AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   3D Content (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/)
-   -   IMAX 3D to Dwindle in North America (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/2907778-imax-3d-dwindle-north-america.html)

Scott Wilkinson 07-28-2017 11:03 AM

IMAX 3D to Dwindle in North America
 
IMAX 3D is slated to dwindle, and movies not shot on IMAX cameras will get shorter runs in IMAX theaters in an effort to boost sagging revenues.

https://www.avsforum.com/imax-3d-dwindle-north-america/

tomtastic 07-28-2017 11:35 AM

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.

DDailey 07-28-2017 11:59 AM

Was always a gimmick and no one wants to wear the goofy glasses. Good riddance 😁

dhvsfan 07-28-2017 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDailey (Post 54545898)
Was always a gimmick and no one wants to wear the goofy glasses. Good riddance 😁

Ah, One of the 3D haters.

Ben Hendrix 07-28-2017 12:23 PM

It's always hurt my eyes to watch 3D movies. I keep retrying it every year or two but I guess my eyes just don't want anything to do with it.
I'm personally happy that IMAX is going 2d since that is my preferred theater experience!

Mashie Saldana 07-28-2017 12:27 PM

Please make the Cinema companies here in the UK see the light as well. It is at the moment impossible to see a 2D presentation with Atmos sound in a commercial cinema unless the movie was 2D only to start with (Deadpool).

javanpohl 07-28-2017 12:38 PM

I'm curious as to what the reference for "Avengers Infinity Wars Parts 1 and 2" using the specified camera is as there are no longer any announced movies using those names. Marvel dropped those titles last year.

tenthplanet 07-28-2017 12:49 PM

This is IMAX, most theaters use Real D or Dolby 3D. IMAX is facing pressure and 3D is the most expendable. 3D is very much around in other theaters.

RLBURNSIDE 07-28-2017 01:11 PM

Glasses-free front projection tech should be coming out for Avatar 2-4 and if that works out I bet 3D will see a resurgence.

It seems that most people complain about 3D for these reasons:

1) More expensive
2) Wear glasses
3) too dim
4) headaches
5) ghosting (low extinction ratio in polarization-preserving screens resulting in crosstalk. I find this really annoying)
5) low fps

4 is likely a combination of 3 and 5, and all those are being worked on except for 1

I don't care all that much for "fake 3D" movies, I'd rather see it in 2D. But I love 3D generally. I just think at this point VR is going to be the saviour of stereo 3D. I mean, you have Spielberg now saying VR is "it" and VR requires not only stereo, but high framerates too, so the future is coming no matter what the gnognards say. Progress is happening, count on it. And HDR exposes low framerate artifacts, making HFR more and more necessary to avoid people suddenly realizing that hey, these jumpy pans and blurry action shots don't need to look like that, nor even do. Once filmmaking goes to light-field cameras, they'll be able to sell people 24, 30, 50, 60, 120 fps versions of the same movie, in HDR, in 3D, in VR, whatever. Theaters seemed to be all about "choice" but once the choice for 2D or 3D is removed, and there being no choice but 24 fps for 99.9999% of movies, I don't see the value for my dollars compared to staying home, where I can see movies the way I want to, albeit a few months later. With a drink in my hand. Pause it. Change the volume. Use frame interpolation.

I see Cinemas being victims of their own success in a way, every empire rises and every one must fall. That truism must include commercial empires. Nothing lasts forever. 3D failing in the cinema is only a sign that 2D will also fail eventually too. A "big screen" is moot when you can get a VR helmet with perfect blacks and HDR and retina resolution with spatialized audio giving you full field of view. I could even see animated movies being republished in 360 degree 3D eventually, with HFR, HDR, full rec 2020, all the other goodies too.

mmatheny 07-28-2017 01:29 PM

Since Avatar, the best 3D movies are CGI - they can really so some great stuff with CGI - however, 3D converted to 3D sucks big time!

studio3d 07-28-2017 01:29 PM

3d eye pain?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Hendrix (Post 54545992)
It's always hurt my eyes to watch 3D movies. I keep retrying it every year or two but I guess my eyes just don't want anything to do with it.
I'm personally happy that IMAX is going 2d since that is my preferred theater experience!

