The Official 3D Smackdown Thread!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Whether we like it or not, 3D is not going anywhere this time. I say that because of the incredible push that both studios and consumer electronics are making to bring 3D into the theaters and into your homes. And now filmmakers are also embracing the medium (and some like James Cameron are going above and beyond embracing), studios are spending the money on the developing and improving the technology for their films, and ever consumer electronics manufacturer out there is continuing their release of 3DTVs to the home market. That didn't happen with the first or second attempts at 3D. Those should be good indicators that this time is very different.

I see the push as well. And it is significant as you point out. Will enough people subscribe though? Thats the question. You are absolutely correct in identifying the support that the entire industry is putting into this. Fimmakers, theaters, electronics, studios. Without that level of support and promotion it would be doomed to fail. However, just having that support does not ensure success. This is the part that I enjoy watching being played out.

My use of en masse was perhaps wrong. I agree with you that some filmmakers, especially the silent to talkies transition, were hesitant, if not resistant to change. When I said en masse, I was speaking more about the consumer more uniformly embracing the new methods. I still believe that the general moviegoing public gobbled up sound and color at at very high percentage rate compared to the divisive split we see with 3D today.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The problem is that people misinterpret the numbers. How many people had BD players in 2006/ early 2007? HDTVs when they first came out? colour TVs when they first came out? DVD players and receivers to have 5.1 sound? The issue is that you don't go from 0 to 100% in a year. It will be a slow process but every year the % will grow. Plus a Tv is a big purchase (especially big TVs) so people won't run out just to buy a new TV for a new feature even if they are interested in that feature. Add to it that just recently the US went digital so Tv sales might have been up just before and possibly just after and it makes less sense for people to rush out and replace a Tv a year or two after they just bought one. I consider myself someone that upgrades a lot and too fast and even I don't upgrade displays every year.

I was not clear. I was not talking about studios, directors, theaters etc. I was referring to audiences level of acceptance and desire.

Was color slow to become the mainstream way to capture and exhibit a film? Yes, but thats a technical and financial issue and not what I was talking about. My mistake.

I cant do this because my time machine is broken, but I would suspect that if you interviewed folks exiting their first color film, the percentage of them embracing color over black and white would be much higher than folks embracing 3D over 2D.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

2) The reason I say that you and people like you are flipping out about it. Can be seen in this post, even though no one in his right mind could realistically expect something much more then 1% you are spinning it as extremely low.

'real small percentage' = simply stating the obvious

'extremely low adoption rate' = mischaracterization and spin

Got it, thanks

[micks_address]

never mind the projectors not being able to handle it.. i dont think the blu-ray spec handles it either.. so its likely to be a downconvert of some sort for home release..

Originally Posted by happyman

Trying to decide wether or not to buy the Sim2 C3x Lumis projector $114,999 AUD(add 5% for US$) or the Runco D73d 3D projector for $75,000 AUD,worried they won't be able th handle James Cameron filming at 48fps

[happyman]

Might buy the C3x Lumis and it can gather dust on the shelf with my slipcase of War of The Worlds

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Was color slow to become the mainstream way to capture and exhibit a film? Yes, but thats a technical and financial issue and not what I was talking about. My mistake.

Even though technical reasons will always exist, financial does not make much sense in many cases. IF Joe says "I will pay to watch XXXXX" or "I wont pay for YYYYY" then that matters a lot and there needs to be an extremely big difference financially to change that. With Cinerama or the 50's 3D, financial was a BIG issue, after all with polyvision/cinerama the studio/theatre needed three cameras/projectors and with early polarized 3D it was two (plus the technical issues of properly setting up multiple side by side cameras projectors that focused correctly). With colour the theatres had 0 extra cost in equipment and for studios it was the slightly higher cost of colour film (which is why I limited my time frame to after kodachrome being available).

Especially with colour an argument can be made that if theatre goers really demanded colour then colour would have become commonplace much faster.

[Ray O. Blu]

Definition of 'fad': "a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group." dictionary.com

Yes, the current wave of 3D is a fad.

Some embrace it. Some don't.

