.

Human stereoscopic vision doesn't really operate beyond about thirty feet; the angular differentiation becomes too small to calculate. This of course unacceptable to producers who are paying for 3D and, dammit, they want to see 3D, even if it's utterly forced and fake.

The approach by which this is achieved, for the record, is to increase the interocular distance, or in humanspeak, to space the cameras out more. Needless to say there's no real limit to the amount a producer will egg you on to do this, even if you end up with a view of the world otherwise achievable only by these people:

Unfortunately what actually happens is that the apparent relative size of your head and the object remains the same, and given the non-elasticity of your skull, the object appears miniaturised. Of course more 3D effect is automatically more awsomer, so get ready for sci-fi movies with planets the size of golf balls and mountainous horizons nine apparent inches tall.

This is one of several problems with 3D which is fairly absolute and probably unsolvable.

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

I too think 3D is a passing fad. I kind of hope so too. I've only seen one movie in 3D...Toy Story 3D. I figured if anyone could do it right it would be Pixar. But man, I was really disappointed. There were only 3 or 4 shots in the whole movie that made good use of it, and those shots completely took me out of the movie. I was underwhelmed to say the least.

Having said that, I have a whole bunch of friends working on 3D movies right now. Some are huge movies, some smaller. So we'll be seeing this for the next couple years at least as all these films get released. And the fact that Scorsese is shooting in 3D right now gives it a lot of credibility, so the trend will probably drag on even longer.

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

Where's the 3D porn? Isn't it always that branch of the filmindustry that shows, whether a format or technology suceeds?

[Justin Hayward]

And the fact that Scorsese is shooting in 3D right now

 

:o Really??? What?

[Dom Jaeger]

Where's the 3D porn? Isn't it always that branch of the filmindustry that shows, whether a format or technology suceeds?

 

Good grief! Well at least that would get audiences shrieking, as objects lunged out of the TV screen towards them..

[Russell Scott]

:o Really??? What?

 

Hugo Cabret

[John Sprung]

When I put the glasses on, it looked like a tiny model of the bridge sticking out of the TV.

 

They had the cameras too far apart. The distance between the cameras gets scaled down to the distance between your eyes, making the subject look like a very nice model shot.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Dominic Case]

When the talkies arrived, many in the industry dismissed sound as a passing fad that had nothing to do with real film making. Same with colour. When Dolby introduced stereo optical tracks, many people argued that mono sound was OK for most films, and stereo was really for pop musicals and action/sci-fi films.

 

The difference between 3D and all of these other innovations which have become standard, is that audiences are offered the choice of 2D or 2D. Why is that? It can't just be the cost of converting projection equipment - that was a big factor in 1927, and again in the late 1970s. But 3D requires the viewer to wear glasses - and it's the first time the viewer has had to do anything except sit on a chair and look at the screen.

 

Why is wearing the glasses increasingly a turn-off? Could it be that viewers have realised they can't read their iPhone screens easily with the glasses on? If you can't Twitter it, you haven't done it!

[Frank Glencairn]

And the fact that Scorsese is shooting in 3D right now gives it a lot of credibility, so the trend will probably drag on even longer.

 

Oh nooo! Not Scorsese.

 

Is he out of his mind?

 

And yeah, Dominic actually I still think good Stereo is enough (but thats me).

 

Frank

[Brad Grimmett]

When the talkies arrived, many in the industry dismissed sound as a passing fad that had nothing to do with real film making. Same with colour. When Dolby introduced stereo optical tracks, many people argued that mono sound was OK for most films, and stereo was really for pop musicals and action/sci-fi films.

Talkies were an improvement in making films more realistic. Same with color.

Dolby, while I guess you could argue that it isn't needed, was an improvement of something that was already there, not a major change in the way movies were viewed.

The difference between 3D and all of these other innovations which have become standard, is that audiences are offered the choice of 2D or 2D. Why is that?

I think it's because the distributors and theater chains are smart enough to know that a good portion of people will have objections to 3D for one reason or another, and they don't want to lose existing customers.

Why is wearing the glasses increasingly a turn-off? Could it be that viewers have realised they can't read their iPhone screens easily with the glasses on? If you can't Twitter it, you haven't done it!

I'll tell you why it's a turn off to me. Like I said, I've only seen one 3D film in the theater (this decade), and my glasses were scratched and very dirty. After cleaning them as best I could, it still took me 10 or 15 minutes before I became less distracted by the dirt and scratches. As long as glasses are mandatory, this will continue to be a problem. Now, this is in Los Angeles where the glasses will clearly get a lot more wear and tear than smaller markets, but surely it's an issue everywhere.

[Brad Grimmett]

Oh nooo! Not Scorsese.

 

Is he out of his mind?

 

Frank

I believe it's a bit oriented towards kids, which would explain how that happened.

[Karel Bata]

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2010/7/15/3d-rig-for-scorseses-hugo-cabret.html

 

"Martin Scorsese has started shooting his new film Hugo Cabret with the Alexa in a specially made 3D rig (see above) based on a Steadiseg, a Steadicam rig on a Segway vehicle.

 

The setup is a Pace self-balancing 3D rig, capable of pulling simultaneous focus, interocular, and convergence without affecting the trim of the Steadicam Ultra 2 rig. The cameras are two Arri ALEXAs – there is a rumour that the movie will be using up to 23 ALEXA throughout production.

 

The total setup exceeds 35kg, so they are using the Steadiseg to create dynamic moving shots without operator strain.

 

Chris Fawcett from Steadivision [steadivision.com] commented on the rig: “I’m not shooting on the film. The operator is Larry McConkey (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0566227/). I am a Steadicam operator specialising in using the Steadiseg. I was in Shepperton training him, and tailoring the Steadiseg to his specific needs. All shots are tethered. There is just too much bandwidth to record on-board. Also, Pace I/O and convergence are pulled down the cables. The script calls for moving shots that can only be done with the Steadiseg. I can’t reveal any details about their 3D style, except to say that they are planning something beyond Avatar.” "

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/steadivision#p/u/2/DIs9hm3AsnU :lol:

Check this rig out!

 

And I do like Chris Fawcett's Steadiseg dolly (pictured above):

http://www.youtube.com/user/steadivision#p/u/0/yueqlTEqBwE ;)

 

But I wouldn't worry guys - most conventional films will continue to be shot in 2D. Yes, it is a fad, but it's not about to simply go away. If you look at the films now being shot in 3D you can see a pattern emerging:

 

Hugo Cabret (adaptation from a graphic novel)

Captain America (apparently being shot here in the UK!)

Thor (directed by Shakespearian Kenneth Brannagh - can't wait for this one! Lashing of cranberry sauce please.)

Harry Potter parts I and II

Green Lantern (Michael Gondry)

 

Last I heard there were 26 major 3D releases scheduled for this year. Yes, the fad will die down, but so will production costs (drastically!) so it's here to stay. And it'll be what people will come to expect from a blockbuster.

 

 

EDIT: (why do the -media- links not work here?

Edited July 30, 2010 by Karel Bata

[Phil Rhodes]

Why do British steadicam operators always look so bloody miserable?

 

P

[Karel Bata]

He's trying not to fall over! :lol:

[John Holland]

I think some of your list good be wrong ! I am sure Thor isnt being shot 3d , just hope it isnt going through a post 3D conversion , a kiss of death .