Is 3D about dead? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 130Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #1 of 941 Old 10-22-2013, 09:25 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.

I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.

So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.
cajieboy likes this.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 941 Old 10-22-2013, 10:54 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Troll warning!
dargo likes this.
Don Landis is online now  
post #3 of 941 Old 10-22-2013, 11:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
d james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Well I was wondering this myself for a while, but I don't think its going anywhere. I think people didn't see the value in it, thinking its only gimmicky because of hokey pop out. Now even movie reviewers are starting to see the light, that it does add a great amount of depth just like you're there, or looking into a window, which you can't get with 2d. True glasses are kind of a pain and it sucks they dim the picture, but with time this will change. I think the real barrier is the price point, maybe its still too new. Think about how long it took for blu ray to catch on, and still its not completely mainstream, there are still far more dvds being produced and sold compared to Blu-ray. Everytime I walk into a video store, its obvious dvd has a huge hold, but that hasn't killed are HD format.

Netflix just added a separate category for 3D and released it for everyone regardless of membership. Speaking of Gravity, I read that 80% of the sales for that movie were for the 3d version, the article stated that it made more money in 3d than avatar 3d ticket sales. I remember reading that it was only a few million extra to go 3d, so it would be a bad move for a studio to not jump on that to make ten times that or more back. I think some of the movies released over the summer would've made more money had they been in 3d such as the lone ranger. It also seems as though post 3d is getting better and I would assume cheaper. Look how good gravity was with its conversion. I think the real barrier is the price to have it, no one wants to go out and buy a new tv, and dvd player, when they probably already have something fairly new, plus those movies are way to much money
d james is offline  
post #4 of 941 Old 10-23-2013, 03:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gadgtfreek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,036
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Not much decent released on blu-ray in awhile? Have you been looking?

65" VT50 / BDP-S7200
Denon AVR-4520CI / Emotiva XPA-3
Klipsch RF82 II and RC62 II / Hsu VTF-15H (2)
Directv HR44-200 / HR24-500
gadgtfreek is online now  
post #5 of 941 Old 10-23-2013, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bravia3D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I don't think it is about dead. With releases like Man of Steel, Pacific Rim and Monsters University just coming out on blu-ray. There are many movies still coming in 3D!
SgtVideo likes this.

3D items I own:

Sony 46" LX900 active 3D set

Sony HMZ-T3 (Cushion pads and light blocker mod)

LG LW6500 passive 3D set

PS3 & PS4

Sony BDP-S570 BD3D player

JVC-GS-TD1 (with Cyclopital base extender)

Fujifilm W3

Sony Alpha 55 (for 3D panoramic photos)

Quadcopter + Zenmuse and GoPro Hero 3 (Filming...

bravia3D is online now  
post #6 of 941 Old 10-23-2013, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,936
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 65
As long as we get quality titles that are designed with 3D in mind, like Gravity, 3D at the movies will be fine. That film has made $289 million so far and is further proof that if you make a quality movie where the 3D adds to the experience, people will pay more to watch it. Hopefully the ratio of films made with 3D in mind (be they native or post-conversions) to those where the 3D is a bolted on afterthought will get better.

3D at home is a bit more iffy and I think it will remain very much a niche market for the foreseeable future. The manufacturers and studios seem to have gone out of their way to botch the rollout of 3D at the home, overpricing the hardware and forcing people to buy 4 disc sets just to get access to a 3D movie. Gaming on consoles has also been disappointing since the current generation (PS3, Xbox 360) really aren't powerful enough for high quality 3D. As long we continue to get the new 3D blockbusters and the occasional catalog title I for one will be happy.
old corps and SgtVideo like this.
TonyDP is offline  
post #7 of 941 Old 10-23-2013, 06:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
d james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

As long as we get quality titles that are designed with 3D in mind, like Gravity, 3D at the movies will be fine. That film has made $289 million so far and is further proof that if you make a quality movie where the 3D adds to the experience, people will pay more to watch it. Hopefully the ratio of films made with 3D in mind (be they native or post-conversions) to those where the 3D is a bolted on afterthought will get better.

