or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Is 3-D dying a quick death at the box office ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 3-D dying a quick death at the box office ? - Page 8

post #211 of 290
Insults and self-aggrandization are typically inversely proportional to genuine achievement. They are also used as 'bluster' to obscure the lack of a compelling argument.
post #212 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubaruB4 View Post

Which makes me wonder how come they don't just make every tv 3D ready and you just buy the kit if you want it?

But that appears to be precisely where the industry is headed - at least for all but the very low end of displays. When I recently bought a new 60" flat panel, I don't recall seeing one that didn't have 3D coming along for the ride.
post #213 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm...er...a bit dubious of this claim.

Pete's taking a new approach to it. It's his claim to the claim that will become his claim to fame.
post #214 of 290
Jealousy is rampant here. Don't tell me you were right 15 years from now.
post #215 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

.
.... remember that I coined the term home theater first back in 1979 (in the context of using video and surround sound to show movies at home), and was the first person to pair Faroudja deinterlacer/scalers to advanced data grade projectors. ..
...... go find a local library , read books, preferably the old parchment scrolls aging curmudgeon, start a raucous there if you want to.

I took your advice and visited the local library to educate myself and help alleviate my ignorance in these matters. I found that the phrase 'Home Cinema' was first coined in 1922 in France by Charles Pathe when he introduced the worlds first Home movie projector - the 9.5mm Pathe Baby, which he advertised as "Le Cinema Chez Soi"
How can you possibly claim a phrase that has been in common useage for almost 90 years. .
post #216 of 290
....he's a lot older than he looks.
post #217 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

I took your advice and visited the local library to educate myself and help alleviate my ignorance in these matters. I found that the phrase 'Home Cinema' was first coined in 1922 in France by Charles Pathe when he introduced the worlds first Home movie projector - the 9.5mm Pathe Baby, which he advertised as "Le Cinema Chez Soi"
How can you possibly claim a phrase that has been in common useage for almost 90 years. .

I think because you did not carefully look at the word he referenced. Home Theater, which may seem like home cinema, but it is not the same (although granted, they do share similar roots if not meaning).
post #218 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

I think because you did not carefully look at the word he referenced. Home Theater, which may seem like home cinema, but it is not the same (although granted, they do share similar roots if not meaning).

Actually, the correct terminology is 'Home Cinema'. Places showing films are called cinemas. The designation of theaters for places showing films is really incorrect. Theaters are places where live performances are staged, and no one that I have ever heard of has a theater in his home. So Pathe used 'cinema', not theater - 'Le Cinema Chez Soir' Now if you want to get really gramatical about all this, then none of us have home theaters and only a few of us have home cinemas (where we project celluloid films on reels ). Most of us have big TV's and a sound system, and a few of us have a video projection system, which is neither home cinema nor home theater.
post #219 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

Actually, the correct terminology is 'Home Cinema'. Places showing films are called cinemas. The designation of theaters for places showing films is really incorrect. Theaters are places where live performances are staged, and no one that I have ever heard of has a theater in his home. So Pathe used 'cinema', not theater - 'Le Cinema Chez Soir' Now if you want to get really gramatical about all this, then none of us have home theaters and only a few of us have home cinemas (where we project celluloid films on reels ). Most of us have big TV's and a sound system, and a few of us have a video projection system, which is neither home cinema nor home theater.

I agree that it should be Home Cinema, but what did I know back then? I was A 19 your kid with a dream (when I incorporated Fermont Home Theater for the purpose of installing remote controlled VIDEO PROJECTORS, and TIME DELAY AUDIO UNITS with 747 first class seats), FILM? are you nuts? I HASTE 35 MM. The fact that I created a company with the words home theater to build electronic cinemas for the home certainly appears to be the correct first use of the term in terms of what we love. film screening rooms existed before, but the fact that with the exception of howard hughes few were completely automated. From day one it was to be based on betacam, and advent and kloss projectors.

If you appreciate the dying art of celluloid then join this forum. I have been a browser there for years but never became a member because I know I would be frequently insulting film projectionists that are passionate at what they do. I have always denounced film for it's lack of absolute control and manipulation potential. So no film for me.

If you attended the Moody Gardens 80 foot wide 70/15 to 4k shootout you would see that the show of hands vastly preferred the digital cinema.
post #220 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

Actually, the correct terminology is 'Home Cinema'. Places showing films are called cinemas.

What you think is the correct terminology is irrelevant. The question was if Peter came up with the term Home Theater. You argued he didn't because the term "Home Cinema" first surfaced 90 yrs ago. I corrected you by noting you had investigated the wrong word . Now you respond by acknowledging it is not the same term, but you try and make a different argument...who cares. Bottom line is that the term "Home Theater" is part of our general discourse and we know what it means, despite your contention to its invalidity. Now the question is did Peter invent it? I have no idea, but your response was clearly wrong, as was your follow up...interesting that in both cases you avoided dealing with the actual issue at hand and instead based your argument on a red herring. If your concern for intellectual honesty was as acute as your concern for the proper usage of the term Home Theater you would have never made the preceding argument.
post #221 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

If your concern for intellectual honesty was as acute as your concern for the proper usage of the term Home Theater you would have never made the preceding argument.

In any case, along with non 3D rooms, zooming CAN only be classed as home theater or was it home cinema? And I believe that we should be more mindful of the fact that taffman's 3d glasses are the absolute cutting edge that his opinion should hold more weight here. I was lucky enough to get a pic of them before they became classified by the NSA.

post #222 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

What you think is the correct terminology is irrelevant. The question was if Peter came up with the term Home Theater. You argued he didn't because the term "Home Cinema" first surfaced 90 yrs ago. I corrected you by noting you had investigated the wrong word . Now you respond by acknowledging it is not the same term, but you try and make a different argument...who cares. Bottom line is that the term "Home Theater" is part of our general discourse and we know what it means, despite your contention to its invalidity. Now the question is did Peter invent it? I have no idea, but your response was clearly wrong, as was your follow up...interesting that in both cases you avoided dealing with the actual issue at hand and instead based your argument on a red herring. If your concern for intellectual honesty was as acute as your concern for the proper usage of the term Home Theater you would have never made the preceding argument.

