BBC - Has 3D Film-Making had its Day?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2012   #1
BBC - Has 3D Film-Making had its Day?

The BBC has a piece that questions whether the "3D Trend" in filmmaking started by James Cameron's Avatar was just a temporary "fad", and whether interest in 3D movies is now declining both on the side of the film producers, and on the side of cinemagoers:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20808920




It's three years since audiences around the world swarmed into cinemas to see James Cameron's Avatar. It rapidly became the biggest grossing film of all time, in part because of its ground-breaking digital 3D technology. But, in retrospect, Avatar now seems the high-point of 3D movie-making, with little since 2009 to challenge its achievement. Three years on, has the appeal of 3D gone flat?

Nic Knowland has been a respected director of photography in Britain for 30 years. He's seen cinema trends and fads come and go, but never one for which he's had so little enthusiasm as 3D.

"From the cinematographer's perspective it may offer production value and scale to certain kinds of film. But for many movies it offers only distraction and some fairly uncomfortable viewing experiences for the audience. I haven't yet encountered a director of photography who's genuinely enthusiastic about it."
 
Old 12 December 2012   #2
NO,

and the reason is simple.

The people with the money (the studios) like it.

And the companies behind of movie chain houses like it.
This reminds me a a lot of the backlash agianst filming in digital from a decade ago.

Now even cinmematography God Roger Deakins has jumped into the digital bandwagon.

3D adoption will take time, but new technology will allow soon to do 3D projection without
glasses.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/tech/...sses/index.html

Besides backlash against 3D is so 2 years ago.
I am sure that when color became a viable option back in the late 40's a big number of cinematographers complained about it.

The new thing to complain about will be High Frame Rate Filming.

http://kotaku.com/5970900/avatar-2-...-be-a-bad-thing

And in two years it will be
High Dynamic Range color (Filming & Projection)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging


__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government


Last edited by RobertoOrtiz : 12 December 2012 at 03:15 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #3
Yep, I think the novelty has worn off. This was just another fad that hardware manufacturers attempted to push on consumers to make more money, but in the end, the consumers never really warmed to it. 3D ticket sales have long been demonstrated as in decline, and I don't think 3D TVs ever sold anywhere near the numbers hoped for.

Unless the technology significantly improves and, perhaps most crucially, removes the need for wearing special glasses, it'll never replace 2D.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #4
Hopefully it's dying. So far I never - ever enjoyed a movie in 3d and I always try to go to a 2d projection when available.

In a few hours I'll see The Hobbit in 3d@48fps. While it is available in 2d@24fps as well I am curious to see how it looks running at 48. Unless I'll be extremely impressed (and from what I've heard it looks exactly the opposite as it should) I won't do it again, but I am curious, I admit
__________________
Planet Alpha 31
Twitter
 
Old 12 December 2012   #5
It will not die, it will evolve.
HFR was the first step for a better and the future will be something like HDR lightfields.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #6
I like 2d for the same reasons I like 2d photographs...

I can understand and appreciate the composition and framing of the shot better in 2d. I can view the frame as a whole in 2d, in 3d I feel the need to focus on whatever is in focus...it's a hard thing to explain.

In addition to this, crappy colours, and darkness, and mild headache means 3D is totally waisted on me, it's nothing more than a distraction.

Life of Pi I would be willing to give a go in 3D, but other than that I don't care for seeing any film in 3d over 2d. And I certainty have no interest in paying a premium for it.

3d tv....ha! Tv is pretty mundane as it is. Having the whole family sitting around waring glasses for little to no effect is laughable at best.
__________________
Monsters! Monsters from the id!

Flickr

MDI Digital
 
Old 12 December 2012   #7
3D isn't going anywhere.

I really don't think everything has to be in 3D, just for the sake of it. It shouldn't be an expectation or the norm.

I enjoy it for what it is.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #8
Originally Posted by Papa Lazarou: 3D isn't going anywhere.


How's that for a double-edged sword? :P
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 12 December 2012   #9
personally, i find the 3D experience over-rated. The polarised lenses dim the screen to much and even while watching the movie i feel like i am missing too much. Really, the screen looks so bright and colorful when i remove the glasses.

