IMAX 3D to Dwindle in North America - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 492Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 01:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,537
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
??? Care to elaborate or just disagree with no facts?

You claim many directors moved to post conversion which isn't the case. I can only think of one director right off where that would be the case where the director had shot a film in 3D and then shot a sequel or other project in 2D and then used conversion. Resident Evil comes to mind. And if you've seen the new film, the 3D is not nearly as defined as the previous two.
Marc Webb
Matt Reeves
Steven Spielberg
Craig Gillespie
George Miller
Brad Peyton

Outside of animated films there are very VERY few true 3D live action movies, even fewer releases now that are not a conversion.

Or are you going to accuse me of having no facts again?

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 01:17 AM
Senior Member
 
SilverBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
Seeing as it was more expensive all around to show 3D you're expecting exhibitors to absorb the extra cost?
Yep.

Maybe then they won't be so keen on having 3D-only viewings.
SilverBlade is offline  
post #93 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 01:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,537
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBlade View Post
Yep.

Maybe then they won't be so keen on having 3D-only viewings.
I have yet to go to a cinema that had 3D only viewings for a movie.

Even the local IMAX alternates between 2D & 3D during the day.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 01:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Worf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 857 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exist_To_Resist View Post
In 3D you have to use long shots, and slow pans, you can not zoom and pan move from shot to shot the likes of a Michael Bay film.
Here's something ironic. Michael Bay actually uses real 3D cameras in his movies - James Cameron challenged him to try it after Avatar and he liked it so much, he uses the same rig to make his movies. So yes, you can do your jump cuts like Bay does, because Bay does it in his movies. (In fact, Bay is underrated - his special form of Bayhem actually has a method to the madness, enough so that Bay can achieve an effect that other directors miss even when they try to frame and move shots like Bay does. It's very subtle and often lost in the Bay hatred)

As for VR, I see it as combining the worst of 3D (even heavier "glasses" that are uncomfortable after a short while) and Kinect motion tracking (people hated it the first time...). And yes, I tried it. After the short 10 minute demo, I couldn't see it anymore - the goggles fogged up. Plus they were even less compatible with my glasses so my glasses were getting squashed in my face, making it even less comfortable.

I'm not too upset though about the news - the IMAX theatre is less accessible to me than the high end theatres (the ones with Atmos and DBOX and all that). So I'll stick with the theatres that doesn't require driving way out of my way.
LDizzle likes this.
Worf is offline  
post #95 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 02:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,236
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1268 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
Marc Webb
Matt Reeves
Steven Spielberg
Craig Gillespie
George Miller
Brad Peyton

Outside of animated films there are very VERY few true 3D live action movies, even fewer releases now that are not a conversion.

Yes, it's a shame. Transformers is all we have this year.

Or are you going to accuse me of having no facts again?
Steven Spielberg? Not a 3D director. The others sort of -one or two, Amazing Spider-man 2 was the other one I was trying to remember where the original was superior in 3D and the sequel went converted. Gillespie, Finest Hours?, a very mundane 3D experience especially with virtually zero special effects where dual camera system could have been used with superior results.

George Miller, so two animated movies before going converted with Fury Road so basically conversion process too so not a 3D director. Brad Peyton yes, and San Andreas was the result of going converted, which well not great in 3D. I'd take Journey II's 3D over San Andreas. So like 3 directors at most, W.S. Anderson, Matt Reeves and Brad Peyton, and really it seems they abandoned 3D, not giving favor to conversion as superior just because it's easier. As I said: conversion is a marketing ploy, most directors could care less if their films are converted like J.J. Abrams for instance but I would say likely the majority don't care one way or another, they're not involved in the 3D process when they film it which is a mistake.

Directors that are 3D or were: Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Michael Bay, Ang Lee. (Scott has abandoned 3D but he made 3 good ones while it lasted seeing that the 3D wave is over.) Also all of the IMAX documentaries going back to 1994, David Attenborough's Sky 3D productions, and various other 3D docs which look amazing in native 3D and far superior to most Hollywood converted 3D movies.

Edit: Forgot to mention the classic 3D films that are getting restored and re-released like Creature of the Black Lagoon and It Came From Outer Space.