3D at home is a bit more iffy and I think it will remain very much a niche market for the foreseeable future. The manufacturers and studios seem to have gone out of their way to botch the rollout of 3D at the home, overpricing the hardware and forcing people to buy 4 disc sets just to get access to a 3D movie. Gaming on consoles has also been disappointing since the current generation (PS3, Xbox 360) really aren't powerful enough for high quality 3D. As long we continue to get the new 3D blockbusters and the occasional catalog title I for one will be happy.

Yes I agree, I don't understand this whole 4 disc thing, they must have some kind of deal with manufactures or something, I mean I want the 3d disk, that's all, I don't need the dvd, regular blu ray or some ultraviolet crap that has zero value in my home. Sure they can still sell and market this type of package, but why force it on everyone. Some of those movies are just way overpriced, I can't believe I see movies at bestbuy like freight night for 44 dollars, Really? Who's going to spend that kind of money on that. Then there are the other movies that they could sell a lot of like house of wax 1953, but not at the 30 price point. Im sure people would be more willing to do a blind buy on such an old movie, if it was reasonably priced. It could be the greatest 3d ever made, but most people are not willing to spend that on an old movie when they can get something just released with better CGI effects and 7.1 sound.
dfergie and SgtVideo like this.
d james is offline  
post #8 of 941 Old 10-23-2013, 07:03 PM
Member
 
loader963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: VA USA
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I love 3d but admit that it will always be a minority compared to my 2d movies, mainly to lack of content. I also never understood 3d channels as i bet probably only 2% of people will watch a 30 minute (much less an hour) show entirely on couch without going to bathroom, kitchen, or just moving around. How ever i strongly disagree about 3d gaming being a failure. Maybe its the kid in me but i love 3d gaming and thinks it makes for a much more immersive experience. If ( and theres a good chance that its really when unfortunately) 3d fails i won't blame the consumers or the studios. However i will blame tv manufacturers. Wearing glasses doesnt matter to me as much as lower brightness, ghosting, less contrast, most tvs lack of game mode in 3d, lighter blacks and crushing shadow details. I admit no 3dtv has all of these problems but all 3dtvs have some of them.

TV: Sony KDL-70R550a
AV: Sony DH740
Center: Polk CS2 Series 2
L/R: Polk Monitor 70 Series 2
Side/Rear Surrounds: Polk Monitor 40 Series 2
Sub-woofers: Polk PSW10 (x2)
loader963 is offline  
post #9 of 941 Old 10-23-2013, 08:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

As long as we get quality titles that are designed with 3D in mind, like Gravity, 3D at the movies will be fine. That film has made $289 million so far and is further proof that if you make a quality movie where the 3D adds to the experience, people will pay more to watch it. Hopefully the ratio of films made with 3D in mind (be they native or post-conversions) to those where the 3D is a bolted on afterthought will get better.

3D at home is a bit more iffy and I think it will remain very much a niche market for the foreseeable future. The manufacturers and studios seem to have gone out of their way to botch the rollout of 3D at the home, overpricing the hardware and forcing people to buy 4 disc sets just to get access to a 3D movie. Gaming on consoles has also been disappointing since the current generation (PS3, Xbox 360) really aren't powerful enough for high quality 3D. As long we continue to get the new 3D blockbusters and the occasional catalog title I for one will be happy.

3d at home in my eyes will remain a niche until the average screen size gets a lot bigger or how people view content at home changes.

To me even on a 60" tv, 3d only works well if you sit closer then most and have the lights off and even then for films it isn't the same as a cinema experience. Now consider watching 3d at home using a front projector at 100 inches or larger. Suddenly it is an amazing and enveloping experience. 3d in cinemas isn't going anywhere and 3d at home will likely remain a slow growing niche.

As for the 3d roll out at home, near on every first generation device was terrible at 3d. Most either had massive issues with crosstalk, brightness or both. This no doubt has stunted the growth of 3d at home as it was simply pushed out in devices that technically could do 3d, but not in a way that was anywhere near good enough for most people. Also many had to not only buy a new television but a new player who's only benefit was often that it could also do 3d. So the desire people have had to upgrade hasn't been there yet, 4k with 3d is likely to do better as 3d will not be the only upgrade present. Plus 4k will likely lead to much larger screens which of course is a good thing. For example I use a ps3 as my blu-ray player, I have a front projector set up but had my ps3 not been updated to have 3d capability I would not yet have 3d at home for films as I would be waiting for a device that offered more then just added 3d.

