Take THIS Roger "the Grouch" Ebert! - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 32 Old 06-15-2009, 06:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Pining for the Taiga
Posts: 12,788
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 85
From Digital Cinema Report:

Hollywood's Corporate Delusion
Submitted by Nick Dager on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 16:54.

* Big Picture
* The Big Picture

The first big summer of stereoscopic 3D movies is underway and so far the early box office and critical returns are overwhelmingly positive. Audiences have flocked in big numbers to both Monsters vs. Aliens and Up and critics have generally praised both movies. But 3D itself still has its detractors. One of the most prominent and most vocal of these is the venerable film critic Roger Ebert. In a recent lengthy blog entry he called the 2D version of Up the true film and he referred to the whole notion of stereoscopic 3D as Hollywood's mass corporate delusion." Never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that I would take Hollywood's side against someone like Ebert, a man I've respected for decades. But in this case Hollywood isn't just the guys in suits who - right or wrong - many of us sometimes believe don't really care about movies as an art form. In this case Hollywood is also the entire creative community, the people who are pouring their hearts and souls into understanding the possibilities of this new, immersive storytelling capability. In this case Ebert isn't merely wrong, he clearly just doesn't get it.

First a look at the numbers.

Monsters vs AliensDreamworks Animation's Monsters vs. Aliens opened on 7,300 screens in 4,104 theatres nationwide and 2,080 of the screens were 3D. Those 3D screens, roughly a third of the total, accounted for more than half of the $58.2 million dollars earned at the box office.

By comparison, Pixar's Up opened on 6,700 screens in 3,766 theatres nationwide and 1,534 of the screens were 3D. The 3D screens represented under a quarter of the total and accounted for more than half of the $68.2 million the movie earned.

The premiums that theatres currently charge for 3D (and which they won't be able to do in a very short time) obviously accounted for some of that revenue. But, anecdotally, the AMC theatre where I saw Up in 3D also had it playing in 2D. I spoke to the manager after the movie and he said most performances of the 3D version had sold out - for a three dollar premium - while ticket sales were weak for the 2D version.

Both movies could have benefited from more 3D-capable screens and, in a situation that will get more pronounced before it gets better, Monsters could really have benefited if it could have continued to play in 3D in theatres after Up opened but, in most cases, theatres currently only have one 3D-capable screen. Carmike was the only chain that I was able to find that was able to have both films running in 3D in the same theatre on a widespread basis.

UpEbert does raise one 3D issue that can't be disputed. In most theatres the projectors can still deliver a much brighter 2D image than 3D image. Current stereoscopic 3D projection technology is not as bright as it should be or as it needs to be for 3D to move beyond this early phase. But no one understands this better than the projector manufacturers and they are all working on the problem. And they will solve it soon. It would certainly help their cause in that effort to have all the VPF agreements completed so that more money can start to flow into this business.

Ebert's blog entry on Up and 3D is too long to quote completely here but you can access it on his website.

For me, this is the most critical - and inaccurate - paragraph:

VertigoThere is also the annoyance of 3D itself. It is a marketing gimmick designed (1) to justify higher ticket prices, and (2) make piracy harder. Yet as most of the world will continue to use 2D, pirated prints will remain a reality. The effect of 3D adds nothing to the viewing experience, and I have never once heard an audience member complain that a movie is not in 3D. Kids say they "like" it, but kids are inclined to say they "like" anything that is animated and that they get to see in a movie theater. It is the responsibility of parents to explain this useful truth: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Every single frame of a 3D movie gives you something to look at that is not necessary.

Ebert is wrong on every point. First, 3D is currently justifying higher tickets prices because of simple supply and demand. Period. When enough theatres have 3D screens, premium pricing will be a thing of the past. Second, 3D will, in fact, make piracy harder. Third, people don't need to complain that a movie isn't in 3D - a rather intellectually empty argument to make in the first place - but rather they're choosing 3D over 2D in significant numbers and paying a premium to do it. See point one above.

Fourth, I won't even deal with what kids like or dislike. If you're a parent, you get that one immediately. If you aren't, nothing I can say will convince you of anything.

Triplets of BellevilleFive, as for if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I grew up in the Midwest, too, and this old adage is more appropriate when talking about aging cars than it is creative endeavors. For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Vertigo but I'd be willing to bet that if digital stereoscopic 3D was available when he envisioned that classic movie and created that signature shot Hitchcock would have at least considered incorporating 3D elements into it. He certainly wouldn't have dismissed the idea out of hand. Much in the same way that he decided to shoot the movie in color and have the actors talk. The people he was trying to reach with his story had moved past the days of silent, black and white movies, an art form that Hitchcock understood as well as anyone.

