What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K?

[Allforce]

Doesn't the PS3 already have 3D capability for games and movies?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Penton-Man mentioned that the latest "Pirates" film had some converted scenes, and no one noticed. But after debacles like "Green Lantern" and "Green Hornet", it's no wonder even aficiandos are gun-shy.

Well, I also mentioned (before it was reported in the press) Avatar, Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Hugo…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post5470087

The former two titles I believe I followed up with postings describing two specific scenes which were 2D -> 3D converted. In regards to Hugo, there are 3 significant 2D -> 3D converted scenes, which no theatrical viewers seem to be complaining about, nor identifying, and for which I don’t want to ‘taint’ the home viewing experience by describing them in detail, like I did for Pirates of the Caribbean 4….especially since about 2 weeks after I revealed that not all of Hugo was natively shot in 3D, the post house in-numerated them anyway for publicity purposes. My philosophy of native and converted material has been expressed here…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post5283297

I would expect fewer and fewer “debacles” in the future.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Allforce

Doesn't the PS3 already have 3D capability for games and movies?

Um, yes. That was how I got my first player, for "free".

Frankly, I don't know why there ARE rumors of a PS4, except for the usual default urban-legend of fans saying "Good, now what? " and detractors saying, "Watch, now those greedy companies will make us buy some other new trend they thought up. "
Which has happened...often during the first discussions of Blu-ray and B3D.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

..."but you liked Avatar, there's no difference"

For the record, there are about 50 converted shots in Avatar.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Allforce

Doesn't the PS3 already have 3D capability for games and movies?

Yes, but it will be pushed more, especially with glasses free tv in the pipeline.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I would expect fewer and fewer “debacles” in the future.

I hope the lower-tier conversion houses don't taint the well with bad product - as it ramps up, the fewer times we get burned, the better. As the A-list productions get the "Tak Fujimoto" houses to do there work, people will be reassured - as long as the grindhouse guys aren't flooding the market with weak stuff.

[expatCanuck]

Last night, we and some friends wanted some mindless entertainment,
so we went out to see Underworld Awakening in 3D.

Now, this is the sort of film that should be the sort of eye candy tailor-made
for 3D. Myself, I found the 3D experience to be, well, meh.
[Aside - As for the movie -- I own the Underworld BD, and can foresee getting
Evolution (maybe), but III & IV won't be finding a home in my library.]

Unscientific sample -- one of our party of 5 (a 40-something adult who has
a film library of dozens (if not hundreds) of DVD titles), right out of the gate,
expressed an aversion to seeing a 3D film. After seeing the film, one of my son's
15-year-old friends (who is an electronics & projectiles buff, & keen on this sort of film),
unprompted, said that he really didn't think that the 3D added much to the film.

I find it hard to imagine that after two years, a similar percentage of folks
were saying the same thing about sound in films. (Tho' I'm certainly no film historian.)

Bottom line - there will always be earlier adopters and aficionados (quadrophonic sound,
elcassette or reel-to-reel, anyone?), but I think that this technology has a long way to go
before the lion's share of folks are going to be willing to ante up a premium
to bring it into their homes, or actively seek it out in theaters.
I consider myself a technophile, but I'm far from convinced that 3D will become the rule
(as opposed to the exception).

That said, I surely am looking forward to Prometheus in 3D, on the largest damned screen I can find.
But, even assuming it's as awesome as I hope, I expect to be watching it at home on 2D.

Cheers,

- Richard

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

I find it hard to imagine that after two years, a similar percentage of folks
were saying the same thing about sound in films. (Tho' I'm certainly no film historian.)

It took more than a couple of decades for sound to become accepted because it took some time for it to become perfected. But even after the success of synchronized sound, there were many doubters and naysayers. Critics were very harsh of sound for many years believing that films had become "static" because actors were forced to stand (or sit) in one spot to accommodate the placement of the microphone (until the boom mic was invented). Color took decades to become the accepted norm, not only from audiences but from filmmakers as well - many of whom were finally forced to shoot in color because of the competition of color televisions in the late 1950s (color movies had been around since the late 1800s, Gone With the Wind was released in 1939). It was not until the 1960s that the majority of movies were being shot in color.

