Movies in 3D

[Sun Tzu]

Ok, so I'm wondering if anybody else out there feels the same way I do. I don't want to watch movies in 3D. I could care less if it feels like the main character literally seems like he's walking toward whatever is behind him. I like movies the way they are. I have a nice TV and a PS3 that plays blu-rays. I wanted to go see Shrek in theaters a week ago, but I didn't. Why? It's in 3D! What about the people who get motion sickness? What if they want to see any nice new state-of-the-art movie in theaters now? They're screwed. This isn't the same as DVD's replacing VHS, this is forcing a different kind of movie experience on people and not giving them any other option until it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray. What gives?

/rant

[Greyroofoo]

Back in my day we didn't need all these new-fangled gadgets such as cell phones and TVs and washing machines!

[Schmidty]

I don't even have an HD TV, so I obviously don't care about anything such as 3D stuff. Plus, 3D gives me a headache.

[larrymcg421]

Most theaters around me have a 2D option. That's what I go to because I've found 3D to be distracting and actually make sme enjoy the movie less.

[Chief Rum]

Yeah, I don't bother with the 3D stuff either. Like Larry, though, I also have 2D version options locally, so I don't have to wait. 3D costs more and the experience isn't worth it, IMO.

[JediKooter]

I'm with you Sun Tzu! It was a gimmick in the 50s and it's a gimmick 60 years later. I really don't know why this gimmick has been given new life to be honest and right now, most 3D is being done in the post production process and not actually using two stereoscopic cameras during production, making it look choppy.

I think it's the studios trying to find a way to get more revenue and other than charging much more for a movie ticket, they've added this gimmick to justify a small uptick in ticket prices. It's Hollywoods version of 'organic' food...It's not really better, but, we can charge you more.

[Tigercat]

Depends on what movie it is. If it is an action driven movie, no reason not to want it in 3D. Might as well get the immersion affect in full force if you are going to watch an action movie in theaters. But yes, if it is almost anything else, 3D seems unnecessary.

[terpkristin]

agreed.

/tk

[PraetorianX]

Most theaters have 2D and 3D don't they? At least around here they do.

I enjoyed Avatar in 3D quite a bit, but it was made for 3D.

Alice in 3D was sort of 'meh'.

In the future I'll probably only go to watch a movie in 3D if it was filmed in 3D like Avatar.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by PraetorianX

Most theaters have 2D and 3D don't they? At least around here they do.

I enjoyed Avatar in 3D quite a bit, but it was made for 3D.

Alice in 3D was sort of 'meh'.

In the future I'll probably only go to watch a movie in 3D if it was filmed in 3D like Avatar.

That has been my plan too. I saw Avatar in 3D and enjoyed it. Saw Alice in 3D and didn't like it. Since then saw every other movie 2D only.

[Sun Tzu]

Maybe it's just out here. All of the small movies theaters were put out of business by the big new ones downtown. The big new ones downtown only offer blockbuster movies in 3D. It's ridiculous.

Freakin Hawai'i

[Marc Vaughan]

I personally am not a fan of 3d movies - the only person in my family who likes them is my youngest (8), even my older kids find it annoying these days.

I think its going to be heavily 'pushed' at people going forward as the next big thing* - I'm dubious personally about whether it'll take off though.

*There are various 3d television sets on the periphery of release now and Nintendo have their 3ds on-route .... so there are some big players moving into position on this side of things now, will be interesting to see if their solution to a problem which imho doesn't even exist is saleable to the mass market.

[stevew]

I'm excited about Toy Story 3, but I don't care that it's in 3d.

[Glengoyne]

I'm on board here. I can't even believe that people believe that 3d tv is an option. This is being pushed hard both in movies and in homes. I for one am not buying stock in any company that makes a big 3d push for TVs. I'm actually hoping the 3d movie phase we're in goes the way of a fad.

[MizzouRah]

I'm with you Glengoyne.. I'm hoping it's a fad.

I doubt it though.. I have dish, but my parents have direct and tell me when they called them for service last week they said things were screwy because they were updating their equipment to support 3D.

