Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 51

Hi Panther,

That author cracks me up.

He brings up one movie as if it is important, refuses to acknowledge recent projections and as far as 3D is concerned, it is apparent he is looking at it as half-empty.

He's not making any objective assessment, he's simply trying to inject FUD whenever possible. I ought to know for that's all I ever do.

2 Movies.

Too soon to know if it is just a blip, or the beginning of a trend.

Hi Panther,

We don't know the length of time it takes for what seems to be a blip to actually be the beginning of a trend. Yet it does seem surprising that the latest Pirate film didn't do as well in 3D percentage as one would think. Am sure that is something both the theater and consumer electronics industries are mulling over regarding the viability of 3D both in the theater and in the home as a profit maker.

Joe

Transformers 3 will be the real test.

I'm more surprised by Kung Fu Panda's percentage since 3D generally does better with kids.

That's the only movie I had planned to see in theaters this year. Mostly because it's the only movie too big for my house.

Side note, I'd love to see if there's a correlation between falling theater attendance and home theater adoption rates. Even just 10 years ago the movie theater was THE place to watch your favorite flick. But with TV's dropping in price but growing in size, blu-ray bringing exceptional AQ&PQ and sound systems getting easier/cheaper high fidelity isn't the sole domain of theater owners anymore.

Am I the only one that looks at their home theater and thinks what good is going to the movies? I'm betting no .. so maybe it's less about 3D fizzling and more about hollywood still betting on an old horse.

There are so many reasons that could be happening. There is, of course, the economy which plays into the home theater aspect which you mentioned. Home theater certainly strikes a blow as families can rent films for much less than the cost of a single ticket. There are also shifts in what one does with leisure time in general plus the lessing spare time one has as more and more are putting in longer hours or working two jobs.

It might also be that while there is an increasing U.S. population, the number of baby boomers has also risen to over 77.3 million and represents rougly 28 percent of that population. Habits change so those who rushed to see the last three Star Wars films or the James Bond series a decade ago might not now do the same for THOR and next year's 007 release (thanks, in part, to that home theater aspect). Again, we also don't know how many of those who were once theater buffs have now simply turned into couch potatos due to getting older coupled with the avent of big screen high definition monitors at home which fosters those beer bellies even more.

If they want a special version of Transformers, they should offer one where the robot battles are further away from the viewers POV. It's like trying to watch a football game from a camera on the Center's belt.

The further away you place what you are shooting in 3D, the less 3D affect you get. So what you are suggesting is the opposite of what they do/should do.

If anybody is able to, please catch some of the NBA finals on ESPN-3D this evening and let us know how it looks and if it seemed natural.

Thanks,

Joe

Panther,

That camera wouldn't even make it past the first play at scrimage!

What good are 3D effects if you can't tell what's going on?

If they move the camera even closer than the first two movies like you are suggesting just to try and get more 3D effect, the movie will bomb after the first weekend.

Is this less a technical and more an aesthetic issue and a matter of how the director wants the scene to appear? Or does it mean that the 3D becomes less effective technically the more the cameras pan out from the action (the more panoramic scope causing the action sequence to appear more two dimensional)?

Regardless of the issue suggested above, I would like to know why Avatar pretty much "surrounded" you in 3D. I can remember "seeing" plants right next to me on both my left & right side...as if I was right in the jungle. Also, those little "Dandelion-like" floaters seem to drift down in front of you. Many times i found my head jerking out of the way of one of those floaters.

Avatar's 3D wasn't "in your face" 3D. It was very subtle, very "matter of fact", like real life. It was like you were completely immersed in it.

Soon it will be 2 years since Avatar came out, and Hollywood has yet to bring out another movie in 3D that can match it for it 3D technology. I would like to know "Why?"...but I think I already know.

I also would like to know if any forum members who seen Avatar in 3D at the theaters, and also seen it in 3D at home, could tell me how the two compared in 3D effects.

Ghpr13

Long distance shots in 3D have proven not to be effective. They appear flat even when shooting in 3D because of the limitations of the camera lenses themselves. There is no parallax (depth).

There are two ways to capture close images; move the camera closer or use a different lens.

The presentations are pretty much the same - theater and home for AVATAR in 3D.

And it isn't a case of "matching Avatar's 3D technology." That has already been done and exceeded. What you are talking about is really Cameron's experience shooting in 3D. He has more experience than any other director in Hollywood. Avatar is his third 3D movie. The other two are T2: Battle Across Time and Ghosts Of The Abyss.

I think something went right over your head.

So clarify it for me.

Tried that once before and it took 5 pages.

Just forget I said anything.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.co...just-changing/


A decent middle of the road consideration.

Thanks for posting the article. I enjoyed reading both what the author had to say along with those who submitted comments.

I've only seen "Avatar" in 2D and thought it was a good film but not something great. It seems many felt that in this case Cameron was so meticulous that the 3D indeed added to the film and perhaps turned a good film into a great one. If so, then "Avatar" is an excellent example of how 3D can enhance a production rather than being a gimmick one eventually will tire of.

