4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 398 Old 10-09-2013, 07:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,413
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm still not sure how you know this.  The 3 to 1 ratio of rooms in KidHorn's example would conceivably produce a single 3D room that meets the 3D demand perfectly. No?

Revenue per theater is lower for 3-D screens than 2-D screens. There is lost opportunity by showing 3-D. Already. Every weekend in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

In any case in America 40% of people are willing to pay more for 3d on average at the moment, in the rest of the world it is at 60%. That means over half the audience is currently willing to pay more to see 3d. 3d has demand that there is no denying,

Um, no. This is just wrong.

In America, less than 40% of people are paying. Their willingness to pay is probably even lower but forced choice, by limiting showtimes to 3-D in some cases, sells about 1/3 of tickets in 3-D. (I'm not sure what the actual 3-D buy rate is, but it's something around 1/3 of total tickets sold when the movie is in 3-D; the box office take is higher, obviously.)

In the "rest of the world", the forced choice is even harsher so more 3-D tickets are sold. Conflating this with "willingness" is a terrible fallacy.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 398 Old 10-10-2013, 04:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Revenue per theater is lower for 3-D screens than 2-D screens. There is lost opportunity by showing 3-D. Already. Every weekend in America.
Um, no. This is just wrong.

In America, less than 40% of people are paying. Their willingness to pay is probably even lower but forced choice, by limiting showtimes to 3-D in some cases, sells about 1/3 of tickets in 3-D. (I'm not sure what the actual 3-D buy rate is, but it's something around 1/3 of total tickets sold when the movie is in 3-D; the box office take is higher, obviously.)

In the "rest of the world", the forced choice is even harsher so more 3-D tickets are sold. Conflating this with "willingness" is a terrible fallacy.

Gravity just did 80% of its business last weekend from 3d. Yeah, clearly you are right and there is no demand for 3d (rolls eyes). One thing that usually happens at the moment is % for 3d starts of high and then drops as new 3d film come out and the relatively limited 3d screens are moved on to the newest 3d film (there are many more 2d screens then 3d ones). Essentially 3d films cannibalize themselves in comparison to 2d.

I can't believe you said "Revenue per theater is lower for 3-D screens than 2-D screens. There is lost opportunity by showing 3-D. Already. Every weekend in America" the week after 80% of the biggest films gross (which is also the biggest October opening ever) was from 3d sales. It is funny you state that others are wrong when you are the one spewing incorrect information.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #183 of 398 Old 10-10-2013, 06:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

If what you have are 3D gimicks, then what you have is called a bad movie.  Not a condemnation of 3D.  But a bad movie.  And that's a definition we already understand well.

I very much agree with this. 3D proponents and skeptics actually share a lot of ground- they both hate gimmicky, poorly done 3D.

I do believe that 3D has some market challenges in the short term. Changes need to be made in how they're made and how they're exhibited. These are growing pains. Taking the longer view, we're going to keep getting movies like Gravity. Movies where 3D is driven by the artistic vision of the director rather than the financial hope of a studio. Too many directors swear by 3D for it to go away unless there is a strong financial disincentive. The artistic quality of it will continue to improve. Technology keeps getting better and better, with various 4K glasses free 3D solutions coming up.

3D in the cinema has come and gone a few times. It goes away because the technology is too cumbersome. It comes back because the format is too appealing not to. So what happens when the technology is no longer cumbersome?


(As a side note, let's stick with writing it as 3D. "3-D" has an unnecessary and jarring hyphen. "3d" is sloppy and obviously lazy. There are good reasons that "3D" is most common today.)
Airion is offline  
post #184 of 398 Old 10-10-2013, 11:20 AM
Senior Member
 
JSUL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 38
3D can't save a bad movie.
3D can improve the viewing experience of a good/great movie.

Hollywood fails to provide many good/great movies...be they 3D or 2D.

Imagination and excellent writing skill disappeared years ago.
JSUL is offline  
post #185 of 398 Old 10-11-2013, 12:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,413
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

Gravity just did 80% of its business last weekend from 3d. Yeah, clearly you are right and there is no demand for 3d (rolls eyes). One thing that usually happens at the moment is % for 3d starts of high and then drops as new 3d film come out and the relatively limited 3d screens are moved on to the newest 3d film (there are many more 2d screens then 3d ones). Essentially 3d films cannibalize themselves in comparison to 2d.

