4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 11:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I game only casually Chron. I doubt I'd want to put on glasses to play, to be honest. I think gaming would be cool in 3-D, but I think that's still a niche-y application. Less niche-y perhaps than home-moving watching of 3-D, but still niche-y.
I don't think it's nearly as niche. Games are already being rendered in 3D, output to a 2D image - it's trivial to simply render a second camera to add 3D output. This method of rendering 3D halves your performance though.
A lot of techniques such as bump mapping, normal mapping, parallax mapping etc really benefit from being displayed in 3D. What was once a flat 2D texture lit in a way to give the impression of depth, actually has depth when viewed in 3D.

But as I have been saying, current 3DTV sucks. They should have waited for 4K passive before making a push for 3D, and because they pushed for 3D too early, public opinion has turned on the idea of 3D.
I have a 3DTV, I think 3D really benefits games, and I use a PC for gaming, which has the most widespread 3D support - but I'm not using 3D because 3D sucks in its current form.

The good thing about 3D is that support is easy to do on PC, and there's an ever-growing list of titles that are supported. (with Nvidia cards at least) I don't think it's something that is likely to disappear there.
Even though the next generation of games consoles is actually powerful enough to do 3D well this time around, very few titles will support it.
Chronoptimist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 398 Old 07-09-2013, 12:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,124
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 472
Chron, what I meant by niche-y is that the sum total of 8 years of PS3 and Xbox sales is <2/3 of one year of TV sales. Of course, there are PC gamers to add in too, but subtract out all the Xbox gamers who just like Kinect games or kids games.

I have no doubt that for immersive gameplay in a Halo-type game or even a rich "explore the world" type game that 3-D is a winner. Heck, I might have enjoyed it in my WoW days. There is some market there, it's just not something that feels like a mass market.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is online now  
post #33 of 398 Old 07-10-2013, 09:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
10 consumer gadgets that bombed

http://money.msn.com/personal-finance/10-consumer-gadgets-that-bombed

"The cable sports network announced earlier this month that it will stop airing regular programming and live events in the multidimensional format by the end of this year, a casualty of underwhelming viewer interest. “I would say the 3-D network was dead on arrival,” David Miller, a senior analyst at B. Riley & Co., told NBCNews.com. “The proliferation of 3-D networks had to depend on selling 3-D glasses, and no one wanted to buy 3-D glasses.”
Auditor55 is offline  
post #34 of 398 Old 07-10-2013, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
James Cameron is not happy with the way 3D is being used either; James Cameron on 3D: Hollywood's doing it wrong
coolscan is offline  
post #35 of 398 Old 07-10-2013, 07:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Consumers are voting very loudly: Thanks for the "free" 3-D in my TV and BluRay player; I'm not using it.

That nails it.

We have a 3D LCD Samsung set (as well as our old plasma) and I'll be darned if I, or the kids, can be bothered watching any 3D on it. Ok..we don't have enough 3D glasses anyway.
(Actually, I don't know if we have any). But that's part of the problem I guess. You have to buy the glasses over and above the TV, you have to want to watch 3D enough to wear them, have the right content, etc.

I've got a 3D projector and it can be a good experience for watching a 3D movie. But TV watching is generally about relaxing, about it being easy, unobtrusive, passive. Adding more work to it, or encumbering
it with having to wear 3D glasses which virtually no one loves, just isn't compelling. It's more of a hassle.
R Harkness is offline  
post #36 of 398 Old 07-10-2013, 07:41 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
The projector requires 3d glasses, too, does it not? The glasses are a hassle period, but since I've only had a 3D set for a month, the hype hasn't worn off yet...Prometheus and Life of Pi have been a joy to watch, even with the cumbersome glasses, for the most part (if Avatar wasn't such a vacuous catastrophe, the impressive visuals might have even made it worth watching...but not quite).
vinnie97 is offline  
post #37 of 398 Old 07-11-2013, 06:45 AM
Senior Member
 
megdagooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Here is my rake on 3D. About 4 years ago I was able to afford my first flat panel big screen TV. Woo hoo! I can be just like all the cool people now! What an awesome thing i have over my fire place! ohhh ahhh! Wait! What!?!? There is a 3D tv display at the store!?!?! Woah!!!!! THAT IS COOL!!!!! Ahhhhhh but I just bought THIS technology. Well maybe SOMEDAY. I thought it will be around for awhile and I'm not someone who can run right out and afford to buy the latest or the best technology. So here I am 4 years later with my daughter wanting a movie birthday party. The projector and party is part of her present ( because really does she need any more...anything!?!?) and seeing as we are investing in something new we decide it would be CRAZY to NOT buy 3D. So now we have a 3D projector and we are LOVING IT. I can't buy enough movies (on sale of course) and the kids watched Brave and made 2 kids scream and one took her glasses off because she was scared it was so realistic. I don't care how "good" the technology is, that wow factor is EXACTLY what I want. And now I notice more people I know are buying 3D TVs and my friends are asking me to recommend movies to them. It's happening...it's just that we all can't go out and buy every new thing as it comes out.
megdagooch is offline  
post #38 of 398 Old 07-11-2013, 08:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fresno CA
Posts: 5,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
I paid a princely $799 for my 47" 3D tv and another ruinous $80ish for a Sony 3D BD player. I don't use the 3D much, but I don't use the cruise control on my truck much either and wouldn't be without either one.