There have been a handful of really well-done 3D films like Gravity, Guardians of the Galaxy and Mad Max, but most fall into the middle range of what's capable for 3D. Gravity's a good example of how a converted-hybrid 3D movie is made during the filming process instead of tacked on afterward, unfortunately most aren't.

Bottom line when it comes to 3D, when someone goes to the theater and pays an extra 3.00 for a ticket they should be wowed like they were with Avatar, but since 2012 it's come down to adding 3D for the simple trick of bringing in more ticket sales which isn't working anymore. 2012 was really the peak and start of the downward spiral of good 3D movies, there were just fewer and fewer made each year since.

This line intentionally left blank.

Last edited by tomtastic; 07-29-2017 at 10:29 AM.
tomtastic is offline  
post #96 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 03:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kucharsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 6,465
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1777 Post(s)
Liked: 1051
The latest Transformers film was 3D only at the UA Colorado Center IMAX.

I'm also still very much upset with them for being too lazy to play Dunkirk from film, preferring to show it in fuzzy 2K lamp-lit digital IMAX.
kucharsk is offline  
post #97 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 03:32 AM
Member
 
Stokestack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
Really? You don't know how 3D conversion works?
As I said, most directors are now opting to shoot 2D and convert. They feel the quality is better.
Have you talked to them? I have.

Do you know any stereo conversion supervisors? I do.

Have you shot 3-D? I have.

So yes, I know how it works, and it's BS.
Stokestack is offline  
post #98 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 03:44 AM
Member
 
HitchcockBirds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf View Post
Here's something ironic. Michael Bay actually uses real 3D cameras in his movies - James Cameron challenged him to try it after Avatar and he liked it so much, he uses the same rig to make his movies. So yes, you can do your jump cuts like Bay does, because Bay does it in his movies. (In fact, Bay is underrated - his special form of Bayhem actually has a method to the madness, enough so that Bay can achieve an effect that other directors miss even when they try to frame and move shots like Bay does. It's very subtle and often lost in the Bay hatred)

As for VR, I see it as combining the worst of 3D (even heavier "glasses" that are uncomfortable after a short while) and Kinect motion tracking (people hated it the first time...). And yes, I tried it. After the short 10 minute demo, I couldn't see it anymore - the goggles fogged up. Plus they were even less compatible with my glasses so my glasses were getting squashed in my face, making it even less comfortable.

I'm not too upset though about the news - the IMAX theatre is less accessible to me than the high end theatres (the ones with Atmos and DBOX and all that). So I'll stick with the theatres that doesn't require driving way out of my way.
Hate is a strong word. Bay gets a lot of flak on the internet, but they don't know him enough as a person to hate him. "Dislike professionally" would be a much more appropriate word.

Look, I get it's hard what he does with all those explosion staging and whatnot and he does get the best people to do the production values, but it's hard to appreciate all that when his filmmaking is so frantic and out-of-control and with such misuse of compositions, you can't see what's going on, especially with the Transformers films. If you like that kind of action, be my guest, but know that it's not everyone's cup of tea.
King Richard likes this.
HitchcockBirds is offline  
post #99 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 04:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,546
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 651 Post(s)
Liked: 175
I agree with everyone that posted 3D needs a larger screen. I went from a LG 55 LV9500 too a LG 65C6 which is curved and set back too enhance the 3D effect and it does just what it was designed too do.
I just wonder what passive 3D would look like on the new Foxcom 8K, 10.5 generation LCD with 100 inch screen and a million nit brightness.
By the way does anyone have the Sony Z9 100 inch active 3D? How does the 3D look on that TV?
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1501136819
King Richard likes this.

Last edited by 6athome; 07-29-2017 at 02:49 PM.
6athome is offline  
post #100 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 04:40 AM
Rabid 3-D Aficionado
 
marcuslaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,554
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 744 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox1966 View Post
I think that 3D is being killed, rather than dying. Do you notice how every time there is something negative about 3D, writers on A/V websites jump on the news quickly and spread it quickly with big strong headlines, such as this one (no offense, Scott). However, when there is something positive about 3D or a 3D movie, you don’t hear about it unless you stumble on it by accident.