I really don't think it's possible for 3D to hurt your eyes. Your brain, maybe. After 30+ years in stereo, I think people's brains are wired differently with respect to stereopsis. It's interesting how much more popular 3D is in China.

studio3d 07-28-2017 01:31 PM

Converted 3D sucks?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mmatheny (Post 54546386)
Since Avatar, the best 3D movies are CGI - they can really so some great stuff with CGI - however, 3D converted to 3D sucks big time!

Converted 3D sucks? You mean like Gravity? Or Dr. Strange? I've seen native 3D that's much worse...

RonF 07-28-2017 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDailey (Post 54545898)
Was always a gimmick and no one wants to wear the goofy glasses. Good riddance 😁

BOO! and "raspberry" sound as well. :D

MCharlie 07-28-2017 01:32 PM

3D vs. 2D
 
My #1 son bought a high dollar 4k TV, and candidly, I just don't (can't!) see $4000.00 worth of difference from my $1800.00 3D HD TV.

That said, I love 3D. If the movie I want to see is available in 3D, I buy it. (I don't go to theaters for movies, the seats are uncomfortable, and I can't pause the movie when I want to get a snack, or when I go make room for more liquid refreshments! :).

I told my wife that I need to buy a 65 to 84" 3D tv now before they become extinct. :D

So, needless to say, I am very sad to see 3D to go the way of Sony's BetaMax tape! :mad:

MC

mmatheny 07-28-2017 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by studio3d (Post 54546414)
Converted 3D sucks? You mean like Gravity? Or Dr. Strange? I've seen native 3D that's much worse...

Gravity was a combo of 2D and CGI 3D. I stand by MY observation.

mmatheny 07-28-2017 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCharlie (Post 54546420)
My #1 son bought a high dollar 4k TV, and candidly, I just don't (can't!) see $4000.00 worth of difference from my $1800.00 3D HD TV.

That said, I love 3D. If the movie I want to see is available in 3D, I buy it. (I don't go to theaters for movies, the seats are uncomfortable, and I can't pause the movie when I want to get a snack, or when I go make room for more liquid refreshments! :).

I told my wife that I need to buy a 65 to 84" 3D tv now before they become extinct. :D

So, needless to say, I am very sad to see 3D to go the way of Sony's BetaMax tape! :mad:

MC

I got a Samsung P64F5500 before they stopped producing them and LOVE IT. Avatar STILL awes! And the Minion movies!!

JCP1740 07-28-2017 01:37 PM

I like 3D. I have two eyes and look at everything in life as a 3D feature, unless I watch a 2D TV. I went to a couple movies in theaters in 3D but I like it just as well on my home theater system in 3D. I notice there are less movies coming out in 3D and that is sad. Too many movies that were, or are in 3D, have little or no real use for it, such as movies where a few people are mainly talking for 85% of the movie. Sure it is more realistic but it adds nothing to the movie as a treat, so it is just a waste of the higher cost of making it. The minor bit of wearing glasses is minor to me. Shame that they push it and then take it away after many of us are set up for 3D.

studio3d 07-28-2017 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmatheny (Post 54546422)
Gravity was a combo of 2D and CGI 3D. I stand by MY observation.

Hardly ANY movies these days don't have CGI... so, which movies are you referring to that "suck"??

Wryker 07-28-2017 01:47 PM

I love 3D. Sure some are better than others but when it's right - it's awesome and adds to the experience.

vtanious 07-28-2017 01:52 PM

3D seen on a good screen is a wonderful experience. Watching movies or documentaries that were shot in 3D and viewed on a good screen (LG Oled TV) is not to be missed. I remember show casing both 3D and HDR to friends and family on the OLED LG 55e6p and seeing their reaction. While all react favorably to HDR (once I go in the long explanation of what it is), their jaw just drops when watching good 3D.

