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

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

--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:

Round 2: See my home theater gallery - one of three in my home - and tell me what I can't afford. Should I update it to show off?

Originally Posted by EricJ

...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?

I hope he stays relevant to what's happening right now, instead of the early 1930's, or he's going to be in more trouble that Mitsubishi's "3-D Certified" label from 2009.

Originally Posted by EricJ

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!

Ad-hominem is below the belt, and my uppercuts are aimed higher than that. In fact, I didn't bring it up...better go for the replay, looks like you're missing a few blows in your excitement.

Anyway, it's not a fight, really. It's more like one guy treading water, shouting "Come on in, the water's fine!", while folks on shore are pointing frantically at all the shark dorsal fins circling him. He may be right...but the water ain't the problem...

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

I'll display my ignorance - was Gone With the Wind originally shot in colour?

yes

Is it considered the first 'big' film that took colour into the mainstream?

I would say no

Like most techs there is evolution, The wizard of Oz was the first true colour film and came out in August 39 while GWTW came out in Dec. But if you watch Oz (the BD, and not what you remember as a kid or some of the DVDs) You will see that the opening and closing sequences are "sepia tones" and not B&W. What we call tonnes today was what was called colour before that time.

So if you don't accept tones, I would give that honour to Oz since it was mainstream and was first, if you do accept tones then there are others way before that. On the other hand even though those two films are colour, don't forget that the vast majority of films in the 40's and 50's and many even in the 60's and even some going in the 70's where B&W because (especially the earlier on you go) colour film was so much more expensive as well as the processing afterwards. That is why films like a Christmas Carol, It's a wonderful life, Miracle on 34th street, Mutiny on the Bounty (1962), Hard day's night .... are B&W.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I would say no

(Not by a longshot--Think "Becky Sharp" wasn't exactly a box-office hit, but that's more due to the story. ISTR there was this Snow White thing, in between, that gave all the studios the idea for fairytales in Technicolor...
This has been your Hollywood History Minute--And now back to our program: )

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Round 2: See my home theater gallery - one of three in my home - and tell me what I can't afford. Should I update it to show off?

I'm not one to tell you how to spend your money.
Should you go and buy one?--Well, no, but if you ARE happening to buy one, I would suggest buying whatever is the current standard. And at the moment, if you're looking at 40" or over, that's 3D-compatible, whether you have the occasion to need it or not.

Y'see, that's the PROBLEM with trying to go with the Tech-Paranoia "Nobody's going to rush out and buy it!" argument: It's automatically assuming that's why everyone goes out to buy it.
Nobody rushed out and bought a HDTV just because of Blu-ray. (Well, I did, but that's because I'd been following the conversations and thinking long-range. ) Most bought an HDTV to watch the Big Game, and then someone told them that there was also this neat way to make the movies look better.
Or, maybe they already had a PS3 and got the monitor so their games would look hi-def, and wondered why someone had stuck a copy of Spiderman 3 in the box. (Remember at the beginning, when we wanted to punch out the next gamer-d00d who wanted to start a hundred Sammy-esque conversations about Casino Royale?)

Similarly, anyone with a bigscreen fetish (ie. male) is going to keep their theaters updated for the big game--And, if a pair of glasses happen to be included in the box, the curiosity for Everything My New Toy Can Do is going to be awakened. (throws cold stares at the folks who DID get a copy of Avatar with their new Panny. )
Once awakened, like HDTV, it will soon be considered Normal...Which would help if we had 3-D Broadcast the same way we had HD networks to "secretly" tune into on the ATSC ether like some basement shortwave-radio nut, but in the meantime, we have disk. I'm not saying the "hostage" strategy of giving every new player owner a copy of Rio whether he wants it or not is working, but at least the format isn't going to "die in obscurity" like, oh....HD-DVD, for instance, that DID depend on rushing out and declaring loyalty.
At the very worst scenario, the new customer might Not Like It, which is their prerogative...And if you personally don't, congratulations, get in the crowd, you are now officially J. Anonymous Schmo with an opinion. Which really isn't worth our attention in the thread.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Finding past comparisons to resistance towards 3D doesn't illuminate the problem.

When uninformed people come to this board and use the same claims that 3D is just a fad or will fail that people used to say about sound, color, widescreen and HD, then the analogy is apt.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

They were aimed at high definition for home use, period.

Then why did you say I should swap HD-DVD for Blu-ray in my previous post if you believe the comments/criticisms were aimed at both? It seems to me that you are here to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by EricJ

...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?

Look again, EricJ I was mocking Blu-Dog's "argument" that history and sources are "meaningless" and all that matters is box office receipts and public reaction. You can disagree still, but I feel pretty good about that round.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

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.

