The death of 3D?

[jgharding]

Good article in the Guardian about CES about lack of 3D products at CES.

 

Now it's all 4K!

 

I can finally say goodbye to headaches.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/11/ces-2013-journal-the-death-of-3d?CMP=twt_fd

[Andrew Reid]

Promising signs. With The Hobbit snubbed for almost all nominations at the Oscars and with the commercial death of 3D, there's no room for HFR any more either. Good riddance!

 

Another one: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852452/death-of-3d

[jgharding]

It just makes sense for it to go away I think.

 

The only 3D that actually "works" is parralax barrier screens on single-user devices, like the 3DS for example, and even that I found kinda pointless and a bit headachey.

 

In cinemas you have to use glasses-based solutions because of the varied audience positions, the only way to fix the strobing is to use double rates, making everything except 3D CG animation look like a cheap old TV series.

 

Glasses makes everything really dark, and then you forget the 3D is there anyway, until you're straining to see things. Then your (or at least my) eyes feel funny because the convergence point and focal plane don't match up.

 

It was such a cynical attempt to make everyone buy new TVs etc, I'm glad no-one cared.

[HurtinMinorKey]

If you think 3D is gone forever you're crazy. When it improves enough, and when people learn how to use it, it will be back for good.

[Bioskop.Inc]

How many times have they tried to push 3D on audiences since cinema began, 4 or 5 times? It goes away every single time, with its tail between its legs, until some marketing guy thinks they can make some money out of it again. Its always been a gimmick to get people back into the cinema.

 

Was recently surprised to find out that 'Dial M for Murder' was originally shot in 3D! Never knew that & am a bit curious, but still don't care enough.

 

The problem with 3D is that not a single Director or DP knows how to get the best out of it & so it doesn't really add a whole lot to the experience.

The Hobbit has been the worst 3D film i've seen so far, at times it looked like someone had carefully placed cardboard cut outs around the set!

I much preferred the Blue & Red cardboard glasses - if you're going to look like a dick in the cinema, at least do it in style! 

[Andrew Reid]

The problem with 3D is psychological, until the human mind gets rewired it won't work. For some applications the technology does have a future when it moves beyond ridiculously cheap glasses and an equally cheap software trick on your television. This current craze was driven by sales people not filmmakers although filmmakers who were also sales people (cough cough PJ) did have a good go at it :)

[richg101]

3d will always be confined to films for stupid people.  proper artists don't hide behind gimmicks.  Only when the world has no real artists left will 3d become normality in film making.

[HurtinMinorKey]

3d will always be confined to films for stupid people.  proper artists don't hide behind gimmicks.  Only when the world has no real artists left will 3d become normality in film making.

 

That's a silly thing to say. I think a better way to put it, is that 3D will suck until someone uses it effectively for an artistic purpose. 

[Bruno]

That's a silly thing to say. I think a better way to put it, is that 3D will suck until someone uses it effectively for an artistic purpose. 

 

Agreed, most 3D films are shot like that as the result of a studio decision, not a creative one, and the directors have to go with it even if they don't want to or know anything about 3D. And many of them are not even shot in 3D, they're just converted in post.

 

The technology we have at the moment may be far from perfect but it can work well, as you can see with CG animated movies, but for it to make a difference with live action movies, it needs to be part of the director's creative approach to the story. Pina used 3D in a sublime way.

 

Having said this, I personally wouldn't miss it if it's gone for good.

[AaronChicago]

3d will always be confined to films for stupid people.  proper artists don't hide behind gimmicks.  Only when the world has no real artists left will 3d become normality in film making.

 

James Cameron is one of the best Sci Fi/Action directors of all time. Critically acclaimed as well. Your post makes no sense.

[powderbanks]

3d can be used very effectively in cinema. the first 3d movie i saw was the new tron, in imax, and it was great. the hobbit in hfr 3d though...didn't like it at all.

