3D is NOT dead! - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 42Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post
I think he's saying the extra dough one pays for 3D movie over regular movie goes to the theater owners.
That's what he's saying, but he doesn't provide any kind of evidence how the theater in question shares its revenues with studios.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 10:06 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 130
FWIW, I never minded paying extra for 3D because I saw the value in the added entertainment feature. Least of concern is who got the money. In fact, I would pay a premium for Netflix monthly subscription if they offered every current title that has a 3D version to us for that premium. Think of the possibilities!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #63 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 10:20 AM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
I agree with you as the most negative public opinion for 3D TV is wearing glasses. Personally, I admit having to put up with that as seeing 3D at home more than makes up for having to put on glasses.
The glasses haven't bothered me or my guests in the least, but maybe that's because I have a passive 3D set. If glasses-free 3D had any negative effect on picture quality at all, I'd have no problem sticking with the plastic specs. Frankly I can't imagine dropping a big sum on a TV that had no 3D functionality at all. I think people who dismiss 3D just haven't seen it at it's best yet.
ekaaaans is offline  
post #64 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cajieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Posts: 4,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Marc- Your theory that many people in this thread may only support a technology because they got suckered into buying something may apply to a few, but others like me, have had a passion and fascination for the medium of 3D stereoscopy for a long, long, long time.
It began for me when I was just 5, well over 60 years ago. I was digging through my grandparents attic and discovered a box of post cards with double pictures and a stereoscope viewer. I would sit for hours looking at those old stereo pictures. I wanted one so bad my parents bought me a "modern day" version called a viewmaster. Many years alter I saw 3D in the theaters and then at Disney World. I hoped one day I would be able to see those 3D movies in my home. Today, I not only can do that, but I can create my stories in 3D with my own 3D stereo production operation.

The fact that 3D stereo imaging has been here since the 1800's in one form or another and has never gone away, only became more or less popular from time to time does not mean it is a complete failure. Judging by the last couple of CES conventions, it has gotten even bigger as the ability to display 3D has been incorporated into more and more TV's, more 3D BD players, and even more development work in passive 3D projectors. There is always the newest innovative technology to highlight each CES and last year it was 4K and UHD. While prior 2 years we had lots of new 3D camcorders being introduced, 2014 only has one new one. If you had asked, "What's next?" in the evolution of camcorders, you would have been told, 3D 4K camcorders, once these 2D 4K systems are standard.
Most of my peers in this profession are admittedly lazy and not innovative DP's. Few like the idea of having to learn a new tool. They have their comfort zone in the old and traditional ways. They are not artists, they are technicians. Likely most of your connections with this profession were with DP technicians. Your description sure says that. This is best described by the guys at RED when they talk about the early days of getting acceptance of digital cinema from the DP's who refused to consider digital because it was so radical from traditional film. Soon, however, many saw the advantages of digital cinema for what it offered, not for what it could not do like film. I smile when I recall all the reasons sited why digital cinema will never catch on and will be a huge failure.
Most 3D enthusiasts, like me, do not claim that everything must be in 3D or we refuse to watch it. Heck I don't even use 2D to 3D conversion. We are just pleased to see the tools available and being used more and more as appropriate.

There may be a few like yourself who fit the picture of desperately trying to support something they've already paid for but I believe most of us HERE, are sincere in our enjoyment of the medium. And, look forward to budgeting for the next 3D innovation for our home theaters.
I could not have said this better myself, and thank you for that post. I too have been involved with 3D and/or stereoscopic images for a long time. In the early 1960's I remember those stereoscopic viewers that were so popular, and all the circular disks you could purchase ranging from nature to travel to animation. A real treat back in that time.

