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

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by etype55

It seems a fair argument but I'm not sure if those are fair comparisons. Mostly in that all the examples your gave would affords an easily recognized effect size. HD to SD is night and day, wide screen compared to regular, easy ..sound, it's even easier. Relatively speaking all such advances may have been comparable in technological development, but were far simpler in application. Use them or don't.

3D differs from all the other examples greatly in that regard. 3D requires both an artist's touch as well technological finesse. There's a lot of room to screw it up.

I see where you were going but I don't think the examples given carry the weight.

Then they shouldnt be used by the Pro 3D crowd as examples for their argument, like the person I quoted.

But I disagree with you anyway. I believe an artists touch and a technological finesse are required when making decisions and implementing color timing, pallette, etc. Equally, its an artists touch and a technological finesse that gets a suround mix just right.

Anyone claiming 3D will succeed or fail is simply guessing at this point.

I cant ignore two opposing facts when I ponder its future. First is its track record of the fading "novelty effect" (double failure), and second, it looks far superior to previous generations. Tick tock.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by etype55

You can try to condescend me if it makes you feel better - whatever emotion you want to exercise go for it.

I'm a little confused here. You tell him to keep his opinion in check, and I am the one condescending? Pot/kettle?

Actually, he does.

Sorry if disagreeing with you makes you angry.

It doesnt. No anger on this side of the discussion.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by etype55

You have no data or research to support your claims. Nothing , nada, rein.

Well, yes and no.

3DTV Interest Modest Despite 60% HDTV Household Penetration

Despite 80% of adult consumers in a survey of 1,034 respondents indicating they were familiar with the concept of 3DTV, only 8% said they are interested in purchasing one. To date, less than 1% of households have a 3D-compatible HDTV.

Does that support the claim that the public views home 3D as a gimmicky cash grab? No.

Does it support the notion that home 3D is not being particularly well received? I think it does.

Internet forums notwithstanding, people by and large seem pretty apathetic toward home 3D.

Originally Posted by etype55

In regards to how much affect 3D can bring to a cinematic experience is still up in the air, if we're being honest.

Without a doubt.

The future of 3D in both homes and theaters is very much an open question.

Costs (on both filmmakers and consumers) are going to drop, technical capabilities will only increase and as more and more directors play around with it more and more uses will be found.

Will is ever become as ubiquitous as color or sound? Personally I wouldn't bet on that until glasses are done away with and even then who knows.

But who knows.

[vertigo12314]

I'll have to see The Hobbit in 48 frames per second before I make my final judgment.

[etype55]

Originally Posted by octagon

Well, yes and no.

3DTV Interest Modest Despite 60% HDTV Household Penetration



Does that support the claim that the public views home 3D as a gimmicky cash grab? No.

Does it support the notion that home 3D is not being particularly well received? I think it does.

Internet forums notwithstanding, people by and large seem pretty apathetic toward home 3D.



Without a doubt.

The future of 3D in both homes and theaters is very much an open question.

Costs (on both filmmakers and consumers) are going to drop, technical capabilities will only increase and as more and more directors play around with it more and more uses will be found.

Will is ever become as ubiquitous as color or sound? Personally I wouldn't bet on that until glasses are done away with and even then who knows.

But who knows.

I've read similar statistics. Practically speaking, the market first pushed in 2010 so stats from that same year are reflecting misinformation and consumer inexperience as much as anything. If, at the end of 2011, the numbers are the same we'll have a problem. I did note that the wording of the survey asked about familiarity with the concept of 3D. I think that's important because 3D isn't new, and it's really sucked until now. So inquiring about the level of interest towards the "concept" of 3D is a little disingenuous to its current incarnation.

But it's always been my opinion that 3D will be sold at the grassroots level. When a 3DTV owner shows off their 3D theaters to friends and family. I've yet to see a demo in store than comes close to what I have in my house and I have an extremely modest set-up compared to some. But even it has been enough to make converts from skeptics. And its only a P50VT25. Generally, it's hard to judge PQ (or 3D quality) in a store like Best Buy. I think we can all agree with that. It's at home, in normal ambient light or no light at all, calibrated and in your boxers that a TV can make its best case.

Besides, compare 3DTV after year one with HDTV after year one - all the variables from cost to content. It gives room to be optimistic about 3D.

The success of Avatar reveals people's interest in 3D. Even as much as I like the film, the story is way too simple to be it's selling point. Nope, it came down to immersion and the 3D was a huge factor in that immersion. I think it's Cameron I'm quoting when he said, "3D is not about poking people in the eye, it's about pulling them in". Avatar proved his approach has something to it

I make no secret that I believe 3D can bring increased immersion and deeper intimacy to viewers, but only the film makers can make that happen. The more they refine the 3D cinematography, the more people will watch.

However, I agree on your last point. 3DTV will never be the standard. It will co-exist with 2D.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I disagree.

Let's look at the history of industry leaders offering us new and innovative ways to watch film.

When the first "Talkies" were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today.

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

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

When the first HD optical media was produced there was a buzz and the public embraced it. And they are still with us today.