I don't get your point. I am not sure how well the Jazz singer did, well before my time and none of the charts compare it to anything but let's assume it did extremely well.
Jazz singer did well, GWTW was the top selling film for many years, Avatar is the top selling film right now and it smashed all previous records (raised more than 1.5x what Titanic did which had the previous record and is now second to Avatar)

Was the JS the first film with sound? no
Was GWTW the first film with colour? no
Was Avatar the first 3D film? no

Were there silent films made after the Jazz singer? yes
Were there B&W films after GWTW? yes
Were there 2D films after Avatar? yes

so I don't see what I can witness from the JS for sound and GWTW for colour that would not also apply to Avatar for 3D
Now if your idea is that everyone loved the tech, that is wrong as well. Many film fans were not fans of talkies at first. Why? simple some silent era starts could not remember/perform lines, others did not have the right voice... and they were replaced by new no-names that could not perform as well. Some did not like it because mics and picking up audio meant more constraints in filing and that will ruin the industry (boring people making boring comments instead of cool "action scenes" and exotic locations)
I think from a fan perspective colour did not raise as much (or vocal) hatred as sound but just look at the small number of titles in the 40's to see why some thought it was not such a good idea (like I pointed out before, "colour" existed before 1939, but with the advent of Kodachrome in 39 any other form of colour died so in the 40's it appeared as if tech moved backwards (less colour), when sepia colours where dropped and Kodachrome was too expensive except for a handful of high budget films that would hopefully be mega blockbusters)
but from a studio perspective it was also a big financial burden. This is why it took forever to catch on.
And how about 3D now is it realy that different, yes some fans complain (it will take away from the story telling, I don’t want things coming out at me) but there are also a lot of fans that like it (or else 3D tickets and equipment and movie sales would be 0)
so where is there a difference?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

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?

on that I disagree, was an issue, even in the 60's if you watch the extras on a Hard day's night, You will here them say that cost was the only reason it was B&W. The studio got the rights to make a Beetles film but were not sure if they where a small local wonder and where not willing to risk the $ (the film started shooting before the Ed Sullivan show when the Beetles where only known in some UK circles by some teenagers and complete unknown by the old guys running the studios)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by EricJ

(Not by a longshot--Think "Becky Sharp" wasn't exactly a box-office hit, but that's more due to the story. ISTR there was this Snow White thing, in between, that gave all the studios the idea for fairytales in Technicolor...
This has been your Hollywood History Minute--And now back to our program: )

I thought we were talking live action but I guess you are right if we look at cartoons there is even more.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Round 2: See my home theater gallery - one of three in my home - and tell me what I can't afford. Should I update it to show off?

No offence, but this is like the "look at GWTW or JS" it does not make any sense. I did not bother checking your HT, but how does it tell me what you can afford, at most it tells me where you have spent your money. If Joe saves for 10 years and gets something nice does that mean that next year he has the cash you get rid of it all and replace it, no it might take him an other 10 years to do so. If Frank had a great job and bought some cool toys but he lost his job and now he is unemployed does that mean that he has the cash to continue buying cool toys?.... I can't see how having spent money in the past means someone must have money right now.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

on that I disagree, was an issue, even in the 60's if you watch the extras on a Hard day's night, You will here them say that cost was the only reason it was B&W. The studio got the rights to make a Beetles film but were not sure if they where a small local wonder and where not willing to risk the $ (the film started shooting before the Ed Sullivan show when the Beetles where only known in some UK circles by some teenagers and complete unknown by the old guys running the studios)

I have no doubt that cost was still a concern in some cases, especially for smaller studios. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think A Hard Day's Night had a relatively low budget to begin with in comparison to the studio films of Universal, Paramount, etc.

My point being, and contrary to blanket statements made by those that say the *only* reason movies continued to be made in black and white throughout the 50s and 60s was due to cost, that just simply is not the case or that simplistic.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

This has been your Hollywood History Minute--And now back to our program: )


I'm not one to tell you how to spend your money.

My wife does that quite well, unfortunately. If anyone else joined in, I'd just go pitch a tent at the beach and see if I could catch enough fish to keep from starving.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Should you go and buy one?--Well, no, but if you ARE happening to buy one, I would suggest buying whatever is the current standard. And at the moment, if you're looking at 40" or over, that's 3D-compatible, whether you have the occasion to need it or not.