Of course we all know that the words 'Cinema' and 'theater' are (incorrectly) now interchangeable in modern lingo. But you raised the 'cinema' issue and I was merely trying to set the origination of 'home cinema' into context. So we all know that in todays language 'home theater' = 'home cinema ', and that "home cinema' originated in 1922.
The bottom line is that the idea of someone in 1981 being able to claim the origination of the phrase 'home theater' , when films have been shown in peoples homes for more than 90 years, is ridiculous.
post #223 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

Of course we all know that the words 'Cinema' and 'theater' are (incorrectly) now interchangeable in modern lingo. But you raised the 'cinema' issue and I was merely trying to set the origination of 'home cinema' into context. So we all know that in todays language 'home theater' = 'home cinema ', and that "home cinema' originated in 1922.
The bottom line is that the idea of someone in 1981 being able to claim the origination of the phrase 'home theater' , when films have been shown in peoples homes for more than 90 years, is ridiculous.

Perhaps you should consider the unlikelihood that film would be used wide spread in peoples homes. With TVs, we have been watching movies in our homes, but it did not reproduce the theater going experience. What Peter set out to do, is make it so that more individuals could achieve this experience at home using an ergonomic interface anyone could use. He never claimed to be the only one that set course down this path, but perhaps the original. I really don't think doubt about this claim can easily be settled with simple debate without proof. I don't think this thread is the appropriate place for that debate either.

What I do admire about Peter is his desire to provide the most immersive movie experience possible at home. He spends countless hours seeking out the most impressive gear to achieve this level of immersion. This is perhaps where the masses may not understand Peter's vision. Most of us don't have the means to procure the level of equipment that is required to achieve Peter's standards. Because of this, we find inferior 3D viewing to be distracting due to poor image quality through decreased brightness, lower resolutions and artifacts.

For me, do I want 3D to survive? Yes and no. I think 3D has the ability to provide an enriched immersive experience that can surpass that of 2D if done correctly. Unfortunately, that is not the case most of the time. Anywhere from the poor quality 3D from Hollywood and the many flaws of consumer displays provided for the masses to the overpriced tickets sold in theaters with improper setups causes me to not like 3D. Allowing it to succeed in its current form, provides our approval for these inadequacies, at least to Hollywood and movie theaters. I am sure consumer electronics would improve over time like they have with other technologies.
post #224 of 290
[quote=thxman;21323226] I really don't think doubt about this claim can easily be settled with simple debate without proof. I don't think this thread is the appropriate place for that debate either.
QUOTE]

I totally agree, but for the record, he is the one who originally raised the issue , and staked out his claim, in his personally very insulting response to my post (where is the Moderator when you need him?)
post #225 of 290
I posted this on the JVC projector thread, but it seems relevant to this thread:

This was a busy weekend for guests dropping over. With the projector sitting in a big box in our front hallway, it often came up in the "what is that?" conversation that it's a 3D projector.

It was virtually unanimous that no one cared for or liked what they'd seen of 3D! My wife had told me "why get a 3D projector, I don't really like 3D very much." My sister: "3D makes me nauseous." My pal: "I'm not really on the 3D bandwagon...I don't really like it much." Other guests made similar comments.

Now, I know that some of the 3D enthusiasts here will say "They just haven't seen 3D done right. I bet they'll change their tune when they see a good title on your home theater set up."

And that may be right. But the point I'm making is: most people won't ever see that.
There seems to be not just a blase attitude about 3D at this point from many "average folks" but if anything a larger percentage of downright antipathy toward 3D. And my anecdotal experiences with people I know mirrors what I see on-line (e.g. at Gizmodo/Engaget...and also other non-techy forums) whenever 3D comes up. The comments are often filled with really negative experiences associated with 3D.

I wonder if at this point people are too soured on 3D that it may be very difficult for the studies to overcome. It's hard to be optimistic about 3D's future, at least from the type of experiences mentioned above.

Further, today I tried the Sony 3D headset. It was really cool at first, but it ultimately reminded me, especially with the movie clips, that I wasn't getting that much more out of the movie than I do in 2D, and that simply viewing a rich, sharp, smooth projected image on my home theater, unencumbered, is a far more natural and appealing experience.

Which gets me around to saying that, although I want "in" on being able to watch some 3D at home, my concern is vastly weighted toward getting the best 2D images I can from a projector. Ultimately I'd like to maximise the sense of image dimensionality via a better 2D image (better contrast/sharpness/ANSI etc) if possible.
post #226 of 290
I think a better chance at increased visual quality will be 4k and even higher rez digital projectors that can handle 48 fps and greater frame rates.

Greater detail and frame rates 2x or more than traditional 24 fps have the potential to have a more dramatic visual impact than dim 3D and all its added artifacts and clunky glasses.
post #227 of 290
In support of the "3D being the new literacy" corollary.

Is 3D the medium of the future?
3D is the hottest thing in cinema and television ... and fertile new ground for academic study


reddit this
Comments (13)

Lucy Tobin
guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 November 2011 12.00 EST
Article history

Steven Spielberg’s film The Adventures of Tintin is just the latest 3D hit, watched by millions around the world. Photograph: Columbia/Paramount
Steven Spielberg's 3D film The Adventures of Tintin took £25.5m in ticket sales around the world. And 3D is also entering Britain's homes, via expensive TV sets. Proponents of the format claim it is the future of media viewing.

