Jump to content

Is 3D really dead again or just resting?

Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

3D BD numbers are likely misleading too.  I have neither a 3D capable BD player or TV but I have at least one or two 3D BD movies simply because that's what was there, or there was some extra (besides the 3D) that was offered on that version of the release and not the regular BD.  Packaging other extras is, if you want to look at disc marketing in a cynical way, a means to manipulate the up-sell and pad the numbers so that they look more statistically relevant than they might actually be.


I've never seen a 3D BD in action anywhere but a retail outlet and can't name a single person that I know with a 3D BD setup in their home. 



edit: also, the sales figures they're keeping track of aren't sales to individuals but sales to the distribution channels.  So, for instance, Sony knows how many of a title they've sold to resellers, which means they count discs that are still un-sold to customers, sitting on shelves, which might one day end up in the $6 clearance bin with twenty other copies at a single store.  These will still be considered "sold".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy, all. First post - thanks for bein' here. ;)


I own a 3D TV (http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/lg-infinia-47lw5600/4505-6482_7-34468431.html) and a 3D BD player. It's a passive 3D system, and yes, that means half lines, and yes, that means some aliasing. And this is where I get most of my 3D - not in the theater.


And you know what? I don't give a crap. If the movie's worth watching in 3D, it's worth watching in 3D. The aliasing ain't that bad, and the feeling of depth is real. My favorite example is "Thor." A great film? No. A lot of fun? Hell, yes. (And funny, too! Nobody ever talks about the funny.) And for me, the 3D brings me more into the story, into the action, than 2D does. There's a thrill in seeing the characters I care about (I'm kind of a Marvel sap from way back), in a 3D space. It makes it more real for me.


I think another point that's worth noting is the difference between live action 3D and computer animated 3D. I've seen a noticeable difference in the quality of the 3D. The animated stuff is much more watchable, and I think that the 3D is better used in service of the story. (This is just a feeling at this point - haven't made a study of it.) I imagine this is because, since it's animated, the creators can put everything and everyone EXACTLY where they want them, when they want them, and at whatever angle. The amount of control is (I imagine, if we could calculate such things) exponentially greater.


Also, I notice one topic so far absent here, and if we're discussing 3D as a technology, and not just its uses for film, it should be brought up: 3D gaming. Now THAT is immature tech. I think it has most to do with the fact that the player is driving the experience, and it's just going too fast, and things are changing too quickly for the viewer to parse the 3D data. Spin around to roast that zombie - and there's no motion blur, you're looking at a wall, and then suddenly at an alleyway with the zombies running toward you - it's disorienting and obnoxious. And it's in gaming that I notice the aliasing more, and the loss of resolution. 


I'm a videographer for a living, so I know a thing or two, but I've never shot in 3D. For these purposes, I'm just a consumer who reeeeeeally likes his 3D TV. ;)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Yes, Glenn, people tell me I don't know the first thing about economics. 3D pushed digitalization and saved the cinema. I appreciate that much. Sales of bluray discs show a growing percentage of 3D. I guess plastic toys of Wolverine offered at McDonald's also statistically do better.

I scanned the list of films about to be presented in 3D, and all I think is, w.hy isn't there anything new? I don't say this is a hundred percent junk list, but I'm not looking forward to any one of them either. And if I would, I wished it was 2D. I was very anxious to see Prometheus, for example, but I was deeply disappointed. A good film doesn't need 3D, a bad film in 3D is like a foul fish covered with ketchup.

Economically 3D may not yet be dead. What am I talking about? Nothing a stockholder could understand, so I give up.

I respectfully suggest you view martin scorsese's Hugo & Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder on 3D blu ray if you have the chance. I beleive the medium added quite a bit of atmosphere to both excellent films. Yes, they are fine films in 2D as well, but 3D did enhance these wonderful movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...