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   #16
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthr...ht=stereoscopic

So it died a slow death up until now? Was this before or after consoles died? I am confused by the fact that they continue exist in reality. I think people should wait until something is dead to declare it dead. It seems to work well for humans.

It is funny watching people claim 3D is dead or dying over and over again, and then saying how much they hate it in the same post.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #17
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthr...ht=stereoscopic

So it died a slow death up until now? Was this before or after consoles died? I am confused by the fact that they continue exist in reality. I think people should wait until something is dead to declare it dead. It seems to work well for humans.


You didn't actually bother to read the article, did you? Or even this thread, for that matter? No, as usual, you're just wading into a thread with your assumptions.

Not a single person in the article or this thread so far has said that "3D is dead". Keep up.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #18
Originally Posted by leigh: You didn't actually bother to read the article, did you? Or even this thread, for that matter? No, as usual, you're just wading into a thread with your assumptions.

Not a single person in the article or this thread so far has said that "3D is dead". Keep up.


Sorry for using the word "dead", and for you taking it so literally. Notice the thread I posted with death in the title? And the other thread I commented on about consoles dying?

Am I "wading in" with assumptions similar to your assumption that I didn't read the thread?
I definitely didn't read the article as it pointless. There will be another in a year or two. I'll catch that one.

Next time this thread is posted, including every single time after that I will stay out of it.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #19
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: Sorry for using the word "dead", and for you taking it so literally.


I'm just taking my cue from your literal use of it in your own post.

Notice the thread I posted with death in the title? And the other thread I commented on about consoles dying?


Which are irrelevant here. Which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the article and thread properly.

Am I "wading in" with assumptions similar to your assumption that I didn't read the thread?


The difference between your assumptions and mine is that mine are correct. As you've proven with your post.

I definitely didn't read the article as it pointless..


Yet you felt the need to chime in with a post anyway. Okay.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #20
Originally Posted by mushroomgod: 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.


I know exactly what you mean and I feel the same. We already have the suggestion of 3D with dof. Stereoscopy in film is akin to those half assed 3D animal cards we found in Cracker Jack boxes years ago. It cheaply feels like separate image planes pasted one on top of each other with gaps between them. I also find in more distracting than engaging. And 20 minutes into the movie, the brain becomes accustomed to the effect and doesnt react to it anymore, but you still have to suffer the glasses till the end.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #21
Leigh I really don't feel like getting in your internet tit for tats today. I had that sentence in my last post, but deleted it out of respect. I am in the camp that none of this is dead or dying. I don't think it should be ever mentioned until it definitely is dead or CLEARLY dying.
I should not of commented without reading the article. They do not say "dead" or "dying". Yet these very similar threads keep appearing, and that word is thrown around casually in doom and gloom tech articles. Those who enjoy wallowing in misery and can also get some type of self gratification that their opinion is right. I never said in my first post that I meant the people in this specific thread as you incorrectly assume. I am sure if we were talking in person you would of picked up on that, instead of trying to dismiss each sentence of what I was speaking. You can't possibly be like that in person. Yet if the same individual asked me in person, "if 3D film has had it's day?". I would say was this like the time consoles were dead or dying? Or like the time a year ago when you asked if 3D was dying a slow death? It was my reaction to the same threads over and over again. Sorry. Like I said, in between Avatar 2 & 3 when 3D is past it day again I will stay out of it.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #22
Originally Posted by DePaint: The BBC has a piece that questions whether the "3D Trend" in filmmaking started by James Cameron's Avatar was just a temporary "fad",


Article fail from the beginning: I saw "My Bloody Valentine 3D" long before "Avatar".

I see little reason to entertain the opening post any further.

Especially when 3D has a promising future.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #23
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: Leigh I really don't feel like getting in your internet tit for tats today.