Steve S.
Steve S is offline  
post #39 of 398 Old 07-11-2013, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by megdagooch View Post

It's happening...it's just that we all can't go out and buy every new thing as it comes out.
3D is happening and will keep on happening as long as the movie studios can charge higher ticket prices for 3D movies (without caring about the 3D quality).
What will disappear are 3D broadcasts. (did anybody see any 3D broadcasts?)

-
coolscan is offline  
post #40 of 398 Old 07-11-2013, 12:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,124
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post

I paid a princely $799 for my 47" 3D tv and another ruinous $80ish for a Sony 3D BD player. I don't use the 3D much, but I don't use the cruise control on my truck much either and wouldn't be without either one.

It's funny. I haven't owned a car without cruise control in eons. I use it almost never because of where we live. If it broke or went away, I'd never notice. That to me makes it a lot like 3-D. It's there, but so what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

3D is happening and will keep on happening as long as the movie studios can charge higher ticket prices for 3D movies (without caring about the 3D quality).
What will disappear are 3D broadcasts. (did anybody see any 3D broadcasts?)

Yes. The movie theater business loves this. It's free extra money for theaters and (mostly) studios given the relatively low incremental cost of 3-D films.

However, a lot of films are now seeing less than half their ticket sales from 3-D. If this trend worsens, it will no longer be viable to "just make it in 3-D" because it will end up depressing overall box office on some releases.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is online now  
post #41 of 398 Old 07-11-2013, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

However, a lot of films are now seeing less than half their ticket sales from 3-D. If this trend worsens, it will no longer be viable to "just make it in 3-D" because it will end up depressing overall box office on some releases.
They are scaling slightly back on 3D in Hollywood. They are also less willing to shoot in 3D and relay completely on post conversion because it is now cheaper. Example; like Amazing Spiderman where shot digital in 3D. Amazing Spiderman 2 is shot on film and will be post converted.

But the studios have a trick up their sleeves.
Because so many cinemas now have 3D projection, the studios just don't release any 2D version in any territories that has 3D cinemas before some weeks has passed.
In that way people can't choose between a higher priced 3D movie or lower priced 2D version, if they want to see a movie when it is new.
The studios earn more money and can present glorious attendance numbers for 3D movies.
coolscan is offline  
post #42 of 398 Old 07-13-2013, 12:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,124
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


But the studios have a trick up their sleeves.
Because so many cinemas now have 3D projection, the studios just don't release any 2D version in any territories that has 3D cinemas before some weeks has passed.
In that way people can't choose between a higher priced 3D movie or lower priced 2D version, if they want to see a movie when it is new.
The studios earn more money and can present glorious attendance numbers for 3D movies.

I just don't buy what you wrote. This weekend, Pacific Rim opens pretty much everywhere. I just checked the local theaters on Fandango within about 60 miles. Every single multiplex that is showing it (which appears to be all of them) has both the 2-D and 3-D version. Nearly every multiplex has the 2-D version with slightly more showings (5-4, 9-8, etc.). Some have parity. It's possible someone has more 3-D than 2-D, but I didn't find that in my attempt to match theater to theater.

If what you claim is occurring somewhere, it's certainly not happening in the 5th largest market in the country (the greater S.F. Bay Area, including SF, Oakland and San Jose).

I also checked in New York and found that (a) if the theater also has an Imax, the theater has more 3-D showtimes than 2-D showtimes for Pacific Rim (b) if the theater does not have an Imax, then 2-D exceeds 3-D. For example, at Union Square, 2-D has 8 showtimes, 3-D has 5 showtimes. At Lincoln Center, it's 8-4 in favor of 3-D because there are a mess of Imax showtimes.

In L.A, even having an Imax is no guarantee of a 3-D win. For example, at the Edwards South Gate, there are 7 showtimes in 2-D and 6 in 3-D, even including all the Imax showings. At the Regal L.A. Live, it's 5-4 in favor of 2-D.

This is just one movie, but I'm essentially certain I could do the same survey with whatever the next 3-D tentpole film is and find the same results. Incidentally, Deadline.com reports: "Pacific Rim with the 3D ratio a strong 52% 'and the largest ratio of a wide release for a very long time' according to an exec. This comes the same day Deadline also reports: "RealD’s box office results are down about 10% in the quarter vs the same period last year. The problem is that consumers are 'becoming increasingly choosy about which 3D movies they will pay a premium for given the significant ramp in 3D titles available,' says B. Riley analyst Eric Wold."

Monsters University just set a record for the worst 3-D percentage of any animated title offered in 3-D at 31% of total box office. Obviously, that means 3-D tickets are even lower since they come at a premium. (The 31% figure is in $.) World War Z just set an action movie record at 34%, breaking Captain America's record of 40%. Ouch! 3-D had reliably been running at a high percentage of box office, but it's suddenly falling farther and faster.