If the initial fad phase is over it is now more important than ever that 3D films be good in quality, effect and immersing one more into the story; it cannot survive anymore by just being an effect to ooh and ah over since according to the sample of comments, audiences are now going to be more particular and selective and many care more about the detail and clarity of action films more than things flying around them.

And that discretion might be why the industry at least here in the U.S. is now questioning it's own self regarding the future of 3D. From a business perspective, the additional revenue generated by the extra cost of the 3D ticket might no longer offset the extra cost of production and that there could be a bigger profit margin made by selling less expensive tickets coupled with much less costly production budget. It just remains to be seen how 3D continues to fare in the European box office and if those returns offset the lesser ones being made in North America. If the same trend begins there, then there are going to be a lot of movie theater chains upset about the expense of converting their theaters into 3D capable - which is why the broadcast industry is waiting to see how 3D television is accepted in the home before they begin such a massive investment themselves.

Also came across the attached which expands on what 3D Addicted posted:

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...&wa=wsignin1.0

With so many industry and media sources acknowledging 3D attendance in the U.S. has been on the decline since late last year accompanied by many negative comments in the article posted by 3D Addicted, one wonders if they are full of crap - simply trying to push an anti-3D agenda by distorting statements made by executives, purposely ignoring important facts and trying to do anything to accuse 3D being a failure - something one accused me of quite rudely beginning in February when I raised the question - from a business perspective - based on reports that were beginning to surface at the time indicating that increased revenue figures were hiding the fact that less were going to see movies in 3D. So no more accusations.

Of course, there are ways to reverse the declining attendance figures and this might be just a blip and not a trend. But now artistic quality counts for something and a lack of that is what caused 3D to fail in the past and only time will tell if the industry understands this to avoid so for the future. The problem is will the industry find it profitable enough to continue with 3D on a smaller scale with better films - notice that does not infer not being profitable but rather not being profitable enough to suit their coffers.

When I first started hearing that the new Pirate's movie was not doing too good at the box office, and it seemed that it's low sales were being link to it's 3D version, I thought to myself that it wasn't the 3D, it was just a bad movie.

Thor is a good example of a movie that did great at the box office, and even critics enjoyed, but was documented as being better in 2D than 3D. "3D did nothing for Thor", was stated by many critics.

IMO, it sounds as if the Pirate movies have run their course, as with a lot of movies, multiple sequels start to wear thin. The sad part is that with Hollywood determined to push 3D at us, 3D is now becoming the scapegoat
for low box office sales by people outside of Hollywood.

Again, though, Hollywood is to blame for trying to raise extra dollars by turning out one 3D movie after another, just to get that higher ticket cost for a 3D movie. Rather than putting out really good 3D movies, that would be worth the added cost.

What I always think about is that ever since Avatar came out, I can't think of one 3D movie since that I have heard or read that "You have to see this movie in 3D." Now I know Avatar had James Cameron at the helm and all his money...which created a media buzz and had people choppin' at the bit to see it, but still, two years later and no movie in 3D has been able to increase box office takes by just word of mouth...one person telling another, "Hey, you got to see this movie in 3D!"

Now, I not saying there weren't 3D movies made in the last two years that didn't have a high box office take, but none that I can remember had any "buzz" to carry the movie past the normal "theater life" of most movies. Another movie that comes to mind to explain what I mean by "word of mouth" and "theater life" was The Blind Side. Now even though this movie has nothing to do with 3D, it became a big deal just by "word of mouth". People seeing it and then telling others "You got to see this movie!" I guess maybe another way to explain what I mean is "staying power". Most movies become number 1 in box office sales the first weekend that they open, but then the second and third weekend they fall to second place or lower. I've had always looked at how a movie does that second and third week. If the second week it takes number 1 spot again, I feel it has something people want to see, and if it still in the top 1 or 2 spot in the third week, it's showing signs of "staying power"..."word of mouth" is keeping people coming to see this movie.

It's going to be a very interesting summer for movies and box office takes. IMO, this summer, and for that matter, this holiday season, should turn out to be the real test of 3D and it's "staying power". The novelty of 3D is wearing off. Consumers are starting to pinch their pennies again, thanks to high gas and food prices, and are not going to just throw their money at whatever Hollywood tries to throw out in 3D.

Ghpr13

Hi Gh,

Be careful - you don't want to be accused of spreading FUD.