[DanGarion]

3d movies make my eyes wig out and water. It's an overrated fad.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm on board here. I can't even believe that people believe that 3d tv is an option. This is being pushed hard both in movies and in homes. I for one am not buying stock in any company that makes a big 3d push for TVs. I'm actually hoping the 3d movie phase we're in goes the way of a fad.

They are doing some of the world cup games in 3d...

[Mac Howard]

I cannot understand at all why anyone would be against it. It will come. Whether this particular incarnation is successful and sustained remains to be seen (what I've seen so far isn't completely convincing) but eventually we'll all be watching everything in 3D just as we're now watching wide screen HD instead of black and white silent movies.

When "talkies" came out people argued sound would ruin the visual appeal, when colour came through it was argued it didn't have the drama of the "silver screen" and when widescreen plasma TVs arrived many were never going to let their CRTs go. It's a very old record that never ceases to surface when any new technology emerges.

3D has everything 2D has and more. At the very least it will be as good as 2D once the techniques are developed and at its best it will give a significantly better visual experience.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I don't even have an HD TV, so I obviously don't care about anything such as 3D stuff. Plus, 3D gives me a headache.

+1

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I cannot understand at all why anyone would be against it. It will come. Whether this particular incarnation is successful and sustained remains to be seen (what I've seen so far isn't completely convincing) but eventually we'll all be watching everything in 3D just as we're now watching wide screen HD instead of black and white silent movies.

I cant see this happening. For one thing theres a good amount of people who are simply unable to see 3D, their eyes just cant handle it. Also I cant imagine theyll ever be able to find a way to stop the headaches that come after a few hours of watching 3D. Its a tool, a nice one for certain things, but I cant imagine it will ever hit the point where its used for EVERYTHING. Hell, the cost and time alone means reality shows will probably never use it and those are both popular and profitable so theyre here for a while.

ETA: Game shows and Soaps seem like things that would never bother with 3D also. Not to mention the smaller cable channels where they dont even always like using HD simply because it costs more.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

+1

Why am I not surprised?

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by chadritt

I cant see this happening. For one thing theres a good amount of people who are simply unable to see 3D, their eyes just cant handle it. Also I cant imagine theyll ever be able to find a way to stop the headaches that come after a few hours of watching 3D

But it won't necessarily remain that way. As I said whether this particular incarnation is the one that will stick, I don't know. 3D itself doesn't necessarily cause eye strain and headaches - unless life does that to you. It's the current technology that does that. They will overcome these problems - whether right now, I don't know. There are already glasses-free systems in development.

Its a tool, a nice one for certain things, but I cant imagine it will ever hit the point where its used for EVERYTHING. Hell, the cost and time alone means reality shows will probably never use it and those are both popular and profitable so theyre here for a while.

The cost is greater now just as the cost of colour was greater than for black and white. But the technology improved and the price difference eventually dropped such that the improved visual experience justified it. It'll happen again. It simply won't be worth producing it in 2D - particularly as you can watch 3D on a 2D screen if you wish.

Look at it the other way around. Our normal experiences are in 3D. The technological limitations of our display devices currently restrict our visual entertainment to 2D. But in reducing to 2D we lose some of the communication, some of the information. We use techniques to limit the damage but the loss of communication is still there. 3D will not have these limitations.

At their worst they'll be as good as 2D. At their best they'll have ..........an extra dimension

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Why am I not surprised?

Yeah, kind of the same reaction I had when I saw your support for an unwarranted use of tech for tech's sake that has relatively little demand & is riddled with flaws

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

As I said whether this particular incarnation is the one that will stick, I don't know. 3D itself doesn't necessarily cause eye strain and headaches - unless life does that to you. They will overcome these problems - whether right now, I don't know. There are already glasses-free systems in development.