(Incidentally, any film employing the strategy you claim they are running would simply slaughter its top-line box office, hurting its studio badly in the process.)

Anyone who perceives the 3-D business as healthy -- even at the movies where a lot of titles are available -- is quite frankly delusional.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is online now  
post #43 of 398 Old 07-13-2013, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I just don't buy what you wrote. This weekend, Pacific Rim opens pretty much everywhere. I just checked the local theaters on Fandango within about 60 miles. Every single multiplex that is showing it (which appears to be all of them) has both the 2-D and 3-D version. Nearly every multiplex has the 2-D version with slightly more showings (5-4, 9-8, etc.). Some have parity. It's possible someone has more 3-D than 2-D, but I didn't find that in my attempt to match theater to theater.

If what you claim is occurring somewhere, it's certainly not happening in the 5th largest market in the country (the greater S.F. Bay Area, including SF, Oakland and San Jose).
My observation for the US markets where based on forum posts from people that complained that they wanted to see a new release but where forced to see it in 3D because they often had to travel far to find a 2D version. This was very apparent at the release of The Hobbit.

In Europe where the 3D versions do better than in the US, I have had complains from friends that could not find a 2D version in any major European city for the opening week of movies.

But your numbers speak for themselves.
That 3D attendance have been steadily declining I did know.
Just show that the movie studios are not as speculative as I thought. wink.gif
Quote:
(Incidentally, any film employing the strategy you claim they are running would simply slaughter its top-line box office, hurting its studio badly in the process.)

Anyone who perceives the 3-D business as healthy -- even at the movies where a lot of titles are available -- is quite frankly delusional.
I don't believe that anybody think that 3D business is healthy.
Not only is attendance shrinking, but Hollywood is producing fewer 3D movies this year than previous year.

The Studios also doesn't care much about the 3D quality they are offering. They seems to have completely abandon shooting the movies in 3D and relay completely on Post-Conversion 3D.
Non of the two Live-Shot movies you mentioned, World War Z and Pacific Rim, where shot in 3D.

To produce good 3D quality you need much more resolution than Cinema today can provide and you have to shoot in 3D for Live-Shot movies.
They should have waited with 3D until 4K was fully introduced, and have a minimum standard of 4K for each eye in 3D.

There is also a complete lack of Depth-Standard for 3D (at least for 3D home entertainment), which is very important for the 3D enjoyment both in the home and in the cinema.

Avatar is the best 3D (of course because it is 99% CGI animation) and shows good depth at standard settings (30%).
Comparing to (Live-Shot) Prometheus that needs depth increase to 50%, and Amazing Spiderman that needs 75% in the playback settings to have same depth as Avatar.

Showing that the lack of standards undermine because of under-performance what 3D quality really could and should have been, which has an impact on 3D popularity.


But Hollywood doesn't care much about even a general 2D quality increase in the cinemas to compete with display devices outside the cinema.
Pacific Rim was shot in 5K, but the CGI was created in 2K, and the post production was done as a 2K DI, which is important to know when the movie will be offered in 4K for home devices in the future, it will be a Up-Converted version.

World War Z is even worse. It was shot in only 2.8K. So all future 4K versions will be Up-Converted.
Hollywood happily squanders Millions on 3D conversion of 2D movies, but they are too cheap to use some of the budget on creating the VFX/CGI in 4K. Claiming it is "too expensive."

When we know that most movies are either shot digitally on 2.8K cameras or 35mm film and later will be released as Up-Converted "mastered in 4K " fake mastering, one understands that Hollywood doesn't care.
This seen in light of the fact that more than half of the digital cinema screens in the US have 4K projectors, that are mainly up-converting 2K releases of movies.


Hollywood could easily have set a minimum standard for a movies resolution years ago when they know that 4K will come, but neither the studios nor the film-makers seems to be interested.
In fact, many film-makers seems more interested in argue against a quality increase.

This is very different from before the 1970s.
Movie formats like Cinemascope 2.35:1, 35mm horizontal/VistaVision and 70mm where created with help from the Hollywood studios because they wanted to give the Cinema public an increased quality experience to compete with the increased expansion of TV viewing.
At that time the Hollywood studio bosses where Film-Makers that ended up as studio bosses, and they loved movies and had intimate knowledge of movie making.
Now the studio bosses are more "bankers" than film-makers and are only interested in milking the marked for their Stock-Owners for everything it is worth, with no interest of the future of movie making.


Creativity is not in today's studio bosses interest or ability. Most directors are treated as "Directors for Hire" where they might be allowed to use some of their good ideas, but not their better ideas.

As one famous actress answered when the movie she starred in had lacklustre performance in the Cinema; "We went out with great excitement to shoot a story for a certain type of movie. The movie you see in the Cinema is not the movie we set out to make."
Which illustrate one of the problems with movies today. Particularly the bigger budget movies that the studios are willing to squander a huge amount of money on to promote.

3D is interesting when all the needed technical requirements for good 3D is in place and should really be retired until 8K is in place in the cinemas. For now it is just a milking-machine.