 

there were a couple curved display 3d tv's (the couple i saw pictures of were 3 panels) that looked like it had promise; as far as 3d in the home goes, but i can't see it being 'the future' of tv. though the trouble of content for 4k televisions (aside from the price obviously) could be harder to contend with for the time being. as far as 3d being 'dead' i think the new oculous rift is proving otherwise

[Andrew Reid]

Actually I preferred Avatar in 2D.

 

Rich is right. 3D adds nothing artistic. It adds nothing to the story. Artists - i.e. proper filmmakers - don't need it.

 

It IS a gimmick to sell cinema tickets and televisions. Wake up! Look at the production cost of the tech, it is so cheap. Pair of plastic sun glasses and a software routine which any open source media player can do on a Windows laptop!

 

It isn't a magical future technology that is somehow not quite there yet. It never even got started. The current technology is a replay of the 1960's. What is needed is for genuinely new technology to get started and develop into something actually useful and artistic, preferably before it hits our cinemas.

[richg101]

James Cameron is one of the best Sci Fi/Action directors of all time. Critically acclaimed as well. Your post makes no sense.

 

 

James Cameron is a relic of an age now gone.  T2 and Aliens are flawless.  Avatar is not in the same league and even if it were, it gained zero benefit from being screened in 3D.  2D was more than adequate.  the 3D option was to make more money, not to benefit story telling. 

 

 

That's a silly thing to say. I think a better way to put it, is that 3D will suck until someone uses it effectively for an artistic purpose. 

 

Maybe.  We'll see.  

 

Agreed, most 3D films are shot like that as the result of a studio decision, not a creative one, and the directors have to go with it even if they don't want to or know anything about 3D. And many of them are not even shot in 3D, they're just converted in post.

 

It takes a good director to say no and be listened to by the studio.  Hopefully the skillful directors will put their foot down and say that they don't want their work bastardised for the sake of a fad.  as these good guys die out, we'll see more and more stuff like the recent remake of Clash of the Titans where Ray Harryhausen's legacy was burned to ashes in a second by a kid who doesnt understand anything more than what is in front of his nose at that very point in time.  I bet the people who produced The Thing (2011) would have shot in 3d if they had only had the budget.  John Carpenter on the other hand wouldn't.     

[/p/]

3D won't die because it's their anti-piracy weapon. 3D will keep being pushed, maybe not as much in consumer land (yet) but definitely in hollywood land. So no, 3D is not going anywhere anytime soon. 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I promise you, one day, things that are not in 3D will be considered novelty.  Like shooting "Good Night and Good Luck" in BW, just for the the fun of it.  

 

And just because there have been a bunch of crappy movies made in 3D, doesn't mean 3D sucks. Tell me something. Have any of you seem a movie in 3D and thought, " damn, if only if it were not for the 3D, this would have been an excellent movie".  

 

In other words, don't confuse correlation with causality. And don't dismiss a particular artist's tool just because you don't understand how it might be used effectively. 

[powderbanks]

Actually I preferred Avatar in 2D.

 

Rich is right. 3D adds nothing artistic. It adds nothing to the story. Artists - i.e. proper filmmakers - don't need it.

 

It IS a gimmick to sell cinema tickets and televisions. Wake up! Look at the production cost of the tech, it is so cheap. Pair of plastic sun glasses and a software routine which any open source media player can do on a Windows laptop!

 

It isn't a magical future technology that is somehow not quite there yet. It never even got started. The current technology is a replay of the 1960's. What is needed is for genuinely new technology to get started and develop into something actually useful and artistic, preferably before it hits our cinemas.

 

they said the same thing about sound and color in cinema though..;) i'm not advocating 3d in movies, i think it's terrible; but the argument surrounding the artistic merit of 3d is the same as when film first originated, then the introduction of sound, then color, then digital, and so on. in some cases, it can work really well, but overall, i don't see it 'revolutionizing' cinema to a new point. but, where i think 3D will take off is with virtual reality stuff

 

And just because there have been a bunch of crappy movies made in 3D, doesn't mean 3D sucks. Tell me something. Have any of you seem a movie in 3D and thought, " damn, if only if it were not for the 3D, this would have been an excellent movie".  