The arguments that Ebert is making are the same arguments that were made a century ago by people who insisted that silent movies were the pure art form and talking pictures were - take your pick - a fad, a nuisance or an abomination. Utter nonsense. Why? Artists use all the tools at their disposal to tell their stories. In 2005 actor/director George Clooney shot Good Night and Good Luck in black and white because he felt that it enhanced the story he wanted to tell. And filmmakers still make silent movies when it suits their creative vision. The Triplets of Belleville from 2003 - essentially a silent movie - is just one recent award-winning example.

The transition to stereoscopic 3D is the same as the transition to sound, in that it is simply a tool that creative people can use to enhance their vision of the story they're telling. And the creative community is beginning to embrace the immersive storytelling potential of 3D in a big way. And audiences seem to be saying, through the extra money that they're spending at the box office, that they enjoy what 3D has to offer, especially when it's an integral part of a good story. This is not a mass corporate delusion. This is the dawning of a new era in movies and everyone involved in the movie business from filmmakers to exhibitors and filmgoers to film critics has much to learn about stereoscopic 3D. This is the beginning of that education. This is summer school.
CINERAMAX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 Old 06-15-2009, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Nick has some good points. Especially: "This is the dawning of a new era in movies and everyone involved in the movie business from filmmakers to exhibitors and filmgoers to film critics has much to learn about stereoscopic 3D. This is the beginning of that education."

While 3D seems likely to be a "new era" for animation, I am skeptical that it will gain that appellation for conventional live action films.
R Johnson is offline  
post #3 of 32 Old 06-16-2009, 06:30 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post


While 3D seems likely to be a "new era" for animation, I am skeptical that it will gain that appellation for conventional live action films.

Agree completely. I see this a nice boon for animated releases as a way to add to the experience especially for children.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #4 of 32 Old 06-16-2009, 07:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Lawguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I was very skeptical about 3d at first. But, after I saw Monsters versus Aliens with my daughter, I am now less so. I really think that 3d added very much to the overall experience.

I think the problem will be that we will see waves of 3d films done badly. It will be tacked on to everything. Eventually people will get tired of it, because they will see it poorly implemented more often than not. This is how a fad works. I hear that Up does not benefit much from 3d for example.

Let's see how it works with James Cameron's Avatar. If it can work well in non-animated films, perhaps it may have a future.

Affable Nitwit
Lawguy is offline  
post #5 of 32 Old 06-16-2009, 07:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

While 3D seems likely to be a "new era" for animation, I am skeptical that it will gain that appellation for conventional live action films.

I think the porn industry may disagree.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #6 of 32 Old 06-16-2009, 07:54 AM
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 4,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

I think the porn industry may disagree.

Only if they play it in feel around http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCq_nzlou0Q
LJG is offline  
post #7 of 32 Old 06-16-2009, 08:12 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Please say that value added with smellovision will not be part of it.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #8 of 32 Old 06-16-2009, 06:50 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
3D has always been a gimmick and it always will be because we as humans don't see the world like that.

The only question that remanins to be answered is . . .

Is it enough of a gimmick to finally succeed and be called; "an improvement" to movie presentation?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #9 of 32 Old 06-16-2009, 11:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 50
I agree that it can look good in certain applications. I think the Coke museum's 3d exhibit is pretty neat and effective. Everyone should check that out at Cedia. The last movie I saw I didn't really like in 3d. Hopefully, it will get to the point that I like it as much as Peter.

Call AVS For the Best Deals!!!


My new favorite game is Stop the Bots
Ericglo is offline  
post #10 of 32 Old 06-17-2009, 08:54 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

The last movie I saw I didn't really like in 3d. Hopefully, it will get to the point that I like it as much as Peter.

Just asking. If you find that you really don't care for it why would hope that you would like it as much as Peter ? I see it as gimmick,a way to get people back into theaters and I see it as being a fun thing especially for animation but as a bread a butter technique to improve the film experience I don't see it.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #11 of 32 Old 06-17-2009, 11:30 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Successful "gimmicks" that became improvements to movie presentation:

1. Multi-Track Audio

2. 35mm Anamorphic cinematography

Unsuccessful "gimmicks" that stayed gimmicks and dissappeared:

1. 3 Strip Cinerama

2. Ultra Panavision

3. Super Panavision

4. Sensurround

5. Anaglyph 3D

6. Smell-O-Vision

7. VistaVision

The list is long and distinguished. Lots of "gimmicks" with very few becomming part of the foundation of movie presentation. Sometimes it was the cost factor, while other times it was probably just the silliness of the idea.