For example, people who own Ghost in the Shell are reporting that the 3D version is far superior to the 4K version. I have both versions, and I agree with this wholeheartedly – the 3D version completely blows away the 4K UHD version on my OLED sets. A few days ago (I haven’t checked today) the 3D version of that movie was #8 seller on Amazon.com, the 4K UHD version was #25. Nobody reports this – you don’t hear instances of when 3D outsells 4K, but you darn sure hear it if 4K outsells 3D. It seems that there is a spin put on the news in regard to 3D, and you won’t hear the good news, but you won’t be able to avoid the bad news. (Kong: Skull Island is another new release where the 3D version is superior to the 4K version –compare them side by side if you haven’t on an OLED or top of the line LCD).

I found it amusing also when over 15,000 people signed the petition to LG, begging them to keep at least one 3D model in their lineup moving forward. I was in communication with the creator of that petition and he had to really work and beg authors of A/V sites to cover any news about the petition. And when they did, most of them put a negative stance on it instead of reporting on the thousands and thousands of positive comments that people were leaving on the petition in support of 3D. These comments were coming from directors, museums that use 3D televisions in displays, schools, and of course thousands upon thousands of regular folks who just happened to be 3D fans. Now, the thing is, with so little publicity no one really knew about the petition unless they happened to be someone who heard about it from a friend or who happened to read one of the few web stories about it. So, it is likely that for every 1 person that signed it, there are many more that would have supported it, had they known what was happening.

In contrast, when the petition to LG to support Dolby Atmos appeared, A/V sites and authors jumped on it like it was the most important thing in the world. Already “over 1000 people” have signed it! Now, that petition still hasn’t met 2,000 signatures but not terribly long ago I had a story pushed to my phone about it, making it seem like it was the most important thing in the world for Dolby Atmos to be added, and encouraging everyone to support the petition. I never had a story pushed to my phone about the 3D petition! Yet, almost 15 times as many people were in support of the 3D petition as opposed to the Dolby Atmos position.

It is just my opinion (and we all have one), but I just don’t see how anyone thinks that a 2D 4K HDR image can beat the immersive factor of a good 3D image, even a 1080P 3D image. I’ve compared almost every release that has come out so far in both 3D and 4K on my LG OLED, and the 3D wins every time. Every single person I’ve demoed 3D and 4K to agree as well, the 3D image is more realistic, more immersive, and draws you into the movie like a flat image simply cannot do.

I believe that when manufacturers finally realized that 3D was a niche market, and that not EVERYONE wanted to watch EVERYTHING in 3D, they quickly came out with 4K HDR, leaving 3D specs out to try to move everyone to one format. That way, they could resell their entire catalog, yet again. Back off advertising of 3D, pull all 3D technology so that even discs you currently own cannot be played on future televisions, and force everyone into 4K – that way, they hope to push the fans that truly prefer 3D into 4K and resell to them yet again. Of course, by the time they kill 3D entirely and try to cram a not-very-well planned 4K HDR agenda down everyone’s throats, we can expect 8K to follow on its heels.

It’s a darn shame – there is plenty of room for both 3D and 4K in the market. At least I’ll be saving some money, because I bought almost every 3D release to date – I definitely will NOT be doing that for 4K.
I'm quoting mostly just to re-post this as I feel it is spot on. Additionally, IMAX, no 3-D showings of Blade Runner 2049? No IMAX. Lastly, no one is talking about the upcoming release of the Terminator 2: Judgment Day post-conversion. When Cameron tells you it will be the preferred method for rewatching the film going forward, you know it's going to be very good 3-D. It's a pitty T2JD 3-D hasn't yet been announced for N.A.
marcuslaw is offline  
post #101 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 04:53 AM
Rabid 3-D Aficionado
 
marcuslaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,554
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 744 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERRET View Post
Greg Foster, the CEO of IMAX Entertainment addressed the company's excitement about the upcoming 3D release of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2next month and extensive use of IMAX technology throughout the film. He quoted Guardians director James Gunn, who stated:


Those who have followed me a while know that IMAX is the optimal way to view a Guardians movie. I personally oversee the 3D, crafting every shot, and only in IMAX do we shift aspect ratios during big scenes so that you get nearly 30% more screen size than anywhere else.
Unlike many other films today where screen size shifts and 3D are afterthoughts, we plan our aspect ratios during the script stage, and every single shot is tailored for 3D as we shoot it. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is designed to be a fully immersive experience to be seen IN theaters. I'm glad that we've been able to partner up with IMAX from the moment of its conception.

