This topic was created by I ain't Spartacus.
3D is the future of cinema?
I can see why the studios love it. Get cinema attendances up, charge extra, new shiny. It's also being sold as a way for them to beat piracy, as few people have home 3D kit. Except that the content and TV industries are busily trying to get us to buy that very kit, thus negating this advantage.
I can see why some directors love it, as it's a new thing to play with.
But I don't get it myself. I've seen 2 3D movies now. Avatar I enjoyed the spectacle of. It was big, dumb fun. And there was enough to look at that I could ignore the clunking script. It was also my first 3D film, so when the boredom set in, I could play with what it looked like without the glasses.
I saw Thor 3D. Try saying that with a Fruit Pastille in your mouth. I enjoyed it. But the only 3D that worked seemed to be the end credits. I can't remember if that was retro-fitted 3D though, which would explain it. However it did give me a headache.
So 3D Future of Cinema [tm]!
Or, 3D The Fad Returns: then disappears again - Directed by Mark Kermode
Re: 3D is the future of cinema?
I saw <i>Tangled 3D</i>. That was very nice.
Give it enough time and most people will own 3D TVs. They will start thinking of films in 2D as 'quaint'.
Your italics aren't showing. Bug or feature?
Drew, do you really think that? Unlike colour or sound, 3D has been around since nearly the birth of cinema, and has kept coming into and going out of fashion. I believe it was experimented with in the first decade of the 20th Century, and there were major outbreaks in the 50s, 70s and 80s - which died out. Do you really think this time is different?
I've read estimates that 20% of people can't see stereoscopic 3D, due to the visual acuity in their eyes being too dissimilar. Plus lots of people get headaches from it, although that could just be poor projector set-up. So is this current crop of technology up to the job?
Or are we going to have to wait until we've got holographic projection? At which point all current film/digital technology is going to look very crap indeed. In which case, I guess we agree. It's just an argument over the definition of 'give it enough time'...
However, I bow to your superior knowledge of available tech. I've not seen either the active glasses type of 3D, or the screens that don't need glasses (unless you count the Nintendo 3DS), so I'd be interested if you think either of those solve the problems.
3D has been around since the development of binocular vision.
I dunno about you lot, but when reading the works of Shakespeare (for example), I see the scene in colo(u)r and 3-D, even though it's text on the page. Same for old black & white movies.
In my mind, throwing hardware into the mix in an attempt to imitate this purely mental phenomenon dumbs down both the observer, and the writer. Probably why it gets flirted with every ten years or so, then dumped by the wayside until some marketing "genius" discovers it again.
Great if you happen to a have a "3D shaped" lounge. That's long and thin with the telly against one short wall and all the seats at the other end. Also known as a "Kinect lounge".
I have one of the more conventional variety, in which the viewing angles of LCD panels are sadly inadequate (Telly against long wall and I require 60 degrees off-axis to work for everyone to get a look). 3D viewing angles make LCDs look gifted.
I've also found that, once the novelty wears off after about 10 minutes, the inconvenience / headaches / PITA for anyone wearing glasses outweigh the "Ooooo! 3D!" value.
There's also another major problem, which is nobody has yet shot anything for 3D. That would be with the entire depth-of-field in focus, so your eyes can wander in and out of the scene without finding that bits are blurry when focussed on (this is the bit that gives you a screaming headache). Of course anything shot that way would look like utter shit in 2D. Works for animation, where the depth-of-field effects can be rendered in later for 2D and that's probably where it'll end up "sticking".
Re: Actually ...
agree with jake
Re: 3D is the future of cinema?
I agree with idea of Mark Kermode, 3D is future of cinema.Because, at the moment CINEMA very developing.Specialy, Amecican cinema, Prance cinema, English cinema.....
With modern film technology at now, I think working towards 3D filmmaking is a necessity and should do more.
i think that,3D is the future of Cinema and it will development, not been outdated
Re: 3D is the future of cinema?
Mark Kermode had an idea?
He needs to look after it. It's probably lonely and very afraid, having come into existance only to find itself in a very strange place.
Re: 3D is the future of cinema?
I suppose logically it should be considered the future of cinema, but I'm not so sure. It's been around for a long time -there were 3D glasses decades ago and so far it's still limited in scope. I'm not into the blockbusters with lots of special effects myself. There will always be a market for lower key films that are more character and story focused.
I forgot to add
Comments welcome from people who like 3D, or can see a point to it - and don't just want to point out that it's an evil conspiracy by the Hollywood studios.
