Jump to content

Is 3D really here to stay?


George Ebersole

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

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.

 

 

 

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

I think film is more and more falling into the play/oil-painting category or arts. When you go to a play, you go to see the performances and indulge in the entire experience; the plot, the story, the actors and their performances. If it's a good play, people will go to see it again and again and again.

 

Films used to have that quality, but now that image transmission is so ubiquitous there's no real reason to spend $10+ American to sit with a bunch of other people for something you could enjoy in the privacy of your home.

 

But, just as you can't really enjoy a sporting event the same way as being there, film/cinema/theatre-with-digital-3D-projection, still has some of that quality, but the content has to be good for you to get that group audience experience. It's a lot more fun and enjoyable to laugh with people at a joke on a screen than to sit in your home and quietly laugh or smile at the same joke.

 

That's why I say that the real challenge of film is content and market shift. Theatres themselves may have to change some (how I don't know) to accommodate new content and a different audience.

 

Resolution, to me, is going to become an artistic choice. Some films look better shot through a soft lens or with a certain kind of filter than others. I think resolution now falls into that category (or will), what sharpness and level of information is going to best accentuate the story, kind of thing.

 

When I think of past films, silent films, B&W films from the 30s to the 60s, films from the 70s and 80s, I wonder if any of them would really benefit with virtual real images replacing what was shot. Some of the charm of film is that it masks imperfections like skin blemishes on actors or dirt or oil on a driveway, or stuff like dulling spray on a mirror or chrome prop.

 

Just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....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. 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, ....For me it has ceased to be cinema without film .....

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.

 

Freya,

 

Rather than a horse, lets think of it as a large number of lemmings heading over the cliff. They haven't all jumped yet, and some that have may yet land safely. What does one do when one sees this happening. Maybe call out to say it's a mistake. They don't have to jump. The changes towards greater objectivity and reduced subtlety that are occurring in the style of perception, the style of awareness of human beings is bad. A negative thing. Ditto the current version of digital evolution, for the reasons given before. To comment honestly on that is to probably, vigorously oppose it. Is it the academic argument over this that poses too many negatives? Or is it the sense that the future that people had intuited for themselves within this new digital age is challenged and some doubt may come up as to it's foundation.

 

But the invitation was only that. If it feels negative and crap to talk about, so be it. No pressure or worries about it.

 

The issue of film compared to digital, with reference to the finer layers of human experience (and this has a lot to do with art and culture). I don't think this has been discussed before. Actually I didn't do a proper search. My assumption was intuited from the overall tone and flavor of interactions on the forum. There was a moment on the forum where I tried to point to subjective values of experience in the cinema, some experiments measuring alpha vs beta wave activity in subjects watching film vs digital cinema. If that activity (or the lack of) on the forum, covers these issues by your estimation then I am a horses ass. (fart noises).

 

The potential growth, death or various morphings of the main stream cinema is one thing. Yes it has a lot to do with how people try to make money. People in the main stream industry will have concerns about this and a vested interest in simple adaption. I worry about artists and the work that might otherwise have crossed over into the mainstream. The rise of digital will compromise certain categories of artist who would otherwise have nurtured conditions of experience among receptive sectors of humanity. Some would like to defend their opportunity to work.

 

All questions in there are rhetorical (cue smiling)

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freya,

 

Rather than a horse, lets think of it as a large number of lemmings heading over the cliff. They haven't all jumped yet, and some that have may yet land safely. What does one do when one sees this happening. Maybe call out to say it's a mistake. They don't have to jump. The changes towards greater objectivity and reduced subtlety that are occurring in the style of perception, the style of awareness of human beings is bad. A negative thing. Ditto the current version of digital evolution, for the reasons given before. To comment honestly on that is to probably, vigorously oppose it. Is it the academic argument over this that poses too many negatives? Or is it the sense that the future that people had intuited for themselves within this new digital age is challenged and some doubt may come up as to it's foundation.

 

To continue the Lemming metaphor, there may be lemmings that don't want to go over the edge but when there is a stampede they can't escape from the mass of jumping lemmings.

 

Keep in mind too that this isn't a choice that cinemas are entirely making, for some time now this choice has been forced upon cinemas as the studios have let them know they will no longer supply prints. There was an outcry some time ago when Fox sent a threatening circular to cinemas letting them know they would no longer support them if they didn't make the switch to digital soon.

 

I think you misunderstand how far down the line we are now. Most cinemas already installed 3d video installations with rather unimpressive 2k video projectors. The industry no longer really makes film prints and even arthouse cinemas that show classic films are finding more and more that they cannot get prints, often being forced to project from blu-ray or even DVD.

 

People had a choice but they chose to go and watch nasty 3d projections that they didn't even like.

 

There will be consequences for all this, and of course the people responsible will attempt to blame the consequences on the little people who were just herded along by marketing and peer pressure.

 

I suspect this time it will fall on deaf ears.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking tech and presentation verse what's being shot and shown to the audience. It sounds you think that image presentation is the deciding factor for the industry.

 

Ah now that is a different thing! I do believe that the quality of presentation will be the deciding factor yes!

I think there will always be successful films or video's however, just that they won't be as successful.

I was talking more about the industry than the films.