In the early days of 3d after Avatar, James Cameron pointed out that commercial theaters and the studios will kill 3D by showing movies in theaters that are poorly equipped and shooting movies in 2d and then converting them to 3d. Not to mention the added ticket price whereby it became a novelty.

3D has depth while HDR has image quality.

Do yourself a favor and buy these discs while you still can.

David Attenborough: The 3D Collection [Blu-ray]
Step Up (Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)
James Cameron's Avatar / Titanic Blu-ray 3D Double Pack

Teknomedic 07-28-2017 01:58 PM

Lmao... The only reason I go see IMAX versions is for the 3D.

If they think this will help rejuvenate their bottom line, I'm guessing it will have the opposite effect as I'll certainly be going to IMAX theaters a lot less.

Minus going for a big title like Star Wars or Star Trek.... The regular theater will do just fine.

I'm probably the minority though... I'll keep buying 3D blus and importing as needed.... I suspect 3D might get a boost from VR too though that's still a couple gens away from being something truly special.

jerrolds 07-28-2017 02:01 PM

Outside of Avatar, Gravity, Pacific Rim and some Pixar movies - 3D has been pretty garbage imo
  • Lower contrast
  • Glare/Internal Refelection
  • Sucks for people who wear glassses
  • Uncomfortable
  • Inflated ticket prices
  • Gimmicky uses
  • Ghosting, trailing

Exist_To_Resist 07-28-2017 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDailey (Post 54545898)
Was always a gimmick and no one wants to wear the goofy glasses. Good riddance 😁

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.

jerrolds 07-28-2017 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exist_To_Resist (Post 54546594)
Tell that to the VR industry, lol.

VR and 3D movies are apples and oranges imo. But yes, one of the biggest complaints is the weight/heat of the glasses...as well as the wires

BenjaminKing 07-28-2017 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashie Saldana (Post 54546004)
Please make the Cinema companies here in the UK see the light as well. It is at the moment impossible to see a 2D presentation with Atmos sound in a commercial cinema unless the movie was 2D only to start with (Deadpool).

It's much the same in my local cinema as well. If you want to see a film on the biggest with the best sound options, it will have to be seen in 3D. No thanks.

Count me as happy to see it die. It is fine for a very few specific movies, but I've only seen perhaps two films that actually benefited from 3D beyond cheap thrills. All the rest have been gimmicky "floating items" or whatever, that aren't necessary to the artistic or entertaining quality of the film, and more often than not, detracts by jarring the viewer out of the story. This is just my personal opinion, of course, but it sounds like I'm not alone.

Talking to my non-home theater friends, NONE of them uses any 3D capabilities of their TVs, and NONE of them prefer seeing theater presentations in 3D either. The added price is ridiculous, and the glasses are a nuisance at best, and a pain at worst.

With very limited exceptions, I feel like 3D is either a gimmick or a solution in search of a problem.

Actually, I'll modify my statement. Count me as happy to see it die from standard operating procedure. If and when the story benefits from, or even requires the use of 3D then that's fine with me.

Rengozu 07-28-2017 02:07 PM

Love 3D when done right at the IMAX like with Avatar, but most I can live without for the cost. Also never cared for it at home on smaller TV's, but once I got a projector (JVC RS600) and a big screen I find myself loving it and buying practically every 3D version I come across.

Mounta1n 07-28-2017 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by studio3d (Post 54546470)
Hardly ANY movies these days don't have CGI... so, which movies are you referring to that "suck"??

