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 3

post #61 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

Maybe neither of you is much of a sci-fi fan?

I am a huge Sci-Fi fan, and I thought the plot was garbage. The only reason I went to see it was the technology demo aspect of it.

Reading a lot of Sci-Fi makes you realize how little of what passes for Sci-Fi in movies is any good.
post #62 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Mike Ferrara View Post

Super-8, which could be one of the top films of this summer, is not 3D.
Just saying . . .

Wait until I get a hold of that BD!!!
post #63 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_Seng View Post

I think that as more people get 3D ready display's in their home they will pass on the 3D version in the theaters and wait until it comes out on disc. The up-charge for 3D in theaters is ridiculous.

I know the economy sucks but to complain about a 10 dollar premium in the Ultra High End Forum is ridiculous. IOW them cheapskates should keep their penny pinching whining to themselves round these parts, I reckon.
post #64 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

I know the economy sucks but to complain about a 10 dollar premium in the Ultra High End Forum is ridiculous. IOW them cheapskates should keep their penny pinching whining to themselves round these parts, I reckon.

people that flagrantly waste money on garbage and nonsense end up with none anyways...



personally i would rather spend my ample (and hard earned cash) on things of value. not a waste of an experience..

Call me when holographic film comes out, cause then I will GLADLY spend 200k on my theater gear.

For now I can live on high def, (and possibly some rockports if I can ever get the time to fly out to a place that has a pair for me to demo)....

Matt
post #65 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehlarson View Post

I am a huge Sci-Fi fan, and I thought the plot was garbage. The only reason I went to see it was the technology demo aspect of it.

Reading a lot of Sci-Fi makes you realize how little of what passes for Sci-Fi in movies is any good.

What's sad is there is a lot of good stuff out there but I guess it isn't "safe" to produce it as films.

Art
post #66 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class A View Post

By the way follow the storyline on Avatar isn't it Dances w/Wolves on an alien planet???

No, no, no. Avatar is not Dances w/Wolves on an alien planet.

Avatar is Fern Gully in Space.
post #67 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter View Post

No, no, no. Avatar is not Dances w/Wolves on an alien planet.

Avatar is Fern Gully in Space.

except dances with wolves and fern gully were both good movies


Matt
post #68 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

I know the economy sucks but to complain about a 10 dollar premium in the Ultra High End Forum is ridiculous. IOW them cheapskates should keep their penny pinching whining to themselves round these parts, I reckon.

I was actually responding to what this thread was started for. Please read the title and you'll see how my post is relevant
post #69 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Vai_rules View Post

except dances with wolves and fern gully were both good movies


Matt

I own Fern Gully and DwW but haven't bought Avatar.

Incidentally, my oldest daughter is 7 1/2 and her favorite movie is actually Dances With Wolves.
post #70 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

What's sad is there is a lot of good stuff out there but I guess it isn't "safe" to produce it as films.

Art

Saw a very nice indy 3D film from mexico, with a social conscience message, best darn performance of Martin Sheen ever as a caring compassionate Doctor. When he speaks Spanish the "Gringo" accent is there but his acting is tops.

Kid Chamaco 3D, it's bilingual but easy to follow if you took Spanish in 3rd grade.

A good foreign film in 3d.
post #71 of 290
DEG: 3DTV Gets Good Consumer Reviews
By Greg Tarr -- TWICE, 6/6/2011


NEW YORK - A first-of-its-kind study of 3,100 consumer 3DTV owners conducted for the Digital Entertainment Group (DEG) found a largely positive experience concerning use, enjoyment, performance and price of new 3DTV sets.

The study was released here on Tuesday, May 24 by Warner Home Video and DEG president Ron Sanders at a NewBay Media Summit on Connected TV and 3D: Delivering the Demand, and after having been conducted for the DEG this spring by market research firm SmithGeiger. (New Bay is the parent company of TWICE.)

While previous research centered on consumers' preconceptions about 3DTV, the DEG said the new study, which is entitled 3DTV Owners: A Closer Look at The New World of Immersive Home Entertainment, is the first to focus on the experience of actual 3DTV owners.