Gravity is being called the best 3-D movie ever. (In terms of use of 3-D.)

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/best-3d-movie-ever-made/13747

Sadly, even the above-linked article still gets it wrong. Here's the press release on the movie:

http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2013-10-07/aoZ6GNtu4Qbc.html

"80% of US revenues were for 3D tickets"

That means that fewer than 80% of the tickets were sold for 3-D. Now, let's be clear, this was a movie that should definitely have been released in 3-D. But even Gravity sold only about 73% of its tickets in 3-D.

The average movie ticket runs about $8.40. (For new releases, it's probably higher, so we'll use slightly $9).
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/average-movie-ticket-price-is-highest-ever-1200565675/

Gravity sold about 6.1 million tickets and grossed $55.6 million.

It appears the average 3-D premium across the country is $3.25 or so.

So here's what we know....

x = number of tickets sold in 2-D
y = number of tickets sold in 3-D

b = 2-d ticket price

x + y = 6,100,000
x*b + (y*(b+3.25) = 55,600,000
y*(b+3.25) = .80 * 55,600,000

Thanks to Wolfram Alpha, I didn't need to dust off too much 9th-grade algebra...

About 27% of tickets were 2-D and about 73% were 3-D.

That's basically a flip from the typical 3-D movie at this point. Certainly a success for the format.
Quote:
I can't believe you said "Revenue per theater is lower for 3-D screens than 2-D screens. There is lost opportunity by showing 3-D. Already. Every weekend in America" the week after 80% of the biggest films gross (which is also the biggest October opening ever) was from 3d sales. It is funny you state that others are wrong when you are the one spewing incorrect information.

I'm not wrong. The one exception doesn't disprove the rule. Most 3-D movies earn fewer dollars per screen for a 3-D showing than for a 2-D showing. This doesn't even account for the fact that studios take a percentage of whatever is grossed, potentially making the ratio even worse. Something like Gravity will cause selection bias and make people forget for a moment how much the format is really costing them.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #186 of 398 Old 10-11-2013, 01:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I'm not wrong. The one exception doesn't disprove the rule. Most 3-D movies earn fewer dollars per screen for a 3-D showing than for a 2-D showing. This doesn't even account for the fact that studios take a percentage of whatever is grossed, potentially making the ratio even worse. Something like Gravity will cause selection bias and make people forget for a moment how much the format is really costing them.

Your entire pov is flawed, but your ignoring that you said in no uncertain terms that it was costing them every session. You are wrong, Gravity is a great example for that.

You also ignore the fact that 3d screens are so limited so many people who want to see a film in 3d but don't want to or can't go in the first week or two are often forced to see the film in 2d at that stage. But I guess that just couldn't happen as it isn't like there are limited 3d screens or anything. rolleyes.gif
FilmReverie is offline  
post #187 of 398 Old 10-12-2013, 02:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,413
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

Your entire pov is flawed,

A "pov" is an opinion, it cannot be flawed. You may disagree with it, but it cannot be flawed. For example, I think your "POV" is ridiculous, but I don't see it as being flawed."
Quote:
but your ignoring that you said in no uncertain terms that it was costing them every session. You are wrong, Gravity is a great example for that.

Actually, I seem to have said "every weekend." Not sure where you read something else, but perhaps I missed it re-reading all the above posts. If Gravity, which had a relatively solid open, was strong enough to be the exception, it's still the exception that proves the rule. So 51 of 52 weekends, 3-D cost theaters money this year. Well, woohoo.
Quote:
You also ignore the fact that 3d screens are so limited so many people who want to see a film in 3d but don't want to or can't go in the first week or two are often forced to see the film in 2d at that stage. But I guess that just couldn't happen as it isn't like there are limited 3d screens or anything. rolleyes.gif

It's 100% the opposite in the U.S. People explicitly choose the 2-D most of the time, but some are forced into the 3-D because the 2-D is sold out or the 3-D is at their preferred showtime. You know this to be true because basically Pacific Rim at 50% of box office (and therefore fewer than 50% of tickets sold in 3-D) was the highest 3-D attach rate this year before Gravity. I had done an earlier post showing how many screens were showing the movies in 3-D and it's often half, even though only about 25-40% of the tickets are being sold in 3-D. This fully exposes the lie of your claim that people are being shut out of the 3-D showing.