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

That said, I surely am looking forward to Prometheus in 3D, on the largest damned screen I can find.
But, even assuming it's as awesome as I hope, I expect to be watching it at home on 2D.

Current surveys are indicating that consumers are finding 3D to be a better experience in the home than in the theater. The theaters in my area continue to project movies too dimmed (even for 2D), which is dimmed further with the glasses. After complaining multiple times, I have finally made the decision to see only 2D versions in the theater. If I like the movie, I buy the 3D version on Blu-ray.

[expatCanuck]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

...Gone With the Wind was released in 1939 ....

I'll display my ignorance - was Gone With the Wind originally shot in colour?
Is it considered the first 'big' film that took colour into the mainstream?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

I'll display my ignorance - was Gone With the Wind originally shot in colour?
Is it considered the first 'big' film that took colour into the mainstream?

It was not the first film to be shot in color, but it certainly was a huge success - although the term "blockbuster" hadn't been coined then, it would have qualified for it. When adjusted for inflation, it remains the highest grossing film of all time even above Avatar and Star Wars.

btw, I don't think it's ignorant not to know that.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

It took more than a couple of decades for sound to become accepted because it took some time for it to become perfected. But even after the success of synchronized sound, there were many doubters and naysayers. Critics were very harsh of sound for many years believing that films had become "static" because actors were forced to stand (or sit) in one spot to accommodate the placement of the microphone (until the boom mic was invented). Color took decades to become the accepted norm, not only from audiences but from filmmakers as well - many of whom were finally forced to shoot in color because of the competition of color televisions in the late 1950s (color movies had been around since the late 1800s, Gone With the Wind was released in 1939). It was not until the 1960s that the majority of movies were being shot in color.

I think it's time to end the "Luddite" comparisons between sound, color, and 3D. Sound was accepted immediately; witness "The Jazz Singer". The same is true with color; witness "Gone With The Wind" or "The Wizard Of Oz". The repeated mantra that sound, or color, was not immediately accepted is simply not true.

Technology took a while to proliferate - projectors had to change, film stock had to change, theater playback had to change, and this cost money and time. Some in the industry didn't want to go through this, but audiences did. Everyone wanted to hear the sound in a Western, as the cavalry charged across the plains; why claim they didn't? This has nothing to do with 3D. Silent films began as filmed stage plays, "static" as they could be, and largely remained that way until the advent of sound, in any case. Mobility and sound came along later, as technology improved.

Black and white movies were shot that way not because of audience preference; it was about cost and revenue - for film stock, theater projection costs, and costs of filming using techniques, lighting, etc for color filming. Black and white simply went out of fashion. Color televisions didn't really proliferate until the late 1960's at prices the general public could afford, and films had moved to color long before that.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Current surveys are indicating that consumers are finding 3D to be a better experience in the home than in the theater. The theaters in my area continue to project movies too dimmed (even for 2D), which is dimmed further with the glasses. After complaining multiple times, I have finally made the decision to see only 2D versions in the theater. If I like the movie, I buy the 3D version on Blu-ray.

Again, the technology is moving in a ripple, not a solid front. Some people enjoy the "theater experience"; I avoid it like the plague. The problem for most people is that they don't have a home venue that is good enough to match what they find at the local theater. A small screen, suitable for television situation comedies, is not the best way to see large scale blockbusters.

In smaller increment, they can go to a theater with complex speaker systems, seating all in proper array, and mostly, a huge screen. If those features are substandard, they are not pleased, or they simply resign themselves to "that's the way it is", and live with it. Hurling undeserved superlatives at these venues is commonplace, but it's a case of just making the best of a bad situation.