This became a long long rant about today's Film-Industry that started out a as a short response to the standing of 3D movies. Such can happen when one has a long standing interest and passion for Movies and Film-Making and and quality requirements, and has too much time on ones hand. tongue.gif

I apologise for not sticking to the the topic. cool.gif

-
coolscan is offline  
post #44 of 398 Old 07-13-2013, 07:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
Mr.SoftDome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I am in Malaysia on business now and watching CNN but they were talking the state of great movies and the lack there of as well as the state of sequels that is plaguing Hollywood right now.

An interesting note that China is starting to build ten new theaters a day (wow). Also, stated was that China is only allowing movies that are IMAX or 3D (I think 80% was mentioned) into the Country.

Using Ice Age as an example as they stated: Percentages not exact. Going by memory. Ice Age domestic gross $120M, International $130M. Ice Age 2 domestic $140M, International nearly double the original at $250M, Ice Age 3 domestic flat or down from 2 at $130M, international $400M (continues to double). Sequels now reign supreme and are targeted at International audiences.

The example stated was typical of many blockbusters and as stated Hollywood must now focus on the international audience more so than domestic. Sad ehh. Since China will only accept IMAX and or 3D movies at this point and with those international numbers, a large part from the Asian audience, 3D will not die anytime soon and is here to stay for now as this is what China demands... rolleyes.gif

FYI- I do enjoy 3D.

Ugh..

Rick

Mr.SoftDome is offline  
post #45 of 398 Old 07-14-2013, 12:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,124
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

My observation for the US markets where based on forum posts from people that complained that they wanted to see a new release but where forced to see it in 3D because they often had to travel far to find a 2D version. This was very apparent at the release of The Hobbit.

The Hobbit issue was unique because of their also being the 48fps business.
Quote:
In Europe where the 3D versions do better than in the US, I have had complains from friends that could not find a 2D version in any major European city for the opening week of movies.

I think Europe in general has fewer screens than the U.S., but I also know that at least in the U.K., it has insane ticket prices period. I can't even imagine paying a 3-D premium on top of 2-D prices.
Quote:
But your numbers speak for themselves.
That 3D attendance have been steadily declining I did know.
Just show that the movie studios are not as speculative as I thought. wink.gif
I don't believe that anybody think that 3D business is healthy.
Not only is attendance shrinking, but Hollywood is producing fewer 3D movies this year than previous year.

The Studios also doesn't care much about the 3D quality they are offering. They seems to have completely abandon shooting the movies in 3D and relay completely on Post-Conversion 3D.
Non of the two Live-Shot movies you mentioned, World War Z and Pacific Rim, where shot in 3D.

So we just saw Pacific Rim tonight at a Cinemark xD theater (upgraded sound and screen, high brightness for 3-D). It was a nice viewing experience but my wife (who dislikes 3-D actively) whispered to me during the movie, "there is like no 3-D in this." What she meant was that there was nothing in the film that was really 3-D-ish. The whole film had a decent 3-D undercurrent, but the 3-D spectacle was absolutely absent. I have no idea how this has a 52% 3-D gross. We went with a group of 20 and the group was set to go to that showing, but my lord, I can't imagine any word of mouth at all suggesting people go see that film in 3-D. Basically, those extra $6 were a ripoff (the xD is already a ripoff to be honest and then it carried the 3-D premium....).
Quote:
To produce good 3D quality you need much more resolution than Cinema today can provide and you have to shoot in 3D for Live-Shot movies.
They should have waited with 3D until 4K was fully introduced, and have a minimum standard of 4K for each eye in 3D.

And they need to make it have a 3-D effect. Like a sense of being immersed in the film. There is a nearly infinite amount of 3-D worthy content in Pacific Rim (a perfectly mediocre summer popcorn film) and yet not one scene where you will go "Wow! That was amazing 3-D!".
Quote:
There is also a complete lack of Depth-Standard for 3D (at least for 3D home entertainment), which is very important for the 3D enjoyment both in the home and in the cinema.

Yes! ^^^^
Quote:
Showing that the lack of standards undermine because of under-performance what 3D quality really could and should have been, which has an impact on 3D popularity.
This plagued BluRay early too. A lot of lousy transfers. The thing is, BluRay had a greater inevitability that led to some success. Yet even with that. my local Redbox still has more DVDs in it than BluRays and Netflix still charges a premium for BluRay and most disc-by-mail customers don't pay it... You do the math for what this means for 3-D.
Quote:
But Hollywood doesn't care much about even a general 2D quality increase in the cinemas to compete with display devices outside the cinema.
Pacific Rim was shot in 5K, but the CGI was created in 2K, and the post production was done as a 2K DI, which is important to know when the movie will be offered in 4K for home devices in the future, it will be a Up-Converted version.

Yeah, that's insane. To be honest, the cinematic quality was unimpressive on so many levels. If they want me to keep going to the movies and paying those prices, they are going to have to try much harder.
Quote:
World War Z is even worse. It was shot in only 2.8K. So all future 4K versions will be Up-Converted.
Hollywood happily squanders Millions on 3D conversion of 2D movies, but they are too cheap to use some of the budget on creating the VFX/CGI in 4K. Claiming it is "too expensive."