But, according to Owen Weetch, of the University of Warwick, 3D isn't always worth the extra cash or spectacle-wearing and only some genres and films are improved by the format. "I started to investigate 3D cinema about six months before Avatar was released, when there was a great deal of advance publicity keen to tout 3D as the future of cinema, comparable to the introduction of sound or colour," says Weetch. "I was interested in whether this would be the case, or if it would simply be 'the emperor's new clothes'."

Watching films or researching other criticism and analysis of 3D, Weetch noticed a lot of condemnation of the format. "Critics such as Roger Ebert and Mark Kermode are opposed," he says, "and a recent study by L Mark Carrier of California State University suggests that the medium produces headaches, eyestrain and trouble with vision and 'there aren't any benefits in terms of understanding the movie better'."

Weetch disagrees. Some films are well worth the effort of 3D, he says. "In my research I investigate specific genres and how previous alterations to the cinematic image's width and depth – such as deep focus and wider screens – have impacted on those genres' representational strategies. Genres that in some way depend on the space or environment in which their stories take place certainly do benefit – exponentially – from the additional dimension."

Take Avatar, the 3D James Cameron-directed blockbuster that smashed all records to become the fastest movie ever to achieve $1bn in world ticket sales . "It's a science fiction spectacular about humans engaging with a new, alien space," says Weetch, "so a stereoscopic [3D] staging that emphasises deep space guides the audience into the story world. This aligns the viewer more forcefully with the protagonists, who are themselves exploring this space, and so heightens the immersive thrill of the story."

Horror films are another genre where it is worth paying for 3D, Weetch believes. "They have traditionally seized on the dark shadows at the edge of the frame to scare their audiences and 3D can use its extension of screen space to create unprecedented dark spaces, out of which threats might leap. The object of terror might have been hiding right in front of your nose while you've been scanning the distance."

Scary stuff – but not as terrifying as the academic's musings on Jackass 3D. "When a film's focus is on bodies moving through space, as in musicals, dance films and slapstick comedy, the impression of that movement becomes more palpable in 3D," Weetch says. "Jackass 3D and Pina 3D exploited this masterfully. For the person who finds one of the Jackass boys tying a remote-controlled helicopter to their penis amusing, surely that's going to be funnier if the helicopter flies out of the screen."

But not all 3D experiences are worthwhile. "It costs more to go to a 3D film, so you want it to at least try to earn its money," says Weetch. "The worst examples tend to be films converted to 3D in post-production, for example Alice in Wonderland 3D.

Like Avatar, it's about somebody entering a strange new world, but is filled with dull, flat compositions that display no real attempt to engage with the third dimension. "With conversion, you get a very artificial sense of flat objects being layered atop one another like cardboard cut-outs, rather than an honest sense of depth or curvature."

Some film-makers use 3D as an excuse to forego other, potentially more important parts of a viewer's experience, Weetch adds. He flags up the example of Sanctum, this year's 3D underwater adventure. "It made an honest attempt to engage with the aesthetic of depth, but was let down elsewhere, by rote storytelling or ineffectual direction. While 3D is one of many textual strategies that can contribute to thematic and narrative unity, it isn't necessarily effective on its own." Some filmmakers, Weetch adds, exploit viewers: "they think they can make money by foisting depth on to something shallow, and it simply doesn't work that way."

In the context of funding cuts to academia and questions over "Mickey Mouse degrees", Weetch admits he does face accusations that the films he studies are "not exactly serious or particularly highbrow." But that, he says, "presumes that 3D can't contribute to films that are concerned with characters and ideas, which I'd attribute to ignorance and snobbery. Tintin, The Hole in 3D, and Kung-Fu Panda 2 all contain psychoanalytic sequences where characters retreat mentally into their past, and 3D layering expressively portrays the inner workings of their minds."

Ill have to school that scholar on the benefits of Spy Satellite Tech converted 23d, 5 minutes of return of the king and he would be retracting like other 3D mavens before him.
post #228 of 290
Mark Hughes, Contributor
I write about films, especially superhero films, & Hollywood.
+ Follow on Forbes

LIFESTYLE | 10/26/2011 @ 10:24AM |1,539 views
The Science And Future Of 3D Films, With Legend3D Founder, COO And CTO Dr. Barry Sandrew - Part 2
+ Comment now
If you read my blog regularly, you know Iʼm a proponent of 3D filmmaking. Yesterdayʼs blog post began a three-part look at the most prominent 3D conversion studio working in Hollywood today. We discussed the state of 3D filmmaking and recent advances in 3D technology, and we addressed criticisms of 3D and how those problems are being solved (including the big advances made in Transformers: Dark of the Moon). Today, weʼll tackle the ’3D is dead’ claims, and debunk the recent ‘study’ that claimed 3D adds nothing to the filmgoing experience. And tomorrow, weʼll discuss the future of 3D in both cinema and television. So read on for Part 2 of a three-part discussion with Barry Sandrew, Founder, COO and CTO of Legend3D…

It seems impossible to read or discuss anything about 3D films without someone insisting 3D is just a fad thatʼs losing popularity among audiences and will soon die out. As soon as a few 3D films saw declines in domestic audience attendance (typically from about 60% to about 40-45%, give or take a few points), many of 3Dʼs detractors rushed to proclaim the “death” of 3D was at hand. Yet as Iʼve explained in a previous blog posting, this chorus of “3D is dead” voices is overstating things quite a bit.


Dr. Barry Sandrew of Legend3D

I asked Dr. Barry Sandrew, Founder, COO and CTO of Legend3D — the largest U.S.-based 3D conversion studio in the film business — to explain why those pronouncing 3D “dead” are in fact dead wrong.