[Show spoiler]Who fricken cares? Defend your country, your family, & your lifestyle, NOT technology

Moving on. Time outs & soap in the mouth for cyberbullies. Be civil or begone!

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Ray O. Blu

Definition of 'fad': "a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group." dictionary.com

Yes, the current wave of 3D is a fad.

Some embrace it. Some don't.

[Show spoiler]Who fricken cares? Defend your country, your family, & your lifestyle, NOT technology

Moving on. Time outs & soap in the mouth for cyberbullies. Be civil or begone!

Thanks.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Especially with colour an argument can be made that if theatre goers really demanded colour then colour would have become commonplace much faster.

It wasn't cost effective. It was cheaper to use black and white stock, so that's what they did most of the time at first. The new tech was saved for where it "most counted", where it would be most noticed.

So in the 30s, they saw things like Wizard of Oz get the special attention of color, while now, we see things like Tron get the special attention of 3D.

Right now, it's just major releases getting stereoscopic attention, but eventually, production costs will be low enough that any production will have the option. So while there will be some who hold on to the old ways and will actively refuse new tech (as even there was when color began to dominate most productions), we will eventually come to a day that most films are made with the new tech. It will be an artistic choice to NOT use the new tech (as when Spielberg made Schindler's List in "black and white"), rather than now when it is primarily a financially driven choice. Stereoscopy opens the door to a lot of new cinematographic techniques, and I personally look forward to seeing what can be done with it by those who are intrigued by it.

[coolmilo]

I was listening to Ronn Owens on the great KGO last week as he was interviewing a gadget specialist from CNET (I think). Ronn asked the gadget guru why isn't 3D in the home more popular. The gadget specialist responded, "because it sucks."

I thought to my self (channeling the great George Takei) "Oh My!!!"

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

I was listening to Ronn Owens on the great KGO last week as he was interviewing a gadget specialist from CNET (I think). Ronn asked the gadget guru why isn't 3D in the home more popular. The gadget specialist responded, "because it sucks."

I thought to my self (channeling the great George Takei) "Oh My!!!"

That's right though. It does suck. Not much native 3D material, new hardware is too expensive for most to upgrade to after not having a HDTV for very long, exclusive brand deals are stagnating the potential of some of the greatest 3D films, others are simply not released on 3D Blu-ray at all, people aren't keen on wearing glasses for TV, and autostereoscopic sets are too expensive and/or not very good and/or not made at all yet. Home video has a long way to go for 3D, but even so, it's still nice to see filmmakers embracing the technology even if only for theatrical exhibition.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

That's right though. It does suck. Not much native 3D material, new hardware is too expensive for most to upgrade to after not having a HDTV for very long, exclusive brand deals are stagnating the potential of some of the greatest 3D films, others are simply not released on 3D Blu-ray at all, people aren't keen on wearing glasses for TV, and autostereoscopic sets are too expensive and/or not very good and/or not made at all yet. Home video has a long way to go for 3D, but even so, it's still nice to see filmmakers embracing the technology even if only for theatrical exhibition.

I wonder how much of an issue glasses will continue to be for theatrical 3D as well. People seem willing enough to deal with them in large enough numbers to make 3D movies plenty viable but I wonder whether glasses will slow the integration of 3D effects into mainstream (that's not really the word I'm looking for but I can't think of a better way to say 'you know, just regular movies like dramas and character studies and romcoms and whatnot') films.

I agree with your earlier post in that the production obstacles will almost certianly fade over time.. Maybe not within JC's five year plan but not a lot longer that that. The costs will drop and the equipment will become more capable and versatile and if 3D gear becomes '2D transparent' there won't be any reason not to use it for pretty much everything.

But even if there are no cost barriers and directors want to dabble with the effects here and there (more than anything else, Scorcese's interest has piqued my interest) I'm not sure I can see people willing to plunk down higher ticket prices and wear glasses to watch a smattering of effects scattered throughout say, Goodfellas. Which might be a shame.

I'm not a 3Dphile but imagine the impact it could have had during the wheeling, swirling pans during the Henry/Karen wedding sequence. That sequece was already disorieting without an extra dimension with which to play around with. That fishbowl effect would have had everything short of rising air bubbles.