And, perhaps contrary to popular belief, I don't like tit for tats, period. I just want people to contribute more to threads than simply coming in and posting a comment without actually familiarising themselves with the specific discussion point at hand, in this case, the article, which I actually found quite interesting.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #24
Originally Posted by leigh: And, perhaps contrary to popular belief, I don't like tit for tats, period. I just want people to contribute more to threads than simply coming in and posting a comment without actually familiarising themselves with the specific discussion point at hand, in this case, the article, which I actually found quite interesting.


Understood and I completely agree.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #25
It's funny when these "stories" crop up: the author normally hates it, claims that audiences hate it- but never squares with the fact that enough of us actually do like it enough to pay the premium price for it.

If audiences really do hate it as much as these clowns say, then there wouldn't be anything in 3D at the cinemas right this minute.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #26
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers: It's funny when these "stories" crop up: the author normally hates it, claims that audiences hate it- but never squares with the fact that enough of us actually do like it enough to pay the premium price for it.

If audiences really do hate it as much as these clowns say, then there wouldn't be anything in 3D at the cinemas right this minute.



The only thing I would say to that....the last film I saw that was in 3d, I chose to watch it in 2d, but, of the 3 theatres it was being shown in 2 where only showing it in 3d.

So sometimes, it would seem audiences aren't always given the choice.
__________________
Monsters! Monsters from the id!

Flickr

MDI Digital
 
Old 12 December 2012   #27
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers: It's funny when these "stories" crop up: the author normally hates it, claims that audiences hate it- but never squares with the fact that enough of us actually do like it enough to pay the premium price for it.

If audiences really do hate it as much as these clowns say, then there wouldn't be anything in 3D at the cinemas right this minute.


Well according to what seems to be quite a bunch of users here on CGTalk and other cinema centric forums, plus friends and relatives around me, I can say that most of them either dont care or are downright annoyed by it, not to mention the fact of having to pay more. Like above poster noted, in smaller cities it's either 3D or wait for DVD...
 
Old 12 December 2012   #28
Originally Posted by vlad: Well according to what seems to be quite a bunch of users here on CGTalk and other cinema centric forums, plus friends and relatives around me, I can say that most of them either dont care or are downright annoyed by it, not to mention the fact of having to pay more. Like above poster noted, in smaller cities it's either 3D or wait for DVD...

Isn't that like saying "I can't believe that politician won because I don't know anyone who voted for them!"?
 
Old 12 December 2012   #29
I enjoy 3d at the cinema a great deal. But I have found 3d in the home to be less enjoyable. I imagine that these would be considered two different markets that have different failure / success rates.

It would appear that home 3d has lost a lot of support, but 3d in the cinema is still seen as a great success. That's my take.
__________________
Posted by Proxy
 
Old 12 December 2012   #30
Originally Posted by vlad: Well according to what seems to be quite a bunch of users here on CGTalk and other cinema centric forums, plus friends and relatives around me, I can say that most of them either dont care or are downright annoyed by it, not to mention the fact of having to pay more. Like above poster noted, in smaller cities it's either 3D or wait for DVD...


I really like these forums, but the opinions here on stereoscopic are very unique and frankly just weird. They should not be seen as a good indicator. I always like to point to the 3D photorealism and first iPad threads as a example of why not to listen to cgtalk concerning technology matters like these spawned from weird opinions.

Then I would point to the similarities of online reviews. In which people who are unsatisfied are more likely to go on the net to complain, than those who are happy would sit in a circle to sing it's praises. I would also point out that these same exact opinions were here 3 years ago during Avatar, spoken about weekly here, mentioned many times even before all of that. Yet here we are, the movies still exist, they will for years to come, there is tons of R&D being put into it, billions of dollars worth of equipment that supports it, and to counter all of that is people on the internet saying: "I don't like it so that means it is going away, here are some numbers I pulled from the net, and a quote from some guy that agrees with me as proof".

Nobody in my friends or family uses a iPhone either, the few that used to have moved on to Android. I would not use that to base my opinion on the popularity of iPhone's.
 
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 05:27 AM.


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