3D for animated/all CGI movies? Could go the distance. 3D for live action movies? Looks like the deck is stacked against it's success.

My opinion of course.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #12 of 32 Old 06-17-2009, 06:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Pining for the Taiga
Posts: 12,788
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Just asking. If you find that you really don't care for it why would hope that you would like it as much as Peter ? I see it as gimmick,a way to get people back into theaters and I see it as being a fun thing especially for animation but as a bread a butter technique to improve the film experience I don't see it.

Art

Your position is duly noted, however on behalf of those of us that will invest thousands of hours to attempt to make it work in all it's possible iterations, please curb the negativity. Give the technology a chance to prove itself.

One thing is for sure the Titan 3-D in 1080p videogaming was absolutely insane. As good as Monsters Vs Aliens except interactive, really sharp.

I will comment on all the other goodies.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #13 of 32 Old 06-17-2009, 09:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas Area
Posts: 2,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

Nick has some good points. Especially: "This is the dawning of a new era in movies and everyone involved in the movie business from filmmakers to exhibitors and filmgoers to film critics has much to learn about stereoscopic 3D. This is the beginning of that education."

While 3D seems likely to be a "new era" for animation, I am skeptical that it will gain that appellation for conventional live action films.

I truly believe that 3D is great for animation, but not so much for live action. Unless it can look no different than real life, live action 3D adds little to nothing to the movie going experience.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
post #14 of 32 Old 06-17-2009, 11:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Pining for the Taiga
Posts: 12,788
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Gentlemen 3D has caught the DGA and ACE by surprise. It's like driving nascar with learners permit-someone has said.

They will catch up. G-Force promises to have EXTREMELY CONVINCING LIVE ACTION, the trailers looked pretty impressive. Besides 3-D sports works OUR OF THE BOX.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #15 of 32 Old 06-18-2009, 12:31 AM
 
troglobite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

he referred to the whole notion of stereoscopic 3D as “Hollywood’s mass corporate delusion."

That pretty much sums it up. Ebert is 100% correct. It's a gimmick plain and simple. The next step is projected holograms. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYsg7_EHcU

That's only the beginning, one day we'll even get full color versions of the princess Leia holograms. Holograms are the future not stereoscopic. Stereoscopic has been around since people first started taking pictures in the late 1800s. There's a reason it's not taken off. It's utterly stupid. You shouldn't have to wear glasses to watch movies. No this current 3d gimmick beat Captain EO. Even though it was a cool movie, it was a gimmick too and would get boring having all movies made like Captain EO.

In the future genetic manipulation will make the need for anyone to wear glasses obsolete and people will consider glasses as barbaric as using leeches for "medicine."

Stereoscopic images are FAKE 3d. It tricks your eye into seeing a stationary 3d image. Real 3d doesn't work that way, watch the video. With real 3d you have parallax which isn't possible with this garbage, meaning the person next to you sees a different image from a different perspective than you do.

This stuff is eye fatiguing. I don't need to wear glasses, so why start? It's not fun. Glasses give me this weird fuzzy feeling on my nose and I constantly want to itch it. That takes away the whole joy of just watching the screen. All I can do is think how annoying the glasses feel on my nose and the glare from the lenses causing flares worse than in the the Star Trek flick.

Nintendo even did this thing called the VirtualBoy. It sucked too. Every so many years this fad comes and leaves. I just hope technology it doesn't stay longer and movies that would have been perfectly fine in 2d. just because it's better. If Ebert would put up a petition to stop this filth, I'd sign it right now. Again holograms are the future, not this.

So in short, GO AWAY YOU VILE 3D!
troglobite is offline  
post #16 of 32 Old 06-24-2009, 05:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Just asking. If you find that you really don't care for it why would hope that you would like it as much as Peter ? I see it as gimmick,a way to get people back into theaters and I see it as being a fun thing especially for animation but as a bread a butter technique to improve the film experience I don't see it.

Art




Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Your position is duly noted, however on behalf of those of us that will invest thousands of hours to attempt to make it work in all it's possible iterations, please curb the negativity. Give the technology a chance to prove itself.

