or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Is 3D about dead?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 3D about dead? - Page 2

post #31 of 324
I think native 3D is dead, but conversions are more than alive, they are the future of 3D movies. Conversion allows the director to concentrate on the movie and not on the 3D. Sure, they can use certain camera angles in preparation, and since cgi is already in 3D, it makes it even more enticing and much less expensive. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I welcome more conversions after seeing Titanic and some of the latest conversions. They work just fine for me. The cost of 3D is making it, not in watching it these days.
post #32 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by d james View Post

Yes I agree, I don't understand this whole 4 disc thing, they must have some kind of deal with manufactures or something, I mean I want the 3d disk, that's all, I don't need the dvd, regular blu ray or some ultraviolet crap that has zero value in my home. Sure they can still sell and market this type of package, but why force it on everyone. Some of those movies are just way overpriced, I can't believe I see movies at bestbuy like freight night for 44 dollars, Really? Who's going to spend that kind of money on that. Then there are the other movies that they could sell a lot of like house of wax 1953, but not at the 30 price point. Im sure people would be more willing to do a blind buy on such an old movie, if it was reasonably priced. It could be the greatest 3d ever made, but most people are not willing to spend that on an old movie when they can get something just released with better CGI effects and 7.1 sound.

I like the combo packs. I travel a lot and DVDs work better battery wise on my laptop inflight.

Also, the entertainment system in our cars is DVD not bluray.

Just my 2 cents.

If its a 3d title, give me the 3 disc version every time. 2d, 3d and DVD. UV I don't need though.
post #33 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVSTAR View Post

I think native 3D is dead, but conversions are more than alive, they are the future of 3D movies. Conversion allows the director to concentrate on the movie and not on the 3D. Sure, they can use certain camera angles in preparation, and since cgi is already in 3D, it makes it even more enticing and much less expensive. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I welcome more conversions after seeing Titanic and some of the latest conversions. They work just fine for me. The cost of 3D is making it, not in watching it these days.

I couldn't disagree more. Outside of Titanic every film that has been converted has shoots that show it was converted. This includes Gravity which was mostly native 3d (the cgi). If you are making a film that is going to be 3d, the director should be concentrating on the 3d, as 3d should be part of the film.

Shooting in 3d is getting easier and more affordable. The future to me is represented by the hobbit, 48fps (or higher would be even nicer) and native 3d. The film disappointing but HFR and 3d did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

I like the combo packs. I travel a lot and DVDs work better battery wise on my laptop inflight.

Also, the entertainment system in our cars is DVD not bluray.

Just my 2 cents.

If its a 3d title, give me the 3 disc version every time. 2d, 3d and DVD. UV I don't need though.

The problem is choice. Why can't those wanting just the film in 3d and nothing else not be able to get that. I for example never use dvd's for films I own on blu-ray as I only watch films at home and the only special feature I have watched in years was a five minutes of the Prometheus commentary and the Flyn Lives short film for Tron Legacy. I would like to not have to pay more for numerous items I do not want.
Edited by FilmReverie - 11/3/13 at 11:10pm
post #34 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

I couldn't disagree more. Outside of Titanic every film that has been converted has shoots that show it was converted. This includes Gravity which was mostly native 3d (the cgi). If you are making a film that is going to be 3d, the director should be concentrating on the 3d, as 3d should be part of the film.

Shooting in 3d is getting easier and more affordable. .

I am not saying the director should not concentrate on 3D, but when shooting in 3D, each shot must include parallax adjustment, object alignment, and host of other things that double the length of production. Just as you've seen several conversion issues, I've seen lots of native 3D issues in films where the alignment was off and confusing to the eye. So yes, I will agree that if you can get a director that is instructed in 3D, using 3D, then that's a win-win, but for the most part, I've enjoyed conversions as much as I've enjoyed native 3D ala Avatar (had gross misalignment issues in the opening scenes, and some of the interior shots of soldiers had very mixed depth-of-field issues). Notable mediocre native 3D includes: Resident Evil-Afterlife, Transformers 3, Final Destination, Drive Angry. I really worried about 3D fading quick after I saw these.