Clash of the Titans and Green Lantern sucked. Dare you say otherwise? They were partially responsible for the initial backlash against the resurgence of 3D. I mean, Avatar came out, and it was amazing' Instead of being used for gimmicks like in the past, the 3D created a state of visual fidelity and realism that was amazing. Then you had all these people excited for 3D, and the next freaking movie to come out was the money-grabbing, quick post-production conversion 3D travesty that was Clash of the Titans. The studios trying to cash in on 3D excitement with cheap conversions were what killed 3D. I'd go see any movie filmed in 3D, in 3D, but I've mostly avoided conversions except where there was extensive CGI and it appeared they actually tried.

I think the crappy passive 3D tv's like the LGs with their horrendous ghosting and crosstalk probably didn't help either, but they had cheap glasses as a selling point. Then people are stuck with these TV's with crappy 3D because they tried to save a few bucks and they become 3D haters and say it sucks, because for them, it did.

It was just starting to get really good too. If Sony had just continued to support 3D on the PS4 I think there would have been some really amazing experiences available. Instead they rushed on to VR, which just isn't quite there yet. Who knows if that will make it out of the cradle or die from neglect like 3D. It's dissapointing. I hope VR does make it to gen 2 or 3, because I think it will be really amazing by then, even if you have to wear glasses for it.

Wolfy701 07-28-2017 02:14 PM

Forget 3D, I'm waiting for glassless holographic TV.

Exist_To_Resist 07-28-2017 02:15 PM

There are several issues that plagued the 3D industry, and you can chalk them all up to laziness.
When you direct a 3D film it has to be directed more like a stage play vs current method used to entertain the ADHD audience.
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.
You can chalk that mistake to the lazy directors and Hollywood in general.

Then you have the issue with the fact that most 3D movies weren't even filmed in 3D but the 3D was added in post production.
This resulted in bad depth and many people failed to see the merit of a 3D film.
Also a lot of 3D post production work resulted in a film with convergence issues.
Again, chalk it up to the lazy studios.

Seeing a proper movie in 3D is a treat, and a 2D rendition of it is lack luster compared to some films out there.
The funny thing is this technology will make a full circle in about 5 years time and it will be back in the theater.
Glasses free TV is on it's way to a theater near you, it will be used in displays and advertisements.
Sorry to disappoint those naysayers, but 3D is going dormant, taking a break, and then it's coming out swinging again.

studio3d 07-28-2017 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mounta1n (Post 54546638)
Clash of the Titans and Green Lantern sucked. Dare you say otherwise? They were partially responsible for the initial backlash against the resurgence of 3D. I mean, Avatar came out, and it was amazing' Instead of being used for gimmicks like in the past, the 3D created a state of visual fidelity and realism that was amazing. Then you had all these people excited for 3D, and the next freaking movie to come out was the money-grabbing, quick post-production conversion 3D travesty that was Clash of the Titans. The studios trying to cash in on 3D excitement with cheap conversions were what killed 3D. I'd go see any movie filmed in 3D, in 3D, but I've mostly avoided conversions except where there was extensive CGI and it appeared they actually tried.

I think the crappy passive 3D tv's like the LGs with their horrendous ghosting and crosstalk probably didn't help either, but they had cheap glasses as a selling point. Then people are stuck with these TV's with crappy 3D because they tried to save a few bucks and they become 3D haters and say it sucks, because for them, it did.

It was just starting to get really good too. If Sony had just continued to support 3D on the PS4 I think there would have been some really amazing experiences available. Instead they rushed on to VR, which just isn't quite there yet. Who knows if that will make it out of the cradle or die from neglect like 3D. It's dissapointing. I hope VR does make it to gen 2 or 3, because I think it will be really amazing by then, even if you have to wear glasses for it.

Really? Citing 2 movies from the early days of conversion is the best you can do to bolster your argument? And actually passive 3D is much better than active... especially 4k passive. Yes, you can't be higher or lower than the screen, but in line there is very little ghosting. My Sony 3D 4K is amazing. Maybe you know more than I about 3D, I've only been doing it since 1980, most of that professionally.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.