Reviewers have been scathing of many 3D films, for being too dark (in filming, not in playback) or in relying on 1950's era "coming at your face" stunts that are just hokey. This is not an indictment of the technology. It's an indictment of the lack of imaginative use of the technology.

Home adoption will be slow, due to the expense of the new technology in the home market, the saturation of the home market, and the paucity of media to display.

For well over a decade now, the studios and press have managed to play the "which film won the weekend" game of gross revenue, along with the total national and worldwide grosses for the film as a whole, all on the theater venue. It's difficult to find such numbers for DVD, Blu, and Blu 3D sales, because of the need to keep theaters alive. While available, they're not front page news like theater revenue is.

It's now a simple question: Is the industry truly committed to moving to 3D? If it is, it will shoulder the cost of setting up theaters with the proper technology to do it right, without charging high prices across the board. This does not appear to be the case. Someone - or maybe everyone - in the industry is convinced that substandard conversions, substandard projection techniques, and bad movies still warrant 30% to 70% increases in ticket prices at the theater, and even higher prices for Blu 3D in the home. It is not flying with the public, and the cost is the word of mouth that 3D is dead, or passe, or whatever. That fact that this idea is not true is being lost in a sea of contempt.

This is not a parallel with the introduction of sound, or color. This is different.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Sound was accepted immediately; witness "The Jazz Singer".

I've already posted links to quotes of the time to the contrary. And The Jazz Singer was hardly evidence of "immediate" acceptance of sound (as I've already pointed out by quotes from Thomas Edison, Clara Bow, Harry Warner - one of the founders of Warner Bros, Charlie Chaplin, etc). If you have evidence to the contrary, that sound was "immediately" accepted by 100% of audiences and the film industry alike, I'd like to see those links.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

The same is true with color; witness "Gone With The Wind" or "The Wizard Of Oz". The repeated mantra that sound, or color, was not immediately accepted is simply not true.

Source?

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Technology took a while to proliferate - projectors had to change, film stock had to change, theater playback had to change, and this cost money and time.

Just like 3D technology.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Some in the industry didn't want to go through this, but audiences did. Everyone wanted to hear the sound in a Western, as the cavalry charged across the plains; why claim they didn't?

I never said people didn't want to hear a cavalry charge across the plains. Why claim that I did?

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Silent films began as filmed stage plays, "static" as they could be, and largely remained that way until the advent of sound, in any case. Mobility and sound came along later, as technology improved.

You might want to read what I said about film being "static" again. Because what I wrote was the reverse - and it's a fact.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Black and white movies were shot that way not because of audience preference; it was about cost and revenue - for film stock, theater projection costs, and costs of filming using techniques, lighting, etc for color filming.

Not true. Many movie goers did not believe color added anything to the experience for dramas or comedies and believed color only added to the experience for epic westerns and musicals. For the studios, cost was only an issue for a short time - or are you really suggesting that cost remained an issue until the 1960s?

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Black and white simply went out of fashion. Color televisions didn't really proliferate until the late 1960's at prices the general public could afford, and films had moved to color long before that.

Completely false. There was a reason that popular shows, like The Adventures of Superman, were being shot and broadcast in color during the 1950s.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

The problem for most people is that they don't have a home venue that is good enough to match what they find at the local theater.

As I said, for me and many others, the home 3D experience beats the theatrical 3D experience by a long shot considering that many theatres refuse to adjust their projectors brightness levels to get the filmmakers intended 3D experience. There's a reason that Michael Bay had to send a personal letter to theaters across the country to ask that they make the necessary adjustments to display Transformers 3 in 3D the way he intended it to be seen.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

A small screen, suitable for television situation comedies, is not the best way to see large scale blockbusters.

That's your elitist opinion. It isn't shared by millions of HDTV and Blu-ray owners.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I've already posted links to quotes of the time to the contrary. And The Jazz Singer was hardly evidence of "immediate" acceptance of sound (as I've already pointed out by quotes from Thomas Edison, Clara Bow, Harry Warner - one of the founders of Warner Bros, Charlie Chaplin, etc). If you have evidence to the contrary, that sound was "immediately" accepted by 100% of audiences and the film industry alike, I'd like to see those links.