This is not a good sign for the future of the movie business.
Quote:
When we know that most movies are either shot digitally on 2.8K cameras or 35mm film and later will be released as Up-Converted "mastered in 4K " fake mastering, one understands that Hollywood doesn't care.
This seen in light of the fact that more than half of the digital cinema screens in the US have 4K projectors, that are mainly up-converting 2K releases of movies.
Hollywood could easily have set a minimum standard for a movies resolution years ago when they know that 4K will come, but neither the studios nor the film-makers seems to be interested.
In fact, many film-makers seems more interested in argue against a quality increase.

Well, yeah after year in the U.S., they sell the same or fewer tickets and try to squeeze us for more dollars. Eventually, the house of cards will come down and they'll only have themselves to blame.
Quote:
This is very different from before the 1970s.
Movie formats like Cinemascope 2.35:1, 35mm horizontal/VistaVision and 70mm where created with help from the Hollywood studios because they wanted to give the Cinema public an increased quality experience to compete with the increased expansion of TV viewing.
At that time the Hollywood studio bosses where Film-Makers that ended up as studio bosses, and they loved movies and had intimate knowledge of movie making.
Now the studio bosses are more "bankers" than film-makers and are only interested in milking the marked for their Stock-Owners for everything it is worth, with no interest of the future of movie making.

My understanding is that since all the money comes from international and "after the box office" stuff, they just don't care. It's too bad. The love of movies comes from going to the movies, not watch a pixelated transfer on an iPad.
Quote:
Creativity is not in today's studio bosses interest or ability. Most directors are treated as "Directors for Hire" where they might be allowed to use some of their good ideas, but not their better ideas.

As one famous actress answered when the movie she starred in had lacklustre performance in the Cinema; "We went out with great excitement to shoot a story for a certain type of movie. The movie you see in the Cinema is not the movie we set out to make."
Which illustrate one of the problems with movies today. Particularly the bigger budget movies that the studios are willing to squander a huge amount of money on to promote.

The love of movies is also engendered by great movies, not mediocrity.
Quote:
3D is interesting when all the needed technical requirements for good 3D is in place and should really be retired until 8K is in place in the cinemas. For now it is just a milking-machine.

This became a long long rant about today's Film-Industry that started out a as a short response to the standing of 3D movies. Such can happen when one has a long standing interest and passion for Movies and Film-Making and and quality requirements, and has too much time on ones hand. tongue.gif

I apologise for not sticking to the the topic. cool.gif

-

Your rant is so spot on. We discussed some of these topics (and some others) after watching the movie tonight. It's a crying shame.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is online now  
post #46 of 398 Old 07-14-2013, 12:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


And they need to make it have a 3-D effect. Like a sense of being immersed in the film.

That's what I keep saying.

When the new 3D came out those promoting it - producers, film-makers, etc. - were at pains to say "This isn't your father's 3D. We won't be doing any obvious, cheesy "spears sticking out from the screen" effects
that will just distract you. 3D will be used only to enhance the movie."

The problem is, it's the more pronounced 3D effects that MAKE 3D seem more worth the time. 2D already conveys a sense of depth - we interpret all the perspective, contrast, clarity, depth of field cues as depth. If you want to bring something new to the table you really have to add a new dimension. When I saw Avatar it was the "wow" moments of 3D that stuck out in my mind - the reach-out-and-touch it effects and the times when the jungle treas were passing right by me. Having watched that movie many times in 2D, and now that I'm just going through it in 3D again, a great deal of the time the 3D isn't offering a great improvement in terms of immersion in the scenes over the 2D version.
I recently put on the Avatar scene where Jake and Neytiri encounter the floating tree spores that come down gently and land on Jake. A scene like that one DOES make a difference. When those bright spores start coming down out of the darkness the 3D effect is just astonishing, the spores coming right out of the screen all around the viewer, some right in front of my eyes like I could touch them. (Showing my wife that scene recently, she reached out to touch those spores). It absolutely brought a new dimension, immersiveness and magic to the experience that the 2D version can't compete with. Which is just how I felt during that scene in the theaters.

Yet these are precisely the types of "wow-making" moments film-makers seem to be shying away from for fear of being seen as too cheesy, or distracting the audience. They are going for subtlety - a "generally enhanced sense of depth" that, because we've already had a general sense of depth from 2D, isn't registering as adding much to the 3D experience.
R Harkness is offline  
post #47 of 398 Old 07-14-2013, 01:29 PM
Member
 
crazy4daisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Give me pop-out-of-the-screen 3D effects everytime so I know I'm getting something extra for putting up with having to wear the glasses, that's the whole point of 3D, the bloody 3D effect!

Collingwood Magpies 2010 AFL Premiers
crazy4daisy is offline  
post #48 of 398 Old 07-14-2013, 10:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,124
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That's what I keep saying.