And that was a very recent quote,

it's ironic (or predictable) with a couple of 2D movies coming out he pushes 2D

Right. Dunkirk. Everyone would be singing a different tune if Dunkirk would have been presented in 3-D. If I recall correctly, similar dire predictions for 3-D were raised after Interstellar.
marcuslaw is offline  
post #102 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 08:10 AM
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,105
Mentioned: 445 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9174 Post(s)
Liked: 16184
Personal 3D is the way. Those goggles-type devices of the past just needed display tech to catch up. Give me a comfortable headset sporting 1080p OLED for each eye and I'm happy. Eventually VR headsets will be able to do double-duty as reference 3D playback devices.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is online now  
post #103 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 09:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
VideoGrabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 3,053
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 522 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBlade View Post
No one wants 3D in the home...
Hello.

Permit me to introduce myself. I'm "No one".

I do want 3D in the home.
dew42, MarkyM, LDizzle and 4 others like this.
VideoGrabber is offline  
post #104 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:01 AM
Senior Member
 
SilverBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by VideoGrabber View Post
Hello.

Permit me to introduce myself. I'm "No one".

I do want 3D in the home.
Good luck finding a 3D TV or 3D content in 5-6 years time.
SilverBlade is offline  
post #105 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
RobKnapp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 557
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 1318
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDailey View Post
Was always a gimmick and no one wants to wear the goofy glasses. Good riddance 😁
Speak for your self. I always seek out 3-D films when going to the theartre . I try to buy my Blu-Ray DVD in 3-D with my active 3-D HDTV . I love 3-D. Having the Option are for 3-D is the best course.
RobKnapp is offline  
post #106 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,996
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
I have yet to go to a cinema that had 3D only viewings for a movie.

Even the local IMAX alternates between 2D & 3D during the day.
the problem is that with 'good' movies the options are usually something like this:

-3D with Atmos in the premiere theater with comfy seats and a larger screen
-2D with dolby surround in the auxiliary theater with a small screen and cheap seats

if the movie is 2D only, then it will be played in the 'premiere' theater with d-box, avx, atmos as options(right now Atomic Blonde is playing in the good theater in 2D)
if the movie is 3D, then ONLY 3D versions are played in the 'premiere' theater, and 2D showings don't offer good audio or comfort. Trying to watch a Marvel movie in 2D and atmos in practically impossible at a commercial theater

that is the only problem i see with 3D, it's viewed as a premiere option rather than a preference. personally, i'd just like to see the option of 3D scaled back, not removed. Replace some of the showings, and alternate like your local Imax does would be great imo. 3D is very polarizing, and this 'all of nothing' implementation is what creates so much hate.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC, PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #107 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:15 AM
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,105
Mentioned: 445 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9174 Post(s)
Liked: 16184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBlade View Post
Good luck finding a 3D TV or 3D content in 5-6 years time.
Why? Are all the existing 3D Blu-rays going to self-destruct? Are PCs going to suddenly stop offering it to gamers? Are Avatar 2, 3, 4, and 5 going to be flops?

More like... wait 5-6 years and you'll finally see 3D done right. That's what I think. Although granted, it may not be a TV thing. It may be a VR thing, and there is a decent chance projectors will continue to support it as well.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 07-29-2017 at 10:23 AM.
imagic is online now  
post #108 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,236
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1268 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDailey View Post
Was always a gimmick and no one wants to wear the goofy glasses. Good riddance 😁
Just like those goofy sunglasses people wear.
dew42, imagic and King Richard like this.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #109 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:21 AM
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,105
Mentioned: 445 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9174 Post(s)
Liked: 16184
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Just like those goofy sunglasses people wear.
Lolololol

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is online now  
post #110 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:25 AM
Senior Member
 
SilverBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Why? Are all the existing Blu-rays going to self-destruct? Are PCs going to suddenly stop offering it to gamers? Are Avatar 2, 3, 4, and 5 going to be flops?