Actually, 3D does cause headaches if its not done very specifically. In fact it can cause a LOT of them so certain genres are really rough.Ive been lucky enough to talk directly to a 3D editor about this and I actually found it really interesting. If you make a fast paced action scene in 3D youre going to hurt peoples heads, Avatar was cut very specifically for this and so are the latest crop of 3D animated films. The brain simply can not adjust to rapidly changing 3D images so they have to extend shots. Michael Bay actually had some pretty interesting points about this when trying to explain why Transformers 3 will not be in 3D. I dont know specifics about the glasses-free systems because I havent seen them but I would assume this is more about the brains processing and cant really be avoided. I personally really liked certain 3D, Nightmare Before Christmas was fantastic when it was redone, but I just cant see this ever being like the jump from B&W to Color because I personally dont think it adds enough.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Actually, 3D does cause headaches if its not done very specifically. In fact it can cause a LOT of them so certain genres are really rough.Ive been lucky enough to talk directly to a 3D editor about this and I actually found it really interesting. If you make a fast paced action scene in 3D youre going to hurt peoples heads, Avatar was cut very specifically for this and so are the latest crop of 3D animated films. The brain simply can not adjust to rapidly changing 3D images so they have to extend shots. Michael Bay actually had some pretty interesting points about this when trying to explain why Transformers 3 will not be in 3D. I dont know specifics about the glasses-free systems because I havent seen them but I would assume this is more about the brains processing and cant really be avoided. I personally really liked certain 3D, Nightmare Before Christmas was fantastic when it was redone, but I just cant see this ever being like the jump from B&W to Color.

It's the technology not the 3D. Do you get a headache looking around you? Of course not. You're looking at 3D if you have two eyes.

The headache depends on the manner in which the illusion is produced. That is the problem the technology needs to address.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, kind of the same reaction I had when I saw your support for an unwarranted use of tech for tech's sake that has relatively little demand & is riddled with flaws

Remind me, Jon, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Not when I tried to sell PCs to businessmen who insisted they were toys for kids in 1981 or when I tried to explain to Marc Vaughan that FM would have to go to a 3D style match display eventually ?

But it's not for tech's sake, Jon, it's for our entertainment and information systems to come closer to our everyday experiences. Currently they're crippled by the limitations of our technology. From b&w to colour to widescreen to 3D is just natural development that needs the technological improvement to make. Each is simply more natural and realistic than the previous and the more appealing for that.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

It's the technology not the 3D. Do you get a headache looking around you? Of course not. You're looking at 3D if you have two eyes.

The headache depends on the manner in which the illusion is produced. That is the problem the technology needs to address.

Well...right....except that in real life you never see an image change drastically every couple of seconds (note, thats being generous. ive both seen and created a lot of stuff that cuts more frequently). That would hurt in the real world too but you can get away with it in 2D. Honestly in the end I think it will come down to whether or not 3D makes the story better and I just dont think it does enough to justify the amount of money and time to develop better technology, if thats even possible.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Well...right....except that in real life you never see an image change drastically every couple of seconds (note, thats being generous. ive both seen and created a lot of stuff that cuts more frequently). That would hurt in the real world too but you can get away with it in 2D. Honestly in the end I think it will come down to whether or not 3D makes the story better and I just dont think it does enough to justify the amount of money and time to develop better technology, if thats even possible.

I see what you're getting at - you're referring to the rapid cutting from scene to scene. But that's just a presentation technique. If that itself is the problem I'm sure other techniques will be used - fading from one scene to another gradually for example.

Just as techniques developed for silent movies - essentially to overcome limitations of communications without sound - were dropped for "talkies" despite arguments that they were essential for the drama, techniques devised for 2D display will be replaced with ones suitable for 3D display. Techniques will simply change to suit the medium and currently the best techniques for 3D are unknown but will come pretty quickly as it takes off.

The cost will not remain prohibitive for long. That is the history of all consumer technology.

But, certainly, it's true that they need to overcome the visual problems some people experience and that's why I say "whether it's this particular incarnation that will succeed". It will succeed at some point and I think we have the techniques available now to solve the problems now.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I see what you're getting at - you're referring to the rapid cutting from scene to scene. But that's just a presentation technique. If that itself is the problem I'm sure other techniques will be used - fading from one scene to another gradually for example.