Incidentally, with Gravity, it's mostly available in 3-D in the U.S. (as many 3-D-offered films are offered abroad). You don't really have the chance to see it in 2-D as much. That helps guarantee the high 3-D take rate (and the high box office so long as people went to see it). I'm not sure Gravity proves a damn thing about the popularity of 3-D. In fact, I think it proves almost the opposite. It's essentially a better Avatar. "If you make a solid movie that happens to exploit 3-D really well, people will come." Maybe that overstates how solid Avatar was or sells Gravity short as a film, irrespective of its 3-Dness. But, like, I saw Hugo in 3-D after all the hype here. The 3-D was amazing. The film was... not. We'll go to Gravity tomorrow -- in 3-D, of course. I hope to still remember it 3 months from now.

The 3-D in everything else this year -- Iron Man, Star Trek, Pacific Rim, Superman -- was so forgettable, it was offensive to pay for. But worse, it did the medium no favors. No one was talking about any of it. It makes movie going more expensive and movie going is a flat-lining business. It's selling slightly fewer tickets most years at higher prices. That's a very unhealthy way to stay around for the next 20 years. It's relying on growing outside the U.S., but the movies are still mostly made here. Not a good formula.
CruelInventions likes this.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #188 of 398 Old 10-12-2013, 04:25 AM
PCD
Member
 
PCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Here you will find a very detailed breakdown of 3D movie statistics, as well as many others. SOURCE: The MPAA itself. I found it quite interesting myself.

http://www.mpaa.org/resources/3037b7a4-58a2-4109-8012-58fca3abdf1b.pdf

Evil Sysadmin

PCD is offline  
post #189 of 398 Old 10-12-2013, 02:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,413
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCD View Post

Here you will find a very detailed breakdown of 3D movie statistics, as well as many others. SOURCE: The MPAA itself. I found it quite interesting myself.

http://www.mpaa.org/resources/3037b7a4-58a2-4109-8012-58fca3abdf1b.pdf

Very cool resource.

  • Moviegoing is down 16% per person in a decade in the U.S., from 4.9x per year to 4.1x per year. Even with population growth (including demographic-band growth), that's 10% fewer tickets sold.
  • More than half of movie tickets are bought by the 1/8 of people who go to the movies often: Once a month or more. (I'm pretty sure we fall into this category comfortably in a given year, although it's "lumpy" for us.)
  • "The typical moviegoer over 25 years old attended only one 3D movie in 2012, compared to two on average for moviegoers under 25 years old." So the people that can afford it more easily, rejected 3-D more readily. On the other hand, this could be interpreted as possibly bullish for the long-term nature of the format if young people continue to desire the format as they get older. That's, of course, a mighty big if. Only 45% of people under 18 even saw a 3-D movie at all last year.
Anyway, it's a rich source of data, but if anything it shows 3-D viewing was, in fact, down -- which we know. The 2013 will likely show it was up even though "attach rates" are plummeting. Why? Because so many decent action films were released in 3-D: Iron Man, Star Trek, Man of Steel, Wolverine, Pacific Rim. You also had weird things like Gatsby and Gravity that opened strong... The net result is total 3-D has to be up, it was basically forced on people. But, as the data proves. the attach rates set record lows on about 10 separate movies. The success of Gravity is still the exception that proves the rule. Because of selection bias, it will keep 3-D top of mind for a while. But whether a bunch of 2014 sequels actually succeed with it (300, How to Train Your Dragon, X Men, Planet of the Apes) and animated fare (where the format is practically dead already) remains to be seen.
CruelInventions likes this.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #190 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 02:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Rogo: If less people are going to the movies is that why we are seeing the shift to LCD that sucks because Hollywood is afraid if picture quality gets too good at home people will quit going to the theaters and they don't think they can make up the difference with Blu-ray and on demand sales?

I know one thing--if it ever gets to the point where your only choice is LCD that sucks--yes folks 4K LCD sucks too--or going out to the movies then I guess I'll be going out to the movies!

The only question now is if plasmas already produced can last long enough for the OLED pipe dream to become a real reality.