I must admit when i seen the 1st batch of 3DTVs released almost in conjuction with 3D Cinema i said to my self hold on a minute....As we still had the smile to be chisled from our faces after spending,sorry,investing in a complete HD system ie:Full HDTV-quality BD player-decent AVR capable of HD decoding,possible new speakers & not to mention all the new cables we needed,along comes HD3D,HDMI ver1.4 within a year or so...whaaat!!I dont know about everybody but the money & time i put into getting a decent system together only to realise i had previous gen. equipment.It goes to show because SONY,PANA,PIONEER etc didnt make enough billions from next gen. equipment,IMO they panicked & got (or are trying to) 3D into the home.& to hell with all the people who prob spent the best part of $10,000 on a complete system.Now i must also admit i had a demo yesterday of a 46" Samsung $2000 TV playing some animated CG movie & it was very impressive,and a whole new level of entertainment.But as time goes by are we gonna be sitting there waiting on the next 3D part of the movie,without concentrating on the actual story,because IMO 3D could well be a flash in the pan.Quality LED TVs are welcome as they seem to be beautifully vibrant with nice contrast.At the moment im gonna sit tight & see what happens,because when i put the likes of AVATAR in 2D on my HCS i still marvel on how far we have come with S & V. But to have 3D shoved down my throat,as impressive as it obviously can be,noooo,not yet.Unless a huge bargain comes along or prices seriously dip,which they slowly seem to be doing.Maybe this post is yesterdays news as this thread has some really long posts and informative news.

Maladjusted,

Be careful - you also don't want to be accused of spreading FUD!

Some more FUD being generated by those trying to undermine 3D Television:


http://www.manufacturingdigital.com/...ested-in-3d-tv


I was wondering if the reluctance of the broadcast industry to invest in 3D is based on what they observe happening with the movie industry -- initial big interest was followed by major investments by many theaters owners to upgrade only to then find a significant drop in attendees. The same reasons that have been attributed to this (up to now) decline could apply to the home as well even with half the sets produced by 2014 being 3D capable and in half the homes as well.

1) As reported with Thor and the newest Pirates entry, many found that the action scenes in 3D lacked the detail, clarity and vividness of the 2D counterpart. With 1080p technology still only in the developmental stage, the same lack of resolution and clarity will exist in broadcasts and viewers might opt for the high definition version instead.

2) Even if the film itself is enjoyable, many no longer want to pay up to a 40 percent premium to see a 3D movie due to that increased cost and decreased technical detail. Would that be the same for cable subscribers who would have to pay extra for 3D stations?

3) Many movie theaters are not earning the profit (at this moment) they expected to justify such an investment. Could cable companies and networks be concerned that they too will not see enough returns to justify major investments upgrading their broadcasting capabilities as well?

The success of 3D becoming more than just an unused feature on one's television set is for both industries to take the risks associated with any investment so there is enough content and technical quality to entice television viewers to take advantage of the 3D feature most will eventually have. In this case, the industries have to make the first move for it to then be in the hands of the consumer. It is also a matter of these same industries deeming it would be profitable enough; the CE industry can rely on bluray and video games and ultimately the need for one to have a television in general to slowly foster sales once 3D becomes a standard feature. But by being a feature, the broadcast and cable industries do not have the same luxury to fall back on.

These are legitimate concerns that have to do less with new and exciting advances in entertainment as they do practicality from a business standpoint. With the high cost of conversion, cable companies and networks might not find it profitable enough to just serve a niche following.

IMO, one of the factors that would keep broadcasters at bay for 3DTV is similar to what the consumers are facing. Broadcasters just got done putting out a ton of money to broadcast in HD, now they're being ask to put out additional funds for converting to 3D broadcasting. Not going to happen...not for a long time. Additionally, I would think most consumers would rather the broadcasters put their money towards developing a way to broadcast in 1080P way before offering broadcast 3DTV.

Now, on the point of 3DTV via cable or satellite at an extra cost, I think that will be down the road. Right now the very few cable companies, and DirecTV, which offers 3D channels, are going to have them as free, much like early HD channels. If 3DTV does catch on, and these providers are able to offer a number of different 3D channels, I think then you will see 3D being package as a "premium" or "add on" package, for a added cost. Right now they're baiting us with the free 3D channels to help make a demand for more 3D channels. (Personal note: I have Dish and even though they have announced that Dish will be having 3D channels "soon", IMO they're standing on the sidelines, waiting & watching, before making the jump...as in that article, I think 3DTV is on the bottom of Dish's list too.)

And, I have always stated, that I feel gaming will be the real key in 3DTV. 3D and gaming just seem to be a perfect match. This will be 3D niche, with 3D Blu-Ray, and maybe an "All 3D" movie channel via cable or satellite. At least for the near future.

Ghpr13

Hi Gh,

Though some might think of us as charter members of the League of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) I like to think of us as members of the League of NPA (Notcing, Perceving and Assessement - not the "New People's Army" ) for all we are really doing is objectively gathering information on the phenomenon of 3D within the framework of what is already known both inside and outside the box (which includes the ability to differentiate between the sources of hype and fact) to ascertain a reasonable hypothesis on it's future. Theories to prove one's subjective opinion are often unreliable.

And one must also recgonize that what might hold true for 2011 might not hold true for 2021 and beyond since contributing factors apt to change rather than remaining stagnent. Remember the "Fight Pay TV" movement of the early sixties?

I'd rather they focus on being able to deliver a single 1080i feed properly before considering anything else. If they got back to full bandwidth 1080i, consumers wouldn't worry as much about 1080p, and even less about 3DTV.