Fast forward to present day. I purposely sought out a display that offered a great 3D picture quality w/active shutter glasses. Of course I also wanted excellent 2D quality video, a fairly large screen size w/o too many known issues and within my particular budget. I chose the 60ST60, and it does a great job in 3D and 2D both. The VT60 is probably a superior TV by a small margin, but I couldn't get one at a price I wanted to pay at the time. Did I mention that I love to watch 3D on this TV??!!
cajieboy is offline  
post #65 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cinema13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekaaaans View Post
The glasses haven't bothered me or my guests in the least, but maybe that's because I have a passive 3D set. If glasses-free 3D had any negative effect on picture quality at all, I'd have no problem sticking with the plastic specs. Frankly I can't imagine dropping a big sum on a TV that had no 3D functionality at all. I think people who dismiss 3D just haven't seen it at it's best yet.

I saw an UltraD demo some time ago and thought it looked ok as far as depth goes. But if you enjoy extensions or "pop-outs", it did not perform as well as one experiences with glasses, at least for now. Another factor to take into consideration is whether or not what is needed for 3D in this manner compromises the 2D performance of a particular set. (Something I didn't think of until the day after!)

Considering how many people don't seem to mind wearing sunglasses (sometimes even at night), it makes me laugh at the folks who complain about that aspect. Even if one already wears RX glasses, there are 3D clip-ons that are available. I think the REAL reason some gripe about the glasses is they can't also text, tweet, check e-mails, etc. etc. at the same time due to wearing the glasses. To those people, there is nothing to say. They have other issues.
dfergie, old corps and LDizzle like this.

cinema13 is offline  
post #66 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 04:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
What in the name of logic are you talking about?
What in the name of logic don't you understand is a better question.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #67 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 04:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
What in the name of logic don't you understand is a better question.
I don't see the logic path you took to make the claim that theaters pocket the 3D surcharge themselves. If that were true, studios would have no incentive to make 3D movies. Also, you made it sound like the waived 3D surcharge is a widespread behavior amongst theaters. A quick check of the Harkins and AMC's in my area shows a $3-3.50 surcharge for 3D. The only theater I know of that doesn't charge extra for 3D is the one you linked to.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #68 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 04:57 PM
Member
 
EVERRET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Off subject, but as a projectionist i find this rant sad, but funny, AMC 16 Burbank.

"I just saw Lucy in 3D here in their remodeled "premium" theater where you pay $18.50 per reclining seat. The picture was out of focus for the entire movie.

When we complained afterwards, the customer service staff said we should have come out to complain in the middle of the movie. Further, they said that the projectionist -- the human being who knows how to fix the automatic projectors -- was not working on a Tuesday night.

A sixteen screen theater with no projectionist is like a plane with no pilot. AMC should be embarrassed."
This is especially bewildering ........... since Lucy is not even shown in 3D.
EVERRET is offline  
post #69 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 06:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERRET View Post
This is especially bewildering ........... since Lucy is not even shown in 3D.
That is indeed interesting. Guess i should scan my email's better. Lucy is 2D only.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #70 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 06:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
I don't see the logic path you took to make the claim that theaters pocket the 3D surcharge themselves. If that were true, studios would have no incentive to make 3D movies. Also, you made it sound like the waived 3D surcharge is a widespread behavior amongst theaters. A quick check of the Harkins and AMC's in my area shows a $3-3.50 surcharge for 3D. The only theater I know of that doesn't charge extra for 3D is the one you linked to.
Setting admittance policy is not something i have control over. The studios have, after much bashing from within, ended the process of collecting "3D surcharges" The theatres owner, may have to collect the fees to cover expenses. The best way is to ask your local theater's management.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #71 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 07:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Our local theater does charge extra for 3D, and again to watch it on the super-duper-mega screen. I can maybe see trying to cover the cost of loaning out the glasses to some extent, but I bring my own glasses, they're way lighter, a hell of a lot more comfortable (you forget you're wearing them), and not as dark as the "freebie" glasses.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #72 of 103 Old 08-12-2014, 08:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cajieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Posts: 4,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post
Our local theater does charge extra for 3D, and again to watch it on the super-duper-mega screen. I can maybe see trying to cover the cost of loaning out the glasses to some extent, but I bring my own glasses, they're way lighter, a hell of a lot more comfortable (you forget you're wearing them), and not as dark as the "freebie" glasses.
Personally, I don't mind paying a few extra bucks to go to the 3D version at the theater. The place is pretty full everytime I go, so I imagine it's OK with most other folks as well. There is a limit though, and I refused to be gouged. BTW, I don't buy their uber expensive popcorn or sodas due to my low sodium/no salt diet, so the theater isn't making a lot on me anyway.
cajieboy is offline  
post #73 of 103 Old 08-14-2014, 12:18 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post
The most commonly cited reason for the failure of 3D in consumer market has been the glasses. With the advent of glasses-free 3D TV, don't you think consumer 3D market may enjoy a revival? Or do you think Joe Sixpack still won't care? Please don't misread the tone of my words, I am sincerely interested in your opinion.
You know, I looked at the glasses-free Dolby 3D system at NAB in April, and I didn't think it sucked too much. But anytime something like this affects picture quality, I start grinding my teeth.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #74 of 103 Old 08-15-2014, 04:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Unless it effects it in positive way, like with Gravity, Avatar, Titanic, Upside Down, Life of Pi. Most certainly not just my opinion. Every single person that told me about seeing Avatar told me I had to see it in 3d. And that was a lot of people. Same goes for Gravity and Life Of Pi.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #75 of 103 Old 08-18-2014, 10:59 PM
Member
 