More like... wait 5-6 years and you'll finally see 3D done right. That's what I think. Although granted, it may not be a TV thing. It may be a VR thing.
If IMAX 3D is dwindling, the studios might not see the benefit of filming it in 3D, as they want the movie to be seen at the biggest screen possible.

3D gaming is so far incredibly niche. I remember 3D gaming being demoed less then 10 years ago, and it really hasn't caught on - most likely because you need to spend a whole lot more money to achieve 3D gaming PLUS there's not so many games that are written to take advantage of it.

And I honestly don't see VR being used for movies, especially in the home. You can't exactly invite a few people over to watch a VR movie unless everyone has their own VR head set. Even then...if people thing needing glasses to watch a movie is silly, they definitely won't want to spend $300+ on a VR set to do it either.
cheapcheapskate likes this.
SilverBlade is offline  
post #111 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
VideoGrabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 3,053
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 522 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBlade View Post
Good luck finding a 3D TV or 3D content in 5-6 years time.
Hmm. That attitude seems a bit unduly negative.

However, if the future you posit does come to pass, I guess it might be a good idea for me to pick up a 3rd 3DTV while I still can, to supplement the two I already have. I'll be fine with my current 3D-projector, since I can simply buy more bulbs. And I'm thinking that in the next 5-6 years while 3D-BR discs are dwindling to nothing (if that actually happens), I will have bought a 'few' more to accompany the 100 or so I already have.

So I think I will be able to manage without any special "luck".
LDizzle and King Richard like this.
VideoGrabber is offline  
post #112 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,996
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Just like those goofy sunglasses people wear.
do they make 3D glasses with curved lenses? i've always found the flat lens glasses don't fit my face.

if there's no reason why 3d lenses can't be curved(certainly the passive ones could be??) then it's another example of 3D getting killed by laziness

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC, PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #113 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 10:45 AM
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,105
Mentioned: 445 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9174 Post(s)
Liked: 16184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBlade View Post
If IMAX 3D is dwindling, the studios might not see the benefit of filming it in 3D, as they want the movie to be seen at the biggest screen possible.

3D gaming is so far incredibly niche. I remember 3D gaming being demoed less then 10 years ago, and it really hasn't caught on - most likely because you need to spend a whole lot more money to achieve 3D gaming PLUS there's not so many games that are written to take advantage of it.

And I honestly don't see VR being used for movies, especially in the home. You can't exactly invite a few people over to watch a VR movie unless everyone has their own VR head set. Even then...if people thing needing glasses to watch a movie is silly, they definitely won't want to spend $300+ on a VR set to do it either.
It's not like they are ripping out the projectors and putting in projectors that only handle 2D. The theaters will still have the capability, presumably if a director feels a movie benefits from 3D, the equipment to show it will be there. Most 3D movies are not "filmed" in 3D anyhow.

3D gaming may be niche, but it's supported by Windows and counts as content regardless of how common it is.

Who knows where VR tech will be in 6 years. I do not, but there are hints it'll offer the fidelity to also deliver eye-popping 3D. Sizes will shrink, quality will go up, that's inevitable. I'd be shocked if watching VR was not part of the whole Avatar sequels thing.

I do not know how it will all play out, but since 3D has proven to be cyclical, there is no reason it wouldn't make another comeback.
King Richard likes this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 07-29-2017 at 11:10 AM.
imagic is online now  
post #114 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 11:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,236
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1268 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
do they make 3D glasses with curved lenses? i've always found the flat lens glasses don't fit my face.

if there's no reason why 3d lenses can't be curved(certainly the passive ones could be??) then it's another example of 3D getting killed by laziness
I don't think active glasses would work with curved lenses. They all come flat that I know of and it has to do with the relation and angle of the lenses to the screen, you can actually create crosstalk if you don't have the glasses directed towards the screen, if you turn your head slightly it can cause ghosting, not that you would when you're watching a movie as that would be uncomfortable, just saying it will effect the glasses. Also, proximity with active glasses can cause crosstalk. I know I've seen some instances of crosstalk because I sit about 10 feet to 140" screen and it's even DLP but in high contrast this can really stress the glasses so dead center is best and not too close. If the lenses aren't flat I think it would be a problem as the angle of the lenses to screen would be off.