Respondents were asked to assess a number of 3DTV factors, including: picture quality, perceived price differences, viewing satisfaction, content preferences, and reaction to 3D glasses.

Of the 60 percent of respondents said they view 3D content on their 3D-capable TVs, 88 percent rated the 3D picture quality positively, compared to 91 percent for their 2D picture quality.

Twenty four percent reported watching more television - both in 2D and 3D - since purchasing their new 3DTV. Also, 85 percent of 3DTV owners consulted said they would prefer to watch half, most, or all of their programs in 3D. These consumers also reported that the majority of home entertainment in 3D is better than in 2D, with 3DTV owners naming feature films on Blu-ray as their favorite 3D programming.

Respondents said they believe the upgrade to 3D was well worth the price, the DEG said.

The vast majority of 3DTV owners stated that they paid a relatively small additional fee for 3D capability, and that the feature made their television worth the extra dollars paid. Nearly 80 percent of those surveyed said that their 3DTVs were either less expensive, about the same, or just a little more expensive than a comparable HDTV without 3D capability.

On average, those surveyed by the DEG paid just over $2,000 for their 3DTV, with more than half paying less than $2,000.

The study also dispelled the notion that the need to wear 3D glasses was inhibiting consumer adoption, the DEG said. The study found that out of 3,100 3DTV owners surveyed, only a handful experienced any discomfort when using active shutter 3D glasses.

More than four out of five (83 percent) stated that it takes either no time or just a few minutes to adjust to wearing 3D glasses.

Additionally, of those surveyed, 74 percent own two or more pairs of glasses, with 33 percent buying an extra set during their initial 3DTV purchase.

More than half (52 percent) of the 3DTV owners surveyed said they received at least one set of glasses bundled with their television.

Owners of 3DTVs reported having an average of 2.38 pairs of glasses per home.

As for the kind of 3DTV content viewed, the study found most to watch a variety of movies, games and sports, and expect even more soon.

The findings show that feature films on Blu-ray 3D are the top 3D programming choice (78 percent), with animated movies on Blu-ray (77 percent) and nature or wildlife programs (75 percent) close behind. Football games (67 percent) and other sports were also highlighted as preferred types of home 3D content.

Regarding delivery to the home platforms, 7 out of 10 of those surveyed by the DEG use a Blu-ray 3D or 3D-capable player. Forty-four percent of those owners also purchased their Blu-ray player bundled with their 3DTV.

Many of these consumers are already using their 3DTVs to watch Blu-ray 3D movies, with most having recently purchased or rented a Blu-ray 3D title. Additionally, 22 percent purchased that movie when they bought their 3DTVs.

Also, 28 percent of all 3DTV owners reported owning a PlayStation3 system, with 78 percent of these owners having already upgraded their PS3 to watch 3D movies, while 76 percent upgraded their PS3 to play 3D videogames.

Also 68 percent have already purchased a 3D video game, and an astounding 42 percent of gamers are playing 25 percent or more of their game time in 3D. In addition to Blu-ray players and PS3s, 40 percent of owners are receiving 3D content through a cable or satellite channel.

The consumers surveyed in the DEG's study were predominantly male (86 percent) and married, (71 percent), with an average age of 51 years old. The average income was just under $99,000, although 38 percent of those surveyed reported earning less than $75,000.

Additionally, 78 percent of these 3DTV owners said that their sets are also viewed by their spouses or significant others; and 86 percent of these owners have children at home who also watch their 3DTVs on a regular basis.

The survey measured the inclinations and behavior of purchasers of 3D-compatible televisions in the U.S. from leading companies LG, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony. The majority of these owners (92 percent) own just one 3DTV, and nearly all of those televisions (90 percent) are located in the living room or family room where the entire family can use it.

Of those with a second 3DTV, nearly half (47 percent) use it primarily in the master bedroom.

The majority of 3DTV owners surveyed (89 percent) own a 3DTV that measures 50 inches or larger.