We also must consider that a large number of people when watching films at home do so in a very casual manner, they will get up and make a drink or get something to eat etc and won't pause the film. Likewise they will also pull out their phone/laptop and browse the internet or similar and thus are watching the film in a much more casual manner that of course does not suite 3d viewing.

As for 3d always being a minority, we cannot say for certain. I however can see a future where non 3d content is as rare as black and white content is now. I however I don't fell this will occur in the near future and will take a very long time to happen (maybe even decades). As for 3d dying, I just can't see that happening, it is making more and more money every year, film makers are getting more apt at utilizing 3d effectively, we are continuously being able to show 3d with less artifacts and more then sufficient brightness, conversion to 3d and shooting in 3d is becoming less expensive etc.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #10 of 941 Old 10-23-2013, 09:01 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I guess what's really disappointing is that so many people are just opposed to 3D in general. You go online to places like this and yeah, the majority are going to say they love 3D, bring it on! But around my house at least, it seems like all I do is defend 3D. Some find it physically unbearable. I don't. My wife does. She could hardly watch Gravity. I never took my eyes off it. If they roll out 3D as a standard feature with 4K sets I guess that will be good news, but if not... 4K could be the next thing and 3D the old. Also, it really is a different kind of viewing like some have mentioned. I'm often on my laptop or iPad while watching TV, switching to 3D you have to put it down and focus on that. When company is over, I don't even bother with 3D anymore. Most everyone is on a portable device with their concentration split between that and whatever I have on TV. I haven't shared 3D content in a long time, I think if I did I might get some irritated looks. I generally just keep 3D to myself now and the kids if it's an appropriate movie.

As for TV content, I was sad to see N3D go, not ESPN though, I think we can all agree that was a waste. Since that channel was sponsored by Panasonic, has that impacted their manufacturing of new 3D equipment? In particular 3D camcorders? I've been considering buying a Z10k or waiting for a newer release. I'm just sort of on the fence right now because it seems like the market for 3D is still very niche. Right now my only option is buying 2 year old equipment or just going with a nice 2D camera. I'll be getting something in about 3 or 4 months so I've got time to think it over.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #11 of 941 Old 10-24-2013, 02:42 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 171
tomtastic- I shoot with many 3D rigs, including twin rigs. But, for casual shooting I always grab for one of my HDR TD10's. The reason is size. It shoots very good 3D quality and is not a chore to haul along all day at a crowded theme park. However, if I am working on a serious documentary, I will take my entire kit of cameras and shoot twin rigs, Z10k or TD10 or 3D1 as the scene calls for. When I'm out shopping or just visiting with the family, I usually like to carry even smaller than the TD10. I have a tiny pouch with my Panasonic 3D1 and a couple spare batteries that attaches to my belt same as my smart phone. If I shoot anything today, it goes in the camera as 3D. I don't think there is any more to offer in the technology for 3D camcorder that the Z10k doesn't now have. In the future, look for 4K recording with 3D camcorders. If you don't need that now, go ahead and select one of the 2 year old technologies for your one cam does all. Personally, I would select a TD20 if I were you.

But, I don't need everything to be 3D I watch. It's a nice treat to see a good movie in 3D. But I don't miss 3D for news, mundane dramas, sports, or even some thrillers. In most scifi's especially those with space travel, nature documentaries, children's animations, and action movies, I prefer to be in 3D with 7.1 surround sound. I want the maximum entertainment value I can get.
SgtVideo likes this.
Don Landis is online now  
post #12 of 941 Old 10-24-2013, 08:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
IIMO, with theaters able to show 3D at will, 3D aint going anywhere. I think its here to stay as long as they can dig themselves out of the 2D-conversion hole they dug themselves into.
tory40 is offline  
post #13 of 941 Old 10-25-2013, 06:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
d james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

IIMO, with theaters able to show 3D at will, 3D aint going anywhere. I think its here to stay as long as they can dig themselves out of the 2D-conversion hole they dug themselves into.