Anyway, the argument will continue, and let's hope we are both on the winning side of it--cool.gif
post #35 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman512 View Post

I would have enjoyed Battleship and Oblivion a lot more if they were in 3d

Oblivion I can see being well suited to 3D, but Battleship's seizure-cam photography and epileptic editing in 3D would have audiences puking in the aisles.
post #36 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

I agree the marketing departments have not only dropped the ball on 3D, they seemed to have thrown it under the bus. Disney 3D blurays have not broken the $29.00 price for the most part, yet the latest release of "The Little Mermaid" on Bluray was advertised predominately as Bluray... no mention of 3D to be found! It can't be said that there isn't a profit for them in selling the 3 disc combo pack... they just aren't pushing 3D. And they are not alone. Very little mention of the excellent 3D conversion of "Wizard of Oz" Blurays now available. The profits for the double/triple dipper studios are there. I have been awaiting the "extended version" of the Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey" and I'm disappointed that it's only available in a 5 disc pack (that's not what I'm disappointed about) that has a "pre-sale" price of $54.00! Ouch!
What will be a significant indicator of the state of home 3D... it will be the marketing and sales numbers for "Gravity" (probably not going to be available before the Holidays I imagine).

I don't foresee much of a marketing push when "Gravity" is released on blu-ray. If 3D is to grow the marketing has to be shared across the board with the studios and the TV manufacture’s the way it was when 3D TVs first came out. The problem then was a lack of content and poor response from retailers in their presentation of the hardware. Although Best Buy still has a small 3D display area set up, most of the sets or viewing glasses are not working right or plain out broken. Even when they are working they show generic 3D demo material instead of current 3D content. I don't remember ever seeing "The Hobbit" or "Pacific Rim" running as a 3D demo in any store. No...wait, I remember the Hobbit preview being show on the big screen Sharps on display last fall at Costco and this always seemed to get people’s attention. So without a coordinated marketing effort I don't see any growth in 3D which goes right along with the manufacturer’s predictions. I imagine we will see the video release of "Gravity" in a multi-disc package with an excellent transfer and good supplemental material as this is a Warner Bro release and they do a great job on their releases. I bet there will even be a 3D lenticular cover to set the 3D version apart but I don't think there will be any extra marketing push for the 3D version. They didn’t push "The Wizard Of OZ" 3D and they did a fantastic job on this.
post #37 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFMike View Post

I don't foresee much of a marketing push when "Gravity" is released on blu-ray. If 3D is to grow the marketing has to be shared across the board with the studios and the TV manufacture’s the way it was when 3D TVs first came out. The problem then was a lack of content and poor response from retailers in their presentation of the hardware. Although Best Buy still has a small 3D display area set up, most of the sets or viewing glasses are not working right or plain out broken. Even when they are working they show generic 3D demo material instead of current 3D content. I don't remember ever seeing "The Hobbit" or "Pacific Rim" running as a 3D demo in any store. No...wait, I remember the Hobbit preview being show on the big screen Sharps on display last fall at Costco and this always seemed to get people’s attention. So without a coordinated marketing effort I don't see any growth in 3D which goes right along with the manufacturer’s predictions. I imagine we will see the video release of "Gravity" in a multi-disc package with an excellent transfer and good supplemental material as this is a Warner Bro release and they do a great job on their releases. I bet there will even be a 3D lenticular cover to set the 3D version apart but I don't think there will be any extra marketing push for the 3D version. They didn’t push "The Wizard Of OZ" 3D and they did a fantastic job on this.

Indeed, I think for 3d to grow we need consistency in the quality of 3d people see at cinemas. We need to get rid of poor conversions or unnecessary conversions. We also need to abandon the idea that 3d only works in some kind of films. Still for 3d to really grow to where 2d is at we need to have glasses free 3d or a massive change in viewing behavior when at home which I don't see happening anytime soon. I'm okay with that as long as 3d is successful enough at home to continue existing (which I can't see why it wouldn't be) then it will slowly grow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TVSTAR View Post

I am not saying the director should not concentrate on 3D, but when shooting in 3D, each shot must include parallax adjustment, object alignment, and host of other things that double the length of production. Just as you've seen several conversion issues, I've seen lots of native 3D issues in films where the alignment was off and confusing to the eye. So yes, I will agree that if you can get a director that is instructed in 3D, using 3D, then that's a win-win, but for the most part, I've enjoyed conversions as much as I've enjoyed native 3D ala Avatar (had gross misalignment issues in the opening scenes, and some of the interior shots of soldiers had very mixed depth-of-field issues). Notable mediocre native 3D includes: Resident Evil-Afterlife, Transformers 3, Final Destination, Drive Angry. I really worried about 3D fading quick after I saw these.