“Worldwide, the performance of 3D movies has been extremely strong during the past two years,” Dr. Sandrew stated. “Despite that fact, itʼs not uncommon to have one commentator looking at the box office numbers as proof 3D is ʻfading’, while another, relying upon the same data, interprets it as proof that 3D is ʻhotʼ and ʻon the rise.ʼ”

“The reality of what has been happening,” he said, “though not without a few negative instances, is positive growth for 3D worldwide. According to the-numbers.com, six of the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time are 3D films that were released since Avatar in 2009. That represents $8.361 billion of gross revenue over the past two years or 63% of the total gross from the top 10 films of all time. If 3D didn’t add anything to the movie-going experience, would 40% to 60% of $8.361 billion worth of moviegoers make the choice to pay a premium price to see the 3D version of a movie? I don’t think so.”


Neither do I.

Addressing the point about the drop in 3D attendance from upwards of 60% of box office revenue to approximately 40% of box office revenue this year, Dr. Sandrew noted, “Globally, there are still significantly fewer 3D screens available to the audiences than there are 2D screens. Charlotte Jones, senior analyst for cinema at IHS [Screen Digest], stated that ‘at least one in four of the worldʼs screens is now 3D-capable.ʼ If only one quarter of the worldʼs screens is 3D-capable, isnʼt any number greater than 25 percent an acclamation that 3D is alive and well? Currently, there are more than 30,000 3D screens internationally, which is twice as many as those available to audiences just one year ago. This growth represents the incredibly strong and sustaining consumer demand for 3D.”

He continued, “When taken out of context, the disparity between 3D attendance and 2D attendance might lead someone to conclude that 3D is not as popular as 2D. However, in the context of the relative proportion of 3D to 2D screens, at 40%, the 3D box-office numbers are a significant indication that 3D is thriving.”

The Science And Future Of 3D Films, With Legend3D Founder, COO And CTO Dr. Barry Sandrew - Part 2
+ Comment now
PAGE 2 OF 3


Definitely a "wow" moment from "Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

“Transformers: Dark of the Moon proved that when the ‘wow‘ factor exists, and when theater owners help make sure their screens are bright and project accurate vivid colors, 3D is brilliant,” Dr. Sandrew said. “The 3D in Transformers: Dark of the Moon was internationally acclaimed as spectacular, as both the studio and the theater owners worked as a team to ensure that it was shown properly. Paramount knew the exhibitors would cooperate and therefore marketed the 3D ‘wow‘ factor of the movie extremely well, a great example of successful execution for the industry-at-large.”

Indeed, Transformers: Dark of the Moon enjoyed more than 60% attendance at 3D screenings, an indicator of how successful the film was in selling what Dr. Sandrew referred to as the ‘wow‘ factor. “The combination of making a truly great 3D movie, and properly marketing it, resulted in a great return on investment and likely added many tens of millions of dollars in incremental revenue for Paramount,” he says.

Concluding his discussion about 3D attendance figures, Dr. Sandrew remarked, “The economy, as well as many other potential barriers to entry for the typical movie-going audience, is very much at play in these statistics and must continue to always be a part of ongoing discussions and market evaluations. To a family struggling in this economy, perhaps a rental DVD, Blu-ray or streaming movie on demand is a more attractive value proposition than multiple 3D tickets.


Bumblebee and $1.1 billion dollars agree.

“The bottom line is this: none of these figures suggest any weakness in the concept or viability of 3D. I still strongly believe that the majority of moviegoers prefer 3D versus 2D.”

3Dʼs detractors recently latched onto a supposed study that purported to demonstrate 3D not only adds nothing to the filmgoing experience, but in fact has a negative impact on audiences. Having already seen this “study” myself and quickly noticed a lot of problems with its methodology and conclusions, I asked Dr. Sandrew what he thought about the study, and whether some of the media seem too eager to jump on any chance to promote claims — whether true or not — that present more problems for 3Dʼs future.After obtaining a copy of the study from one of the authors, Dr. Sandrewʼs assessment was the same as my own.

“It turned out that the ʻstudyʼ was not a completed study at all in a scientific sense,” he said, “but rather a poster presented last August at the American Psychological Association. Posters like this one describe experiments that are typically not yet published, or graduate student experiments that might not ever be published. I emailed one of the authors for additional clarification and I received two responses, both of which gave me an indication of how loosely the experiment was conducted.”


Harvard Medical School, image courtesy of Harvard

By the way, I should note for the record that Dr. Sandrew knows what heʼs talking about with regard to scientific study. They donʼt call him “Doctor” for nothing — after getting his Ph.D. in neuroscience from SUNY at Stony Brook, he was awarded an NIH Post-Doctoral fellowship in neuropharmacology at Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, and later served as a staff neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School/Mass General Hospital. He eventually left the medical field in the mid-1980s and invented the first all-digital process for converting black and white films to color, taking on clients like Turner Entertainment, Disney, Warner Bros., and many more.

Anyway, Dr. Sandrew continued his assessment of the “study” being touted in the media. “The lay public is generally not sensitive to this, but the only legitimate scientific study is one that is published in a reputable scientific journal. An unpublished poster presented at a conference therefore cannot and does not fit these criteria and this must be noted. Reputable journals put each study through a rigorous peer review process, where all aspects of the methodology, statistics, results and conclusions are scrutinized by experts in the field to determine if the study appears valid and suitable for publication. This particular author got back to me after a week to let me know that the study was currently under review in an unnamed journal. It will be interesting to see if it ever gets published and if so, in what kind of journal.”

He went on, “Therefore, as of today I cannot comment on the validity of this particular study, nor can anyone else judge the accuracy of these results from simply looking at the poster. Despite some conclusions, I believe that no reputable scientist would state that a study ʻprovesʼ something. A scientific study might ʻindicateʼ something is true within a certain tolerance level or percentage of probability, but certainly they would never state that it definitively ʻprovesʼ anything. In this case, I believe the data is highly suspect and is insufficient in suggesting anything with validity.”

