PDA

View Full Version : nytimes: 3D stereo downside


unchikun
01-12-2009, 04:59 PM
Studios, thrilled by 3-D’s dual promises of higher profits and artistic advancement, have aggressively embraced the technology without waiting for movie theaters to get on board. And without those expensive upgrades to projection equipment at the multiplex, mass market 3-D releases are not tenable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/business/media/12film.html?_r=1

(may require free registration)

Gentle Fury
01-12-2009, 07:10 PM
Studios, thrilled by 3-Dís dual promises of higher profits and artistic advancement, have aggressively embraced the technology without waiting for movie theaters to get on board. And without those expensive upgrades to projection equipment at the multiplex, mass market 3-D releases are not tenable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/business/media/12film.html?_r=1

(may require free registration)

And the reason theaters arent on board is because this fad as come and gone every decade since the 50's! It is a here today gone tomorrow fade that for some reason seems profitable every few years....but ultimately always fails for the same reasons!

Ivan D Young
01-12-2009, 07:27 PM
My big question with going 3D, is each person has their own 3D perspective based on the basic differences between every human on the planet. What makes for a perfect presentation for one person is different for another. How do they get around this? At a certain level, there will always be a few people in the crowd that will never see a good 3D presentation, how is that going to play out?

human beings have been making 2D for as long as we have been able to write or draw. it has been useful. But each person has a slightly different perception of 3D and no one has a solution for that yet. someone will always walk away with a headache or naseau.

Gentle Fury
01-12-2009, 07:44 PM
And that's why it has always failed. This tech will never go mainstream as long as you have to sit in the sweet spot and have to wear an apparatus to get the effect. Mid-air projection is the ONLY way this will ever take off!

cornel
01-12-2009, 08:09 PM
Actually, it failed in the 50s and 80s due the lack of proper synchronization and way to strong parallax shiftings to shock the audience.

Not comparable with todayīs more subtle, full digitally productions.

redbellpeppers
01-12-2009, 08:24 PM
Once the old RED/BLUE process goes away for good, the digital projection will be here to stay. A lot of theaters have already made the investment.

BookMansBlues
01-12-2009, 08:24 PM
I think stereo is a usless pain in the neck, and limits the artist more than it increases artistic value.

Danimator
01-12-2009, 08:30 PM
My big question with going 3D, is each person has their own 3D perspective based on the basic differences between every human on the planet. What makes for a perfect presentation for one person is different for another. How do they get around this? At a certain level, there will always be a few people in the crowd that will never see a good 3D presentation, how is that going to play out?

human beings have been making 2D for as long as we have been able to write or draw. it has been useful. But each person has a slightly different perception of 3D and no one has a solution for that yet. someone will always walk away with a headache or naseau.


Your absolutely right. The reason 3D fails is because a director or someone in a high position wants to push the 3D space to extremes. The tolerance for these extremes varies greatly from person to person. What someone like me can view comfortably someone else will be repulsed by. You have to design the effects and the shooting to feel natural like the real world. This is why IMAX 3D films are for the most part the best. In IMAX 3D the whole of the image fills your vision and you see into a giant window. Creating 3d moments that poke the veiwer in the eye has always made 3D into a gimmick. Its the way we see the world. 3D should be a natural fit for cinema.

kelgy
01-12-2009, 08:34 PM
3D and Pop up books havent replaced the regular kind.

2d movies are convenient.
If you are watching a live event you dont usually bob your head around thinking: wow! that guy looks so much more interesting if I move my head as he talks.

When you are engrossed in a good story, you dont care if its 3d or not. You have enough visual information to enjoy the experience.

Being forced to wear glasses makes it inconvenient(since not everyone wears glasses).

But even if perfect real 3d were possible-where you actually thought you were watching a real event, it would change the way movies are made. It wouldnt be the same experience. It would probably be closer to a stage play.

They really should be more concerned about getting 3 dimensional screenplays. Probably cheaper in the long run.

BigPixolin
01-12-2009, 08:40 PM
I think stereo is a usless pain in the neck, and limits the artist more than it increases artistic value.

What? It expands on what a artsist can do artisticly.

BookMansBlues
01-12-2009, 09:17 PM
What? It expands on what a artsist can do artisticly.

I dissagree, it limits what and how you creat content, a lot of things that you would normally do in post/2D effects and stuff don't accuratly translate into stereo and look weird. Efeven reflections have an odd look about them (I spent 6 months this year working on a stereo project). You have to work with boxing gloves on and everything has to work inside 3D space. Often that means more time consuming work when you could do more visually and faster otherwise.

RockinAkin
01-12-2009, 09:18 PM
Whether or not it's a pain in the ass - it is NOT going away anytime soon.