One thing is for sure the Titan 3-D in 1080p videogaming was absolutely insane. As good as Monsters Vs Aliens except interactive, really sharp.

I will comment on all the other goodies.

I may not like it now, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't get to the point that I prefer it to regular movies. As technology advances, the new and future digital pjs may give 3d credibility. Your right though, as it stands now it seems to me closer to gimmick.

Call AVS For the Best Deals!!!


My new favorite game is Stop the Bots
Ericglo is offline  
post #17 of 32 Old 06-24-2009, 06:03 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Your position is duly noted, however on behalf of those of us that will invest thousands of hours to attempt to make it work in all it's possible iterations, please curb the negativity. Give the technology a chance to prove itself.

One thing is for sure the Titan 3-D in 1080p videogaming was absolutely insane. As good as Monsters Vs Aliens except interactive, really sharp.

I will comment on all the other goodies.

Gaming seems to be one area where 3D would be perfectly suited and would open up all sorts of opportunities.

I heard a discussion about 3D this morning on NPR in which a gentleman working on the technology at USC said that the goal would hopefully be to see as many as twenty films released in a year in 3D. The host said she questioned how this would add anything to the experience naming a few recent films (The Reader being one).

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #18 of 32 Old 06-25-2009, 10:49 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Pining for the Taiga
Posts: 12,788
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Live sports are a great untapped potential for 3-D Basketball (dunking and 3 point shots are surreal) plus football too.

It is a matter of time for Indy films to master the mdeium too.

My Dinner with Andre 3-D is the goal of the DGA.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #19 of 32 Old 08-11-2009, 02:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by troglobite View Post

So in short, GO AWAY YOU VILE 3D!

That's easy, just close one of your eyes, and voila. you got yourself the 2d version.

Making 3d go away for real life might be more challenging though, because at least current 3d movies can't do parallax. (this might not be true for long in 3d games though, if they get some head/eye tracking going)

But in all seriousness, to all the people that dislike 3d:
Go see the 2d version instead, this reminds me of all the people complaining for the content in TV shows and how it shouldn't be aired for X reason.
If you don't like it, avoid it, there's plenty of people that don't feel the same way as you do.
Kamus is offline  
post #20 of 32 Old 08-13-2009, 03:32 AM
 
troglobite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamus View Post

If you don't like it, avoid it, there's plenty of people that don't feel the same way as you do.

Easier said than done! What happens when some psycho like George Lucas decides to completely modify all his movies to 3d? What then? I don't have the option to see a non-fuzzy version of Star Wars, not A New Hope, not super duper special edition, etc. My only option is the laser disc version, but that version has problems with the aspect ratio changing in the middle of the film, let alone still being fuzzy. The DVD version of the laser disc as an "extra" is a joke! My problem is when overly zealous directors misuse it by making it the only available option. So I really really hope more people do feel like I do and "the Grouch" too.
troglobite is offline  
post #21 of 32 Old 09-21-2009, 10:59 AM
PLB
Senior Member
 
PLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Some pertinent facts about 3-D movies:
  • All movies are 3-D. This because the human vision system is 3-D. Humans infer a 3-D reality fron the 2-D image on their retina. There are about six 3-D cues of which binocular parallax is but one. When you watch Casablanca you perceive Rick's Place as a 3-D location. When Bogie walks in front of Bergman you don't think he is walking through her.
  • 3-D is a plot to get the public to go back to the theaters. Jay Epstein's site explains this. In the forties all movie revenues came from ticket sales. Today that just isn't so. The primiere movie makers like Lucas, Speilberg, Cameron, and Zemeckis view declining ticket sales as a tragedy. They have been pushing 3-D for years in an effort to bring back the viewing habits of their childhoods.
  • 3-D is periodic. It comes and goes. It is not a trend - more like a pulse. Home TV brought us Bwana Devil in the early fifties. In the seventies we got 3-D porn. Today we have 3-D animated cartoons.
  • 3-D is inherently gimmicky. What we call 3-D is not needed for storytelling. We see the third dimension just fine without the glasses. In order for the audience to get their money's worth the film makers insert special 3-D scenes. For example both the fifties House of Wax and the recent Journey to the Center of the Earth had a scene where for no good reason a character shoots a yo-yo in your face (or was it paddle ball?). That sort of thing very seldom happens to me.
  • Binocular parallax is a near field cue. Motion parallax works at greater distances. For example if you look at the telephone poles you see when driving along in the country they seem to move faster than the mountains in the background. You therefore infer the third dimension. Close one eye and try the same thing - no difference. Binocular parallax only works up close. So if you have an effect like movie 3-D, you have to put it right in the audience's face. Again 3-D must be gimmicky.

