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   #31
Originally Posted by grrinc: 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.


From looking at 3d tvs in showrooms, I've found the effect is more effective, more pronounced, if you can get far back from the tv. It's not as effective on smaller screens, but the trouble with bigger screens is you have to get further back for it to work. Ideally you need a room with a lot of space, so you can have a big screen and sit far back from it.

In some ways I find it more effective than the cinema. I was watching a blu-ray of BBC's Planet Dinosaur 3d, and there were moments where I could pause it and the dinosaurs were literally life-size coming out of the screen. I could look around the room and compare them for scale with the furniture. I could literally estimate how many feet and inches they were projecting forward from the screen.

In a darkened cinema, you sort of forget about the existence of the outside world, because everything's cloaked in darkness. The cinema screen is the entire world. At home there's more of a sense of looking through a window, that things can pass in and out of. Things that can protrude right into your reality. Almost.

The real problem with 3d tvs is that there just isn't enough content. Looking around the shops at christmas, the blu-ray 3d section was pretty sparse and insignificant, and overpriced. A lot of films that were made in 3d aren't readily available in that format. Some studios seem to be cynically withholding, hoping consumers will 'double-dip'. You can get Avatar in 3d, but not the extended edition with special features. Not yet.

3D gaming may be where it's at. I was blown away with a demonstration of Motorstorm Apocalypse.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #32
Originally Posted by Papa Lazarou: From looking at 3d tvs in showrooms, I've found the effect is more effective, more pronounced, if you can get far back from the tv. It's not as effective on smaller screens, but the trouble with bigger screens is you have to get further back for it to work. Ideally you need a room with a lot of space, so you can have a big screen and sit far back from it....


I've noticed far less numbers of 3D TV's in the local stores. 2 years ago when I was getting a new TV for Christmas, we had a hard job getting one that wasn't 3D (the 3D brings on my migraine so I don't like it), I think at least 50% of the TV's in the stores were 3D. For a long time also most of the shopping centres had Sky TV display stands all showing off their 3D channels. 3D was being pushed in our faces everywhere we went.
Now it's a different story, only about 20% of TV's in the stores are 3D. It just hasn't taken off in the home in spite of it being pushed at consumers. Sky TV is no longer to be seen in any of the shopping centres.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #33
Originally Posted by Papa Lazarou:
In a darkened cinema, you sort of forget about the existence of the outside world, because everything's cloaked in darkness. The cinema screen is the entire world.

I agree. Also the picture is darker in 3D cinema than in 2D cinema and the motion is quite robotic/unsmooth and those big glasses on my own glasses, it does not feel good - if you watch 3h movie, it will be most painful movie experience in your life (even a headache would better option imo)
 
Old 12 December 2012   #34
I've given 3D in the cinemas a fair go and I definitely prefer 2D so unless there's a big improvement I've no intention of ever going again.
__________________
Portfolio
Prints For Sale
Twitter
 
Old 12 December 2012   #35
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: 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.


But why are you considering the views on this forum only? The figures show that 3D ticket sales are in decline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_fil...udience_decline

It could be a combination of the novelty wearing off, some shitty films that rely solely on the novelty, or the fact that people hate wearing the glasses. Personally, I think it's a combination of all three - but regardless of my own personal view, the figures speak for themselves. Whether you personally like 3D or not, it certainly seems the general public isn't buying into it at the same rate as a few years ago. So the opinions on stereo expressed on this site are not unique - indeed, by all accounts they're an indicator of the wider public's view.

3D will either disappear completely again (history shows that it pops up every decade or so), or will have to drastically evolve to keep people interested.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #36
I like watching 3D at home where I have my own clean glasses.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #37
My opinion is the hype is gone now. Everyone has more or less seen it, everyone has more or less said..meh..it's ok. 3D will be around for a long time, as for if people will have the attitude "they must see it in 3D" like the marketing departments are trying to tell them to think...I don't see that happening, they tried though, god bless em.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #38
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: 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.


Please stop try reading what's not written. I never said I held the sacred truth or that my own personal accounts represented the whole population, nor did I say that 3D was dying or should stop being made. All I said is that from all I've read and gathered around me, people are just not that receptive to it and see it as a gimmick to add a premium to movie ticket prices. I never met anyone who was truly enthusiastic about it. I personally feel we're being used as guinea pigs to finance those billions put the in R&D you mentioned.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #39
Originally Posted by leigh: But why are you considering the views on this forum only? The figures show that 3D ticket sales are in decline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_fil...udience_decline

It could be a combination of the novelty wearing off, some shitty films that rely solely on the novelty, or the fact that people hate wearing the glasses. Personally, I think it's a combination of all three - but regardless of my own personal view, the figures speak for themselves. Whether you personally like 3D or not, it certainly seems the general public isn't buying into it at the same rate as a few years ago. So the opinions on stereo expressed on this site are not unique - indeed, by all accounts they're an indicator of the wider public's view.