Stereo support was practically the theme of this years Siggraph, and more and more productions are gearing up to take advantage of it. It's the only thing hollywood has at the moment that is a unique experience that cant be replicated at home.

So be ready.

ezdz
01-12-2009, 09:38 PM
Whether or not it's a pain in the ass - it is NOT going away anytime soon.

Stereo support was practically the theme of this years Siggraph, and more and more productions are gearing up to take advantage of it. It's the only thing hollywood has at the moment that is a unique experience that cant be replicated at home.

So be ready.

It will be replicated at home soon... 3d tvs are available, and some don't require glasses.

fktt
01-12-2009, 10:01 PM
What longer we(as consumers) and the cinemas postpone the use of Stereo 3D,
that longer will the development of true 3D tech take, so I say bring it on, and good riddance.

PorkpieSamurai
01-12-2009, 10:38 PM
I loved watching Beowulf in 3d it was a great experience i can really see how the effect
benefits the film, with the cameras being used as they were in that movie. I guess the tool sets will catch up eventually to give back a few cheats to the artists that fake a lot in comp.

muzbee3d
01-12-2009, 10:45 PM
A studio head Jeff K. stated in a CES TV interview that 3D movies bring an extra $5.00http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon9.gif per ticket and the studios are helping pay for the $100,000 per screen DIGITAL ( VIDEO ) projection systems.

As known for years the game is to get rid of film prints and put big in screen TV's. VIDEO is cheeper and thats that. 3d is a marketing angle to help make / force the switch and will likely follow the same pattern as it came and went in the 50's.

TemperalVision
01-13-2009, 12:49 AM
I for one love going to see movies in 3D. Beowulf was awesome!
I have done some (very little) sterioscopic work in the past and I feel it expands the pallet of what can be done. There is very little you can cheet out in post so I think alot of people see this as a hurdle but I think people should see it as a challenge. There is more work to do but it yeilds a better product.

That's just my two cents.

I also happened to make a comic on just this topic.

http://www.2-thumbsdown.com/comic_09.html

Ivan D Young
01-13-2009, 03:44 AM
A couple of things: The idea that Hollywood is going to get screens converted over for 3D to keep the home entertainment market in check is Trash. TV Sets that are capable of 120Hz are already 3d capable whether the features are turned on or not. TV sets this year are going to transition to 480 Hz and some are already going to be 4K (for those following along at home that is somewhere around 30% to 40% more resolution than a standard film).
How the Hell is hollywood going to beat that?
the home market is already way beyond them and gaining ground. By the time they convert the 40,000 theaters in America there will be more 3D capable sets already sold. how are they going to get a leg up?

Yes Yes I know not everyone is going to have these TVs, but it still begs the question why would you spend $25 dollars at the theater when you will have a higher resolution, higher frame rate, and better 3D projecting system at home?

The other problem that is out there is that 3D movies at some level still look wrong. That is because we are applying 2D rules to a 3D medium, Why?
3D movies would work better if the format was closer to the way the human eye sees the world. Your eyes don't zoom? your eyes don't have rack focus? why should that be in a 3D presentation. using all of that lense trickery is very much like the "Uncanny Valley" yet no one will admit to it.
your eyes know when any of those lense changes happen and immediately kills the effect.
The best way to make 3D convincing is to go back and shoot like the human eye, without all of the lense zooming and without trickery. shoot everything in camera and in one pass. otherwise people can tell.

I know this point is going to be hotly contested and maybe I am wrong, but everytime I watch 3D stereoscopic footage worked up, at least something does not look right.
playing around with anything other than cameras real close to the human eye just looks wrong and the minute you start to change the lense the 3D effect changes and does not feel right.

all of these 3D movies that are in the pipeline (movies already made), I don't know, I think they will still work as 2D films but I can not think of one 3D feature that I single out in mind as being memorable. If the movie can not hold it's own as a 2D feature, it won't be anymore successful as 3D product.

Hollywood wants us to be there, to really feel what it is like to be there and experience, but I would argue that the only way for the viewer to "get it" is for an experience that more closely resembles the same way we experience the 3D world everyday. Not thru zooms, wide angles, rack focus and so on.

cbamber85
01-13-2009, 09:42 AM
shoot everything in camera and in one pass. otherwise people can tell.

Which is why it will be taken up by the games industry, which in turn will get people used to all the apparatus, which will make it a more stable type of cinema experience - rather than fad it still is now.

RobertoOrtiz
01-13-2009, 01:44 PM
To be fair, I dont think 3d will be a FAd at all.
It will be how media will be presented in the later 1/2 of the 21st century...
(I can elaborate more, but I am at training right now sneaking this message)

Strob
01-13-2009, 02:22 PM
I think people are willing to pay a premium to see a 3d movie by curiosity and to make a change... But once everybody tried it I don't think they believe it is worth the premium... I think that's why this kind of technology comes and goes. As long as it will be more work to create a 3D movie that technology will not lasts.