    Remember I'm not against gimmicks, but 3-D advocates speak of it as if it were a technique for enhancing realism. Not so. 3-D movies always look less like reality - not more.
  • The Home Theater is the natural abode of 3-D - mostly for reasons of hygene. There are two major 3-D systems - active and passive. In a passive system you wear polarized glasses that convey two separte video streams into your eyes. These glasses look like sunglasses and indeed they are sunglasses. The picture you see is therefore rather dim. Active glasses have a little bit of circuitry that operates each lens like a shutter. They flick so fast that you don't notice that the right eye gets one video stream and the left another. The passive glasses are cheaper. You can let the audience keep them. The active glasses cost too much to discard and so they must be collected as the audience leaves the theater. But before you can issue them again to the next audience they must be cleaned. There are vendors who sell glasses washers for just this purpose but glasses washing hasn't cuaght on.

    At home this isn't a problem. So we can expect that active shutter 3-D glasses will be available for high end Home Theaters. The problem is not technical but rather marketing. The studios are not interested in making the Home Theater experience better. They have little incentive to issue new movies in 3-D for home sales.
PLB is offline  
post #22 of 32 Old 09-28-2009, 04:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Pining for the Taiga
Posts: 12,788
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 85
PLB compelling arguments and very well delivered, still I disagree.

A good Dolby 3D installation projecting on a woven screen (instead of the volley ball net effect created by RealD systems large perf silver screen), given a good illumination is a hard thing to replicate in 2D.

Keep in mind that whatever extra parallax the 3D is giving us is enough to trigger neural action in the brain normally not existent with 2-d. I am a big fan of 3-D done right (which excludes all Imax and most real-d's).
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #23 of 32 Old 09-29-2009, 10:20 AM
Senior Member
 
GI Joe Sixpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

Some pertinent facts about 3-D movies:

Some facts mixed with opinions, I would say. Characterizing a marketing strategy as a "plot" is hardly unbiased wording. And just because 3D has been periodic doesn't mean it always will be. The jury's still out on that one. "Inherently gimmicky" is also opinion, and based again on history. We're already seeing signs that some of the creative types can restrain themselves. (Others, unfortunately, cannot.) Avatar will probably be the acid test. After all the hype about how the movie's use of 3D will stimulate your brain in new ways (or something to that effect), if the film ends up looking gimmicky then the future of 3D will be in peril (again).

Your argument that 3D is less suitable for theaters than in the home because of hygiene doesn't wash (please excuse the pun). First, the RealD system with cheap, passive, throwaway (or personally re-usable) glasses is by far the predominant one, so the issue of hygiene need affect only the minority of theaters that don't use RealD (or MasterImage). Second, have you any proof that washing hasn't caught on? (Washing applies also to the passive glasses from Dolby, not just active glasses, because they're also too expensive to give away.) Third, any proof or anecdotes that people have caught anything from glasses that weren't thoroughly washed with every use? Here I'll grant you that perception is more important than reality. Patrons thinking the glasses are unhygienic would be enough, regardless of reality. But I would argue that theaters know this, so they would be keen to avoid dirty glasses.

Finally, you say the glasses ARE sunglasses. You know better than that, otherwise you have no business presenting supposed "facts." And you say that with passive glasses "the picture you see is therefore rather dim." Since you don't say that about active you leave the impression that the active systems are brighter, which really implies "more efficient" since actual on-screen brightness depends on many other factors (including screen size, screen gain, lamp choice, etc) and is constrained by digital cinema projection standards. In reality, passive and active were actually reasonably close in efficiency, but now passive can be higher (RealD XL). This is something you should also know, assuming you have any actual technical knowledge of these 3D systems.
GI Joe Sixpack is offline  
post #24 of 32 Old 12-11-2009, 10:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Well, Roger Ebert posted his review earlier and....he gave it 4 stars. He said he got the same feeling he got from the first time he watched Star Wars: A New Hope. He was bashing the preview and calling 3D a gimmick before. I guess Cameron has turned him into a believer.

Roger Ebert.com - Avatar

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #25 of 32 Old 12-24-2009, 09:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

So we can expect that active shutter 3-D glasses will be available for high end Home Theaters.