The 3D trend fading out is something i would welcome.
__________________
"This is the moment. History could be made...or nothing at all."
 
Old 12 December 2012   #10
This might be interest:

WIRED: Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters

Quote:
"






Watching 3-D movies generally means suffering through two things: crappy plotlines that favor spectacle over substance and the need to wear some annoying, dorky glasses. Scientists may have solved one of these frustrations. (You might be able to guess which.)

Researchers in South Korea have created a new method that would allow moviegoers to simply sit down and start watching a 3-D movie with no extra gear necessary. The research was published today in Optics Express.

“This is essentially the next step that was required for 3-D display technology without glasses,” said physicist John Koshel, who studies optical science at the University of Arizona and was not associated with the new work."

"The new method would allow movie theaters to keep their projectors where they’ve always been, behind the audience, and uses fairly simple optical technology. A special array sits in front of the projector and polarizes its light. A filter covering the screen then obscures different vertical regions of the screen, like the slats of venetian blinds. Each of your eyes, sitting at a slightly different angle, has some of the screen blocked and some of the screen visible. The movie has the right-eye and left-eye images interleaved in vertical columns with one another. The trick then is to have the light visible to your left eye contain the left-eye pixels and vice versa for the right eye."


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...lasses-free-3d/
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 12 December 2012   #11
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: How's that for a double-edged sword? :P


The technology has matured and proliferated. Anyone who wants to take it to new places can do so.

It's still possible to make a silent film or black and white. I think one of the reasons b&w is still used for artistic purposes, is because sometimes you don't want to show everything. There's mystery in the shadows. 3d is for when you do. 3d is for when you want to give the viewer the closest experience to actually being there.

I don't really see how it benefits something like the Queen's speech, but there's a time and place.

Originally Posted by karthikarctic: personally, i find the 3D experience over-rated. The polarised lenses dim the screen to much and even while watching the movie i feel like i am missing too much. Really, the screen looks so bright and colorful when i remove the glasses.


That's because they project them brighter to compensate.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #12
Originally Posted by RobertoOrtiz: This might be interest:

WIRED: Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters

Quote:
"








Watching 3-D movies generally means suffering through two things: crappy plotlines that favor spectacle over substance and the need to wear some annoying, dorky glasses. Scientists may have solved one of these frustrations. (You might be able to guess which.)

Researchers in South Korea have created a new method that would allow moviegoers to simply sit down and start watching a 3-D movie with no extra gear necessary. The research was published today in Optics Express.

“This is essentially the next step that was required for 3-D display technology without glasses,” said physicist John Koshel, who studies optical science at the University of Arizona and was not associated with the new work."

"The new method would allow movie theaters to keep their projectors where they’ve always been, behind the audience, and uses fairly simple optical technology. A special array sits in front of the projector and polarizes its light. A filter covering the screen then obscures different vertical regions of the screen, like the slats of venetian blinds. Each of your eyes, sitting at a slightly different angle, has some of the screen blocked and some of the screen visible. The movie has the right-eye and left-eye images interleaved in vertical columns with one another. The trick then is to have the light visible to your left eye contain the left-eye pixels and vice versa for the right eye."


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...lasses-free-3d/



sounds like a variation on the technology used in lenticular postercards and Nintendo's 3ds.



In some ways I think I prefer the glasses, because it's too easy to mess up the eyeline with the other method. The viewing angles are too restrictive.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #13
@Papa Lazarou: I meant how the phrase "3D isn't going anywhere" can be used to express either dissatisfaction that 3D did not lead to any real ground breaking improvement in cinema, or as a defiant comment that 3D will not be phased out anytime soon.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 12 December 2012   #14
I personally think we're heading too a mor fractured film-scape. This makes sense to me with audience education at an all tim high I expect we'll see a broad range of frame rates, stocks, styles and technologies being employed. Projectors are capable of doing this so why shouldn't directors and studios choose the medium that best suits (and sells) their stories?

In a way it's kind of exciting, if not a bit scary.
__________________
Critcal feedback example #62: "Well instead of the Stalinist purges and the divorce and the investigation ... it could be about losing a balloon."
 
Old 12 December 2012   #15
This isnt true 3d.
You aint seen anything yet.

Race you all to the holodeck, last one in is a paranoid android.
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.