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.

When the second generation of 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 few decades.

When the third generation of 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public accepted them. And the future is not known.

Not counting the higher theater prices and the need to buy more expensive home equipment, I believe that there is a genuine "novelty factor" that a lot of people enjoyed on their first (few) experiences that wears off.

One thing is certain, if 3D movie ticket sales slow, and 3D equipment is not purchased en masse, 3D will go the way of the dinosaur, for a third time.

You're entitled to disagree , but sound, color, widescreen and HD were not embraced en masse...not right away. You can easily find archival articles of the time critical of each and dismissing them as "fads." Sound in particular was being experimented with for several years until The Jazz Singer finally won crowds (and critics) over (perhaps the same can be said with 3D and Avatar?).

Color film was an option to filmmakers since the earliest days of silent films and despite huge successes like The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind in the 30's, studios still did not embrace color (and many filmmakers felt it took away from their "art") - not enough to produce every movie in color - and audiences sure weren't demanding it. It wasn't until television started taking audiences away from the theater that Hollywood felt their movies needed to be differentiated in some way, and only then were studios attempting to release every movie in color.

And once television programming was offered in color, studios went to widescreen. And widescreen was so not embraced by audiences for many years that it was not until the 1990's that studios began releasing movies in widescreen to home audiences. Because, realistically, people just didn't care.

So literally, we've seen hesitation with each advance in film. I agree with you that 3D has had a very, very rough start. Much more so than sound, color or widescreen. But that perhaps is largely due to the technology not being up to a level that was acceptable.

One thing I want to point out about myself is that I've never stated anywhere whether or not I'm pro-3D or not. Because how I feel about 3D personally doesn't matter. I'm just pointing out to those that are quickly dismissing it as a fad should look at cinema historically and realize that their complaints are almost identical to the criticisms of the past. And none of those "fads" went away, as you clearly stated.

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.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

And what exactly do you think is 'actually happening'?

I'm honestly curious.

that some people don't like at what speed 3D is adopted and they want to pretend no one will watch it. Why else would people be making excuses that the number of sets or households should not really count?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Same deal here, those glasses appear mighty pricey....
I just think comparing 3d to color or sound is a bit insane, comparing the reception might be applicable, but the limitations of 3d make the comparison apples and oranges in any other regard.

No, just that you are missing the point, when I was a kid my parents bought a B&W TV for the kitchen because they where much cheaper then colour TVs. Receivers for 5.1 (since Tvs always had sound) where extremely expensive when DVD came out. HD TVs used to cost a small fortune. And BD players started out at 1000$ in 2006. New tech is always more expensive because the person that wants it more is usually willing to pay more. Samsung glasses are already 1/2 the price they where last year when the TVs launched.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

I just think comparing 3d to color or sound is a bit insane, comparing the reception might be applicable, but the limitations of 3d make the comparison apples and oranges in any other regard.

If we were comparing the actual technology than it would be apples and oranges. But the comparison is about how each technology was initially received, perceived as a fad, and then went on to become accepted as part of the movie going experience.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I disagree.

Let's look at the history of industry leaders offering us new and innovative ways to watch film.

your history is a bit wrong

When the first "Talkies" were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today.

When the first "Talkies" came out there was a lot of negative not only from the public that did not like the voices of the actors but from actors as well because it is a lot different from tripping over your feet to having to remember lines and portray them convincingly.

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

There was colour movies since 1918 (cupid angling) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0008984/ but even if we use 1936 when Kodachrome 35mm came out and it meant colour filming was possible it still took over 20 years for colour film to be the default standard with B&W being used for stylistic reasons, so obviously no one was eager to jump on to colour film because it was too expensive for the film making process.

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

the first wide screen film was Napoléon 1927 it was originally created and presented in a 4.0 AR but for mass distribution to other venues it was chopped (to use only the central) and only showed in a 1.33 AR common back then for most presentations. After that there was cinerama, it was more then 2.4 AR (around 2.9) used on a few films in the late 50's to early 60's (like Ben-Hur) but it never had a chance either. WS only became interesting and gained ground in the late 60's when anamorphic lenses made it a simple and cheap upgrade for filming and showing and because theatresa and film studios needed a gimmick to get people away from their TVs.

When the first HD optical media was produced there was a buzz and the public embraced it. And they are still with us today.

The first HD OTA presentations and TVs came out more then a decade before an HD OD came out, and even though we all love our HD BD disks many people still watch DVDs (which came out after HDTVs hit the market).

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.

quite the opposite, in the 50’s when the first 3D films where produced, they where quite popular, there was a big buz and if you search probably any big film of that eara was 3D. But it came head to head with an other emerging tech and colour was much cheaper for filmomng and showing so even though the public liked 3D the theatres and studios squished it.

When the second generation of 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 few decades.

by the second I am guessing you mean in the 80’s. Yes there was a small wave back then and with anaglyph it made a bit more sense for theatres but it did not look very good.

When the third generation of 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public accepted them. And the future is not known.