EVERRET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Lightbulb 3D

Here is a article that echoes some of my feelings about 3D

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjourn...3f0d7f3f713722

Quote:
If perception is at the heart of 3D, misperception is at the heart of the notion that 3D popularity is sagging, Sandrew contends. These notions are floated in the media, with blame placed on fickle audiences, ticket upcharges, inadequate screen brightness or even the productions themselves.

“[Declining interest] is more misperception than reality,”
he continues, reminding that 3D grosses have hit an all-time high and that of the top 15 performing films of all time, ten were in 3D, and that 2013 was a stellar year when 13 of the 15 top-grossing films were 3D. He predicts that this year and 2015 will mark the biggest performances ever of 3D product.
EVERRET is offline  
post #76 of 103 Old 08-19-2014, 08:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
NSX1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERRET View Post
Here is a article that echoes some of my feelings about 3D

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjourn...3f0d7f3f713722
That is a very good article and I believe 4K TVs provide great 3D at home, better than the theater as the article warns.
NSX1992 is online now  
post #77 of 103 Old 08-19-2014, 04:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
It's nice that Hollywood still finds 3D to be the de facto format for big budget movies, and yes, 3D does help boost overall sales by around 15%, but the main reason there are so many top-10-grossing films in 3D is because the studios base their 3D support on a film's projected earnings and the estimated return on their $10M postconversion investments.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #78 of 103 Old 08-20-2014, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 386 Post(s)
Liked: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERRET View Post
Here is a article that echoes some of my feelings about 3D

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjourn...3f0d7f3f713722
Yes, yet there's an additional wrinkle in this. That article quotes how 3D isn't fading away numerically, but even if it were, I'm convinced that what we're seeing is a loss of interest in the schlock 3D-for-3D-sake films, of which China seems to not yet be tired of. The loss of interest in such "hey 3D is cool!" films that have no other real reason for using 3D will make it seem as if interest in 3D as a whole is waning, when it isn't.

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #79 of 103 Old 08-20-2014, 10:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Yes, yet there's an additional wrinkle in this. That article quotes how 3D isn't fading away numerically, but even if it were, I'm convinced that what we're seeing is a loss of interest in the schlock 3D-for-3D-sake films, of which China seems to not yet be tired of. The loss of interest in such "hey 3D is cool!" films that have no other real reason for using 3D will make it seem as if interest in 3D as a whole is waning, when it isn't.
Sure 3D was riding the wave of Avatar's success, but that's still accounted for in the "3D as a whole" category. It's still a problem if these revenues aren't coming in for these lower-quality releases, because it could cause theaters to start shrinking their 3D screen counts.