Just as techniques developed for silent movies - essentially to overcome limitations of communications without sound - techniques devised for 2D display will be replaced with ones suitable for 3D display. Techniques will simply change to suit the medium.

The cost will not remain prohibitive for long. That is the history of all consumer technology.

Actually Im talking about the cutting within a scene, in particular an action scene. Usually those shots are VERY short with very large differences and those are the scenes the editor I was talking with mentioned.

I always viewed the changes made for color and sound as not really being changes as much as removing limitations, which is why I think they were able to become the norm. I dont actually see 3D the same way, i think its a lovely toy that will continue to be used for certain things but wont be used for everything. If I had to compare it to anything else i MIGHT compare it to a genre.....it exists and always will but so will everything else. This part is totally a IMHO section but I just dont see the fascination with 3D lasting to this degree.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Actually Im talking about the cutting within a scene, in particular an action scene. Usually those shots are VERY short with very large differences and those are the scenes the editor I was talking with mentioned.

But that's just a technique used to generate drama and suspense. Other techniques will emerge as directors learn how to use 3D.

I always viewed the changes made for color and sound as not really being changes as much as removing limitations, which is why I think they were able to become the norm. I dont actually see 3D the same way

But why? It's exactly the same. We use 2D because of the limitations of the technology. Those limitations are being overcome. Sound was condemned by silent movie people - it lost the drama of the acting techniques that had been developed. Colour was a toy - it didn't have the subtlety or impact of the silver screen. And so on. We're simply gradually removing the limitations.

, i think its a lovely toy that will continue to be used for certain things but wont be used for everything. If I had to compare it to anything else i MIGHT compare it to a genre.....it exists and always will but so will everything else. This part is totally a IMHO section but I just dont see the fascination with 3D lasting to this degree.

I heard exactly the same when I offered PCs to businessmen in 1981. The same words - they're just toys. There were limited applications for them but not in my business.

3D is merely an evolution of visual presentation - gradually removing the limitations of our technologies.

[vex]

I agree. I was actually talking about this the other day with someone. For the first 5-10 minutes the 3D is overwhelming. The next 10-20 minutes are awe-inspiring. And after that I totally forget I'm watching a movie in 3D.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by vex

I agree. I was actually talking about this the other day with someone. For the first 5-10 minutes the 3D is overwhelming. The next 10-20 minutes are awe-inspiring. And after that I totally forget I'm watching a movie in 3D.

And I think what will happen is that, having got used to movies/tv in 3D, 2D will seem very drab particularly as techniques that add sparkle to 3D will be missed. Once the norm is a 3D experience people won't accept 2D - just as most people don't watch black and white anymore.

[chadritt]

Well at this point ive got to say maybe its me and my particular group of friends. I dont feel that way watching a 3d movie, i dont feel like im gaining much. I LOVE my HD and Blu-ray and have from the moment I saw the picture. 3D has very rarely made me say anything more than "oh thats kinda cool". I cant imagine watching a movie like Shawshank in 3D and feeling like ive gained anything.

PS. I call it a toy because thats just a personal term. I call an HD camera a toy and I would call cetainly call the new version of AVID (the editing system i use 95% of the time, which just had a new version come out with some cool new features) my new toy if i were using it. Theyre tools but I call them toys because what we do is ridiculous and should be like playing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by vex

For the first 5-10 minutes the 3D is overwhelming. The next 10-20 minutes are awe-inspiring. And after that I totally forget I'm watching a movie in 3D.

And for the entire two hours I begrudge them the jacked up price for an already questionable value in the first place.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And for the entire two hours I begrudge them the jacked up price for an already questionable value in the first place.

This. The newest 3d tech is just another special effects gimmick in my book. All too often it will be used by film makers to attempt to distract the audience from substandard writing/acting/directing.

[MJ4H]

I have an HD tv (crt, 4:3) that has still never displayed an HD image on it in the 3+ years I've owned it.

I've never seen a movie in 3D and don't have a lot of desire to do so.

Yet, I still completely agree with Mac in this thread.

[Swaggs]

I could certainly live without 3-D, but I think it definitely enhances and improves movies like Avatar. I would probably opt to see the 2-D version for most films, unless I heard rave reviews about the 3-D (again, like Avatar) version.