I don't bother with current standards, for the most part. I wait until I see a product that covers all the bases, and exceeds current standards. That's why I got a 70" XBR LCD projection in 2003; nothing came close. I still use it daily. I almost got the 60", but my wife objected. Bless her heart. It was 1080i, and DVI, but it looks as nice today as it did then - and nicer than anything up to the new 70" LCD's that just came out, within the past six months. The tradeoff: cost. To get in front of the wave costs quite a bit.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Y'see, that's the PROBLEM with trying to go with the Tech-Paranoia "Nobody's going to rush out and buy it!" argument: It's automatically assuming that's why everyone goes out to buy it.
Nobody rushed out and bought a HDTV just because of Blu-ray. (Well, I did, but that's because I'd been following the conversations and thinking long-range. ) Most bought an HDTV to watch the Big Game, and then someone told them that there was also this neat way to make the movies look better.

Well, motivations do differ - I didn't worry about The Big Game as much as pan'n'scan, which was anathema. So I wanted the biggest screen I could get, that would be good for letterbox. And quite possibly, so did many other folks, who had hi-def cable, and needed a new television. It bears repeating: 17 million of them bought new televisions, at the height of the recession, in the last six months of 2009 - right before the stealth release of 3D. It's not a matter of buying it - in this market, it's a matter of RE-buying it, something people just aren't interested in doing, from the sales results.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Or, maybe they already had a PS3 and got the monitor so their games would look hi-def, and wondered why someone had stuck a copy of Spiderman 3 in the box. (Remember at the beginning, when we wanted to punch out the next gamer-d00d who wanted to start a hundred Sammy-esque conversations about Casino Royale?)

Yeah, I remember. I also know that the PS3 crowd is either young (read: typically short on cash) or has young kids (read: more than one) and with glasses running $200 and more, didn't want to come up with $800 or so that had to be kept in a baby-proof cabinet somewhere, with a bunch of rechargers plugged into them.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Similarly, anyone with a bigscreen fetish (ie. male) is going to keep their theaters updated for the big game--And, if a pair of glasses happen to be included in the box, the curiosity for Everything My New Toy Can Do is going to be awakened. (throws cold stares at the folks who DID get a copy of Avatar with their new Panny. )

Hang on a minute - many objections to big screens are because of home decor. There's either nowhere to put it (can't wall-mount stuff in apartments, or they have a gargoyle-topped "entertainment center that's just perfect for our 36" tube television and my doll collection"), or the decor is so retro that that an ancient RCA Victor radio from 1930 looks as out of place as some moon-walking astronaut.

Fortunately, my wife is a modernist, and built our theaters around big screens, modernistic Deco speakers, and as much as possible, concealed utilitarian equipment - and women love it. Women who really get into decorating their homes prefer themes - and up to about ten years ago, the theme was, "my house looks like my grandparent's house, so I have succeeded". Breaking that paradigm requires money. The Jetson's house is the new theme.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Once awakened, like HDTV, it will soon be considered Normal...Which would help if we had 3-D Broadcast the same way we had HD networks to "secretly" tune into on the ATSC ether like some basement shortwave-radio nut, but in the meantime, we have disk. I'm not saying the "hostage" strategy of giving every new player owner a copy of Rio whether he wants it or not is working, but at least the format isn't going to "die in obscurity" like, oh....HD-DVD, for instance, that DID depend on rushing out and declaring loyalty.
At the very worst scenario, the new customer might Not Like It, which is their prerogative...And if you personally don't, congratulations, get in the crowd, you are now officially J. Anonymous Schmo with an opinion. Which really isn't worth our attention in the thread.

There are so many problems for 3D to burn through, that the Might Not Like It crowd is the smallest problem. Those that LIKE it can't get into it without tons of compromise and confusing choices. If well done, I like it; if it's junk, I don't. It's like animation: I like The Incredibles, and can't stand 90% of the two dollar animation on cable TV. It doesn't mean I don't like animation.

For those with medical limitations, I understand their objections. I wear glasses, myself; and I'm not going two wear two pair of them, I'll wait until they're easier to get than some Jason and the Golden Fleece adventure.

I also am intrigued by OLED (I bought a 60" Kuro - yeah, the wife turned down the 50" - so I'm kind of demanding) and I'd like to see what they'll do with 70" and 80" in the next couple of years or so. No rush, I'm not dying to see Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3D in my house at those prices.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

When uninformed people come to this board and use the same claims that 3D is just a fad or will fail that people used to say about sound, color, widescreen and HD, then the analogy is apt.

Why worry about those people? 3D will succeed or fail based on price, availability, quality of content, and technological improvement, and all of these things will be plain to see, by everyone, if all goes well. This "it's just a fad" crowd will go the way of anti-sound, anti-color folks, but it's not the same thing, not at all. In those days, it was movers and shakers groaning about price tags and tradition - the public did not avoid those advancements, which is why the comparison seems so off-based to me.