That's a good point I really didn't think about, they need to recoup all that money they spent converting all their theaters to 3D, so they aren't going to let it go away anytime soon
d james is offline  
post #14 of 941 Old 10-25-2013, 07:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by d james View Post

That's a good point I really didn't think about, they need to recoup all that money they spent converting all their theaters to 3D, so they aren't going to let it go away anytime soon

Nor are audiences, just look at what happens when a film utilizes 3d well (Gravity and over 80% of revenue coming from 3d screens n America which is even higher then Avatar).
FilmReverie is offline  
post #15 of 941 Old 10-26-2013, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kevin j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Evanston IL
Posts: 2,880
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
The soccer match between Real Madrid and F.C. Barcelona's going to be on beINSPORT 3D at 12pm et[the pregame's on in 3D now btw].Just a heads up.

If a movie or concert video or a TV show isn't on blu ray it darn well should be.

kevin j is online now  
post #16 of 941 Old 10-27-2013, 09:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
xhonzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Thornton, Colorado
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I hope it's here to stay, even if it remains niche.. But if it does fade back out, we all should be able to continue to play our extensive libraries we've all built.

Amiright?
xhonzi is offline  
post #17 of 941 Old 10-27-2013, 10:22 AM
Member
 
peterfram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 23
My 9 year old daughter said she is done with 3D about six months ago. She prefers movies at home and at the theater in 2D now. And, I noticed the number of 3D showings at local theaters dropped continuously over the past year with each new major movie release. Seems to have bottomed out recently. When we went to see Monsters University a week or so after it opened, they only had one 3D showing per day at the local theaters vs a dozen or so 2D showings at local theaters. New movies about a year earlier offered 4, 5 or 6 3D showings per day in the same theaters if I recall correctly.

I also regularly check top selling Blu ray lists on Amazon when movie shopping. I noticed that 3D versions of new releases have dropped much further in the rankings, compared to the 2D version, than they were earlier this year. It seems many consumers are no longer willing to spend a few dollars more to get the 3D Blu ray version.

So demand for 3D indeed appears to have declined rapidly this year. And my statistically invalid survey of young future movie content consumers indicates they have outgrown it.

3D capable is not that expensive to add as a feature to display devices. I expect it will continue to be an infrequently used optional feature listed on some TV's for years to come. Theaters will continue to offer 3D showings only if demand justifies it. It appears in some regions that demand for 3D is not enough to offer more than one 3D showing per day right now.
peterfram is offline  
post #18 of 941 Old 10-28-2013, 12:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterfram View Post

My 9 year old daughter said she is done with 3D about six months ago. She prefers movies at home and at the theater in 2D now. And, I noticed the number of 3D showings at local theaters dropped continuously over the past year with each new major movie release. Seems to have bottomed out recently. When we went to see Monsters University a week or so after it opened, they only had one 3D showing per day at the local theaters vs a dozen or so 2D showings at local theaters. New movies about a year earlier offered 4, 5 or 6 3D showings per day in the same theaters if I recall correctly.

I also regularly check top selling Blu ray lists on Amazon when movie shopping. I noticed that 3D versions of new releases have dropped much further in the rankings, compared to the 2D version, than they were earlier this year. It seems many consumers are no longer willing to spend a few dollars more to get the 3D Blu ray version.

So demand for 3D indeed appears to have declined rapidly this year. And my statistically invalid survey of young future movie content consumers indicates they have outgrown it.

3D capable is not that expensive to add as a feature to display devices. I expect it will continue to be an infrequently used optional feature listed on some TV's for years to come. Theaters will continue to offer 3D showings only if demand justifies it. It appears in some regions that demand for 3D is not enough to offer more than one 3D showing per day right now.

Meanwhile 80% of revenue for Gravity in its opening weekend came from 3d screenings, and in the second weekend 82% came from 3d screenings. 3d is still very popular, the problem is many have become hesitant as there has been far to large a number of tacked on conversions that range from incompetently done (clash of the titans) to competently done but still not adding to the film (Iron Man 3).