I'm pretty surprised that many folks on this board would be disinterested in HDTV. I was never too interested in it (I'm a laggard on technology these days), but once I saw my first football game in HD -- it was all over.

[Jughead Spock]

Until porn perfects 3D, it won't go anywhere. Porn has always driven technology and demand, and always will.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Jughead Spock

Until porn perfects 3D, it won't go anywhere. Porn has always driven technology and demand, and always will.

QFT

[DanGarion]

People still haven't even bought unto Blue Rays...

[kingfc22]

I am not going to watch TV at my house with stupid glasses on.

I don't get what these manufacturers are thinking trying to force this on people.

Can you really imagine inviting friends over to your house and having to gather up all your "cool" 3D glasses just so you can enjoy whatever movie/event you plan on watching.

Just give me HD and I'm good with that.

[SportsDino]

I think there is a lot of potential for 3D, but I think the current method is somewhat difficult to work with (it relies on tricking the brain and can cause some confusion, I get the same problems some mention here although I'm somewhat tolerant, my older brother gets motion sickness watching a normal movie, and 3D would probably knock him out).

I have an idea for how you can do what I call 'window' 3D, you can't do the zany 3D pop out effects, but the dimension 'into the screen' would be amazing (and not require glasses or give people headaches). Still, most people wouldn't see the point in that technology until it was used more (my personal goal would be ultra high resolution gaming monitors for 3D gaming or high end simulators).

[Sgran]

I just don't see what 3d brings to the table. I get by just fine with depth perception. The big screen is what brings me to the movies, not gimmicks. 3d needs to coupled with an altogether different experience, like maybe it liberates the viewer from the static chair and allows us to have a different, perhaps non-linear, experience. I've always thought 3d has a much better chance in the game world than traditional film entertainment, something more like a role-playing experience.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Sgran

I just don't see what 3d brings to the table. I get by just fine with depth perception. The big screen is what brings me to the movies, not gimmicks. 3d needs to coupled with an altogether different experience, like maybe it liberates the viewer from the static chair and allows us to have a different, perhaps non-linear, experience. I've always thought 3d has a much better chance in the game world than traditional film entertainment, something more like a role-playing experience.

Eye watering head numbing annoyance.

[SteveMax58]

I missed this thread the first time around...good discussion.

I'm not a big proponent of 3D the way it exists & is presented today. I think the technology itself is more interesting and may have better uses in p-2-p video conferencing, MMORPGs, or even home video conferencing.

Having said that...I can imagine the use of 3D being better when we see more imaginative directors changing the way they display & tell their story. In other words...this is a significant change in how the movie experience is presented...not simply an enhancement to 2d (or...at least it does not have to be that way). I suspect you'll see movies (in the coming years) that actually use the 3d environment better so that you actually feel like you are part of it...observing nuances that one could not notice in 2d, etc. Things like the back/forth scene changes and the like that we've seen from some 2d movies will likely fade out for 3d as directors realize that isnt a desirable effect.

[NewIdentity]

Originally Posted by Jughead Spock

Until porn perfects 3D, it won't go anywhere. Porn has always driven technology and demand, and always will.

This has been completely wrong lately.

Remember it was the Porn industry that backed the cheaper HD-DVD format; as they tried to argue that the Blu-Ray format cost to much money to duplicate. For movies that were written on Tuesday, filmed on Wednesday and then released on Thursday, the Blu-Ray format was just too expensive for the Porn industry.


Please also keep in mind that currently there are 3 different 3D formats out there, and each 3D format will not work with the other. And, this does not include the "No glasses" 3D format that is only a few years down the road. The movie Avatar was released in all 3 formats to different theaters around the US.

The 3D war is on the Horizon, and if you guess wrong you will have to put your 3D glasses, next to your Betamax machine, and Hd-DVD player.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by NewIdentity

Please also keep in mind that currently there are 3 different 3D formats out there, and each 3D format will not work with the other. And, this does not include the "No glasses" 3D format that is only a few years down the road. The movie Avatar was released in all 3 formats to different theaters around the US.