Nowadays, it the public itself - a far more grim prospect. Take an honest look at the current hurdles.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Then why did you say I should swap HD-DVD for Blu-ray in my previous post if you believe the comments/criticisms were aimed at both? It seems to me that you are here to argue just for the sake of arguing.

You made an attempt to link me to the anti-Blu crowd, calling it anti-hidef, when that whole episode was about money and name brands - not about hi-def. Look at the date I joined this forum. It was AFTER I purchased a Blu player by several months, and fully four years after I purchased a 70" 1080i television. I tire of the "so's your old man" stuff.

Enderle, who appeared to not know the difference between his anus and a gopher hole (or his mouth), was truly anti-hidef, period.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Look again, EricJ I was mocking Blu-Dog's "argument" that history and sources are "meaningless" and all that matters is box office receipts and public reaction. You can disagree still, but I feel pretty good about that round.

They really don't relate to the current situation. Quoting sources from eight decades ago does not create solutions to today's issue. The parallel isn't there.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Why worry about those people?

Who said I was "worried"? Why do you worry about peoples comparisons to sound, color, widescreen and hi-def? It's called a discussion forum. We're discussing. Not worrying. At least I'm not.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

You made an attempt to link me to the anti-Blu crowd, calling it anti-hidef

I made no such attempt and called it no such thing. Slow down and read more carefully.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Look at the date I joined this forum. It was AFTER I purchased a Blu player by several months, and fully four years after I purchased a 70" 1080i television. I tire of the "so's your old man" stuff.

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about now. No offense but who cares when you joined? Who cares what you've bought?

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

They really don't relate to the current situation. Quoting sources from eight decades ago does not create solutions to today's issue. The parallel isn't there.

Obviously it is. As I continue to demonstrate. But why are you "worried" about it?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

No offence, but this is like the "look at GWTW or JS" it does not make any sense. I did not bother checking your HT, but how does it tell me what you can afford, at most it tells me where you have spent your money. If Joe saves for 10 years and gets something nice does that mean that next year he has the cash you get rid of it all and replace it, no it might take him an other 10 years to do so. If Frank had a great job and bought some cool toys but he lost his job and now he is unemployed does that mean that he has the cash to continue buying cool toys?.... I can't see how having spent money in the past means someone must have money right now.

More important, what are the reasons for getting something new? A person of so-called "modest means" might call it extravagant. A person of little means might say, "No way he could do that again." A wealthy person might say, "Why didn't he do better, he obviously couldn't afforde true top drawer gear."

It's irrelevant what my bank balance is, or whether someone on the Internet is skeptical that I could get it all over again. I really don't give a hoot about that, even if others think I should. I'm trying to keep it honest; that stuff was expensive, it's of a quality I demand from people who make it, and I'll only replace it when something of equal or superior value comes along - and I have the means to get it without robbing banks or stealing purses from old ladies. It was an example of a standard, nothing more.

If you really want to know what I'm worth, do what the IRS does: Bring the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and maybe a few hard-heads from the Marine Corps. And buy them lunch, they'll be banging on the door for while.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

If you really want to know what I'm worth, do what the IRS does: Bring the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and maybe a few hard-heads from the Marine Corps. And buy them lunch, they'll be banging on the door for while.

I haven't the faintest CLUE how this relates to the discussion, nor am I curious.

However, given that the poster has now yielded to the attention-temptation of "Don't mess with me in this discussion, I'm badass!" (Vanity, #1 of the Seven Deadly Trolling Sins), I am willing to concur with Dotpattern's hypothesis that the wildly opinion-fluctuating Dog, like the proverbial chihuahua, is simply barking for attention.
(Or just simply barking. )

I leave my other observations in this thread free for other members' use, however.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Who said I was "worried"? Why do you worry about peoples comparisons to sound, color, widescreen and hi-def? It's called a discussion forum. We're discussing. Not worrying. At least I'm not.

It seems that you want to dismiss what people say, a laudible goal in this forum - but you use irrelevancies. It's your choice, but it's ineffective, as the parallels are weak, and dated. People bought theater tickets for color and sound movies; they are not buying televisions, 3D players, and 3D receivers, at anywhere near that rate.

In any case, this discussion appears to be devolving into "so's yer old man", and I certainly meant no insult to trigger such a situation. My only point is that the average consumer is very suspicious of the new format, and has very good reason to be. Those suspicions need to be countered as soon as possible with changes to pricing and marketing techniques, aimed at people other than the early adopters who already have 3D gear.