I'm interested to know what points there are on the other side, as I just can't see them myself. Other than the 'extra money for the studios one', of course, as that's not really relevant to me, with me giant bucket 'o' popcorn, watching the film
It's not an evil conspiracy by the Hollywood set.
It's a marketing gimmick designed to separate money from people who don't actually need new hardware. Kinda like "the newest" iFad.
3D when it's not a fad
I saw Avitar on 3D and I thought that the director / DP were just doing stuff to try to prove that there was a 3D'ish effect. Things like low-level panning through grass and flying insects. Same in the start of the Resident Evil film in 3D.
So I'm not interested until it just becomes a normal part of the film instead of in-your-face like when they discovered special effects. My wife is not interested because it gives her a splitting headache, Oh and she wasn't impressed with the TV sales-person when I asked "But it's only 3D if your buy the glasses isn't it?", to which he says "erm... yes". So spotting a wounded zebra, I go in for the kill with "OK, so how much is 4 pairs of glasses?". At that point I think he actually turned green and said "400€" I won't repeat what my wife said to him :)
>>So I'm not interested until it just becomes a normal part of the film instead of in-your-face like when they discovered special effects.
To be fair to James Cameron, I think that was the effect he was trying to achieve. I don't think he played many of the 'Wow it's 3D' games that lots of directors do. So I don't remember much (if any) pointing things at the screen, or throwing things at the audience. There was an 'oops, we're hanging over a deep valley, isn't it scary' moment admittedly.
As I understand it he was trying to achieve a more subtle effect. Odd in a film that was anything but subtle... The idea was to make it 'immersive', to have the camera follow the characters, and have it brushing through the grass behind them - as if you were walking along as part of the group. So there were lots of little touches trying to make you feel you were there.
I'm not sure it worked. I guess I was as much analysing the film, as carried along by it - but that could just be because it was something new - or the script was dodgy. I think he was trying to do a blockbuster special effects movie, where 3D's role was to make you feel part of the action, not to make you go 'wow'.
Re: @Bristol Bachelor
Strangely, though, the use of depth of field in Avatar was still strictly 2D and in some cases ruined the illusion. When the scene is 3D but you can't focus on anything except the midground then what's the point?
Dimmed Cinema Experience (tm)
Cinema? Srsly? Popcorn eating, in the way standing, bottom shaking, farting but paying other customers?
Now with the nice warning: even if you cannot see 3D you will need the glasses to only see one picture not overlapping ones. Ah I see. Next time I'll possibly wait for the flick to appear on youtube.
Last time there was like 'Tron: Legacy' dark really dark. Before that one? hmm wait a second,... pirates of the caribbean part one?
I have a 3D capable TV but only because every newer device has it now. I even had to disable the pseudo frames those newer panels try to generate to have a pseudo refresh rate abore 100 MHz. Trying to watch Kung Fu Panda and the Panda moved unnaturally fluid.
I don't even like surround sound
I find it all a bit weird personally. I keep thinking people are creeping up on me. And I don't like that.
Suffice to say that notion of an immersive experience doesn't wash. I just want to watch the TV, I don't want to be consumed by it.
The quality of films will be no better than the audiences who watch them
Whether 3D is the future of Cinema or whether Huxley's 'feelies' will have that distinction, remains to be seen. 3D at the moment seems to be the current example of "Materiam Superabat Opus", or the technology for making movies is better than the movies themselves.
I enjoyed Avatar in 3D and I saw a few 3D films in 2D. I don't think another D would have made them any better. :-)
I like 3D movies, but...
Not every film lends itself to the medium, and then there's the problem of 'psuedo-3D' films polluting the 3D films list, they were shot in 2D and then altered to look 3D.
If you're going to watch a film in 3D at the cinema, make sure you know what you're getting, Real or Fake 3D.com has an extensive evolving list of 3D films in two categories: Real 3D & Fake 3D
I think the 3D modified Star Wars films will be interesting, but I don't know if I can put myself through watching the abomination called Phantom Menace ever again, and then there's the problem of A New Hope being bastardised by having crucial pieces altered (Han shot first, and there was no Hayden Christensen as a ghost in the Star Wars I know)
3D done right can be good...
but the majority of films pumped out in it just don't do the medium justice at all. The first 3D film I went to see was Avatar, and it's the only one I've actually watched at the cinema. I enjoyed it, and I did actually think that the 3D added to the overall experience, although as someone who has perfectly matched eyes and 20/20 vision, maybe I'm just lucky.