 

I think it's especially dangerous to cannabalise your existing high end product to replace it with something else, especially when you start forcing that change on the customer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Which is why I was wondering if the market focus needs to shift in order for the industry to survive. It seems like higher def media, 3D, digital verse film, it's all trying to salvage a shrinking market with more bells and whistles.

 

That's why I asked about content verse presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well s__t, I wanted more vets to chime in and tell tear into the topic by telling me what an idiot I am or what great insight I had.

 

I guess most of you people don't mind incorporating new technology into your craft as long as it's the next big thing.

 

But, like I said, I'm not so sure 3D is a good mainstay for mainstream films. I think it has a place, but it doesn't make me go see whatever's new in the movie houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

 

Rather than a horse, lets think of it as a large number of lemmings heading over the cliff. They haven't all jumped yet, and some that have may yet land safely. What does one do when one sees this happening. Maybe call out to say it's a mistake. They don't have to jump.

 

 

Lemmings going over a cliff is a Disney hoax from 'White Wilderness', a "documentary" about Arctic wildlife.

 

From IMDB:

 

 

Did You Know?

 

 

Trivia

This picture was filmed in Alberta, Canada, which is not a native habitat for lemmings. They were imported from Manitoba for use in the film, and were purchased from Inuit children by the filmmakers. The Arctic rodents were placed on a snow-covered turntable and filmed from various angles to produce a "migration" sequence; afterwords, the helpless creatures were transported to a cliff overlooking a river and herded into the water. The entire sequence was faked using a handful of lemmings deceptively photographed to create the illusion of a large herd of migrating creatures. It was this film that perpetuated the myth in popular culture of lemming suicide, something that's never been reported to have occurred in real life.See more »

 

Goofs

 

Factual errors: Contrary to popular belief repeated in this film, lemmings do not commit suicide en masse by jumping off cliffs into the sea. However cyclical population explosions do induce lemmings to migrate to unfamiliar territory where they are crowded and prone to accidents such as falling off cliffs or drowning but these are not considered suicide in any sense. See more »

 

http://www.imdb.com/...ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

Incidentally, I have no problem with stereo photography & movies.

 

I used to take 3D stills, but it wound up being too expensive, the lab charges the for an unmounted roll

of slide film are the same as for a mounted roll, half as many pictures per roll & the cost of the slide mounts.

Not to mention having to mount them.

 

The deal with stereo is not poking things out of the screen, but rather the space behind the screen-the

Z-axis.

 

& free viewing stereo pairs is quite meditative.

 

& the proper format for a Civil War movie would be B/W stereo.

,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I guess this topic's worn out its usefulness. When 3D first came a few years back I guess that was the time to hit the topic and get some thoughts from people.

 

I'm still not convinced that 3D helps anything. I've seen about a half dozen films in 3D since the reintroduction of the format, but for all of the it "kind of coolness" factor that it has, it doesn't hold my interest, nor make me want to see more movies in 3D.

 

When I went and saw Avatar I was impressed with the technology, but I didn't get a deeper emotional experience from seeing that film in 3D. Ditto with Megamind. The film is funny without 3D.

 

I don't know, I guess maybe younger audiences are now in tune with it or something. Whatever.

 

Thanks for the replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It seems that 3-D is "dead" here....just go to the 3-D section.

 

That is why I stopped posting here a few months ago...nobody cares it seems.

 

But I am also amazed in how almost nobody cares with digital capture either (I remember those flame wars against Red back on the day).

 

Maybe this is a FILM guys board mostly?

 

The new Sony F55 is an excellent camera, and yet I don't see much interest in it here either...

 

You can not change the world, can you?

 

BTW, I now mostly participate in the Linkedin Group "Stereoscopic 3-D Professionals Worldwide"...go ask the same to the more than 10,000 members there! :-)

 

Cesar Rubio.

http://dna-rubio-s3d.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I cannot understand all this fuss about 3D. In everyday life it depends on the separation between the eyes which is only about 2.5 inches, and so only works near to the head - about arm's length. It is only useful for such tasks as threading a needle. The only movies I have seen in 3D were Avatar and The Hobbit, and the 3D effect was hardly noticeable - in fact after a few minutes I forgot all about it. I feel the same about HDTV - an enormous amount of discussion about something which is hardly any different from what we had before. I have mentioned this in my essay at http://www.virtual-space.org.uk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think that 3D only works with spectacle films where the WOW factor is more important than story. Transformers is a good example of 3D that works. Shooting a movie like Amour or Lincoln in 3D would destroy the whole experiance. 3D is like a new attraction in the amusment park, it's fun for a while but after some time you get bored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 3d doesn't really add another dimension to a motion picture, but distorts the exsisting one.

 

As for 4K/8K it will probably be driven forward for a while, but isn't everything that is new and shiny. Reminds me of HD TV's back in a day when broadcasting signals were not capable delivering HD and TV's only streched the image. If I'm not mistaken, in London, only IMAX has 4k. That is one theatre! Heard someone saying that 8K would make them run around the cinema to be able to see all projected image :)

 

Anyway, K will go with first usable vector based codec and K will mater no more for a cinematographer, but projector manufacturer..

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3D seems to be becoming the defacto Hollywood standard for blockbuster movies, that's for sure. Frankly, I don't really like it that well. I feel that, in general, it takes away from the story by placing greater emphasis on the effects. I have vowed never to jump on the 3D train. Not only is it expensive and difficult, but it does not add anything to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...