The problem is currently studios are using it as a cash grab and it is often not being driven by the film makers. In nearly every example of amazing 3d you will find the film makers where the ones pushing or shorting for 3d (Avatar, Coraline, Prometheus, Avengers, Titanic, Gravity, Hugo), and in nearly every example of 3d not working or at least not adding it was tacked on against the film makers wishes or intent (Clash of the Titans, Iron Man 3, The Last Airbender, Man of Steel). There are some misnomers of excellent 3d conversions that do add to the film that where not driving by the film makers but these are few and far between (Star Trek Into Darkness).

Basically what needs to happen is we need to see 3d only occur when it is what the film makers wanted to do. We also need to see it not only applied to big budget spectacle films. In Scorsese's own words on 3d "every subject matter can encompass this medium, really any subject can" and "when the image comes up and it's in 3d and you have that extra element it is special".
FilmReverie is offline  
post #19 of 941 Old 10-28-2013, 04:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked: 227
We watched Gravity 3D Saturday morning and then watched Prometheus at home Saturday night. The basic PQ with Prometheus was much better than Gravity. I was underwhelmed with the clarity of the majority of Gravity. Prometheus was crystal clear and pure candy to the eyes. The 3D with Gravity seemed forced. Much less engaging than say Avatar.and lacked the WOW factor. The 3D with Prometheus reinforced my love for 3D. So realistic you forgot you were watching 3D yet when you thought about it the WOW factor was every where. Especially the water fall scene at the beginning of the movie. Quite a bit of disappointment chatter coming from the folks leaving the theater.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #20 of 941 Old 10-28-2013, 05:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

We watched Gravity 3D Saturday morning and then watched Prometheus at home Saturday night. The basic PQ with Prometheus was much better than Gravity. I was underwhelmed with the clarity of the majority of Gravity. Prometheus was crystal clear and pure candy to the eyes. The 3D with Gravity seemed forced. Much less engaging than say Avatar.and lacked the WOW factor. The 3D with Prometheus reinforced my love for 3D. So realistic you forgot you were watching 3D yet when you thought about it the WOW factor was every where. Especially the water fall scene at the beginning of the movie. Quite a bit of disappointment chatter coming from the folks leaving the theater.

To be far Prometheus did have Dariusz Wolski as dop who is simply amazing. Also home vs cinema isn't a fair comparison for 3d, a well set up home dlp will kill anything that cinemas can do currently (i'm not sure what your set up is). Also if most where walking away disappointing I would strongly suggest the error was on the cinemas end as whilst I would not say gravity is gthe best 3d I have seen it is still extremely good. To top it off Prometheus I believe used better cameras which where more limited in Gravity due to how Gravity was shoot, Gravity's live action was also converted to 3d from 2d as a result of this whereas Prometheus was shoot entirely in 3d (though I'm sure like near on always they had to convert some shoots where the cameras lost sync etc).

On the plus side Dariusz Wolski and Ridley Scott are currently making another 3d film with one another. biggrin.gif
FilmReverie is offline  
post #21 of 941 Old 10-28-2013, 08:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,936
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

We watched Gravity 3D Saturday morning and then watched Prometheus at home Saturday night. The basic PQ with Prometheus was much better than Gravity. I was underwhelmed with the clarity of the majority of Gravity. Prometheus was crystal clear and pure candy to the eyes. The 3D with Gravity seemed forced. Much less engaging than say Avatar.and lacked the WOW factor. The 3D with Prometheus reinforced my love for 3D. So realistic you forgot you were watching 3D yet when you thought about it the WOW factor was every where. Especially the water fall scene at the beginning of the movie. Quite a bit of disappointment chatter coming from the folks leaving the theater.

Comparing Gravity at the movies to Prometheus at home is very much an apples and oranges comparison. I have never ever seen a movie that looked better at the theater than it did on one of my TVs at home. The home presentation is always sharper, clearer and far more colorful. I'll be curious to see how Gravity 3D looks at home when it is eventually released..