And that is it right there. For 3-D to really take off (in the home), it needs to be readily available, not just high end.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #26 of 32 Old 12-24-2009, 03:33 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And that is it right there. For 3-D to really take off (in the home), it needs to be readily available, not just high end.

LOL - take off. You mean like HDTV? Well HD broadcasts began in 1998. So when did HDTV take off? Was it 2005 or 2006? I can't remember.

And each CEM decides which 3D format they want to present using their display. The encoding is frame sequential (ASG), which can easily be converted to circular polarization, or time sequential or checkerboard or any of the other 3D methods.

The issue is the size of the display. Other than small displays that are supposed to be used with the viewer inches away (like for a PC monitor), it may be a case of large displays will be the norm due to how 3D looks on a display with the viewer sitting back the average of 9 to 10 feet from the display.

There are 10 million PS3's in the USA alone. And all of them can become 3D BD players as soon as Sony releases the FW UP.

What format do you know of that on Monday, nothing existed. On Tuesday, there are 10+ million players?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #27 of 32 Old 12-24-2009, 05:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LOL - take off. You mean like HDTV? Well HD broadcasts began in 1998. So when did HDTV take off? Was it 2005 or 2006? I can't remember.

For any new format to "take off", there must be reason for it. In part this is why BD didn't launch quite the way SONY had hoped. Either the titles were not avaiable or people (the masses) though it wasn't much better. Of course we know BD compared to DVD is like chalk and cheese.
Quote:


And each CEM decides which 3D format they want to present using their display. The encoding is frame sequential (ASG), which can easily be converted to circular polarization, or time sequential or checkerboard or any of the other 3D methods.

AT both CEDIA and SMPTE in Sydney last year, there was 6 competing formats ranging from LCD shutter glasses to a system using no glasses. Personally I'd like to see a consumer version of the current Dolby 3-D system. Of course this would only work for projector owners and why it has not happended.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #28 of 32 Old 12-24-2009, 06:06 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

For any new format to "take off", there must be reason for it. In part this is why BD didn't launch quite the way SONY had hoped. Either the titles were not avaiable or people (the masses) though it wasn't much better. Of course we know BD compared to DVD is like chalk and cheese.

And S3D compared to any TV be it SDTV or HDTV is like apples to bricks.

And you never addressed the PS3 issue?

Quote:


AT both CEDIA and SMPTE in Sydney last year, there was 6 competing formats ranging from LCD shutter glasses to a system using no glasses. Personally I'd like to see a consumer version of the current Dolby 3-D system. Of course this would only work for projector owners and why it has not happended.

CEM's can do whatever they want when it comes to displaying 3D on their 3DTV. They can use any one of the 6 methods (most popular) of creating 3D images. All can be converted from frame sequential 3D (what is encoded on a BD) because there are seperate L & R eye images to start with.

Autostereoscopic 3D is years away (no glasses) due to the complexity of the technology. The biggest drawback is that to successfully show it, you need more than 2 cameras to record the multiple views required by Auto 3D displays. 2 cameras = 2 views. Auto 3D will need 8 to 10 views.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #29 of 32 Old 12-25-2009, 05:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


And you never addressed the PS3 issue?

I don't own one.



[/quote]CEM's can do whatever they want when it comes to displaying 3D on their 3DTV. They can use any one of the 6 methods (most popular) of creating 3D images. All can be converted from frame sequential 3D (what is encoded on a BD) because there are seperate L & R eye images to start with.

Autostereoscopic 3D is years away (no glasses) due to the complexity of the technology. The biggest drawback is that to successfully show it, you need more than 2 cameras to record the multiple views required by Auto 3D displays. 2 cameras = 2 views. Auto 3D will need 8 to 10 views.[/quote]

That no glasses display required the viewer to stand in specific locations or they didn't see 3D, rather 2 staggered images.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #30 of 32 Old 12-25-2009, 06:11 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

PLB compelling arguments and very well delivered, still I disagree.

A good Dolby 3D installation projecting on a woven screen (instead of the volley ball net effect created by RealD systems large perf silver screen), given a good illumination is a hard thing to replicate in 2D.

Keep in mind that whatever extra parallax the 3D is giving us is enough to trigger neural action in the brain normally not existent with 2-d. I am a big fan of 3-D done right (which excludes all Imax and most real-d's).

Peter,
Don't you agree that one still needs a pretty good size screen (considering seating distances) to get anything out of 3D at home ? I mean sitting across the living room from my 50" isn't going to make me get a chubby.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
Reply D-cinema Equipment and Theaters

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off