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


Well there’s this:

But so far, they can’t really do it with an entire set or something… so it’s not like you can watch Batman in this and look up Gotham Cathedral… Not yet…

The logistics and infrastructure required to just project a few actors still seems a bit far-off, and right now it’s only really usable for “impossible live performances”.

However, if they can figure out how to do entire sets, objects, in this way… you could see some “Sky Captain” like films where you can look around from where you sit (I don’t think any future iteration of this tech would encourage viewers to walk into the projection).


PLEEEZE be right :slight_smile:


It aint 3D tho.
It’s no different than a movie being projected.

Why would you wangt to tho? If you look up, around, you will miss parts of the plot and performance while looking at things that a Director wouldn’t want you to see.

If you don’t mind my asking: what does 2D add to the story that 3D doesn’t?


Please tell us you’re joking…


No, I’m not joking.


I guess geometry isnt your cup of tea…
OK, here it goes :

This is 1D :

This is what 2D brings :

You can see a lot of story can be conveyed through 2D :rolleyes:


i believe in 3D being the future. Its pretty logical…
2d vs 3d is not the real problem

The problem is the current tech isnt as ‘advanced’ as most of us would like it to be (including me)


You failed to explain how 3D can’t tell that same story.
Heck, I guess one can go 1 step further and say that 3D tells a little more than 2D because you can have a sense of how far from the background they are.

Me too.
But it’s also up to the filmmakers to truly utilize it.

For example, the conversion of Titanic conveyed more depth than the I Robot conversion.
I Robot 3D (2 1/2D really) was a waste of time, a waste of money and a squandered opportunity for something really cool.


No one said 3D cant tell the same story. What a whole bunch of people are saying is that they feel the 3D effect DOESNT add anything TO the story. And about the sense of depth, it’s already there in 2D, it’s called depth of field, atmospheric perspective, shading etc. You just dont want to accept the simple fact that some people dont have the same opinion as you on the subject at hand.


Well i partly i agree that the effect is partly there… but you cant ignore the fact if you would be able to get the same quality in good 3D that it would be a much more immersive and intense experience. Thats the whole point of 3D and an important part of cinematography.

Following the same logic as yours, you only need black & white and mono audio at a verry low sample rate.


The unique feature of the Christie’s method is its use of Vertical Projection and Pepper’s Ghost reflecting panels so that if you are sitting in grandstands it looks very much like the objects are there. I think it’s when you stand on the stage that you notice it’s not really solid.

You are correct in that it is still an “image projection” and that means the holograms can be encoded similar to 2D films with pans, zooms, rotations… So pretty much it can be allowed to create a “movie”.

It’s more specific to Mfournier’s question about whether something existed that approximated a “live and solid” appearance of a film.


Chainsaw 3D beat The Hobbit for the number one box office this weekend.


Adding to the story is the job of the script writers, director and editor… which is why I don’t understand the premise of the statement. That’s why I ask what 2D contributes to the story that 3D doesn’t.

What are your thoughts about the youtube video that Roberto posted about Monster’s Inc. going 3D?

Which all sounds pretty cool and amazing, and opens up new avenues for theatrical broadcast or concert broadcast- be it in 2D or 3D.

To be fair, Hobbit has been out for a little while now. But to be beat by another 3D film is pretty good considering there is 3 versions of the Hobbit out.


Following the same logic as yours, you only need black & white and mono audio at a verry low sample rate.

Casablanca was a much better film than the Hobbit, though I admit the airplane miniature didn’t really work…

On the other hand I saw Dial M for Murder in 3D, as shot by Alfred Hitchock himself in 1954 (not a 3D conversion) and 3D didn’t bother me a bit. It wasn’t essential, but since the movie was great it just flew. Probably would have been more obvious on Vertigo though…

Interestingly “The 1954 film was shot with M.L. Gunzberg’s Natural Vision 3-D camera rig. This rig was notable for being the same rig that started the 3-D craze of 1953 with Bwana Devil and House of Wax. Intended originally to be shown in dual strip polarized 3-D, the film played in most theaters in normal 2-D due to the loss of interest in the 3-D process by the time of its release” (wiki)

Also Showscan was invented in the 70’s (70mm@60fps, so that’s much better than 48fps @ 4K) but didn’t really catch either outside of theme parks.

So it’s not like there’s anything new under the sun here… People got tired of 3D and HFR 40 to 60 years ago, already. Makes you wonder what has really changed as we still have to wear funny glasses and the hobbit is still a themepark ride…


This is getting really tiring…
One last time : as the pun I posted earlier, you need 2D to have a picture. 1D is a vertical or horizontal line. So 2D is a prerequisite. Adding to the story in this case doesnt have anything to do with writers, directors etc. They have to do what they do regardless of 3D. What I and some others argue is that the stereoscopic effect used to emphasize the volume, depth whatever, is felt more like a trick or gimmick, and doesnt add anything more that an awkward sensation. In many cases IMO, it totally lacks subtlety. Too much “in your face” literally. I personally dont need that to get into the story. It often have the opposite result on me. And I’m not mentioning the the forced focus effect, the desaturation of colors, the dreaded glasses etc that the current 3D experience imposes.

Now I dont have the slightest problem in people liking 3D nor do I want it to be banned or anything like that. The only problem I have is that where I live, more often than not I dont have a choice to watch a movie in 3D, and pay the premium that comes with it.

I dearly hope this clears up my opinion on the subject for you…


To me the most primal part of the movie experience is sound… funny that movies started out as being silent. I find I can often enjoy a radio play more than a movie. The sound in a movie not only carries the primary plot information but the way people inflect provides the critical emotion… imagine hamlet performed by an automated voice like Siri. The music also carry emotional content.

The next thing that one wants is to see is faces and facial expression. This is the other big emotional payoff in a movie. ( most would find a movie without any characters or people boring ) Thus the most critical thing is to have enough resolution to be able to read faces clearly. Seeing some environment helps understand the context the faces are in, but is much less important. My cats tend to find TV boring most of the time because it is just a sea of talking human heads . The moment it is different… like on the nature channel… they get more interested.(look at covers of magazines in a store… all head-shots)

This provides the bulk of what one needs to convey stories, which is why TV has been successful even with small black and white screens. Beyond that there are diminishing returns. Color is nice, most would agree, and in cases where one wants the first person exhilaration of jumping out of an airplane, added things like large field of view, surround sound, high resolution, 3D, high frame rates, wind generators, smell, holographic 3d immersion are a plus.

But for simple dialog and acted plays (like Rope) one simply needs to hear the sound clearly and read the faces.



I thought this was interesting to post.
Here is a article about a new 3D camera.

In the comments there is someone complaining about HD, and that he prefers SD. Whether you like it or not, 3d naysayers sound exactly the same.

A question about 3D not adding anything to the story.
When the story is giving the feeling of two objects or characters far away from each other, how is 3D not adding anything to that specific part of the story?

Does surround sound or even stereo sound add anything to the story?


I’m unsure if your joking or not. Are you suggesting that the impression of separation has not successfully been portrayed before?

I agree 3D sound and stereoscopic 3D add to the experience, but not to the story. If a director insists that his vision is only complete with specific enhancements, then the cinema goer, or dvd purchaser, needs to be informed in advanced so they can decide if they want to be ‘short changed’.


No, of course the impression of separation has been done successfully before.
I was asking if the story is depicting distance between objects, how isn’t 3D adding anything or enhancing that part of the story? Maybe atmosphere is a better word? To me it is equal to a drip of water in a cave on surround sound.


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.