When the new 3D came out those promoting it - producers, film-makers, etc. - were at pains to say "This isn't your father's 3D. We won't be doing any obvious, cheesy "spears sticking out from the screen" effects
that will just distract you. 3D will be used only to enhance the movie."

Right, so enhance the movie.
Quote:
The problem is, it's the more pronounced 3D effects that MAKE 3D seem more worth the time. 2D already conveys a sense of depth - we interpret all the perspective, contrast, clarity, depth of field cues as depth. If you want to bring something new to the table you really have to add a new dimension.

Why people pretend they don't understand this when spouting off about 3-D has always mystified me. Who watches any video and fails to detect depth? Even my TV news with its handheld cams of dubious resolution captures depth just fine.
Quote:
When I saw Avatar it was the "wow" moments of 3D that stuck out in my mind - the reach-out-and-touch it effects and the times when the jungle treas were passing right by me. Having watched that movie many times in 2D, and now that I'm just going through it in 3D again, a great deal of the time the 3D isn't offering a great improvement in terms of immersion in the scenes over the 2D version.
I recently put on the Avatar scene where Jake and Neytiri encounter the floating tree spores that come down gently and land on Jake. A scene like that one DOES make a difference. When those bright spores start coming down out of the darkness the 3D effect is just astonishing, the spores coming right out of the screen all around the viewer, some right in front of my eyes like I could touch them. (Showing my wife that scene recently, she reached out to touch those spores). It absolutely brought a new dimension, immersiveness and magic to the experience that the 2D version can't compete with. Which is just how I felt during that scene in the theaters.

So, again, we had a weird summer: Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, Pacific Rim and Man of Steel -- all in 3-D. Iron Man 3 seems like it should've been tailor made for the format with all the flying bits of armor scenes. I remember exactly one "Wow!" scene in four films. It's the opening minutes of the Star Trek film on the non-advanced planet when they are running... The irony of that should be lost on no way. It's when the primitives are shown that they actually make the 3-D arresting. And that was in for 4 films.
Quote:
Yet these are precisely the types of "wow-making" moments film-makers seem to be shying away from for fear of being seen as too cheesy, or distracting the audience. They are going for subtlety - a "generally enhanced sense of depth" that, because we've already had a general sense of depth from 2D, isn't registering as adding much to the 3D experience.

It's somewhat bizarre. The "baseline" 3-D is at the point where it's generally not annoying or distracting. For example, there is 3-D-ness throughout Pacific Rim that rarely drops off into flatness (which happens too often in 3-D films). But with giant robots fighting giant monsters repeatedly, I don't remember ever feeling like we were anywhere near the action. And I promise you no one objectively reviewing the film would feel differently. That doesn't mean no one would enjoy the 3-D -- I'm sure some did and will -- but it's not being used to any particular effect. The problem there is going to be a feedback loop where people learn even more than they have that it's just a "scam" to get more money from us...
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy4daisy View Post

Give me pop-out-of-the-screen 3D effects everytime so I know I'm getting something extra for putting up with having to wear the glasses, that's the whole point of 3D, the bloody 3D effect!

You sum it up perfectly. It needs to make you want to duck. Or gasp. Or be afraid. Or jump at something. If I have to pay more, wear glasses, and lose the ability to slouch in every angle (because the 3-D effect breaks too often when you are too far off axis), I need a real clear payoff.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is online now  
post #49 of 398 Old 07-15-2013, 12:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'm a purist when it comes to 3D. The only live-action movies I've gone to see in 3D are ones shot that way. The closest I've come to breaking that rule was transformers 3, which was a mix of native 3D and converted 3D, but I went in with full knowledge of this.

Last summer had Prometheus, The Amazing Spider-Man and Dredd, all of which were shot in 3D. It would've had Jack the Giant Slayer as well, but that got pushed back to this year.

For whatever reason, this summer is seeing a complete lack of filmmakers interested in the format. The Great Gatsby is the only live-action 3D movie this summer that was actually shot in 3D, and even that shouldn't count since it was originally slated for release back in December. Meanwhile, it seems like more 2D-shot movies than ever before are having post-conversions forced upon them by the studios. Seriously, some of them are total head-scratchers. Did World War Z really need to be in 3D? I mean, I heard the conversion wasn't bad, but what exactly in the studio heads' heads screamed 3D aside from the handful of sweeping cgi shots of the zombies stampeding??? Or was the whole 3D decision a relatively late-in-the-game one?

I also scratch my head (albeit to a lesser degree) in regards to The Wolverine's post-conversion.

Star Trek Into Darkness has to be the biggest offender, though. Abrams wanted to shoot some of the movie in IMAX, making it only the fifth Hollywood movie in as many years to do so. Since his name isn't Christopher Nolan and this franchise's name isn't Batman, Paramount said "Sure, you can shoot it that way if you want, we're still gonna post-convert it because $$$$." As a result, money that could've gone to rendering high-res, high-quality cgi for the IMAX shots instead had to go towards native stereo renders for every cg effect in the film, be it standard-res 35mm or high-res 70mm, and the IMAX shots were only rendered at 1.66:1 matted down from the full available 1.44 height of the negative. There's only one 2D-only 15/70 theater in the entire DC area (all the liemax's and the 3D-capable 15/70 showing it were, of course, only showing it in 3D), and even that audience couldn't truly experience the 15/70 segments the way JJ really intended. That's too bad, IMO, a real compromising of the director's vision.