Passive, I want to say because I've had so many lenses fall out of the passive frames, I've bent them just to see what happens and I think it would work fine for passive. I've also tested the clip ons and wrapped those against my prescription glasses to see if they still worked ok. It didn't seem to have any effect but it's not a huge difference. There have been some that have had prescription 3D glasses made so I don't see why you couldn't have passive wrapped around at least to some degree, maybe too much curve would be a problem. I'll have to test it out again.
King Richard likes this.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #115 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 01:57 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 9
IMAX a rip off

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
One big reason that 3D doesn't do well in the theaters is the extra ticket cost. Around here it's $3.00 more. Also, given the fact that 3D isn't for everyone, some just don't like it or wearing the glasses and I've said this for the past 5 years or so, they need to stop charging more for it. Studios have demanded more for 3D to boost sales but now that trick isn't working as most movie-goers don't want to pay extra for it. The novelty has worn off. But will they stop charging more? No way. They would sooner let 3D die than reduce the cost.

The other reason is converted 3D is being used on 90 percent (or more) of the movies released these days. 3D came back with a bang when Avatar released in 2009 because it was visually stunning in 3D, because it was filmed the old fashioned way: in native 3D. Converted 3D has gotten better but it will never look as good as native.

I've also noticed that 5 years ago there were at least 3 theater rooms with 3D showings, now there is only one, so the movies get shorter times as they're cycled for the next 3D showing. IMAX, just one screen so yeah, I can see pulling 3D altogether to get longer runs. I have to say, I wasn't that impressed with IMAX, it's always crowded, seating is like 600 or so, I'd rather watch at home.
tomtastic is right on. I love 3D and I even gladly wear the viewing glasses over my eye glasses. 3D extravaganzas such as James Cameron productions are the only incentive to get me into a theater other than receiving gift theater tickets from time strapped progeny. So I reluctantly attend a movie once or twice a year rather than waste the tickets. If I gave them away, then a query would inevitably be initiated as to how we liked the show.

The last time I attended an IMAX premier was to see Interstellar sans 3D. I only realized the film was actually a full color production, with a focused image and an incredibly dynamic sound track when I saw it again at home! I had accepted the IMAX presentation as an intended expression of art by an angry director, something akin to the low budget vintage 70s art pictures only to be shown on an enormous screen accompanied by 110 db of distorted sound and an endless stream of mind numbing commercials prior to the feature.

Here's what you get for an $18 ticket at the local IMAX : Inconvenient show times; ignored thief infested parking lots; farting, popcorn smacking, sneezing, peanut butter candy wrapper rustling co-watchers; a 50 seat choice for good viewing while tripping over shoes in a 500 seat auditorium; a blasting, spectrum eliminated soundtrack; blurred, low contrast, low color-saturated images; and......commercials; amplified by a five story screen while viewing from a God-knows-what's-biting-you airline seat; and of course, the inevitable cell phone ejections which occasionally are worth the price of admission when enduring an overrated picture. Upon departure you will find yourself standing on a sticky restroom floor. You get the public. You get public transportation.

At home, after the premiers have been flushed from IMAX screens, I watch a large format HD screen from incredibly comfortable seating situated for prime viewing immersed in outstanding sound, all experienced in good company; 25 feet from a clean toilet and 15 feet from a stocked bar and fridge, my car safely parked in a garage. I can pause, reverse and resume to review content at will. So, just what does CEO Greg Foster believes he has to offer me? His stock?

Now Greg, who infrequently visits one of his IMAX theaters for similar reasons to mine is about to shorten feature stays to keep things "fresh" like the restrooms; just at the time when I prefer to attend stale features for sake of reducing the inconveniences mentioned above. Perhaps giving away tickets in the future could be challenging.
cheapcheapskate is offline  
post #116 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 01:59 PM
Member
 
Pixel Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
do they make 3D glasses with curved lenses? i've always found the flat lens glasses don't fit my face.

if there's no reason why 3d lenses can't be curved(certainly the passive ones could be??) then it's another example of 3D getting killed by laziness
These curved 3D glasses are my wife's favorite:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C3L9I9S

They don't fit over my prescription glasses, so they're not for me. I use the $2 RealD 3D glasses and adjust the angle on my face to minimize reflection. I did try the best clip-on I could find a couple years ago, but it was useless as it pressed right into my forehead and reflections could not easily be minimized.

