3D will only be 1:78:1/185:1 ?

Originally Posted by CAVX

It will all depend on the director. 3D versions of Avitar and Monsters Vs Aliens were Scope, yet Bolt 3D was 1.85:1.

Originally Posted by elmalloc

does anyone here actually want 3D in their theaters?

Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn

I watch 80% older films and none are 3D. The poop that eventually all films will be 3D indicates that all future films will be action adventure. These could include high quality films such as Transformers II.

For me I'd need to do a major surgical procedure and then more than double my equipment cost for what I believe will amount to a couple worthwhile 3D films per year. Sports is a different subject however. I think I might enjoy that in 3D and it could have real potential.

I guess I'll have to wait and see what happens to determine if I end up doing it but I think for films alone ,the answer ,as I see it now would be no.

Art

Originally Posted by CAVX

Not replace, just add.
With Dolby's 3D system, you just add the colour wheel in the light path and the sync box. All the 3D systems I've seen have 3D encoded discs that will play on any BD player.

Originally Posted by ilsiu

I think initially, 3D will be dominated by the big-budget blockbusters (animation, action) due to the cost of 3D production. If 3D establishes a solid foothold and costs get streamlined, perhaps we'll start to see other types of movies (dramas, independent films) released in 3D.

But I have trouble believing that all films will eventually be 3D. 3D vs 2D should be an artistic choice, the same as composing for 1.78 vs scope aspect ratio.

Originally Posted by coolscan

If you mean that the Fusion 3D Camcorder is the only digital 3D system in use you are quite wrong.
All digtal cameras are used for Live 3D shooting in a variouse configurations and rigs.
You can of course use anamorphic lenses for all these rigs, but very few movies shot for 2.35.1 uses anamorphic lenses. Most are cropped, only those that want the "anamorphic look" as in anamorphic flares or care about resolution shoot with anamorphic lenses.

Here are some 3D rigs in action with RED 4K camera, both in sidebyside and with beamsplitter.












As one see, that to shoot close up in 3D requires the very large beamsplitter rig which makes 3D shooting quite cumbersome even with small cameras like RED.

Here are Cameron with a beamsplitter shoulder rig (Fusion/Sony).





By the way; Cameron has said that he shot, lighted and focused/DOF Avatar for 3D without caring much for the 3D except the technological side because it foremost had to look good in 2D as that was the format most people would see the movie and generate most revenue. So whether it's shown as 1.78 or 2.35 he still had to protect what was in the image for both AR.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Alfred Hitchcock obviously thought there were some benefits. He made Dial M for Murder in 3-D back in 1954.

Your question is akin to those who assume that only action and sci-fi movies are worth watching in high definition, and that DVD is good enough for regular dramas and comedies. 3-D is just one of many tools in a filmmaker's kit, the same as other tools like composition or lighting or color. Talented individuals will find creative ways to use it for all types of content.

Originally Posted by coolscan

The gap between the cameras are dictated by the distance to the object. For every shot the distance between the cameras/lenses have to be adjusted.
That's why they need those big beamsplitter rigs for anything closer than 8 feet because the cameras are too big to get close enough.

Just to show then how big a underwaterhous with beamsplitter with two RED One becomes compared to IMAX under water housing.





The only solution is for the cameras to get smaller so the beamsplitters can get smaller and easier to work with.

Here are a picture of a test that someone did with a RED one and two anamorphic lenses shooting into a mirror box capturing two sidebyside images on the sensor. They where then separated and unsqueezed, giving two 4 megapixel images.



Imagine that method on a 20 megapixel (6K) sensor (or larger) and you have two 4k images.

But smaller cameras will help a lot for Live 3D features, like the proof of concept RED render. Two of these small "boxes" can easily be mounted to a small beamsplitter for closeups.



The situation now is that nobody, including Avatar, have really shot real 3D digital yet. Because real 3D movies should have deep depth of field. Everything should be in focus except the most distant background.
That's when you get real 3D. To get that to work you also need superior image quality. 2K/2x24fps isn't good enough. 4K/2x48fps is a minimum with projector at the same resolution/framerate and a lot of lumen on the screen.
That is the only future for 3D to survive.




All 3D movies shot on either film or digital have been using this kind of rig's for decades.
There are lot of reports of 3D shooting activity, but how much of that end up in features only the lists of future 3D features can tell.

The next "BIG" 3D feature is Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in march. All the live action there is shot with one camera and the 3D is done in post.

In addition comes all the 2D to 3D conversions of older movies that will in a big part be done by the Spielberg/Lucas/Dreamworks In-Three Inc. company that are doing a investment collaboration with India company Reliance MediaWorks Ltd.
It supposedly only cost $8-10 mill to convert a 2D feature into 3D.
How good the result is remain to be seen.