If 4K LCD can't match Sharp Elite quality then what's the point of 4K LCD that would suck?
Artwood is offline  
post #191 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 04:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 288
As some folks pointed out, it's puzzling to try to understand why some folks have such a huge agenda trying to prove that 3D is failing. The sushi analogy is perfect, and something these folks need to read and digest.

As for 3D itself, in theaters and at home, I've been waiting for 3D to become mainstream and available at home for decades. Yes, I'm a huge fan of the format. No, I'm not a particularly huge fan of how some studios are pushing it as a cash cow (the whole "Let's take this 2D movie and post process it to 3D so we can charge more" mentality is annoying).

Producing more sub-par 3D releases doesn't do the format any favors.

On the topic of 3D depth vs popout:
Being a big 3D fan, I've seen a lot of the new 3D releases. Live action or animated is irrelevant to me. If it might have good 3D, I want to see it, have seen it, or own it on 3D BD.

Of all the 3D movies I've watched, one of the most impressive 3D experiences I've had at home was with Madagascar 3 3D. Let me explain why.

With the majority of 3D movies, the 3D is used in depth mode, i.e. it's used to enhance the perception of depth behind the screen plane because popout is considered 'gimmicky'. As other posters have already noted, a movie that is shot well in 2D can already produce an appreciable illusion of depth and perspective, meaning the addition of stereoscopic depth is a minor enhancement.

On the other hand, the use of popouts can indeed be gimmicky, as used in 'A Very Harold And Kumar Christmas'. A movie that, at its release had the highest count of popout moments I could recall. The popout moments in AVHAKC were deliberately intended to BE gimmicky and I was fine with that.

Madagascar 3 3D on the other hand, also had a lot of popout moments throughout the movie, but it was THE WAY they used them that impressed me. In M33D, the director used the popout effects in a way that I can only describe as 'Erasing The Screen Plane'.

As a point of reference, the use of depth in stereoscopic 3D is akin to watching through a window as kids play with a frisbee outside. You have the stereoscopic perception of depth, but you are not part of the 'action'. The action is occurring outside the window (the window being the screen plane on a 3D display) and you're just an observer. Occasionally, someone might throw the frisbee through the window to you and this is akin to how popout is used in most 3D movies; something occasionally crosses the screen plane to your side.

In the case of M33D though, things were constantly crossing in and out of the screen plane in many shots, from things like the background extending into and out of the screen, to objects that moved in and out of the screen, to the point where I felt immersed in THEIR environment as opposed to watching something through a window where an object occasionally crosses to my side.

By using depth and popout in this manner and transitioning seamlessly from one to the other often, the director for M33D has thus far, come closest to erasing the screen plane. More directors need to understand this concept and attempt it when filming in 3D. Rise Of The Guardians to some extent, followed this path too. If more movies used this concept, more viewers might actually be impressed with 3D presentations.

THIS is what I've been waiting for all this time, increased immersion. Every advancement thus far, since the beginnings of moving pictures, has been to increase the immersion and realism of the experience, from the addition of sound, to the addition of color, to a bigger wider picture simulating the wider field of view of normal eyesight, to surround sound, to higher resolution, to stereoscopic depth.


Max

P.S. Next, they need to get rid of the stupidly outdated 24fps convention. My eyes don't blur like that with the slightest motion and my vision doesn't stutter like that when I look around.
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #192 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 07:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,887
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 951

^I'm only at odds with two things in your above post.

 

1. All behind-the-screen convergence 3D movies I've seen have in front of the screen moments.

 

2. I disagree entirely with this assessment:

Quote:
a movie that is shot well in 2D can already produce an appreciable illusion of depth and perspective, meaning the addition of stereoscopic depth is a minor enhancement.

That's not true, and has never been true.


Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #193 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 08:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

a movie that is shot well in 2D can already produce an appreciable illusion of depth and perspective, meaning the addition of stereoscopic depth is a minor enhancement.

I would also disagree with this. We can see a lot of 3D cues without stereoscopic vision, but with stereoscopic vision they're largely ruined. Our brains prioritize stereoscopic 3D (which is why 3D technology works at all), so when we look at a 2D image, no matter how it was shot, it will look like what it is: a flat 2D image. Close one eye for a while and that's not the case. Our brains can work with the monocular 3D cues without a second eye spoiling the illusion.