Not counting the higher theater prices and the need to buy more expensive home equipment, I believe that there is a genuine "novelty factor" that a lot of people enjoyed on their first (few) experiences that wears off.

agree.

One thing is certain, if 3D movie ticket sales slow, and 3D equipment is not purchased en masse, 3D will go the way of the dinosaur, for a third time.

But 3D ticket sales are happening and people are buying 3D equipment for their home and 3D BDs to go with them. So technicaly it is possible but completely unrealistic IMO.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that some people don't like at what speed 3D is adopted and they want to pretend no one will watch it. Why else would people be making excuses that the number of sets or households should not really count?

The speed at which it's being adopted? 3D tvs are currently in less than one percent of US homes. You know who doesn't like that? The people trying to sell them.

I don't know that anybody else is all that worked up about it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I cant ignore two opposing facts when I ponder its future. First is its track record of the fading "novelty effect" (double failure), and second, it looks far superior to previous generations. Tick tock.

but everything has had "novelty effect" and failure and evolution.

For AR you will see that just the major/important ones will give you a dozen or so. That is why when you watch films they don't all have the same size bars either above/below or on the sides. Colour, as I pointed before the first one was in 1918, it was only when Kodak came out with colour film that it became interesting since it did not mean colouring a B&W film or using a complex process of three filtered films. Talkies? the first presentations used "sound on disk" and the theatre would have a record player (for sound) and projector (for image) obviously synch was a big issue and it was a failure, and let’s face it even silent movies had sound (though no talking) it was an orchestra (in fancier places) or a pianist, playing along the songs. The question is when you analyze the situation do you look at the details or do you just assume everything in the past that happened was an easy one shot deal because you are romanticizing it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

Well, yes and no.

3DTV Interest Modest Despite 60% HDTV Household Penetration



Does that support the claim that the public views home 3D as a gimmicky cash grab? No.

Does it support the notion that home 3D is not being particularly well received? I think it does.

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.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

The speed at which it's being adopted? 3D tvs are currently in less than one percent of US homes. You know who doesn't like that? The people trying to sell them.

I don't know that anybody else is all that worked up about it.

well obviously you are, you keep on posting in this thread and saying we should not counnt them. On the other hand since you are an expert on what % is acceptable after a few months can you tell me how many Plasmas there where after the first calendar year (to use something similar)? how about DVD (after all it was the fastest adopted tech). Only a complete retard would assume it would be in 100% or 90% or 50% or some large number. Obviously it would be some real small percentatge, it just launched?

[Splinter20]

Look i dont think that 3D is not going to keep up. James Cameron quoted that 3D is going to be picked up in 5 years??? 5 years cameron 3D is been here for the last 7 years or more. 3D is going to loose steam I myself aint going to get one no need LCD hdtv is good already without having the need for prescribed glasses(joke) the time where you see 3D in houses is either they lower prices and become really afordable or come in a combo. 3D is dead sooner or later

[etype55]

Originally Posted by Splinter20

Look i dont think that 3D is not going to keep up. James Cameron quoted that 3D is going to be picked up in 5 years??? 5 years cameron 3D is been here for the last 7 years or more. 3D is going to loose steam I myself aint going to get one no need LCD hdtv is good already without having the need for prescribed glasses(joke) the time where you see 3D in houses is either they lower prices and become really afordable or come in a combo. 3D is dead sooner or later

I have a livery I can sell you, it's still a great business - interested?

[john_1958]

would be nice if the 3d would get rid of double imagery

3d should be mandatory

[happyman]

People should do themselves a favour and read the thread "So,with films eventually shooting at 48fps and 60fps" over in displays, a nice consequence of the push for 3D is the superior PQ to come regardless of wether you view it 2D or 3D or 4D?.We will all have to buy new televisions to enjoy this enhanced PQ,but we already do that.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Splinter20

Look i dont think that 3D is not going to keep up. James Cameron quoted that 3D is going to be picked up in 5 years??? 5 years cameron 3D is been here for the last 7 years or more. 3D is going to loose steam I myself aint going to get one no need LCD hdtv is good already without having the need for prescribed glasses(joke) the time where you see 3D in houses is either they lower prices and become really afordable or come in a combo. 3D is dead sooner or later

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. Everything else that has come out was put through a post-production 3D algorithm software process. James Cameron is making a statement about films BEING FILMED IN 3D. He is not referring to films being PRESENTED in 3D.

When looking at the only 2 films properly created with 3D technology, it is clear to see where artists will begin to adopt the technique. Now that it can be handled in a non-gimmicky fashion, it will start to spread like wildfire.

So, 5 years, in my opinion, is a pretty spot on guesstimate on his part. 8 years would be a conservative guess. 3 years would be a bit of a stretch guess.

[steve1971]

Is 3D a fad? For now yes but who knows down the road. It may be a big thing but to me it is and always will be just a fad. As I have said a million times I dont like 3D and never will but that is just me. There will come a time though when I replace my beloved HDTV for a new one and more then likely it will come with 3D and will I use the feature? At times maybe but more then likely not. 3D aint my thing. Never has been and never will be.