Anyway think about what's really important in a movie. Think about your favorite moment of all time while watching a movie. I'm sure it has nothing to do with what 3D stereo effects can bring to a movie. I think that -for now- 3d poping is not worth the price for what it can bring to a production. I think depth of field and athmospheric perspective are way more important (they really are a MUST) and way easier to achieve and it create all the depth you ever need to tell a story.

3d stereo is really like popping books. It is fun once in a while but definetely not a need and the next harry potter will not be a popping book and it will sell as hell!

And I worked too on a stereo production and it really is a pain in the @$$!

jewalker
01-13-2009, 06:45 PM
Some of my favorite moments in movies didn't need color either, but I think the movie was better for having color. I view stereoscopy the same way. The depth in the movie adds another element to assist in the storytelling.

Think of the closing scene of a Western in which the hero rides off into the sunset, the shape of his body slowly shrinking. Now imagine if the sunset actually appeared to be deep into the screen and the hero slowly receded into the depths of the screen. That is how the added depth should be used. Shots no longer have to be composed with screen left and screen right. Now there is screen in-front and screen behind.

As for one of the original posts that ask about each individuals own perception. It is true that each individual has a slightly different perception and tolerance for stereo. I know that before Meet the Robinsons Disney did a focus group with an audience to test different stereo options. They surveyed each member to determine what their pain points were (how much the stereo could be pushed before it became uncomfortable), how much depth was necessary to maintain proper volume, how much depth was necessary to make it perceptible, and various other options. Hopefully many other studios and filmmakers run similar sorts of tests and this knowledge is shared so that everyone can benefit from it. Just like there is an art to using color and frame composition in movies there is an art to using depth.

TheWraith
01-13-2009, 06:54 PM
with 60+" HDTV's, blueray and surround sound all coming down in price, what other reason will a person have for going to the theater? certainly not to spend $20 on popcorn and a drink. not for the annoying people talking behind you and not for the kid kicking the back of your seat.

Gentle Fury
01-13-2009, 09:08 PM
I still dont think this will pick up with a main stream audience until the glasses are removed from the equation...my mother would never be interested in a stereo movie no matter how perfectly it works if she has to put on glasses (over her glasses...another issue)....I'm sure she isnt the only person in the world that feels this way.

Ivan D Young
01-13-2009, 09:33 PM
I think what is really needed is a very seamless and unobtrusive system of delivery that is very similar to human sight. it has to be so seamless, that it just works. works for like 80 - 90% of folks out there.


I do not think at the moment as nice and complete as the different setups for stereoscopic viewing are, that it is that seamless yet.

RobertoOrtiz
01-14-2009, 05:52 PM
I think what is really needed is a very seamless and unobtrusive system of delivery that is very similar to human sight. it has to be so seamless, that it just works. works for like 80 - 90% of folks out there.


I do not think at the moment as nice and complete as the different setups for stereoscopic viewing are, that it is that seamless yet.

Agreed ,

and to be fair I see that industry moving in that direction.
There is too much at stake from the point of view of companies to make this happen.
From the point of view of movie chains:
They are looking for a way to provide new ways to provide a unique experience.
and to be fair I think they are on the right track.

Imagine being able to see the World Cup, or the Superbowl in a 3d imax screen?

From the point of view of Studios
It is simple, the studios want to be able to resell their largue libraries of filmed content all over again. Right Lucasfilm is using the orginial Star Wars as a test bed to develop the technologies that will allow this.

From he point of view of manufactures of consumer electronics equipment
It is in their interest to make all this next gen equipment obsolete...so they can sell a new generation of goods to the public.


Trust me guys,
it will happen.
-R

Ivan D Young
01-14-2009, 06:17 PM
I totally agree with your points there Roberto.

I think for this whole segment of the industry right now, the biggest mover probably will be James cameron. if he does not deliver a James Cameron style experience, this will hurt this whole deal.
Mainly because the general public is putting alot of faith that James Cameron will deliver on the 3D promise. If Avatar is not huge, it will hurt.

To be honest, at the moment I can not think of anyone else that I would trust to get this right. it has to be Cameron, he's got the Onions to deliver, I am hoping that he does. Big Time!

kdubayoo
01-14-2009, 11:11 PM
I have a hard time seeing this appeal to the masses, at least in its current form. I for one am not a fan. I don't know, maybe future generations will like it, and us older folk will just continue not liking it... it's hard to say. Personally, I'd be glad to see it go away and just be a passing fad. I just don't like it. I'd rather watch the movie in 2D honestly.

CGTalk Moderation
01-14-2009, 11:11 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.