3D will either disappear completely again (history shows that it pops up every decade or so), or will have to drastically evolve to keep people interested.


Originally Posted by leigh: But why are you considering the views on this forum only? The figures show that 3D ticket sales are in decline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_fil...udience_decline

It could be a combination of the novelty wearing off, some shitty films that rely solely on the novelty, or the fact that people hate wearing the glasses. Personally, I think it's a combination of all three - but regardless of my own personal view, the figures speak for themselves. Whether you personally like 3D or not, it certainly seems the general public isn't buying into it at the same rate as a few years ago. So the opinions on stereo expressed on this site are not unique - indeed, by all accounts they're an indicator of the wider public's view.

3D will either disappear completely again (history shows that it pops up every decade or so), or will have to drastically evolve to keep people interested.


I am not disputing that it isn't at the height of it's popularity. All I am saying is this form of stereoscopic isn't going to fade away and disappear. I agree the decline in popularity, I think it is a combination of the three things you mentioned. It isn't simply because everyone doesn't like it and it is jammed down our throats. That is simply false. I and many others enjoy it, I can see the value in it and for the story if used correctly. I can see a perfect 3d picture with no issues. I can feel fully immersed. After I left Avatar for the first time, it felt like I was in that jungle earlier that night. I want more, and I can't wait to see what future technologies have in store.

The views here and most likely other "cinema centric" forums are certainly unique. I am not saying the overall tone isn't possibly the same as those who don't enjoy it. My point is the specific reasons people here cite as to why they don't like it will not be the same as the general viewing audience. I wouldn't pin that to just expertise either. It is a mixture of expertise and connecting that knowledge with weird quirks.
I can go through the old threads and definitely pull some weird reasons as to why people don't like it. The same things can be seen in the 48fps Hobbit thread.

Current 3D won't disappear, history has shown anaglyph 3D appears and reappears.
I believe the viewing technology and use of 3d in storytelling will drastically evolve, we are literally at the first step from anaglyph. When the current form of audio was introduced it wasn't immediately perfectly mastered Dolby 7.1 stereo surround sound and there were tons of sound gimmicks until filmmakers came to terms with it.

I just bought a HDTV a month ago and I specifically went for one without 3d, due to the glasses. So I am not some blind stereoscopic fanboy. Regardless of my opinion on TV's 3D is here to stay. I am just going to bow out of this and go back to reality where all this stuff continues to exists in current and future movies and through years of this same conversation over and over. I'll revisit it around 2018 when Avatar 3 is out, and in the top 10 all time grossing movies along with the first and second Avatar. By then my guess is these conversations will go the way of the photo realism conversations, and you can pile the high frame rate threads on that.

Originally Posted by vlad: Please stop try reading what's not written. I never said I held the sacred truth or that my own personal accounts represented the whole population, nor did I say that 3D was dying or should stop being made. All I said is that from all I've read and gathered around me, people are just not that receptive to it and see it as a gimmick to add a premium to movie ticket prices. I never met anyone who was truly enthusiastic about it. I personally feel we're being used as guinea pigs to finance those billions put the in R&D you mentioned.


OK I got you.
It works perfectly for me so I can't understand why "we're" guinea pigs. Which is making it sound like your opinion represents the whole population. There is nothing to test on me, it works.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #40
Originally Posted by BrokenAnimator: My opinion is the hype is gone now. Everyone has more or less seen it, everyone has more or less said..meh..it's ok. 3D will be around for a long time.......


That's kind of how I see it. 3D will probably always be around and will appeal to some people and not to others. It will be repackaged and presented to new generations like it apparently has before.
My Dad tells me that one of the first 3D films he went to see many years ago was a horror called "Parasite". Said it was one of the worst films he ever did see, 3D or not. It seems that poo wrapped up nice and in 3D is still poo.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #41
I see a broad-brush generalization in place that only crappy movies benefit from 3D.
Altho Avatar wasn't my favorite movie, I'd hardly call it crappy.
Nor would I consider anything by PIXAR crappy either.
No was Spider Man or Avengers.
Or Prometheus.
I've been hearing that Life of Pi is a brilliant 3D artistic achievement.
I'm expecting great things from Cirque de Soleil.
And the Academy winning Titanic benefited from 3D conversion. As did Lion King.