I wouldn't, they're meaningless. Look at box office for movies if you're interested, or the reaction to movies by Fred Astaire, or Jimmy Cagney, or folks like that. Or Oscar winners. It's a false premise, and a bad parallel for what's going on with 3D today.

And about the elitist thing...I'm quite the opposite. I don't think people should have to pay big money for home rigs to Be Part Of The Right Crowd. Your mileage may vary.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Look at box office for movies if you're interested, or the reaction to movies by Fred Astaire, or Jimmy Cagney, or folks like that. Or Oscar winners. It's a false premise, and a bad parallel for what's going on with 3D today.

Look at box office for 3D movies if you're interested, or reaction to movies like Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, Despicable Me, The Lion King (converted no less), Tron Legacy, Hugo (an Oscar nominee for Best Picture), or even A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas. Or Oscar winners like Toy Story 3.

[expatCanuck]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

The problem for most people is that they don't have a home venue that is good enough to match what they find at the local theater.

Home adoption will be slow, due to the expense of the new technology in the home market, the saturation of the home market, and the paucity of media to display.

This is not a parallel with the introduction of sound, or color. This is different.

Amen & Hallelujah.

I'd only add that, if my understanding is correct, a significant segment of the home market will *never* have a home venue that's appropriate for 3D -- no room for (or desire to accommodate) a sufficiently large screen.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Home adoption will be slow, due to the expense of the new technology in the home market, the saturation of the home market, and the paucity of media to display.

Reminds me of that other technology that people and the media said the same things about. It was something called Blu-ray.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Reminds me of that other technology that people and the media said the same things about. It was something called Blu-ray.

Try replacing that with HD-DVD, and you're closer to the facts, instead of Rob Enderle.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Try replacing that with HD-DVD, and you're closer to the facts, instead of Rob Enderle.

If those types of comments and criticisms were aimed only at HD-DVD, then there wouldn't have been a "format war" and consumers wouldn't have sat, or continue to sit, on the sidelines. Let's be real.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

If those types of comments and criticisms were aimed only at HD-DVD, then there wouldn't have been a "format war" and consumers wouldn't have sat, or continue to sit, on the sidelines. Let's be real.

They were aimed at high definition for home use, period. We're still looking at people trying to "up-convert", for some reason. Critics bashed Sony, in particular, and high definition, in general. This is quite different from the 3D situation, which is undergoing its own brand of low-level format war, at this writing.

Passive or electric glasses...no glasses at all...better in the theater or at home...yes, let's be real. Finding past comparisons to resistance towards 3D doesn't illuminate the problem. This is a money war, much more than resistance to a new format, and 3D is spitting teeth. I'd like to see better and more uniform technology, and unless a white knight comes along and settles this with a bucket of cash, it's going to be a long, sweaty wait.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

And about the elitist thing...I'm quite the opposite. I don't think people should have to pay big money for home rigs to Be Part Of The Right Crowd. Your mileage may vary.

--DINGDINGDING! And, the poster uses the "I can't afford it, so nobody else will either" defense!
Round 1 over, points to Dotpattern. Round 2....GO:

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Look at box office for 3D movies if you're interested, or reaction to movies like Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, Despicable Me, The Lion King (converted no less), Tron Legacy, Hugo (an Oscar nominee for Best Picture), or even A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas. Or Oscar winners like Toy Story 3.

...Oo, not looking good! Dot made the mistake on falling back on "They must be good because they made money"! Bad move, what a stumble, will he be able to make it back on his feet for Round 3?

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Try replacing that with HD-DVD, and you're closer to the facts, instead of Rob Enderle.

Looks like Dog is taking some hits, folks, he's already on the ad-hominem tech-fear "Remember HD-DVD" comparisons! Could it be over, folks, stay tuned!