Anyway, the argument will continue, and let's hope we are both on the winning side of it--cool.gif

Could I get some time stamps for the issues in avatar, only asking as I have never noticed them before (or maybe I have it has been around a year since I last watched it). I think there is room for both 3d native and conversions, for obvious reasons I would prefer native 3d continue getting easier and cheaper to film with and be the main way for making a 3d film over a conversion.

Also the reaction to Afterlife's 3d was generally positive as it was for the fifth Final Destination (the forth I recall being rather negatively received for its use of 3d so maybe you mean that one), Transformers 3 was also largely a conversion (at least half) and if I recall correctly the reaction to the 3d was rather positive as well. The start alone of Transformers 3 in 3d I would think would have most peoples jaws hitting the floor.
Edited by FilmReverie - 11/4/13 at 4:44pm
post #38 of 324
3D will grow, but I feel it will not grow as fast as it rightfully should due to the lack of manufacturer's advertising budget with promoting this form of entertainment. As time goes on, more flat panel sets are being replaced (as funds allow), and even "medium" price range sets are now coming with 3D and internet connectivity.... that's "old" stuff. The newest stuff (and the expensive stuff) is all about 4K... and every 4K set also includes 3D and internet connectivity. Remember 3D is an option, and with Avatar/Promethius/Hugo/Gravity type films available, more will eventually take the plunge to see if it works in their own home.

(Caveat to this... with minimal expense as possible. Many won't rush out to "double dip" something like Avatar which they probably have in their library already, but a new release like Gravity, or Hobbit might entice some to give it a shot and check out what their recently purchased flat panel can do. And the farther into the future you go, the greater number of 3D sets will be in consumers homes, and the larger the quality offerings will be to check out.)

Not even close to dead, not needing life support... but definetely not "thriving" either. Eventually it will be more "mainstream", presuming the conversions remain high caliber (Titanic/Wizard of Oz) and the native shot are planned & directed correctly (Avatar/Hugo/Promethius)

Anyways, I'll sit back and enjoy my home 3D experiences, regardless what others/many/most believe/hope/wish.
post #39 of 324
3D isn't dead but it hasn't taken off as big as studios would have hoped for
post #40 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterpack View Post

3D isn't dead but it hasn't taken off as big as studios would have hoped for

Considering the lack of advertising/promotion, they shouldn't be surprised.
post #41 of 324
3d isn't dead but it is barely surviving. Too many post conversions, combined with just bad movie making. I thought Hugo was the best 3d movie, a non action movie which made used 3d to make you feel like you were there. The Hobbit was also excellent, though I saw it in 48 frame, which also enhanced things.
When I say bad movies, this also applies to 2d. I mean, how many remakes (True Grit, Carrie, Total Recall, etc) do we have to endure?
Going back to the op, he mentioned 3d camcorder.Whether you buy one should have nothing to do with the popularity of theatrical 3d movies.
I own a panny 3d1 and a Sony 3d cam, I shoot 3d videos and pics when I travel and watching them is like reliving my vacation.
post #42 of 324
Barely surviving? I don't think so. With the number of movies coming out in the future I don't call that barely surviving.
post #43 of 324
Gravity's opening weekend was great and stayed great. 3D did extremely well. Here's an excerpt about opening weekend revenue numbers. I think movies of this quality being in 3D will further the concept to the larger audience out there. When it is done with taste (and not a "poking things out at the audience" silly effect) 3D becomes as important a component of making a movie's story believable as any other technical component of Film.