The results of this landmark study clearly show that 3DTV owners are overwhelmingly happy with their 3D experience, said Sanders. The research shows that the future for the home 3D platform is crystal clear - consumers are excited about all of the content now arriving on 3D.
post #72 of 290
Nice article - Go back and read post #9 in this thread.
post #73 of 290
It's alittle confusing but what does this mean ?

"88 percent rated the 3D picture quality positively, compared to 91 percent for their 2D picture quality. "

So 3D owners rated the picture in 2D better ?

Art
post #74 of 290
A industry-funded and run organization the Digital Entertainment Group set up to promote the industry. Whose members include 3D TV manufactures, has a survey based on data provided by 3D TV manufactures that shows their customers really like their 3D TVs. What a surprise.

“The results of this landmark study clearly show that 3DTV owners are overwhelmingly happy with their 3D experience,” Of the 60% of respondents who said they view 3D content on their 3D-capable TVs, 88% rated the 3D picture positively. So that is 53% of owners, overwhelming.

To gauge how accurate the survey is it would be nice to know how representative it is of 3D TV owners.

"The study also dispelled the notion that the need to wear 3D glasses was inhibiting consumer adoption" Owners of 3DTVs reported having an average of 2.38 pairs of glasses per home. How true is that to the US market, the DEG members must know the real ratio between 3D glasses and 3D TVs sold, so how representative is the survey. For Western Europe last time I read 3D glasses to 3D TVs was less than 1:1.

Likewise for size of 3D TVs sold, they must know the real figures, as to how representive the 89% having 50+" 3D TVs is of the real market.


Sales of 3D glasses, sales and rental figures for 3D blu-rays, and viewing figures of 3D TV channels will be the real indicator of how popular 3D is with 3D TV owners.
post #75 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter View Post

I own Fern Gully and DwW but haven't bought Avatar.

Incidentally, my oldest daughter is 7 1/2 and her favorite movie is actually Dances With Wolves.

FWIW, shouldn't that be one word; i.e. Ferngully? And agreed that DwW is a good movie.

With regard to Avatar, you might consider buying the 3 disc Blu-ray version, despite the high price. All 3 discs are BD discs (at least I think); I just finished the 2nd disc which has an enormous amount of hours on the groundbreaking way how Avatar was made.

The 1st disc has 3 versions of the film: original theater release and the two new extended cuts: collector release (3 hr), and director release (2 hr 50 min).

I paid $22 for a used copy from amazon, and it's been worth every penny. I also see that the price for new is now at $20 (Amazon Prime).

The one striking thing is that the colors on BD are more intense and saturated (reds and blues and yellow) than DVD, without seeming to distort the overall presentation. Although it won't surprise me if even this comment brings out the anti-Avatar crowd.
post #76 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

FWIW, shouldn't that be one word; i.e. Ferngully? And agreed that DwW is a good movie.

With regard to Avatar, you might consider buying the 3 disc Blu-ray version, despite the high price. All 3 discs are BD discs (at least I think); I just finished the 2nd disc which has an enormous amount of hours on the groundbreaking way how Avatar was made.

The 1st disc has 3 versions of the film: original theater release and the two new extended cuts: collector release (3 hr), and director release (2 hr 50 min).

I paid $22 for a used copy from amazon, and it's been worth every penny. I also see that the price for new is now at $20 (Amazon Prime).

The one striking thing is that the colors on BD are more intense and saturated (reds and blues and yellow) than DVD, without seeming to distort the overall presentation. Although it won't surprise me if even this comment brings out the anti-Avatar crowd.

Well, as I didn't like the movie, I don't see how two even longer versions are going to make it better. I would be more interested in the documentary on how it was made than watching the film again. Seriously though, the cost isn't the issue. I didn't buy it because I don't want it in my collection.
post #77 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

FWIW, shouldn't that be one word; i.e. Ferngully? And agreed that DwW is a good movie.

Actually, it is FernGully.