If only Hollywood could throw money at the problem, we could see results immediately. But alas, at the core of the issue, most filmmakers don't have the same passion for 3D as Ang Lee or James Cameron, and that can't be solved with money. But I think that the decline in 3D popularity is only temporary. Some of these master filmmakers have had/will have a positive influence on their peers, and eventually there will be enough directors in love with 3D to produce enough content to turn public opinion back around.

We've already seen public opinion change- on a small scale- with Gravity. Now we just need those passionate directors to not give up on the format themselves.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #80 of 103 Old 08-20-2014, 11:54 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Avatar was the first really great script original of science fiction to be written in quite a few years. Of course, the story itself was a ripoff of Pocahontas. The fact it was also done in 3D made it revolutionary because it was a new look for the theaters. It required many to upgrade to be able to show this movie. While people still site Avatar as the number one 3D of all time, I have trouble with that because since, we have seen many really great stories put to 3D production that rival Avatar in 3D quality and the story. Many directors have put out great works with 3D that I place on par and even better than Avatar. I agree that few have the passion for it like Cameron but few will argue that the format is dead. To many, it is just an option for their story. To others, it is a way to attract an audience like me who will only go to the theater if the movie is in 3D. I'll watch a blah flat world movie in 2D when it hits DVD such as "The Other Woman" but if the movie is a new Star Wars or Transformers, it better be 3D if I'm to spend the big bucks at the theater. If it is in 2D only, I'll probably wait for it to be free on TV or at best rent the BluRay at Redbox.
Barry C likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #81 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 06:52 AM
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
It's nice that Hollywood still finds 3D to be the de facto format for big budget movies, and yes, 3D does help boost overall sales by around 15%, but the main reason there are so many top-10-grossing films in 3D is because the studios base their 3D support on a film's projected earnings and the estimated return on their $10M postconversion investments.
What I don't get is a movie like Noah which was released as 3D in Asia (which means $10 mm postconversion already invested) but is not released as 3D in the U.S. One would thinnk the studio would release Noah in 3D in the U.S. as well and try to recoup the cost a bit more (since 3D movies charge higher ticket price in the U.S.).
Apostate is offline  
post #82 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 07:52 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Apostate- I don't believe business does these things without a strategy. The only explanation I have is what Bob Iger said at Disney. Their strategy is a planned rollout to maximize gross sales. First release is always the theaters, next the PPV, next retail product line, finally the theme parks. If we break this down to the micro level, it would coincide with a planned rollout for the home viewing with simple BD/DVD first, followed with a "Director's Cut" followed with a bigger package of extra features. Somewhere in this blend will be the 3D version. Now add to the plan a strategic rollout of the 3D at different times for different countries. Mark Cuban once wanted to change all that with a full rollout of all products at the same time as the theatrical release. He backed off on that because he realized it reduces gross revenue.

I do not buy any of the theories here that Disney or any other studio wants to kill a format that they spend lots of money producing. That just makes no sense.

When Noah 2D in the states dies off enough, and sales in Asia exports are still robust, the 3D version will go on sale here. You think nobody is tracking Asian version 3D sales to US imports? These guys are analyzing every metric for their marketing. Our problem as fans of 3D is we are just impatient. If you want to call them greedy, then there's something we can agree.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #83 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 08:16 AM
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
When Noah 2D in the states dies off enough, and sales in Asia exports are still robust, the 3D version will go on sale here. You think nobody is tracking Asian version 3D sales to US imports? These guys are analyzing every metric for their marketing. Our problem as fans of 3D is we are just impatient. If you want to call them greedy, then there's something we can agree.
Sorry for not being clear. You are referring bluray/DVDs, i.e., home market. I was referring to theater releases. Noah 3D was never released in the theaters in the U.S., unlike Asia. Maybe it's just me but not releasing 3D movie in the theaters doesn't make sense. The studios are just limiting the movies' revenue by not tapping into 3D version's enhanced earning potential.
Apostate is offline  
post #84 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 08:30 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Thanks for the clarification. I agree, that doesn't make sense. I wonder if there was a technical reason? The 2D was very dark and that is a chief complaint on 3D if they are not bright enough. I wonder if the 3D release in Asia was a test to see if that complaint surfaced there? I'm grasping for logical explanations, open to any others.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #85 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cinema13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Thanks for the clarification. I agree, that doesn't make sense. I wonder if there was a technical reason? The 2D was very dark and that is a chief complaint on 3D if they are not bright enough. I wonder if the 3D release in Asia was a test to see if that complaint surfaced there? I'm grasping for logical explanations, open to any others.
Logic? From the home video industry? Surely you jest. Those guys couldn't market tea in China.