There's just no substitution for stereoscopic vision. It's a unique sense in its own right with its own neural pathways. It's kind of like color. You can have vision, but be color blind, just as you can be stereo blind. If you can see color, you can view a black and white movie and get a pretty good idea what color things should be based on the shades of light and dark, and our experience with the real world. We know that trees should be green, and the sky should be blue, even if they're gray on the screen. But, that doesn't mean that black and white is as good as color, or that it actually looks anything like color. It's the same for 2D vs stereoscopic 3D. The fact is 2D will forever be unnatural. 3D technology isn't perfect either, but it at least resolves the glaring issue of not being stereoscopic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

P.S. Next, they need to get rid of the stupidly outdated 24fps convention. My eyes don't blur like that with the slightest motion and my vision doesn't stutter like that when I look around.

I very much agree with this. I like high frame rates almost as much as 3D, and I like both for the same reason: they better imitate how we see in real life. And that's the point.

I also agree with your other points. Certainly I think the movie industry can do without upcharging for 3D, and without poor 3D conversions. I don't think anyone here supports those, 3D fan or not. If all we have is the Gravities, Avatars, Lives of Pi, etc, then 3D will be just fine, and better off. They would inspire more of the same 3D quality. Luckily, I think that will be the trend long term. And, I don't see how trimming the excess means the death of the format.
Airion is offline  
post #194 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 08:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,887
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 951

There's something else going on here too.  Drawing conclusions from there being fewer 3D movies offered is tricky----I don't believe it's an indication of 3D getting somehow going away.  According to that MPAA report above, the take remained flat evven though the number of 3D movies offered was lower.  What I believe to be likely happening is that the "3D for 3D sake" business is starting to weed out now that its becoming a more common phenomenon.  The newness has worn off, leaving the movie goer not in any way impressed by a bad movie employing 3D.

 

By the way, I just saw a 3D movie at a science museum using the old linear polarization technique.  Thank goodness those days are gone.....just the barest smidgeon tip of the head and you get crosstalk out the wazoo.


Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #195 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 12:06 PM
Senior Member
 
scorrpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

Gravity just did 80% of its business last weekend from 3d. Yeah, clearly you are right and there is no demand for 3d (rolls eyes).

Well, looking at number of showtimes in my local theaters:
Closest AMC:
3D: 6
2D: 2

Fabian:
3D: 5
2D: 1

Bow Tie:
3D: 3
2D: 1

AMC IMAX:
3D: 6 IMAX, 7 regular
2D: 2

Frankly, if me and my wife decided to see it tonight, we would have no 2D option.
scorrpio is offline  
post #196 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 01:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,887
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

Gravity just did 80% of its business last weekend from 3d. Yeah, clearly you are right and there is no demand for 3d (rolls eyes).

Well, looking at number of showtimes in my local theaters:
Closest AMC:
3D: 6
2D: 2

Fabian:
3D: 5
2D: 1

Bow Tie:
3D: 3
2D: 1

AMC IMAX:
3D: 6 IMAX, 7 regular
2D: 2
 

 

^whoa!


Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #197 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
They're getting rid of 3-D. They're getting rid of plasma. They're getting rid of full array backlighting and making LCD suck more!

All they want to produce is LCD that sucks to the greatest degree possible.

And while all this is happening people around here at this enthusiast forum have their heads in the sand and try to sell people that picture quality is improving. It isn't.

Being able to produce maybe a hundred OLEDs that won't last a long time where the color blue will go steadily down the toilet for a zillion dollars a piece is not an improvement in picture quality for the real world!

4K LCD that looks worse than Sharp Elites is not an advance--just more LCD that sucks!

And Samsung plasma ISN'T better than Pioneer Elites.

How many years has it been since people were excited about going to a Best Buy for example to view a TV?