Recently I went to the London Science Museum and we purchased the Explorer ticket. This gives you access to 3 films in 3D - retrofitted one about the lunar landings, retrofitted one about the red arrows, and a full-length, filmed in 3D Disney show on the IMAX screen. We watched them in that order, and by the end of the second film I had a splitting headache. It was painful after the first film, and terrible after the second one, and the reason for it is that the second film had the cockpit rendered at the front the whole time, slightly out of focus, so my eyes were trying to constantly focus on it, but couldn't. I thought these two films were ok, but they would have been absolutely fine without the 3D.
With the IMAX film, because everything was filmed in 3D (it was about Hubble), and it had high production values, it was actually fantastic, and the 3D didn't just help immerse you or act as a gimmick, it actually added value to the film, because it showed you things in 3D that you will never be able to see in 3D (with the help of a little CGI) instead of just using it to make some butterfly appear in the foreground. I think the fact that it was so big made it easier to focus as well. I would thoroughly encourage anyone to go and see it, because it really does give you a new perspective on the beauty in our universe that you just won't get from the run-of-the-mill pop science docs.
Might want to skip the other two though.
i know 3d isnt new tech but the ability to capture it seems to be coming on in leaps and bounds.
did anyone read the review of some new 3d tech on gizmondo? apparently it is breathtaking and shouldnt be expensive to get into production as its a tech demo at the minute.
basically 2 guys from the movies thought the current tech was shite and did their own thing, which blows the competition away
i have only seen 1 new movie in 3d - avatar and while it looked ok the crappy glasses killed the colour saturation and brightness. it looked far better on blu-ray on my home cinema to be honest.
we need glasses free (out soon if not now) and great viewing angles.
i do think its the future and would love to watch some footy in 3d and play games too. the tech needs to improve but it is doing. remember when everyone said LCD would be crap for TV compared to CRT? and the people that said 5.1 etc would be a novelty?
the fake blurred out FOV shit needs to go. my eyes naturally wander about and i dont like not being able to focus on something because its blurred. they do this with games now too which i find annoying.
Seconded, thirded, whatever on the FOV problem. Headache guaranteed there.
The problem is that dropping the use of depth-of-field removes the most powerful tool in a film director's arsenal for getting the audience to concentrate on the bit he's trying to emphasise. It's also nigh-on impossible for live action to film with a depth of field permitting everything between the camera and infinity to be in focus in all bar the strongest light levels.
The other snag is they'd have to either shoot the film twice or post-process the 2D version to add the depth-of-field effects. Presumably post-production depth-of-field for 2D would look about as good as 3D conversions on 2D material do. I.e. Shit.
Works well for animated features though.
A giant corporation like Sony loves a new fad like 3D because it gives them plenty of opportunities to gouge people of their cash. They can make money charging extra to see the movie. They can sell a rake of shiny new '3D enabled' TVs. They probably make something off the glasses too. A great chance to cash in if they can persuade the public it's this year's must-have gadget.
There's a reason 3D has never taken off in the past, and I won't be the least bit surprised when, after the novelty has worn off in a year or two, it sinks like a stone yet again.
I mean, The Great Gatsby in 3D? WTF?
2 examples of 3d i quite liked
first was at the british film museum in london. In one area they had a large (but not cinema sized) maybe 80 inch screen, that appeared to be floor projected, that was projecting vivid 3d images, actually looked lke they were floating, projected hologram style. Now, these were just objects, i think they had a shoe, and a football, but they were spinning and in good colour, and, no glasses needed. was a, 'look what we can do now, with a bit of work, could be really good' type thing.
2nd, was at the planetarium in NYC's museum of natural history. wasn't 3d as such, and again, no glasses, but was so impressive, that it felt like 3d, just because of the massive curved ceiling based screen.
3d in cinemas though, i can take it or leave it, i've seen a few, not particularly impressed by any of them, and as many others have mentioned, I saw Avatar in 3d at the imax, also watched it at home when it was broadcast on TV, and i was finding it easier to watch on the TV becasue it was all in focus, all the time.
I think that is my main bug with 3d films, is that you are told which bit of the frame to focus on, because as Shakje mentioned, apart fromt the 3d elements, its all out of focus....
3D - the emoticon for TeaBagging...
agree with Joeman
I am also agree 3D is the future of cinema but now 4D come with advance feature.
There are certain movies that could use 3D in a good way.. but they're using it on movies that really shouldn't have it, ruins the movie when you're not wearing 3D glasses...