DwW is a good movie, yes. I do find it interesting that when you watch the extended cut, you see that they cut out all the scenes that could be viewed as showing the indians in a negative light. While the pacing of the theatrical cut is better, the extended cut gives a less pastoral and slanted view.
post #78 of 290
Next year's Olympic games in London will be broadcast in 3D with 'state-of-the-art' Panasonic broadcast equipment. That could have a significant influence on 3D's future...possibly a game changer (no pun intended).
post #79 of 290
Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the idea to create as vivid a 3D image inside of the screen. Like viewing into a mirror into another full 3D world behind it. I know my best movie experiences are when that perception of Inside 3D...that we call 2D...is created in its most realistic fashion. My brain interprests anything moving outside of the screen as reality. It becomes very confusing and irritating to me if the image is just 3D ghosting. In fact...3D gives me headaches. And I never get them otherwise. Maybe it has something to do with my near sightedness. But to the question...is 3D dying? I think it never had legs as a viable home entertainment platform. A 32"-43" 3D HDTV makes little sense to me. When done properly in theaters...maybe not so fast.
post #80 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the idea to create as vivid a 3D image inside of the screen. Like viewing into a mirror into another full 3D world behind it. I know my best movie experiences are when that perception of Inside 3D...that we call 2D...is created in its most realistic fashion. My brain interprests anything moving outside of the screen as reality. It becomes very confusing and irritating to me if the image is just 3D ghosting. In fact...3D gives me headaches. And I never get them otherwise. Maybe it has something to do with my near sightedness. But to the question...is 3D dying? I think it never had legs as a viable home entertainment platform. A 32"-43" 3D HDTV makes little sense to me. When done properly in theaters...maybe not so fast.

I respectfully disagree with you. Below is what I would certainly call legs.

http://www.e-gear.com/article/execut...irst-two-years

Also, a 32" TV ?... is that viable for any home theater 3D or not? Besides, big-screen 3D for the home is remarkably affordable now.
post #81 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Daddicted View Post

I respectfully disagree with you. Below is what I would certainly call legs.

http://www.e-gear.com/article/execut...irst-two-years

Also, a 32" TV ?... is that viable for any home theater 3D or not? Besides, big-screen 3D for the home is remarkably affordable now.

I agree with you on the big screen and HT argument. If 3-D is to succeed it will have to be almost universally adopted in the big screen market. To my knowledge, that is not happening so far. But the jury is still out IMO. And for 3D to be the big market success predicted for it, it will need to work in the mass market too. All I'm suggesting is that screen size will be a big detriment in that mass market segment. As for me personally. I don't prefer it. It's interesting to watch for a short time. But then it gives me real headaches everytime. I noticed it first when I went to see Avatar at the theater...in 3-D. My head was killing me by the end of the movie. And like i said...I very rarely get headaches. Usually 1 in 2-3 years. I have the 2-D version of Avatar, and I have no problem with it.
post #82 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt Palme View Post

Well, 3D doesn't work for me due to a lazy left eye. I've tried many setups, no 3D happens for me. I have had a zillion emails and questions regarding CRT and 3D, but from the people I talk to, even some that have implemented, it's an expensive toy at best.

I don't know of anyone that swears by it, most people either outright don't like it, or say that it tires the eyes, and it's a novelty.

I swear by it! Watch some of the IMAX 3D presentations in 3D and then 2D with a good 3D setup and a good 2D setup. It's no contest for me. I watched the animated feature A Christmas Carol in 3D with a 720p 3D DLP and then tried to watch it in 2D on a gamma corrected G90 -- no contest, the 3D DLP's 720p presentation blew the 1080p G90's 2D presentation away - sorry, but that's the way it is. For most content, IMO, 3D adds an impact to the overall feel of the movie that I want pretty much every time I fire up my projector. Am I going to try to force 3D on everyone because I happen to like it? No! I've at least watched several movies (the same movies) in both 2D and 3D to compare and I'll take 3D every time.
post #83 of 290
But deja vu, you should help impose, there is no contest. Even on converted 2d a la teranex, I won an argument with Cameron . 3dis hear to stay, and in Infomm many presentations set new standards.
post #84 of 290
I would agree that 2D will remain the dominant format of choice for most Home Theater folks for the forseable future.