The Science And Future Of 3D Films, With Legend3D Founder, COO And CTO Dr. Barry Sandrew - Part 2
+ Comment now
PAGE 3 OF 3

From there, Dr. Sandrew explained that in fact, the study on which the poster presentation was based does appear to be flawed.

“Because the investigators could not conduct the experiment in a controlled environment,” he said, “they had the subjects go to the local movie theater on their own to watch films of their choosing in either the 2D or 3D format. They then let the subjects take 30 days to report their experiences using a questionnaire that, as you recognized, was designed in a way that poses a myriad of issues that are problematic. There are simply too many variables not considered that should have been obvious to the investigator. The author indicated that the reason for the 30-day delay in subject reporting was due to the fact that they did not have any way to ʻforce (the subjects) to do it earlier than that.ʼ Because of the significant lag time between the event and the registration of reactions, other influential factors are introduced as many things may have influenced the results, not the least of which might be the pressure and nuisance that participants may have felt in having to do all of the follow-up work needed to complete the study many weeks later.”

In addition to those problems, there were several more that Dr. Sandrew noted. “The selection of films was not carefully considered for content or genre either. Since this was not a controlled environment, there was no indication as to what the theater-going experience was like for each of the subjects, and if their individual experiences, independent of the films and the content, influenced their reactions.”

For example, he noted, “Many factors can affect a personʼs experience and they should always be taken into account when evaluating results: the time of day each subject saw the movie; how each member of the audience reacted to the subject matter of the movie across the spectrum of the selected movies; the mental and physical state and distractions that influenced each subject as they watched the movie; with whom they attended the movie; the way that the movie was exhibited within the movie theater; and whether or not the bulb in the theater was new or up to normal brightness.”

Dr. Sandrew said that while the poster had an indication that the subject matter of the 3D feature films had an effect on responses, “there were no clear answers as to how these variables were controlled in the study. The author also then admitted that it would take a more sophisticated analysis to determine ‘how film content might interact with other variables in affecting the movie experience’.”

As for the mediaʼs eagerness to promote this “study” and its claims as well as other such negative studies, Dr. Sandrew stated, “The attention this study received is just one example of how data regarding 3D can be manipulated to draw any conclusion in order to satisfy an agenda. In reality, the 3D industry is still in its nascent stages and is continuing to grow and find its place within the larger film industry. Like other advancements such as ʻtalkies,ʼ color TV and HD, 3D will take time to develop and fully mature to wide acceptance. The important thing to keep in mind is that as these advancements were introduced, they each became a solid piece of the foundation on which we all now stand, ultimately serving to advance the art of the industry.”


Image via Wikipedia

But regardless of what the media or detractors try to say, Dr. Sandrew feels the really important data is simple and obvious. “Despite the referencing of many of these aforementioned studies, the bottom line remains that you need to look no further than the box office numbers. If 3D didnʼt add anything to the experience or was a negative experience, would you expect six of the top 10 revenue generating movies of all time to be 3D? Well, they are. Approximately 40% to 60% of the $8.361 billion generated by those six movies during the past two years represent moviegoers who made a choice to pay a premium price to see the 3D version of the movie. Would they spend that extra money for a zero sum or negative experience? I donʼt think they would.”

Agreed, Dr. Sandrew. Very much agreed.

In Part 3 tomorrow, weʼll discuss how 3D is changing the way films are made, the new tools it provides for filmmakers, the future of 3D television, and where 3D is headed in years to come!

The Science And Future f 3D Films, With Legend3D Founder, COO And CTO Dr. Barry Sandrew - Part 3
+ Comment now
O

If you read my blog regularly, you know Iʼm a proponent of 3D filmmaking. This week, I began a three-part look at the most prominent 3D conversion studio working in Hollywood today. In part 1 and part 2, we discussed the state of 3D filmmaking and recent advances in 3D technology, how complaints and problems in 3D are being solved, and the claims that ’3D is dead.’ Today, weʼll conclude by discussing the future of 3D in both cinema and television. So read on for part 3 of a three-part discussion with Barry Sandrew, Founder, COO and CTO of Legend3D…

Itʼs obvious what advantages 3D brings to film-going audiences. But what about filmmakers and studios?


Dr. Barry Sandrew of Legend3D

I asked Dr. Barry Sandrew, Founder, COO and CTO of Legend3D — the largest U.S.-based 3D conversion studio in the film business — to explain why 3D provides an advantage both artistically and commercially, and whether those reasons tell us if 3D is really here to stay.

“When it comes to 3D, everyone is still in a learning phase,” Dr. Sandrew stated. “Some directors who understand the medium are aided by truly knowledgeable stereographers at every stage of their productions, and then there are other directors, who also have a sensitivity toward 3D that prefer to use a stereographer only in a post production mode. In any visual effects-heavy film, the mastery of the director and cinematographer/stereographer is key to the creation of good or exceptional visuals, and this reliance on both technical and creative expertise is not any different in 3D. 3D offers the filmmaker an unprecedented ability to influence the memory, emotions and even primitive survival instincts of the audience in a manner that is impossible in 2D. When employed correctly and strategically, and when the appropriate knowledge base is leveraged, 3D can be a very powerful creative medium for the director.”

Dr. Sandrew proceeded to make a fascinating point about how the literal physical experience of viewing a 3D film speaks to the artistic advantage it supplies to filmmakers.