We're going backwards folks--welcome to the days of the Mustang II.
Artwood is offline  
post #198 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 03:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 315 Post(s)
Liked: 222
3D isn't going away at all. Regarding anything better than the Pioneer plasmas I guess it depends of what you mean by better..Panny and Sammy are both better if you want over 60". They are also better if you want 3D. They are both better if you want smart features. Black levels are important for sure but it ain't everything. 0 to 60 in 5 seconds flat may be terrific but 0 to 60 in 6 seconds flat is more than acceptable to the vast majority. In other words, Panny's black levels are really good and Sammy's contrast is perhaps the best ever.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #199 of 398 Old 10-15-2013, 08:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
confused.gif <-- This guy was watching a 3-D movie. His tummy is also reacting.
Weboh is offline  
post #200 of 398 Old 10-16-2013, 01:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,413
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio View Post

Well, looking at number of showtimes in my local theaters:
Closest AMC:
3D: 6
2D: 2

Fabian:
3D: 5
2D: 1

Bow Tie:
3D: 3
2D: 1

AMC IMAX:
3D: 6 IMAX, 7 regular
2D: 2

Frankly, if me and my wife decided to see it tonight, we would have no 2D option.

Exactly, This in no way proves that 3-D is popular, but rather that when people have no choice but to see a move in it, they will. (Now, Gravity should be seen in 3-D, so I'm not really complaining.)

When given the choice, consumers vote with their wallets.
JSUL likes this.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #201 of 398 Old 10-16-2013, 05:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,173
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 273
One should separate the Cinema3D and TV3D. On TV 3D is a huge failure. Even amongst those who own a 3D capable TV just a small minorty watches 3D on a regular basis.
8mile13 is offline  
post #202 of 398 Old 10-16-2013, 05:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Even amongst those who own a 3D capable TV just a small minorty watches 3D on a regular basis.

Why does that make it a failure?
Airion is offline  
post #203 of 398 Old 10-16-2013, 05:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,173
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion 

Why does that make it a failure?
They did not added 3D for a small minority did they?

Manufacturers build 3D TVs because they hoped they would sell more TVs, did not happen. Providers added 3D channels because they hoped to make some money out of it, did not work. In the end 3D is only interesting for a night out..

.
8mile13 is offline  
post #204 of 398 Old 10-16-2013, 06:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Every business dreams to make as much money as easily as they can. Reality doesn't accommodate them.

It seems like an odd metric for success to me, considering that we're consumers with nothing to gain financially from 3D.
Airion is offline  
post #205 of 398 Old 10-16-2013, 06:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,887
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio View Post

Well, looking at number of showtimes in my local theaters:
Closest AMC:
3D: 6
2D: 2

Fabian:
3D: 5
2D: 1

Bow Tie:
3D: 3
2D: 1

AMC IMAX:
3D: 6 IMAX, 7 regular
2D: 2

Frankly, if me and my wife decided to see it tonight, we would have no 2D option.

Exactly, This in no way proves that 3-D is popular, but rather that when people have no choice but to see a move in it, they will. (Now, Gravity should be seen in 3-D, so I'm not really complaining.)

When given the choice, consumers vote with their wallets.

 

That seems cart-before-the-horse.  Doesn't a movie theater reapportion their theaters based upon demand?  I thought they'd follow a common business model: If the 2D's were selling out, they'd add more 2D's.  Yes, they have to follow the pricing from the movie maker, but it must be the case that a theater is free to get more or fewer licenses as it needs of either 2D or 3D.


Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #206 of 398 Old 10-16-2013, 04:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,413
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

That seems cart-before-the-horse.  Doesn't a movie theater reapportion their theaters based upon demand?

No.

  I thought they'd follow a common business model: If the 2D's were selling out, they'd add more 2D's.  Yes, they have to follow the pricing from the movie maker, but it must be the case that a theater is free to get more or fewer licenses as it needs of either 2D or 3D.
[/quote]

No.

This stuff is set far in advance. If it weren't, theater owners would be dropping 3-D showing like hot potatoes and selling more 2-D tickets. Consider 3-Disasters like World War Z and Turbo, for example, where it was apparently by Saturday of opening weekend that far, far too many screens were showing the movies in 3-D. It just doesn't work how you think it works because the theaters aren't generally set up to be so nimble and the studio arrangements aren't so nimble and, well, theaters are a dark-ages business with some cutting-edge technology.

There is adjustment into weeks 2, 3 and beyond, of course. For basically every single movie in 2013, the adjustment was down from about 50% of screens/showtimes in 3-D for the first week. Pacific Rim was a notable exception in that it was perfectly fine at about 1/2 and 1/2.