Yes, but many 3DTVs sold since March of this year will render each of these (Top/Bottom, Side-by-Side, Quincunx/Checkerboard)...or at least the 1st formats. Good idea to check on it if you are buying one.

But all of these profiles will exist simultaneously in practice (at the T/B & SbS versions) and it will be up to the TV and/or STB (Settop Box) or Sat Receiver (i.e. DirecTV) to present and/or render each one appropriately. This wont be an HD-DVD vs. BluRay war but more similar to 1080i/720p rendering vs. transport difference.

The signalling to switch between format types will also be embedded for MPEG-4(DirecTV 's method) and can be transferred over HDMI to the TV. This will not only allow for switching between 3D format types correctly (and automatically)...but will also allow for switching between 2d & 3d channels in an automated fashion. Cable co's will likely use MPEG-2 initially and then migrate to -4.

Also of note...if you had bought a Mitsubishi DLP 3DTV last year, they will be releasing a converter which will switch to the quincunx style that those TVs require (Mitsubishi hedged their bet a little early).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

The newest 3d tech is just another special effects gimmick in my book.

True, but there are plenty of movies people go to just for the special effects. That's how we explain why things like "2012" made a single dime.

And in some movies, it's jaw dropping, like "Avatar" and also "How to Train Your Dragon" (which may have just as good as Avatar's).

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Jughead Spock

Until porn perfects 3D, it won't go anywhere. Porn has always driven technology and demand, and always will.

There is some truth in that

The problem currently is that the video we currently watch is produced to maximise the 2D experience. You'll note there is little significant fore and aft movement - most movement being left and right and sometimes up and down. 2D simply doesn't depict fore and aft movement well, Sure, the size increases/decreases and our brain makes sense of that by seeing it as depth but the brain is doing most of the work. But techniques have developed for 2D and the level of fore and aft movement we see in real life is not matched in films etc.

And films like Avatar also have their problems because directors are trying to shock you into liking it by going over the top. It will take time for directors to figure out what works best in 3D and, just as with the move from silent to talkies and b&w to colour, the answer will be to play down the effects, not exaggerate them. With new technology directors concentrate so much on using the advantages of the new technology that the material itself is sacrificed.

But there is already one very good illustration of 3D - that is sport! It's naturally 3D and is not corrupted too much by directors trying to compensate for the deficiencies of 2D. I've seen just 10 minutes of a rugby league match and IT IS SPECTACULAR! The play is genuinely three dimensional. Players don't just disappear behind another but actually run behind him. They change direction, not just size. The players themselves are solid not cardboard cutouts.

I would suggest you hold judgement on 3D until you've seen an NFL game and you see the wide receiver executing a reverse play and come screaming straight at you

People still haven't even bought unto Blue Rays...

I think one of the sources of antagonism to 3D is that we have just seen a significant leap forward in tv viewing with HD and plasma/lcd widescreen tvs and not many are keen on spending a thousand dollars or more on new video equipment. That's understandable and will not help the uptake of 3D equipment. I feel sorry for LED TV manufacturers who may well have no window of opportunity at all to push their new technology - unless they switch quickly to 3D.

But on the other hand, with these changes (HD, plasma/lc tvs), the expectations for home viewing have changed. The old crt sets gave us nothing in terms of visual pleasure. They added the visual information but without being in any way visually appealing themselves. If you wanted a spectacle then you still went to the cimema. But now we have the spectacular in our own living rooms and that has become our new expectation. We now watch tv expecting a quality visual experience.

And the point about 3D is that it moves the visual expereince on even further. That is its appeal. It is even more of a visual experience than even the best HD. And I think that itself will expedite the takeup of 3D because it pampers to our new found expectations for visual drama.

So, of the two, it's difficult to know which will predominate.

There's a long way to go and we will probably see another format war which won't help though one determinant could be the ability of one of them to overcome the problems of eye strain, headaches etc. But, unlike previously, I think there is significant commercial interest and drive now to make this stick and I think maybe we now have the technology to match.