Equating non-purchasers with studio heads and critics from eighty years ago isn't going to make a difference. The windmill is slow adoption; as for tilting at it, I'll be Sancho Panza, you can be Don Quixote. I have no illusions of nobility.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

More important, what are the reasons for getting something new? A person of so-called "modest means" might call it extravagant. A person of little means might say, "No way he could do that again." A wealthy person might say, "Why didn't he do better, he obviously couldn't afforde true top drawer gear."
It's irrelevant what my bank balance is, or whether someone on the Internet is skeptical that I could get it all over again. I really don't give a hoot about that, even if others think I should. I'm trying to keep it honest; that stuff was expensive, it's of a quality I demand from people who make it, and I'll only replace it when something of equal or superior value comes along - and I have the means to get it without robbing banks or stealing purses from old ladies. It was an example of a standard, nothing more.
If you really want to know what I'm worth, do what the IRS does: Bring the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and maybe a few hard-heads from the Marine Corps. And buy them lunch, they'll be banging on the door for while.

wow man, you are taking this way too seriously. You said someone can tell that money is not the issue by looking at your HT pics. I pointed out why obviously that argument made no sense (the same way that looking at JS one could see if sound was an immediate success). I don't care what money you have or how you choose to spend it.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

People bought theater tickets for color and sound movies; they are not buying televisions, 3D players, and 3D receivers, at anywhere near that rate.

Please provide a link to the study and documentation that supports this generalized statement.

And after you've done that, please explain to me what your point is considering that consumers are not buying Blu-rays at the same rate that they bought DVDs during the same timeframe.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

I haven't the faintest CLUE how this relates to the discussion, nor am I curious.

However, given that the poster has now yielded to the attention-temptation of "Don't mess with me in this discussion, I'm badass!" (Vanity, #1 of the Seven Deadly Trolling Sins), I am willing to concur with Dotpattern's hypothesis that the wildly opinion-fluctuating Dog, like the proverbial chihuahua, is simply barking for attention.
(Or just simply barking. )

I leave my other observations in this thread free for other members' use, however.

Obviously, you're not the IRS. For this, I feel a sense of relief. But do you really think I'm calling myself a...it says here..."badass"?

I'm originally from Compton. Not willing to either assert, defend, or justify "badass" accusations, I no longer reside in Compton. In that town, use of that term, such as claiming someone thinks he or she is a "badass", is more of a Rorschach test for the speaker than a definition of the person being discussed. Massive confusion is the inevitable result, and the original discussion topic winds up being lost in the shouting.

We were discussing the viability of 3D, and the limitations of large-scale adoption of it. Some folks think it's a legacy effect, similar to other periods of slow adoption of a new standard. Others think that poor marketing is to blame.

There is another group, however, that compares the discussion to a boxing match, and questions whether it's all academic, since the people discussing this probably can't afford a new pocket radio anyway. I'm not saying they live under bridges, and pester billygoats named Gruff. I'm not saying they were the kind of person who ballyhooed "badass" stuff, then jumped back in the bushes when tempers got lost, back home.

I'm just saying, what has it got to do with more rapid 3D adoption?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

It seems that you want to dismiss what people say, a laudible goal in this forum - but you use irrelevancies. It's your choice, but it's ineffective, as the parallels are weak, and dated. People bought theater tickets for color and sound movies; they are not buying televisions, 3D players, and 3D receivers, at anywhere near that rate.

how do cheap tickets compare to expensive new equipment? IF the argument is people where buying tickets for sound and colour when they where new then the reality is that people are now buying tickets for 3D presentations if that was not true there would not be this discussion. Now as for TVs and players and receivers most people don't buy new ones every day so if they are not ready to replace their stuff it does not matter if they are not buying 3D stuff and there is not a day every few years when everyone buys new equipment in order to coordinate stuff. So if Joe is buying something new and it is 3D good for Joe and if Frank is keeping his old stuff for another year good for Frank.
I can't see how some kid back in 39 going 20 times to see GWTW because it was 39 and there was nothing else to do means some guy today needs to buy 20 3DTVs so the rate is the same.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

wow man, you are taking this way too seriously. You said someone can tell that money is not the issue by looking at your HT pics. I pointed out why obviously that argument made no sense (the same way that looking at JS one could see if sound was an immediate success). I don't care what money you have or how you choose to spend it.

Come on, Anthony, we're friends from way back. I may have left you with the wrong impression - in fact, I should have prefaced this with the statement that you had a point (I did, I thought). It's a general statement, not directed at you, and if you're under that impression, I apologize.