However, now that I have added a modest 3D PJ to my collection I must say that I am amazed at what is possible with 3D. Watching Monsters vs Aliens in 3D is just an astounding visual treat. The depth creation is amazing. When the little General in the jetpack zooms out of the screen and appears to float in the middle of my room, I could hardly believe what I was seeing.

I would not want all my viewing to be 3D...but I am very impressed but what I can experience at home.
post #85 of 290
I think the question is do you or do you know folks who talk about going to the commercial theater to see a film because it is 3D ? This thread is about commercial cinema ticket sales etc.

I think asking if we like the olympics in 3D instead of 2D is a different subject(unless it will be shown at the local cineplex)

Art
post #86 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I think the question is do you or do you know folks who talk about going to the commercial theater to see a film because it is 3D ? This thread is about commercial cinema ticket sales etc.

I think asking if we like the olympics in 3D instead of 2D is a different subject(unless it will be shown at the local cineplex)

Art

Good point. The new Transformers movie has generated a lot of pre-release buzz concerning the 3D version but in general 3D is not a big draw.

Tom
post #87 of 290
"For Transformers 3 (only), Which version sold more tickets? 2D or 3D?"
http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f5/t002511/p1.html

I don't think 3D is dying a quick death at the box office.
But there seems to be growing resistance to 3D.
I'll stick with 2D, except for exceptional 3D titles.
post #88 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Mike Ferrara View Post

Super-8, which could be one of the top films of this summer, is not 3D.
Just saying . . .

I think the reason for that is because the film was also a homage to Spielberg/late 70's sci-fi. Wouldn't make sense to do 3D for that movie. Wouldn take away from it.
post #89 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidino View Post

I think the reason for that is because the film was also a homage to Spielberg/late 70's sci-fi. Wouldn't make sense to do 3D for that movie. Wouldn take away from it.

Peter would pop it in his fancy Teranex and make it better.
post #90 of 290
What do people think of the different luminance levels of 3D presentations.
Is creating a superior 3D version and a standard 3D version a good idea, especially if film critics rave about the 3D effects after seeing the superior version when the general public are mostly or all going to see the standard version and cinemas are not telling potential patrons which version they are showing.

Transformers dark side of the moon has a superior 6 foot lambert version as well as the normal 3.5 foot lambert version. Something I did not realize until it was mentioned in a discussion about the 6 foot lambert version of Transformers was that Avatar 3D had a superior 10 foot lambert version for premiers and a 7 foot lambert version for press screenings. So the version seen by film critics was superior to the 3.5 foot lambert version shown to the general public.


The higher foot lambert versions are mastered for the higher foot lambert presentations, with different color, sharpness, contrast, etc... They are a superior version of the film, being shown in a setup that is not showing it following the specifications used by the general public cinema.

It is not like say reviewing a 2D film shown in a cinema that meets SMPTE reference specification 16 foot lambert open gate, when the general public is going to see the film in a commercial cinema with SMPTE target 16 foot lamberts tolerance 12-22, and some cinemas failing to meet SMPTE guidelines and being <10 foot lamberts.

It is actually a different version of the film mastered to different standards being displayed in a cinema showing it differently to the normal presentation.

I think it is misleading for reviews of 3D, how good the 3D effects are, how good the color, image brightness, clarity, etc.. to be based on presentations inherently superior to the one the person reading the review is going to see.

Transformers 6 foot lambert version is slightly less dishonest than the Avatar 10 and 7 foot lambert versions, in that Transformers actually has a 6 foot lambert version being shown to the general public in addition to the normal 3.5 foot lambert version, but that is useless if cinemas are not going to tell patrons which version they are showing and the vast majority of cinemas are going to be showing the inferior standard 3.5 foot lambert version.

3D cinema is mastered at 4.5 foot lamberts with a display tolerance of 3.5-5.5 foot lamberts. IMAX 3D targets 5.5 foot lamberts. From what I read the 6 foot lambert version of Transformers is being shown in some RealD 3D cinemas.
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 ?