 

 

yes..i saw the hobbit in 2D, then a few weeks later saw it in hfr 3D. it felt like watching a video game...for 3 hours. i didn't connect to the characters at all, if i hadn't seen it prior i wouldn't have understood anything that was going on, and it was overall, an unexpected journey into disappointment. i think it's great peter jackson took a gamble and was trying something different, but for me, it failed.

 

my feeling is that 3D (especially hfr) is nudging right up on the uncanny valley for some, if not most people. the illusion is too close to reality; and something about it forces your brain to reject it as ridiculous

[HurtinMinorKey]

they said the same thing about sound and color in cinema though.. ;) i'm not advocating 3d in movies, i think it's terrible; but the argument surrounding the artistic merit of 3d is the same as when film first originated, then the introduction of sound, then color, then digital, and so on. in some cases, it can work really well, but overall, i don't see it 'revolutionizing' cinema to a new point. but, where i think 3D will take off is with virtual reality stuff

 

 

yes..i saw the hobbit in 2D, then a few weeks later saw it in hfr 3D. it felt like watching a video game...for 3 hours. i didn't connect to the characters at all, if i hadn't seen it prior i wouldn't have understood anything that was going on, and it was overall, an unexpected journey into disappointment. i think it's great peter jackson took a gamble and was trying something different, but for me, it failed.

 

my feeling is that 3D (especially hfr) is nudging right up on the uncanny valley for some, if not most people. the illusion is too close to reality; and something about it forces your brain to reject it as ridiculous

So you're saying you thought The Hobbit in 2D was a great movie?

[powderbanks]

So you're saying you thought The Hobbit in 2D was a great movie?

 

i wouldn't say it's one of the all-time greats, but it was a good movie. in 3D, it was like watching the same movie, but not a movie..if that makes any sense...like it was trying to be something that it wasn't. the 3D took away from the story; it drew the attention to the visuals, sets, costume, makeup, etc, to the extent that it felt like it was a 3 hour camera test more so than a movie. add in the high frame rate and things just got weird. so yes, i'd say without 3D, the hobbit was a great movie; with 3D (specifically 3D hfr) it was mediocre at best

[Bruno]

Even though I don't particularly like it, 3D doesn't have to be non-artistic. Scorcese researched 3D movies from all ages before shooting Hugo, and you can clearly see it was shot with stereo in mind. Does it make it a better film? Probably not, but when you watch it in 2D there's a bunch of shots that kind of lose their purpose as they rely heavily on the 3D experience to be effective.

[AaronChicago]

Actually I preferred Avatar in 2D.

 

Rich is right. 3D adds nothing artistic. It adds nothing to the story. Artists - i.e. proper filmmakers - don't need it.

 

It IS a gimmick to sell cinema tickets and televisions. Wake up! Look at the production cost of the tech, it is so cheap. Pair of plastic sun glasses and a software routine which any open source media player can do on a Windows laptop!

 

It isn't a magical future technology that is somehow not quite there yet. It never even got started. The current technology is a replay of the 1960's. What is needed is for genuinely new technology to get started and develop into something actually useful and artistic, preferably before it hits our cinemas.

 

 

James Cameron is a relic of an age now gone.  T2 and Aliens are flawless.  Avatar is not in the same league and even if it were, it gained zero benefit from being screened in 3D.  2D was more than adequate.  the 3D option was to make more money, not to benefit story telling. 

 

 

 

Maybe.  We'll see.  

 

 

It takes a good director to say no and be listened to by the studio.  Hopefully the skillful directors will put their foot down and say that they don't want their work bastardised for the sake of a fad.  as these good guys die out, we'll see more and more stuff like the recent remake of Clash of the Titans where Ray Harryhausen's legacy was burned to ashes in a second by a kid who doesnt understand anything more than what is in front of his nose at that very point in time.  I bet the people who produced The Thing (2011) would have shot in 3d if they had only had the budget.  John Carpenter on the other hand wouldn't.     

 

The point isn't really what you preferred. The point is that it was James Cameron's decision to film in 3D, not the studios. He still stands behind the format. For richg101 to say its for stupid people is, well , stupid. : )