cinema13 is offline  
post #86 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 10:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Noah I believe was a last minute conversion. And regardless how much you spend on the conversion to get native-looking results, the shooting style is the real determining factor. Domestic audiences are very observant when it comes to spotting films that weren't planned for 3D, and any middling 3D film will further hurt 3D's reputation as a whole. It seems that the studios are practicing restraint in an apparent effort to preserve 3D in the US. International BO does higher 3D vs 2D revenues, seemingly because they aren't as sick of the 3D crapshoot yet, so they still have some leeway to deal damage for a quick buck.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #87 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 01:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 386 Post(s)
Liked: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Noah I believe was a last minute conversion.
Why?

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #88 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 01:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Why?
Because the announcement was in February and the movie came out in March.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #89 of 103 Old 08-21-2014, 01:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Why?
Darren Aronfsky did not want the movie to be 3D. The conversion was forced on him by the studio. He shot and composed the movie only with 2D in mind.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #90 of 103 Old 08-23-2014, 04:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Darren Aronfsky did not want the movie to be 3D. The conversion was forced on him by the studio. He shot and composed the movie only with 2D in mind.
Having now watched many 2D movies converted to 3D I have come to the following conclusion:

If a photographer or cinematographer sets up his or her shots in an artistic manner for 2D this often translates into artistic 3D shots as an unintended byproduct or consequence.

For example -- properly thought out shots in 2D that convey feelings of expanse, height (vertigo), majesty, size and so on are more likely than not extremely effective when converted into 3D and are often more spectacular -- again, an unintended consequence of thoughtful 2D shooting.

One example that comes to mind is Pacific Rim, which was shot with 2D in mind. The director using 2D only wanted to show size and majesty in many scenes. In other scenes he wanted to convey height (our hero working on the construction of the wall). These shots (IMO) converted extremely well to 3D and I feel were in fact more effective in 3D -- obviously an unintended consequence of the director's artistic 2D design.

In my opinion it's the "art" of the 2D that impacts the 3D when converted. When shot with 3D in mind there is even more opportunity to be artistic -- meaning more thought put into certain shots since 3D by itself may change the ambiance or flavour of the scene (a low shot of people siting along a long table -- 3D will often give an exaggerated sense of length or depth to the table). I think this is why some directors gravitate towards 3D while others shy away from it. It is simply a more challenging medium to work with. I feel that some directors who claim they don't like 3D are actually naturals and either don't know it or don't care since they don't want the added hassle of getting the 3D right -- they probably feel they have enough on their plates. Change is challenging and many people resist it -- directors are people and therefore some will resist it even though they may be very good at it. Fortunately (from my perspective) other innovative directors embrace the challenge and will move 3D forward.

One final thought: 2D films that convert very well to 3D tell me something about the director's artistic talent. If I watch a number of 2D films by the same director and all or the majority of them look impressive when converted to 3D then I gain a respect for that director's "eye" or artistic abilities, whether learned, natural or a combination of the two.
Don Landis and Ragnrok23 like this.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 08-23-2014 at 05:22 AM.
Deja Vu is online now  
Reply 3D Content

User Tag List

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