Box Office Report: 'Gravity' Rockets to October Record

'Gravity"
By Gary Susman
October 6, 2013 3:05 PM ET

WINNER OF THE WEEK: Gravity. The Warner Bros. space opera stunned with an opening estimated at $55.6 million, well above predictions of $35 to $42 million. That $55.5 million sets all kinds of records. It's the biggest October opening ever (beating the $52.6 million earned by Paranormal Activity 3 in 2011) and the biggest opening ever for stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. (It's also the biggest non-Harry Potter opening for director/co-writer Alfonso Cuaron.) The movie, which demands to be seen in 3D and on the biggest possible screen, earned $11.2 million of its take from IMAX venues, also an October record. Not only did IMAX revenues make up 20 percent of Gravity's total, but 3D tickets made up a full 80 percent. (Usually, glasses rentals account for just 30 to 50 percent.) So not only did Gravity elevate the box office, but it proved that 3D isn't necessarily a dying fad but rather an enhancement viewers will cough up extra dollars for, given the right movie.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/box-office-report-gravity-rockets-to-october-record-20131006#ixzz2kHgFFUNz
post #44 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by mldardy View Post

Barely surviving? I don't think so. With the number of movies coming out in the future I don't call that barely surviving.

Barely surviving is accurate. It looks like the number of real 3d movies released this is five, three if you take away Monsters U.. and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs..
post #45 of 324
i think things will pick up again

a few years ago when Avatar bought 3D to the fore again, people had to actively seek out a 3D tv and they weren't cheap, now a few years down the road and it's hard to find a new decent tv which doesn't have 3D so i think things will turn around as the potential 3D audience expands purely from people buying new TVs, not from people actively seeking 3D

I know i bought my new TV a month ago based on a heap of factors and 3D capability wasn't one of them but when i checked it out, i love it
post #46 of 324
it might pick if the new glasses free sets are affordable when they come out and look good. Then again, we are back to the chicken or egg problem, namely, getting progamming to feed them. Yeah, there are some nice 3d movies out there that can be looped over and over at BB, but people don't want to watch that over and over, they want to watch tv shows and sports. Sports, thought to be a way to bring 3d home, died with the killing of 3d espn.
I have directv and now, the only 3d is ppv or 3dnet, which is just a few shows shown over and over. Hell, at least when I had crappy cable, they offered 3d hbo.
post #47 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dclark View Post

it might pick if the new glasses free sets are affordable when they come out and look good. Then again, we are back to the chicken or egg problem, namely, getting progamming to feed them. Yeah, there are some nice 3d movies out there that can be looped over and over at BB, but people don't want to watch that over and over, they want to watch tv shows and sports. Sports, thought to be a way to bring 3d home, died with the killing of 3d espn.
I have directv and now, the only 3d is ppv or 3dnet, which is just a few shows shown over and over. Hell, at least when I had crappy cable, they offered 3d hbo.

3d for standard tv is a long way off. For films and documentaries there is a huge array of options (hundreds). I don't think the main issue is glasses free though that will certainly help the more casual viewers where I think 2d is better suited anyway. I think the main issue is we need the average tv set to continue to get bigger as that really makes a huge difference with 3d and for 4k to support 3d. As upgrading for just 3d isn't really that great of an option for most, but when there are many other benefits it suddenly becomes more attractive.
post #48 of 324
I like 3D but I just think the general public thinks of it as Gimmicky - a "one trick pony". And the glasses are just annoying to some.
Sometimes after watching a 3D movie 2D seems like a step back. As though one part of what make film seem real is missing.
Will 3D make it. I don't know, but I don't think I would invest in it as a stock. In another thread there is talk of Glasses-free 3D and maybe that will be an actual, workable technology. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1495465/ultra-d-glasses-free-3d-update
post #49 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano View Post

I like 3D but I just think the general public thinks of it as Gimmicky - a "one trick pony". And the glasses are just annoying to some.
Sometimes after watching a 3D movie 2D seems like a step back. As though one part of what make film seem real is missing.
Will 3D make it. I don't know, but I don't think I would invest in it as a stock. In another thread there is talk of Glasses-free 3D and maybe that will be an actual, workable technology. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1495465/ultra-d-glasses-free-3d-update

Do you know that the revenue of 3d has increased something like 40% each year for the last four years and we are also getting doing some films doing more business in 3d then even Avatar did. To me that seems like rather good traction.

One thing that means 3d isn't going anywhere is the Chinese market for better and worse.
post #50 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

Do you know that the revenue of 3d has increased something like 40% each year for the last four years and we are also getting doing some films doing more business in 3d then even Avatar did. To me that seems like rather good traction.

One thing that means 3d isn't going anywhere is the Chinese market for better and worse.

All right, I accept the rebuke. smile.gif

I hear so much backlash against it around here that I wonder how it can make it if the "Techies" don't like it. The opposition seems strong.