That became retroactively even more frustrating when WB actually offered a choice of seeing Man of Steel in either 3D or 2D IMAX. Seriously, Paramount, where was that choice for the movie that was actually intended to be seen that way?!

Thursday night I went to see Pacific Rim in IMAX 3D. It will be the first and last time I knowingly see a completely 2D-shot movie in 3D. You're probably wondering why I saw it that way, then, and the reasons are several. Originality is nearly dead in Hollywood, and I'm a big proponent - perhaps naively so - of voting with your wallet. Secondly, del Toro said in an interview that while 3D didn't interest him, he did insist on giving the post-conversion enough time and budget to be done well, and that the cgi be rendered in stereo. Thirdly, I wanted that imax poster(!) Still, it was not the way to experience this movie IMO. I couldn't see or hear what was going on half the time, lose myself in the story. That's the difference between movies like Avatar or Hugo or Life of Pi and The Hobbit, where filmmakers are using 3D to tell a story, and movies like we're seeing this summer where 3D is only added on later to guarantee an extra $50 million in box office, not to mention a return on the studio's already massive investment.

In the case of a very financially risky movie such as Pacific Rim, having it in 3D only makes sense, but with a guaranteed hit like The Avengers it's just obnoxious. I'm sorry, but you know there were probably a great many people who saw it in 3D because they hadn't reserved their sold-out 2D tickets ahead of time and just could not wait any longer to see the movie, even if it cost them a few extra dollars and they had to watch post-converted 3D. Disney knew they had a massive opening weekend on their hands, so why not make that much more money off of it? The studios aren't stupid. A friend of mine saw Captain America opening weekend and accidentally bought tickets to the 3D version. The theater chains aren't stupid either.

To bring all of this back on topic, my uncle recently got a sony sxrd projector and has several 3D blu-rays. I checked out Avatar and was floored by how amazing it looked. The reviews weren't lying, it really does look as good as it did in theaters. That said, I can still remember getting the 2D blu/dvd combo and watching it on a 27" 4:3 crt and being amazed by how three-dimensional everything looked just in regular 2D. That's why some people consider 3D inherently a gimmick, whether it's native or not, and can find these comments of using 3D to add "depth" rather pretentious since we're indeed already getting that in 2D. As Harkness said, if there's nothing protruding out from the screen, then what are we paying the extra money and wearing the glasses for?

So, even for native 3D movies, seeing it in 3D just isn't looked upon as anything more than a fancy extra thing. Paying more money for 3D isn't worth it for most people. If a movie is marketed well enough, people will want to see it in 3D. Sometimes the 3D will actually be good! Either way, it's still looked at as a gimmick.
rogo likes this.
Fang Zei is offline  
post #50 of 398 Old 07-15-2013, 06:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
I suggest that when people get these 3D movies at home on BD; Use Avatar as a standard measure and check what the depth slider is set on for that movie.
Then check the depth slider for the other 3D movie you are going to watch and increase the percentage of the slider up to where the image looks wonky and fuzzy, then pull back down to the movie has as least as much 3D depth as Avatar.

As I mentioned earlier. In my test on a 17" HD laptop with 1080p screen (highest PPI I have and sufficient brightness in 3D) with nVidia active 3D glasses and Total Media Theatre.
Avatar is good at 30% depth, which is the standard settings for Media Theatre.
Prometheus needs 50% depth on the slider to have the same depth as Avatar.
Amazing Spider-Man needs 75% on the slider.

What are your findings in regards to depth settings on your 3D display for 3D movies when you compare to Avatar?

.
coolscan is offline  
post #51 of 398 Old 07-15-2013, 06:36 AM
Senior Member
 
megdagooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I haven't been paying much attention to the thread but I'd like to add that I had my first theater tour yesterday. Keep in mind we aren't 1/2 done. The person we gave the tour to saw a few minutes of the beginning of the movie we watched earlier: Gullivers Travels. He was AMAZED!!! He said he had no idea 3D was that cool. He saw Avatar in 3D because of all the hype but didnt realize this is the experience you can get in your own home. I'm noticing that more and more, people are really not that aware. Heck, my dad INSISTED my 3D glasses were sunglasses because they weren't red and blue! Lol!
megdagooch is offline  
post #52 of 398 Old 07-15-2013, 07:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fresno CA
Posts: 5,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
I sell tvs. When selling a 3D set I am careful to tell the customer that actual 3D movies will not have nearly as much popout effect as the demo loop used in the store display, and recommend a couple like Madagascar 3 or Hugo that do have some significant amount of pop.

I've found 3D adds a lot even if there isn't incessant popout. Perhaps oddly the one film I have with the most impressive popout is Dial M for Murder from the mid 50s. The beginning credits float 4 feet in front of my 47" screen.
JSUL likes this.