“From a visual standpoint, when watching a typical 2D movie, the audience has learned to ʻreadʼ the flat images on the screen, in some respects much the same as if the images were presented in a book,” he said. “This means that instead of restricting the images to the size of a page, the images are restricted to the size of the screen or exhibition frame, and the brain has little to do relative to its own physical awareness in interpreting the images and action on the 2D screen. The images that hit the retina of each eye when watching a 2D film are carried unchanged to the visual cortex where fusion of those images in the brain is a precise one to one overlap in every way. There is no disparity between either image.”

This, Dr. Sandrew said, means we see a single flat image lacking volume and depth, “other than what we can pick up from monocular depth cues.” He added, “The placement of objects on the screen and the speed and direction of object movement are each correctly interpreted as things that are happening on the surface of the movie screen rather than experienced as things that
are happening behind it or in front of it.”

His next points showed just how much Dr. Sandrewʼs knowledge of science and neurophysiology informs his business sense and the application of 3D technology to artistic creation.


"Conan the Barbarian"

He began, “With 3D however, when itʼs created correctly, the theater-going experience becomes an active one—the visual cortex is more properly engaged. There are neurons in the visual cortex that are specifically tuned to the degree and direction of image disparity falling on our left and right eyes. They in turn transmit this data-rich binocular information to parts of the temporal lobes of the brain implicated in memory and emotions. Experiencing the depth of three dimensions in a theater environment therefore has the effect of breaking down the ʻfourth wall,ʼ or the separation of the audience from the action on the screen, and makes it a more personal experience.”
The Science And Future f 3D Films, With Legend3D Founder, COO And CTO Dr. Barry Sandrew - Part 3
+ Comment now
PAGE 2 OF 5

“Furthermore,” Dr. Sandrew continued, “I believe that 3D films that are produced correctly tend to also break down a ‘fifth wall’. In this case, Iʼm defining the ‘fifth wall’ in a 3D theater as each audience memberʼs acknowledgement of, and interaction with, the rest of the audience; in other words, the group dynamics of the theater experience.


"Alice in Wonderland"

Many people report that when they are engaged in a 3D feature film, their sensitivities to the rest of the audience diminish making the experience that much more personal for them. I also believe the relative isolation that the glasses can create for moviegoers in separating them from the other audience members aids in that effect making it a uniquely positive, personal experience for many.”

Fascinating stuff. But how is this an artistic advantage, you ask?


"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"

“The director can use our current knowledge of binocular vision to enhance storytelling by using the third dimension to trigger memory, heighten emotions and play with our survival instincts or vulnerability, all of which bring the action on screen into each audience memberʼs personal space,” Dr. Sandrew explained.

“In a 3D theater, the object coming across the ‘stage’ from screen right is not experienced as menacing until the direction abruptly changes and it travels towards the audience with accelerating speed,” which he said can trigger portions of our brains influencing our “fight or flight” responses. “While this same imagery on the screen can create an emotional response in a 2D movie, the intensity of that experience, and the tendency to reflexively ‘duck’ or ‘move out of the way’ is lessened by the audienceʼs knowledge and ever-present awareness that there is a screen separating them from the action. The well-known gimmick of having an object fly out at the audience in a 3D movie is just one example, albeit an extreme one, of a 3D experience that can trigger subconscious survival instincts. The 3D movie becomes both a cognitive and physiologically reactive experience rather than the primarily cognitive experience that is elicited in a 2D movie.”


"Green Lantern"

“In a 3D movie,” Dr. Sandrew went on, “the presence of the screen all but disappears and the audience becomes more emotionally malleable to the action of the film and can be made to feel much more vulnerable. The director can then capitalize on this to influence both the audienceʼs attention and anticipation and can do so much more profoundly than in a 2D movie.”

Having applied the science of 3Dʼs effect on our brains to the artistic options this provides to filmmakers, Dr. Sandrew concluded by mentioning how all of this enhanced experience is drawing a larger audience to 3D movies. “In an IMAX theater experience,” he said, “the edges of the screen tend to completely disappear and there is even greater immersion for the audience. This remains a selling point for theatrical 3D exhibition as this cannot be economically achieved or taken advantage of in home theater environments.”

So, having discussed so much about 3D film, what about that other emerging market for 3D entertainment? Iʼm talking, of course, about the rise of 3D televisions. Most all TVs being manufactured today are 3D capable, and the quality has already gotten quite impressive. I asked Dr. Sandrew, does Legend3D think 3D television is the way of the future?


Samsung 3DTV

“Without question,” he said. “We believe that eventually all television programming will be in 3D. Due to the economics of that medium relative to feature film budgets, much of it will likely be shot using new, less sophisticated stereo camera rigs. However, there will always be a strong need for conversion on both new and catalog TV specials and series, and as a post production correction tool for TV series shot with stereo rigs. In order to get to that point for TV broadcast, the cost of both camera rigs and conversion has to come down considerably.”

The Science And Future f 3D Films, With Legend3D Founder, COO And CTO Dr. Barry Sandrew - Part 3
+ Comment now
PAGE 3 OF 5

So what role does Legend3D plan on having in the rise of 3D home entertainment?


"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

“At Legend3D,” Dr. Sandrew replied, “we are on track to take on 3D television right now as we continue to refine our process and lower our costs. During the course of last year, when we were focused on converting Transformers: Dark of the Moon, we spent millions of dollars on software and process development, in addition to our standard allotted R&D budget. Part of the initiative behind this development was to automate as much of our process and to make the creative portion more efficient.”