Personally I think it is a technique that, if used to make films more realistic and not just "poking things out at the audience" it could be a very useful tool. I sometimes feel as though 2D films are lacking after I've seen good use of 3D in a 3D film. And I wonder if we will someday look back and wonder why there was so much resistance against 3D use.
I do know that my estimation of 3D has risen since I got my 3D projector. The realism factor rose more than the wow factor. There are some films that are quite good in 3D. And some that don't work as well. Some have a gradual effect and make things seem rounded, others have a stronger effect and objects seem flatter. But I'm just beginning in the exploration of 3D movies.
post #51 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano View Post

I hear so much backlash against it around here that I wonder how it can make it if the "Techies" don't like it. The opposition seems strong.

In my experience, the amount of noise a group makes if often inversely proportional to its size. wink.gif

Yes there are some loud 3D detractors out there but I really think its more about them trying to be noticed than having their pulse on the technology's popularity. And even the most hardened of 3D detractors usually clam up when a movie that really takes advantage of the technology comes along; I heard nary a peep from the usual suspects (mainstream film critics, Gizmodo, etc.) about wanting to see Gravity in 2D when it premiered.
Edited by TonyDP - 11/13/13 at 2:20pm
post #52 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by mldardy View Post

Barely surviving? I don't think so. With the number of movies coming out in the future I don't call that barely surviving.

For the home market, 3D is barely surviving. There is no easy or economical way to get 3D at home. Buying 3D blurays is not cheap or convenient. Netflix doesn't seem too keen on 3D with its limited selection and limited number of supported devices (and picture problems with its most popular device for 3D (PS3)). Get cable? rolleyes.gif I really like and want 3D but my 3D TV, unfortunately, doesn't get to flex its 3D ability too often. frown.gif
post #53 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

For the home market, 3D is barely surviving. There is no easy or economical way to get 3D at home. Buying 3D blurays is not cheap or convenient. Netflix doesn't seem too keen on 3D with its limited selection and limited number of supported devices (and picture problems with its most popular device for 3D (PS3)). Get cable? rolleyes.gif I really like and want 3D but my 3D TV, unfortunately, doesn't get to flex its 3D ability too often. frown.gif

I know what you're saying. I am hoping that Holiday (Black Friday) Sales will see some good sales on 3D BDs. Keeping my eyes open.
post #54 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

For the home market, 3D is barely surviving. There is no easy or economical way to get 3D at home. Buying 3D blurays is not cheap or convenient. Netflix doesn't seem too keen on 3D with its limited selection and limited number of supported devices (and picture problems with its most popular device for 3D (PS3)). Get cable? rolleyes.gif I really like and want 3D but my 3D TV, unfortunately, doesn't get to flex its 3D ability too often. frown.gif

What picture problems are there with the ps3 doing 3d blu-ray?
post #55 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

What picture problems are there with the ps3 doing 3d blu-ray?

The context was in PS3 doing Netflix 3D, not 3D Bluray. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
post #56 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

The context was in PS3 doing Netflix 3D, not 3D Bluray. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I see I read that as a separate point and was confused. The only issue I have is no dolby lossless audio in 3d, which the ps4 should resolve. If not I plan on getting a nice stand alone once 4k is released anyway.
post #57 of 324
I will say Espn closing their 3D channel is not good
post #58 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterpack View Post

I will say Espn closing their 3D channel is not good

Why, it was only reruns of two year old sporting events with an occasional live broadcast which most people didn't know was on unless they went to the website. Completely useless channel.
post #59 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post

Why, it was only reruns of two year old sporting events with an occasional live broadcast which most people didn't know was on unless they went to the website. Completely useless channel.

That's the point. If it developed how ESPN envisaged it would, more and more sporting events would be in 3D and bigger and bigger ones,,

But obviously it wasnt that popular hence the outdated content

2011 seems to be the year when people were giving 3D a real crack but it hasn't been following up by more content in 2012 and yet more in 2012

I know it's not the greatest measure but take for example the Sports Illustrated swimsuit video in 3D for 2011. If that had sold well, you can bet they would have done 2012 and 2013 in 3D as well, but they haven't
post #60 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post

Completely useless channel.

Except for "The Masters" in 3D!biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Is 3D about dead?