Steve S.
Steve S is offline  
post #53 of 398 Old 07-15-2013, 08:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 207
Pop-out is the worst thing about 3D. 3D should be about adding depth to the image, as if you were looking through a window, not flashy effects.
The only time I will tolerate it is with particle effects. (smoke or other objects blowing around in the wind etc.)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #54 of 398 Old 07-15-2013, 04:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,124
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 472
Fang, what a great post.

Steve, I don't need the fake popouts of like, uh, Captain Eo? But I need to feel like I'm in the thing, like in Hugo for example. We are in the clock!

Chron, I could scarcely disagree more. Good movies already feel like you are looking out a window. We have to stop pretending 2-D doesn't provide depth and contrast. Of course it does. Plenty of it, in fact. "That said, I can still remember getting the 2D blu/dvd combo and watching it on a 27" 4:3 crt and being amazed by how three-dimensional everything looked just in regular 2D." Is Fang a fool? Of course not.

If there isn't a truly extra sense of dimensionality beyond the very real-feel illusion 2-D video has provided for decades -- massively enhanced in the HD and high-contrast era -- then the whole thing is a money grab and a gimmick. And we should roundly ignore it.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is online now  
post #55 of 398 Old 07-18-2013, 04:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
...but the "3-D haters" don't simply ignore it. They don't want it exist, period. I don't get that, it seems childish. I don't like sushi, but I don't spend liteally hundreds of hours writing anti sushi diatribes on the internet. I simply don't eat it. If others want to, what do I care? wink.gif
KidHorn likes this.
Steve P. is offline  
post #56 of 398 Old 07-18-2013, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

2013 has seen the further decline of the 3D television industry. For example, Disney recently announced the discontinuation of its ESPN 3D channel by the end of the year. It appears that this technology has gone the way of Livestrong bracelets and Friendster, but none of this should really come as a surprise. After all, 3D TV was never a good idea.


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/#ixzz2YIX1BpoJ

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/



Happy days are here again!!biggrin.gif:D. So glad this is over!! Now they can get back to improving display technology. Its amazing how crap like 3-D TV can get any run at all and SED got canned. SED got shelved in favor of PDP, LCD and 3D-TV, just have to SMH.

Next on list and let start countdown and failure of 4K TV, which is another attempt at fleecing the consumer.

BTW, I will never forgive the industry for shelving SED for this stuff. Now having said that, I will go back to enjoying my dithering PDP and my flashing LCD's. Nice job display technology industry.

 

This is just horribly obnoxious.  And a little concerning.  This kind of thing makes you happy: why?

 

What is it about some people that seem to take incredible happiness about 3D content not being supported?  If 3D is not for you, it's not for you.

 

3D did not hurt display technology at all...not one bit.  And what kind of high velocity rolling ball of steaming crap is this idea that 3D caused "the shelving of SED"?????  You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

And I, and many people, absolutely love passive 3D, 540 vertical and all.  Don't pretend to speak for others.  It's great for many of us.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #57 of 398 Old 07-18-2013, 04:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

I am holding out until 4D is perfected so I can time travel back to watch the Honeymooners live in full color 3D. I expect that gaming is where 3D will sustain and grow most, rather than in home TV passive viewing.

 

I thought about that, but if they half the time resolution, things are gonna get dicey in a hurry.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #58 of 398 Old 07-18-2013, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Yet these are precisely the types of "wow-making" moments film-makers seem to be shying away from for fear of being seen as too cheesy, or distracting the audience. They are going for subtlety - a "generally enhanced sense of depth" that, because we've already had a general sense of depth from 2D, isn't registering as adding much to the 3D experience.

 

Avatar did not win by making 3D a slap in your face.  Avatar did not win by being a great 3D movie.  Avatar won because they made 3D precisely what it should be: A vehicle to further immerse you into the story.

 

To this extent, 3D should be as transparent as it was in Avatar.  I completely forgot for nearly the entirety of the film that it was 3D at all.  THAT'S what 3D should be.  THAT'S what Cameron realizes.  As a result I was further in the movie than I ever was when I've seen the 2D versions.  I've seen that movie many times both ways.

 

So with respect, your statement "because we've already had a general sense of depth from 2D, isn't registering as adding much to the 3D experience" to me seems to start with a broken premise.  The "3D experience" isn't to notice the 3D for 3D sake; any more than anything else is, like color or HFR or resolution or or or....


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #59 of 398 Old 07-18-2013, 06:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
3D is probably ahead of where Laserdisc ever got.

And it made money for years and years.

buytme
David_B is offline  
post #60 of 398 Old 07-19-2013, 03:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve P. View Post

...but the "3-D haters" don't simply ignore it. They don't want it exist, period. I don't get that, it seems childish. I don't like sushi, but I don't spend liteally hundreds of hours writing anti sushi diatribes on the internet. I simply don't eat it. If others want to, what do I care? wink.gif

I agree. They also make the argument that 3D fails because it isn't an overwhelming success. By the same argument, you could say HDTV is a failure because cable has more SDTV channels than HDTV channels.
KidHorn is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Panasonic , Lg , Samsung

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