Visual Effects Supervisor Scott Squires

“The results of these significant technological advancements,” he continued, “are a methodology and process that allow us to dramatically reduce our overall costs of conversion—yet still allow us to support the skilled artistry of this storytelling medium as we have always done. At the new price points, we deliver the same high quality content for which we are known in the industry, as our unwavering commitment to quality remains a point on which we are unwilling to compromise. This is where I have to acknowledge the incredible expertise and development work of our in-house R&D team, led by our consulting senior visual effects supervisor and Academy Award winner, Scott Squires. Working in tandem with our technology partner, Greg Passmore, they were instrumental in achieving remarkable efficiencies in our process and pipeline while also retaining and enhancing the quality of our conversion work in Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”


Panasonic 3DTV

What does the future have in store for 3D television? “The average television consumer is only beginning to understand that the amazing, immersive quality of the 3D material that they see in theaters can also be experienced in their own homes,” Dr. Sandrew remarked.

“Price points of 3DTVs are quickly coming down and 3D channels are sprouting up as demand increases. Though today the primary focus is mostly sports and movies, it will soon extend to all content.”

Dr. Sandrew finished his thoughts about 3D television by stating, “The key to this market expansion is the creation of excellent 3D content to ensure that consumer adoption stays strong. Legend3Dʼs technology can create 3D from any existing content and the price at which we can do this today means that content owners can unlock value from tens of thousands of hours of already existing content.”

So, looking back over the various topics discussed, from the advances in preventing color-muting and the continued worldwide growth, to the media claims that “3D is dying” and the leveling off of domestic attendance, how strong is the future of 3D overall?

Dr. Sandrew was, of course, optimistic and excited about what the future has in store. “One of my favorite statistics about the bright future of 3D is that in 2010, one in three moviegoers saw a 3D movie. When you break that down even further into the demographic of people aged two through 18, a remarkable 67% of them saw at least one 3D movie. This group comprises the largest consumer base of feature films and is the future of 3D.”


He continued, “Today, I truly believe that 3D is unstoppable, despite the existence of a few but very vocal critics. Itʼs not a question of ʻ2D or 3D,ʼ as the two formats can live side by side and can serve to provide audiences with a choice that they obviously demand. There should not be a debate over which format is better or worse, but instead they should be seen as distinctly different experiences that will attract a variety of people in many different ways. This will continue to draw in even more audiences for the film industry in general.”


"The Smurfs"

Regarding those detractors who openly oppose 3D, Dr. Sandrew said, “I think there is a population of film critics who resent feeling as if this new format has been thrust upon them and as we know, no one ever likes to lose control over their preferred medium. What has been introduced to them is something that many of them may not have understood and yet at the same time, they have been expected to accept it and critique it.” He noted that he anticipated such a reaction, and that nobody in the film industry should be surprised by those reactions.

The Science And Future f 3D Films, With Legend3D Founder, COO And CTO Dr. Barry Sandrew - Part 3
+ Comment now
PAGE 4 OF 5

Dr. Sandrew feels that the consumer electronics (or CE) manufacturersʼ desire to rely on 3D to help revitalize their industry will help in combating the opponents of 3D and their negativity. “The HD market is essentially saturated and there is no significant impetus for the consumer to purchase a new television and increase market product turnovers,” he explains. “However,
today 3D has become the most viable avenue to revitalize the CE industry. These days, higher resolution is not going to be a compelling reason for someone to buy a new TV, nor is the increasingly thin footprint of the screen or the brightness or contrast of the picture; however, with 3D, a whole new format is introduced making sports and movies much more compelling and immersive.”

With 3D becoming a big motivation for consumers to go ahead and buy a new HD television, manufacturers are increasingly going to want to supply the 3D option. “In the future,” Dr. Sandrew states, “it will be difficult to buy an HDTV set that is not 3D-ready!”


"Batman: Arkham City" from Rocksteady Studios

Likewise, Dr. Sandrew sees the same trend emerging in the mobile and gaming industries as well, as both embrace 3D. He notes that already, there are phones, laptops, and gaming platforms offering lenticular (glasses-free) 3D, and he expects tablets will soon follow.


"Killzone 3" in 3D for PlayStation

“There is one 3DTV manufacturer that is already set to launch a lenticular HDTV model this fall,” he says. Toshiba announced their glasses-free 3D television in September, and officially debuted it in Japan earlier this month.


Soon to stream in 3D

Dr. Sandrew also said something exciting for Netflix fans — “I understand you will also soon be able to stream 3D content with Netflix via Xbox and many of the other streaming sites will offer streaming 3D online.”

And with 3D theaters spreading worldwide, Dr. Sandrew said he believes “all indicators are that 3D will become the strong foundation on which we in the industry will continue to stand.”

“There is little doubt that eventually, 3D home media sales will be significantly important to the bottom line of the studios,” he predicted. “Until there is a stronger installed base of 3DTVs in homes, some studios are entertaining alternative funding strategies to convert many of their highest earning catalog titles.” That means studios are understandably concerned about mitigating the risks of that strategy, and they seek ways to share the risks. Legend3D has already begun working with more than one studio using this financing model for conversion, which creates valuable incremental assets for the studios while removing, or at least significantly lessening, their risk.


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Dr. Sandrew reasons, “until there is this inevitable installed base of 3DTVs, the only way for studios to make a profit on 3D films in the near term is with theatrical releases. In that regard, it appears that for too long Hollywood has looked at foreign markets as ancillary to the domestic box office. However, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and even The Smurfs have proven this summer that the international market for 3D is huge and hungry for an even greater supply of 3D content.”

The Science And Future f 3D Films, With Legend3D Founder, COO And CTO Dr. Barry Sandrew - Part 3
+ Comment now
PAGE 5 OF 5

Amen to that. No amount of minor domestic leveling off of attendance can disguise the fact that foreign audiences are still consuming 3D films with great enthusiasm.


In closing, Dr. Sandrew had this final message about the state of the 3D industry, and its prospects for the future: “There is a very exciting outlook for 3D. Anyone with an accurate knowledge base of the Industry recognizes that 3D is here to stay and that, in a relatively short period of time, it will become ubiquitous.”