Something like that could be damned impressive if developers can either get rid of the glasses or talk people into wearing them to watch something that isn't particularly 3D heavy but makes occasional use of the effect in select scenes.

This is definitely an interesting time to be a fan of the medium and the industry.

[bailey1985]

i just order a new 3d tv hoping it will be here soon . i need a new tv anyways so thought i get a 3d . i think 3d will be around for a long time now that games are in 3d . when they are more adverts about 3d gaming i think more and more 3d tv will sell and now they have started making 32 inch 3d will help as alot ppl cant get 40 inch + tv in they rooms

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Even though technical reasons will always exist, financial does not make much sense in many cases. IF Joe says "I will pay to watch XXXXX" or "I wont pay for YYYYY" then that matters a lot and there needs to be an extremely big difference financially to change that. With Cinerama or the 50's 3D, financial was a BIG issue, after all with polyvision/cinerama the studio/theatre needed three cameras/projectors and with early polarized 3D it was two (plus the technical issues of properly setting up multiple side by side cameras projectors that focused correctly). With colour the theatres had 0 extra cost in equipment and for studios it was the slightly higher cost of colour film (which is why I limited my time frame to after kodachrome being available).

Especially with colour an argument can be made that if theatre goers really demanded colour then colour would have become commonplace much faster.

Are we not then in a similar situation now? You mentioned that audiences really enjoyed 3D in the 50s, but the studios killed it. If the demand was there, why didnt the studios/theaters just charge more for it like they are now?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Are we not then in a similar situation now? You mentioned that audiences really enjoyed 3D in the 50s, but the studios killed it. If the demand was there, why didnt the studios/theaters just charge more for it like they are now?

because then it was much more expensive while now it is just a bit and then they had the new gimmick /fad of colour to draw people in while now they don't.

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

You aren't taking into account the fact that all but 2 of the films presented in 3D in the last 7 years have been FILMED AS 3D! Tron Legacy and AVATAR were entirely shot with 3D technology DURING PRODUCTION.

My Bloody Valentine, Saw 3D, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Jackass 3D, and Coraline were all shot natively. And those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head (Step-up 3D could have been native, but I wouldn't know cuz I have no interest in it regardless of its dimensional origins). Oh, and only parts of Tron: Legacy were shot in 3D (not sure which percentage though).

EDIT: Step-up 3D was shot natively, as was The Final Destination, Night of The Living Dead 3D, U2 3D, and Dark Country.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Are we not then in a similar situation now? You mentioned that audiences really enjoyed 3D in the 50s, but the studios killed it. If the demand was there, why didnt the studios/theaters just charge more for it like they are now?

Originally Posted by Anthony P

because then it was much more expensive while now it is just a bit and then they had the new gimmick /fad of colour to draw people in while now they don't.

I disagree with this analysis. 3D failed in the 1950s because most of the films that used 3D weren't very good, the red/blue anaglyph format only worked with black & white films (although the Polaroid format worked with color) and many people didn't like the glasses or complained of headaches. And aside from Kiss Me Kate, Dial M for Murder and House of Wax, most of the 3D films were cheap horror films and gimmicky films.

Color was not a "new gimmick" in the 1950s. 3-strip Technicolor had been around since the 1930s. Color was however used more and more after 1948 in order to lure people away from black & white television. The widescreen formats served the same intent. With all the difficulties with maintaining and projecting 3D, theatre owners and the studios decided to invest in wide-screen Cinemascope instead.

The film business was really hurting in the 1950s. Aside from the fact that the consent decree came into full effect (forcing the studios to sell their theatre chains- Paramount and RKO in '49, 20cFox and WB in '51, MGM in '54), movie admissions had dropped from a high of 85 million weekly admissions in 1946 to 50* million weekly admissions in 1950. This was partially due to the arrival of TV (6 million sets by 1950), but mainly due to soldiers returning from the war and moving their families to the suburbs where there were fewer theatres (and apparently, not enough baby sitters).

Today, initially the first 3D films, and obviously Avatar, did really well. But anecdotal evidence seems to point to people balking at paying the extra several dollars to see a film in 3D. There's about 35 3D films scheduled for calendar 2011. If those films are successful in 3D, we'll see a lot more 3D. If they're not, we won't. So far, there's about 20 scheduled for 2012.