Yeah, all that, and I'm still in love with 3D. When people gripe about the goofy looking glasses, I've got to wonder... are they watching the movie or staring at each other in the dark? Seriously. And as someone already said, there are far goofier sunglasses on the market and people wear those funky monstrosities. It feels more like a fabricated complaint to justify a bias than a fashion statement, unless of course there really are people in the theater who aren't there to watch the movie, which is a whole other issue. You know who you are... get a room already!

Prescription 3D glasses sound interesting and could avoid the glare and reflection of putting the cheap theater glasses on top of regular glasses. Who is the best provider of those?
King Richard likes this.
Pixel Dude is offline  
post #117 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 02:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,236
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1268 Post(s)
Liked: 508
This is an old thread about prescription glasses. Maybe something in there worth reading. Personally, I don't mind the clip ons and wearing the active glasses over prescription glasses. I suppose it would be handy to just grab your prescription 3D glasses.

http://www.optics3d.co.uk
Pixel Dude likes this.

This line intentionally left blank.

Last edited by tomtastic; 07-29-2017 at 02:29 PM.
tomtastic is offline  
post #118 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 03:31 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Glasses free 3D has been around for at least 10 years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exist_To_Resist View Post
Tell that to the VR industry, lol.
Glasses free 3D is on it's way, don't be so quick to celebrate your hollow victory.
Check out the affordable pocket sized Fuji FinePix Real 3D W3. I saw a first generation one about 8 years ago at BB for $400. At the time, large format 3D monitors required extortionist priced wired glasses and dedicated players. The Fuji's compact 16X9 LCD screen on the rear of the camera delivers 3D glasses free images for both stills and motion pictures. Focused 3D for framing stills is preserved even while zooming. Moreover, stills can be zoomed and panned with 3D preserved as you play. Unfortunately, zooming is unavailable while shooting movies. Here's the freaky thing: I'm very near sighted requiring eye glasses, and my eyes do not focus well when reading regardless of eyewear. The 3D image on the glasses free screen was perfectly clear without my glasses!! The camera still awaits large format glasses free 3D screens. The camera will most likely remain a novelty until large glasses free 3D monitors can compete with today's state of technology 2D screens. Using the camera is a little like playing audiophile stereo LPs on monophonic equipment.
Pixel Dude and King Richard like this.

Last edited by cheapcheapskate; 07-29-2017 at 04:51 PM.
cheapcheapskate is offline  
post #119 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 03:50 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Yeah, all that, and I'm still in love with 3D.
Quote:
When people gripe about the goofy looking glasses, I've got to wonder... are they watching the movie or staring at each other in the dark? Seriously. And as someone already said, there are far goofier sunglasses on the market and people wear those funky monstrosities. It feels more like a fabricated complaint to justify a bias than a fashion statement, unless of course there really are people in the theater who aren't there to watch the movie, which is a whole other issue. You know who you are... get a room already!
[/quote]

For kicks I cut the lenses from some Real D glasses and fitted them into my 2000 New Years Eve glasses. Been offered $50 in a theater for 'em. Trouble is the rarity of the New Years frames forbids accepting the offer.
cheapcheapskate is offline  
post #120 of 313 Old 07-29-2017, 04:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBlade View Post
If IMAX 3D is dwindling, the studios might not see the benefit of filming it in 3D, as they want the movie to be seen at the biggest screen possible.

3D gaming is so far incredibly niche. I remember 3D gaming being demoed less then 10 years ago, and it really hasn't caught on - most likely because you need to spend a whole lot more money to achieve 3D gaming PLUS there's not so many games that are written to take advantage of it.

And I honestly don't see VR being used for movies, especially in the home. You can't exactly invite a few people over to watch a VR movie unless everyone has their own VR head set. Even then...if people thing needing glasses to watch a movie is silly, they definitely won't want to spend $300+ on a VR set to do it either.
Imagine yelling "Fire!" in a crowded VR venue.
cheapcheapskate is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

Tags
imax , imax 3d

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off