Everyone's opinions of what makes good 3D is different but, while I generally liked the 3D in Prometheus I found it didn't enhance my enjoyment of the film as much as the 3D in Gravity did. Paying a premium for 3D projection and glasses only to then watch a movie which you forget is in 3D for long stretches seems kind of pointless and strikes me as a self-defeating model for 3D to become more widely accepted. Personally, I think that for 3D to continue to thrive at the movie theater you need more exaggerated presentations that aren't afraid to draw attention to themselves and that stand out from conventional 2D movies. In that respect, I thought Gravity really worked as scenes like the one where the Sandra Bullock character is trying to escape the ISS really drew me into the experience to a degree that neither Prometheus or Avatar never did. The natively shot Journey to the Center of the Earth and even a post-conversion like Pacific Rim, with their exaggerated sense of depth strike me as far more engaging 3D experiences than most native 3D movies with conservative depth cues (Spider-Man, Jack the Giant Slayer, Dredd, etc.) and it is interesting to note that even James Cameron recently conceded that he should have gone more aggressive with the 3D in Avatar but backed off for fear of viewer fatigue, especially given the extended length of that movie.
Josh Z likes this.
TonyDP is offline  
post #22 of 941 Old 10-29-2013, 10:43 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 49
3D is going nowhere for several reasons in my opinion:-

1. Used properly 3D can be a very engaging movie going experience as Gravity has proved.
2. Its very popular in the far east and the population there is huge meaning big bucks for the studios.
3. The cost of equipping cinemas with 3D equipment need to be recouped.

It's slowed down that's for sure but largely because the suits in Hollywood made the idiotic mistake of trying to cash in on 3D with poor presentations and after thought conversions instead of allowing film makers who are comfortable with the format and can see how it can enhance their movies, to use it as they want too. Hopefully they will understand the lessons that the inappropriate use of 3D can teach before too long and we will get a greater number of "Gravity" type features and far fewer "Clash of the Titans".

OH, and I cannot agree that 3D at home is inferior to 3D at the theatre. In my experience its exactly the opposite in most instances. 3D at home is sharper, more colourful and more 3D. You just need a decent TV.
cajieboy likes this.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #23 of 941 Old 10-29-2013, 03:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

3D is going nowhere for several reasons in my opinion:-

1. Used properly 3D can be a very engaging movie going experience as Gravity has proved.
2. Its very popular in the far east and the population there is huge meaning big bucks for the studios.
3. The cost of equipping cinemas with 3D equipment need to be recouped.

It's slowed down that's for sure but largely because the suits in Hollywood made the idiotic mistake of trying to cash in on 3D with poor presentations and after thought conversions instead of allowing film makers who are comfortable with the format and can see how it can enhance their movies, to use it as they want too. Hopefully they will understand the lessons that the inappropriate use of 3D can teach before too long and we will get a greater number of "Gravity" type features and far fewer "Clash of the Titans".

OH, and I cannot agree that 3D at home is inferior to 3D at the theatre. In my experience its exactly the opposite in most instances. 3D at home is sharper, more colourful and more 3D. You just need a decent TV.

Size matters, so unless you have a front projector at home cinemas have a clear advantage, and even if you do have a front projector cinemas use three chip dlps which will still give them a sharpness advantage over what 99% of people can afford for home. With that being said at home it is much easier to get a sufficiently bright image in 3d that is cross talk free (assuming dlp at home) so it is hard to say which is best as there are pros and cons to both. Personally for me bright crosstalk free 3d at home wins over the slight sharpness advantage cinemas should have.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #24 of 941 Old 10-29-2013, 03:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,936
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 65
I sit about 6-7 feet away from a 63" plasma 3D TV. To my eyes, the 3D image is more than sufficiently large enough to pull me into the experience (assuming of course the movie uses 3D well in the first place). I'm sure a projector will provide an even more immersive experience but for those of us that don't have the room, sitting a reasonable distance away from a good plasma in the 60-70 inch range can still be very immersive.
TonyDP is offline  
post #25 of 941 Old 10-29-2013, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

I sit about 6-7 feet away from a 63" plasma 3D TV. To my eyes, the 3D image is more than sufficiently large enough to pull me into the experience (assuming of course the movie uses 3D well in the first place). I'm sure a projector will provide an even more immersive experience but for those of us that don't have the room, sitting a reasonable distance away from a good plasma in the 60-70 inch range can still be very immersive.