Gravity was essentially sold as a 3-D movie. It's for more adult audiences who are less ticket-price sensitive and the bet was the spectacular FX would allow it be sold as "something you have to go see in 3-D". The bet paid off because it's stunning and because the 3-D (save for one early scene) is unlikely to make anyone feel sick but does add a lot to enjoying the film.

The Gravity 3-D/2-D screen ratio was set before the movie opened. That was risky in that if people simply rejected the 3-D showings, the movie would largely have been considered a flop. But it was able to take the risk for a couple of reasons beyond the great FX. (1) The competition was light. (2) The pre-release critical acclaim was off the charts thanks to festival showings, etc. (3) 2-D was so constrained in this case that people who were not necessarily looking for 3-D had no choice. The third of these is used abroad all the time to pump 3-D grosses. In many non-U.S. markets if the movie is offered in 3-D, it's basically only offered in 3-D. Attempts to try that domestically are presumed failures before they start: People who don't want to pay more or don't like 3-D will simply reject the film or delay seeing it until they can get a 2-D showing. So, a priori, theaters schedule enough 2-D to meet what they know to be demand.

For people who haven't seen Gravity, it's hard to appreciate why this was a great movie and a great use of 3-D. But it's still the exception. If Star Trek: Into Darkness had been offered in an 80:20 3-D/2-D ratio, it would have simply grossed millions less domestically.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #207 of 398 Old 10-16-2013, 05:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,887
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 951

I'm still not sure I understand, but in the case of exceptions, perhaps now that the industry has clearly been learning well what to do, the exceptions will wander closer and closer to being the rule.  3D is no longer the "wow" by itself.  So now the movies attempting to use it gratuitously will fade away.


Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #208 of 398 Old 10-17-2013, 02:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,413
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm still not sure I understand, but in the case of exceptions, perhaps now that the industry has clearly been learning well what to do, the exceptions will wander closer and closer to being the rule. 

2013 actually suggest the complete opposite has proved true. Nearly every weekend this summer some movie set a record for lowest 3-D attach rate ever.
Quote:
3D is no longer the "wow" by itself.  So now the movies attempting to use it gratuitously will fade away.

See, if that happens, I'd be delighted. If 3-D were present only rarely -- and only when it was going to be excellent -- I'd be happy to pay the premium and excited for it.

2013 was bust, bust, bust, bust... OMG GRAVITY IS AMAZING.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #209 of 398 Old 10-17-2013, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,965
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Manufacturers build 3D TVs because they hoped they would sell more TVs, did not happen.

SEOUL, March 18 (Yonhap) -- Worldwide sales of 3D TVs jumped 72 percent last year despite an industry-wide slump in the global TV market, data showed Monday.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/yonhap-news-agency/130318/3d-tv-sales-growth
Quote:
Providers added 3D channels because they hoped to make some money out of it, did not work. In the end 3D is only interesting for a night out..
.

I have Verizon FIOS and they only had 2 3D channels. Both of which showed sports programming from several days earlier. I don't think it had bad ratings because it was in 3D. More likely it failed because no one wanted to watch a Montana state vs Colorado football game from 3 days earlier. I don't think cable providers ever made a serious attempt to switch over to 3D.
JSUL likes this.
KidHorn is offline  
post #210 of 398 Old 10-17-2013, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,173
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn 

SEOUL, March 18 (Yonhap) -- Worldwide sales of 3D TVs jumped 72 percent last year despite an industry-wide slump in the global TV market, data showed Monday.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/yonhap-news-agency/130318/3d-tv-sales-growth
Quote:
Providers added 3D channels because they hoped to make some money out of it, did not work. In the end 3D is only interesting for a night out..
.

I have Verizon FIOS and they only had 2 3D channels. Both of which showed sports programming from several days earlier. I don't think it had bad ratings because it was in 3D. More likely it failed because no one wanted to watch a Montana state vs Colorado football game from 3 days earlier. I don't think cable providers ever made a serious attempt to switch over to 3D.

The only thing that matters is wether or not folks buy a 3D TV because they want to watch 3D stuff on it on a regular basis. This is only the case for a small minority of those who buy a 3D TV. So, ''worldwide sales of 3D TVs jumped 72 percent'' does not mean that ''interest in 3D content jumped 72 percent''. Interest among viewers for watching 3D content on a regular basis is still marginal.
8mile13 is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Panasonic , Lg , Samsung

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