Any more, criticism of the format is just more and more coming off as spin, fueled by articles like this that almost come off as propaganda to me.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #42
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: ...
OK I got you.
It works perfectly for me so I can't understand why "we're" guinea pigs. Which is making it sound like your opinion represents the whole population. There is nothing to test on me, it works.


You're doing this on purpose, right? "I - personally - feel" : You have three words there right at the start of the phrase that cry out subjectivity. I dont know what else I could have said to emphasize it more without being sarcastic...
 
Old 12 December 2012   #43
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers: I see a broad-brush generalization in place that only crappy movies benefit from 3D.
Altho Avatar wasn't my favorite movie, I'd hardly call it crappy.
Nor would I consider anything by PIXAR crappy either.
No was Spider Man or Avengers.
Or Prometheus.
I've been hearing that Life of Pi is a brilliant 3D artistic achievement.
I'm expecting great things from Cirque de Soleil.
And the Academy winning Titanic benefited from 3D conversion. As did Lion King.

Any more, criticism of the format is just more and more coming off as spin, fueled by articles like this that almost come off as propaganda to me.


Prometheus? Even the best and most convincing immersive 3D experience could not have saved this humongous wreck

Where you see Titanic and Lion King benefiting from 3D, I only see cow milking.
And why would people voicing opinions about something they dont appreciate be propaganda or spin? So everyone should just shut up, swallow it and get with the program? Things usually charge for the better because people are complaining about the flaws. And I repeat (mainly for Pixolin) that I'm not against 3D or it's advancement. I only feel ripped off because I have no other choice, more often than not in the small city I live in, to pay for 3D even though for me it's but a gimmick that in the state that it is right now, adds more hindrance than enjoyment to the experience.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #44
Originally Posted by vlad: You're doing this on purpose, right? "I - personally - feel" : You have three words there right at the start of the phrase that cry out subjectivity. I dont know what else I could have said to emphasize it more without being sarcastic...


Sorry I misunderstood you. I see now "we're" meant you, the people you know, and the articles you have read. No offense and I am not doing it on purpose, and I really don't want to discuss this more. But this is one of those weird reasons that it seems like your shoe horning in to fit your argument. By that rational black and white was just testing for color, or they were using us as guinea pigs with standard definition as a precursor for HD and so on. It is the current state of technology like it or not, it works for some and it appears not for others. I don't see people who are color blind making such a stink about movies not being in a format they can see perfectly.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #45
Originally Posted by vlad: Prometheus? Even the best and most convincing immersive 3D experience could not have saved this humongous wreck [QUOTE=vlad]

I personally liked the movie, altho I think Lindelof is a 1 trick pony and I wouldn't lose any sleep if he, orci and kurtzman all left Hollywood to become used cars salesmen.
[QUOTE=vlad]
Where you see Titanic and Lion King benefiting from 3D, I only see cow milking.[QUOTE=vlad]
And where many people see tattoo's as art and freedom of expression I only see scarring and stains. Yet, when I voiced this opinion I was chastised by many of a person on this forum for being against art and expression... and ironically is these same pro-art and pro-expression people who are so opposed to this medium.
[QUOTE=vlad]
And why would people voicing opinions about something they dont appreciate be propaganda or spin?


Because articles like this are strictly designed to convince others to favor a particular opinion. We start off with a premise and it gets supported by a whopping 2 filmmakers who speak for everyone.

And we see it all the time.

And in large part, it works. Someone states that 3D is nothing but a gimmick... and before long you get a bunch of people repeating it to sound smart.

And what's funny about the "gimmick" thing, is that cinema is an entire gimmick all its own. It's an illusion of movement and mood created by the persistence of vision and manipulated by editing, trick lighting and color correction. It's all artificial.

Or the notion that 3D doesn't do anything to advance the story. Well, cinema used to be in Black and White. Did color by itself make stories better? For that matter ships on a string tell the same story as today's most advanced CGI.

But a little thought and reason doesn't stop people from taking a position based on incomplete thought.
Originally Posted by vlad: And I repeat (mainly for Pixolin) that I'm not against 3D or it's advancement. I only feel ripped off because I have no other choice, more often than not in the small city I live in, to pay for 3D even though for me it's but a gimmick that in the state that it is right now, adds more hindrance than enjoyment to the experience.


Unlike 3D's detractors who want 3D gone so that people like me cannot enjoy it I am in favor of choice. I realize that not everyone likes the same thing- and that's fine. I'm just opposed to propaganda pieces like this.
I also understand that in Europe theater owners don't give you a choice- and I think it's up to you guys to convince the theater owners to put up additional screens for your choice. We don't have that problem in the states.

But as filmmakers adapt to this new medium I believe we'll see more and more of it.
 
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 04:51 AM.


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