It most certainly can, with a 60" though you really do need to sit closer to truly get a cinema like immersive experience. Then again some people like sitting in the front row and some like sitting in the back, so personal preference also comes into effect. smile.gif
FilmReverie is offline  
post #26 of 941 Old 10-29-2013, 05:00 PM
Senior Member
 
SFMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I sit 7 to 10 feet away from my 70" Sharp Aquos and find the image is big and bright enough to improve on the image quality seen at most theaters. I usually find the home enviroment superior to that of a theater with low light output projectors. I even like the contrast setting I have set up better than those at the show. Watching 3D at home has made me appreciate a well done conversion such as Star Trek or Pacific Rim. I feel they had much more depth and were more involving than when I experienced them the theater.

In regard to the studios dropping the ball on 3D, today I went to WalMart to check out new releases the neither Monster University or R.I.P.D were on the shelves in their 3D edition. I bet they get them in a week or two. At least my WalMart has brought back their 3D video section. My local Best Buy continues to mix 3D in with the rest of the releases. Also I've noted no retailer is giving a discount for these blu-rays, $29.99 is the lowest on both. Again, a complete lack of interest in the promotion of these releases in 3D and a big screw you to those of us they see as the suckers who will pay for three differnt versions of the same film. Home 3D is not yet dead but it appears that 3D is quite dead to the maketing depatments of the studios.
SFMike is offline  
post #27 of 941 Old 10-31-2013, 07:04 AM
Senior Member
 
AVTrauma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I agree the marketing departments have not only dropped the ball on 3D, they seemed to have thrown it under the bus. Disney 3D blurays have not broken the $29.00 price for the most part, yet the latest release of "The Little Mermaid" on Bluray was advertised predominately as Bluray... no mention of 3D to be found! It can't be said that there isn't a profit for them in selling the 3 disc combo pack... they just aren't pushing 3D. And they are not alone. Very little mention of the excellent 3D conversion of "Wizard of Oz" Blurays now available. The profits for the double/triple dipper studios are there. I have been awaiting the "extended version" of the Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey" and I'm disappointed that it's only available in a 5 disc pack (that's not what I'm disappointed about) that has a "pre-sale" price of $54.00! Ouch!
What will be a significant indicator of the state of home 3D... it will be the marketing and sales numbers for "Gravity" (probably not going to be available before the Holidays I imagine).
AVTrauma is offline  
post #28 of 941 Old 11-01-2013, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I assume Gravity will get a lot of Oscar buzz and will stay in theaters long enough to make holiday release an impossibility.

I am quite curious if 3D movies will be highlighted over the holidays at all. I bought a lot of movies last year around the holidays and I think I could get more for the movies now than what I paid for them, which is patently ridiculous.
coolhand is offline  
post #29 of 941 Old 11-02-2013, 01:13 AM
Member
 
crab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oak Harbor WA
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Hate to say it guys but more than any other factor I think the problem comes down to money. Most people are not willing to spend more for movies than they already are and by and large 3D is usually more. Often a lot more. Combine that with the fact that many would have to replace working hardware with 3D capable hardware just to get to the point where they can say hello to extremely limited content at stupid high prices and you don't have to be particularly clever to figure out why adoption isn't moving along at breakneck speed.

Honestly I think some folks here forget that we are enthusiast. For the average Joe the value simply isn't there.
crab is offline  
post #30 of 941 Old 11-03-2013, 08:46 AM
Member
 
guitarman512's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Well guys - have a read at this http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/08/06/pacific-rim-the-lone-ranger-and-the-necessary-evil-of-3d/
it seems to make a profit nowadays it has to be made or converted to 3d. Thats fine by me ;0) I would have enjoyed Battleship and Oblivion a lot more if they were in 3d and I bet the studio's wish they had the foresight to convert them.

" With 3D, After Earth would surely be looking at around $300m worldwide. In 3D, Battleship may well have crossed $350m worldwide, while a 2D John Carter would have lost even more money. The movie is the movie, but 3D makes big films bigger and helps big flops earn just a little more when every dollar counts. Artistic intent aside, in this current environment, where 3D is still a major deal overseas, a 3D conversion basically amounts to money for nothing."
guitarman512 is offline  
Reply 3D Content

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