*Today, it's only 25 million weekly admissions in the U.S.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I disagree with this analysis. 3D failed in the 1950s because most of the films that used 3D weren't very good, the red/blue anaglyph format only worked with black & white films (although the Polaroid format worked with color) and many people didn't like the glasses or complained of headaches. And aside from Kiss Me Kate, Dial M for Murder and House of Wax, most of the 3D films were cheap horror films and gimmicky films.

many where projected in Polarization. Polarization actualy came out before anaglyph. The issue at the time is that it meant having two independent projectors perfectly alligned on screen and synched (right they both needed to show the same frame). This was hard and expensive for the theatre owner.

Color was not a "new gimmick" in the 1950s. 3-strip Technicolor had been around since the 1930s. Color was however used more and more after 1948 in order to lure people away from black & white television. The wide screen formats served the same intent. With all the difficulties with maintaining and projecting 3D, theatre owners and the studios decided to invest in wide-screen Cinemascope instead.

agree, sorry if it was misstated. colour was not new in the 50's (like I pointed out in my earlier post it came out at the end of the 30's, but like you said not many where interested in it until the 50's when it was chosen as a new gimmick that was simpler and cheaper then 3D to get people back into theatres. My assumption is that if colour did not exist in the 50's to help drive people to theatres instead of at home watching TV then 3D would have probably never been killed

the issue is that squid puppet said (among other things)

“When the first Color films were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today”

and

“When the first 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public lightly accepted them for a brief period. Then it failed and disappeared for a couple decades.”

The reality is in the 50’s studios/theatres needed a draw and had a pick of two techs for it colour that had been lightly used for over 10 years but relatively cheap and 3D that was extremely expensive. The two went head to head early 50’s but eventually they saw colour as a big enough draw and so abandoned 3D because it was much more expensive until the 80’s when anaglyph was tried but anaglyph messed up the pic too much and now 3D is relatively cheap and easy and the image is not colour limited.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the issue is that squid puppet said (among other things)

“When the first Color films were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today”

and

“When the first 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public lightly accepted them for a brief period. Then it failed and disappeared for a couple decades.”

The reality is in the 50’s studios/theatres needed a draw and had a pick of two techs for it colour that had been lightly used for over 10 years but relatively cheap and 3D that was extremely expensive. The two went head to head early 50’s but eventually they saw colour as a big enough draw and so abandoned 3D because it was much more expensive until the 80’s when anaglyph was tried but anaglyph messed up the pic too much and now 3D is relatively cheap and easy and the image is not colour limited.

There you have it. The public preferred color over 3D. I believe they ditched 3D because admissions were weakening. It doesnt matter if 3D was expensive and complicated. If it FILLED theaters, the studios/theaters would just charge more. Simple supply and demand. If there is demand for a product, a company will find a way to make a profit from it. If the demand goes away, so does the product. 3D disappeared twice because AUDIENCES failed to consume the product, not because studios abandoned a tech that audiences loved.

I dont have a crystal ball for the future, and the new tech is vastly superior to the old stuff, so we have to wait and see.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

There you have it. The public preferred color over 3D. I believe they ditched 3D because admissions were weakening. It doesnt matter if 3D was expensive and complicated. If it FILLED theaters, the studios/theaters would just charge more. Simple supply and demand. If there is demand for a product, a company will find a way to make a profit from it. If the demand goes away, so does the product. 3D disappeared twice because AUDIENCES failed to consume the product, not because studios abandoned a tech that audiences loved.

I dont have a crystal ball for the future, and the new tech is vastly superior to the old stuff, so we have to wait and see.

But you're talking about the 1950's here, it's a bit stupid to try to make a point about today based on the 1950's, it was a completely different time and market and all forms of technology were much different and less advanced compared to today. Obviously colour is more important and needed to come 1st, I'm sure we all agree on that, so they made the right choice at the time, but the same obstacle isn't in front of them this time around, there's no choice to be made between 1 or the other.

Imagine if they choose 3d instead of colour, and we had been using it for the last 60 years but were still watching tv in black and white, how idiotic would that be.