Coming soon, I’ll speak with Corey Turner, stereographer for films including Alice in Wonderland, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and the upcoming films Men In Black III and the animated Arthur Christmas. We’ll discuss his work on Arthur Christmas and a few other movies, and touch on his approach to Men In Black III and what he hopes to achieve in the film.
post #229 of 290
Good Lord!
post #230 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Good Lord!

Yea ,might be better to just reference the article.

Art
post #231 of 290
Must have gotten into the eggnog a bit early.
post #232 of 290
I can't digest eggnog.

I am telling you, very bad vibrations...

What a nice group of open minded individuals. I am checking out of the thread I will leave you on your 3D witch-hunt. You will thank me in 15 years or so.

It reminds me of that line in Lawrence of Arabia, which I can't contain my excitement to see converted to 3D. You people are greedy, barbarous and cruel, a petty people, a silly people (or something to that effect)..
post #233 of 290
Peter,
I don't think you are seeing a lot of closed minds here but instead more of "this has been my experience with commercial 3D". Even if you personally can put great systems together that won't make the commercial presentation in the vast majority of theaters any better than it is. This doesn't even take into account the fact that most 3D films aren't worth the trip to ones car to go see.

Art
post #234 of 290
Is anyone else having a problem with commercial theaters not showing 2D versions of a movie except for some odd times, yet showing 3D(for a movie that doesn't really benefit with a 3D presentation) at more times throughout the day?
post #235 of 290
I think I am the only one who suffered though that article . Peter, if you want to do some good, how about spending a bit of time making the cut and paste more readable?

And boy, some article that was. I guess the author doesn't understand that you don't convince the naysayers but having the believers say again that they believe. Love paragraphs like this:

"Addressing the point about the drop in 3D attendance from upwards of 60% of box office revenue to approximately 40% of box office revenue this year, Dr. Sandrew noted, Globally, there are still significantly fewer 3D screens available to the audiences than there are 2D screens. Charlotte Jones, senior analyst for cinema at IHS [Screen Digest], stated that at least one in four of the worldʼs screens is now 3D-capable.ʼ If only one quarter of the worldʼs screens is 3D-capable, isnʼt any number greater than 25 percent an acclamation that 3D is alive and well? Currently, there are more than 30,000 3D screens internationally, which is twice as many as those available to audiences just one year ago. This growth represents the incredibly strong and sustaining consumer demand for 3D.

What school of math or economics did he go to? If year over year revenues are down, despite *more* screens being available, then that is a very negative trend. He calls more screens "growth" but forgets that despite that growth, revenues are down. If a store decided to put twice as many gums by the check out line, and yet sold 20% less, that is not a sign of success. It is called stuffing the channel -- a negative thing.

As to good Doctor's view of the 3-D study, where is his study that counters that finding and can be scrutinized? And does he honestly believe the medical community will subject such a study examining entertainment value of 3-D movie to the same rigor as drug research and such?

The discussion around 3-D TVs is even more absurd. The guy is in 3-D conversion business so he makes it all about how much of that work has been done. Are we supposed to lower our IQ 50 points as we read that article to believe that is the problem and not poor experience on small screen, coupled with the requirement to sit in the living room with glasses? Where is the good Doctor when you need to him to tell him how poor his proposition was, ignoring human social behavior in that regard?

I think bottom line is that flag carrying 3-D evangelists are over-hyping the technology and experience to the point where it becomes harmful in setting too high an expectation that cannot be met. I actually agree that 3-D is doing surprisingly well relevant to the experience it provides and premium to watch it. Stay on that path and not talk about the future being all 3-D. It won't be that way.

At the same time, the notion that we should ignore 3-D or hope that it dies is not right either. Play a 3-D animation and give a pair of glasses to a young child and they go nuts over the experience. I know, we have done this in our theater . And there are also movies or moments in movies that put a smile on your face in 3-D. For people in this forum, looking at their next projector, they should definitely get a 3-D unit. Why walk away from that extra dimension once in a while? It doesn't cost hardly much to get there. Yes, you need a brighter projector but that is good for 2-D viewing also. Have the choice available to you and experience it for yourself, not believe some article with a bunch of biased opinions one way or the other.
post #236 of 290
I still contend that the better bang for the expense is upping the frame rate from traditional 24 fps, increasing the resolution, and just forgo the 3D. I think the vast majority of people will get more of a WOW! experience with no headaches, eye strain, or glasses!

I sure got that when I watched Oklahoma in its TODD-AO 30 fps presentation on home video.

It will be something to get used to coming from traditional 24 fps... and it will be interesting to see The Hobbit at 48 fps.
post #237 of 290
I much prefer better 2D presentation and better films !

Art
post #238 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by art sonneborn View Post

i much prefer better 2d presentation and better films !

art

+1
post #239 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I much prefer better 2D presentation and better films !

Art

+1,532,987,307,555

Totally and completely agree!
post #240 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Yea, I guess you're right it is a 3D turd that now appears to jump out over your shoulder.

Art


Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

yes, I set up that one for you. Cheers!

Glad to see that you've a sense of humor. FWIW that's a good sign.

I agree that you've done some serious posting here in favor of 3D and 2.75D.

I agree that you've taken a pounding in this thread, and that is to some extent unwarranted.

I hope that you do not exit this thread (as you recently posted).

I'll not PM you (CINERAMAX) but ask a few questions on 2.75D; if others can answer kindly do so.

Is there a detailed ref on hardware/software to do 2.75D? If yes kindly post it as I've an interest.

Does one need to sit closer to the screen? And can one use a flat screen for 2.75D? If yes on flat screen, what is the smallest size flat screen suggested for 2.75D?

And yes this may be thread drift, but to me still seems reasonably on topic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Is 3-D dying a quick death at the box office ?