3D industry mistakes

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by blacklion

And just how many others outside the sub-niche of the niche of frontier-pushing and early adopting AV enthusiasts to be found on forums like this would those said many others be?

I would say all those millions that had no issues watching Avatar in 3D even though they had to wear glasses should cover a few.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Two types of film are pretty easy to shoot, and good cameras make it even easier: CGI/animation, and models/animatronics.

Much tougher is live action. More attention needs to be given to both short and long focus, which can be done easily with CGI, but not with live action.

I don't know if directors and DPs have a tougher job, obviously some things might be a bit tougher in 3D over 2D(can't just have a mural of a castle for the background and pretend it is a real castle far away). But your comment is nonsense. 3D movies have existed since the 20's and where extremely popular in the 50's and early 60's. The reason it did not catch back then was the cost to theatre owners who needed two projectors at first and dual projectors with dual films a bit later, with colour film anaglyph gained prominence due to cost being close to 2D for theatre owners but it killed colour and so did not catch on. If through almost 90 years of films 3D could exist on the filming side most of those years having nothing to do with computers why would you think it is limiting today. Plus who cares, more and more movies have CGI in them even when you would thing there should not be (add/change a sky line, add people, change the look of a person.....)

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I agree with your lists of great directors and I won't defend TRoF (even though I don't think it was that bad) but he has made other films like Pearl Harbor, Armageddon or The Rock, you can't hate those as much as you do TRoF

Oh yes I can. I take the same position as Team America did

IT SUCKED

Whats more is his complaint is that 3D doesn't fit his style of filmmaking. He insists on horrendous quick cuts that make action squences incomprehensible and it sucks no matter what the dimension.

[joenostalgia23]

This thread is about 3D, not Michael Bay. Stop talking about Michael Bay. This thread is about 3D. Talk about 3D.

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Well I highly doubt Monsters vs Aliens is anyones favorite movie But at the present its the only 3D Full HD Blu-Ray in existance and from first hand experiance from the Best Buy demo it looks fantastic. Hope Pixar releases one of there movies in 3D before the years up. Finger crossed.

I was kidding, as i'm sure you noticed lol. And I have yet to witness the new TV's in person but i've heard they look just as good if not better than digital theaters. And yeah, as for your hope for a 3D Blu-ray Pixar movie, think about what new Pixar movie is coming out this year in 3D...i'll give you a hint, it ryhmes with boy story 3

[brewp13]

I just went and looked at the 3D display at Best Buy, it looked really good to me. I didn't notice any of the shutter effect that people have been talking about. I asked an employee several questions about it and he said there will be 86 3D movies availiable to purchase by the end of the summer. He also said the the Monsters Vs. Aliens movie was not exclusive to the Samsung package, he said I could by the movie by itself right then if I wanted to.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by brewp13

...He also said the the Monsters Vs. Aliens movie was not exclusive to the Samsung package, he said I could by the movie by itself right then if I wanted to.

Sure you could...in 2D.

The same exact thing happened to a buddy of mine at a BB. He asked if he could buy just the 3D BD of MvA, and the salesperson told him "sure" and then proceeded to walk him over to the rack where the 2D copies were stocked. He tried to explain to the guy that the old disc wasn't in 3D, but all he got was a blank stare.

Oh...and those "86" 3D Blu-rays by the end of the summer? You'd need a doctor and a flashlight to find out where he got that number from!

[wafi]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

All your points are well-reasoned and make sense. I think consumers have upgrade fatigue when it comes to electronics, particularly for Blu-ray and HDTV. The manufacturers keep moving the bar every few months it seems in hardware. Timing of this move is also questionable, given the general downturn in the global economy.

It is 2010, and we are barely getting enough Blu-rays that are coming out. The reckless push for 3-D seems putting the cart before the horse.

Ditto!

[Jimmy Smith]

New column added to my original post in response to the recent Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs announcement

Please check it out

[john_1958]

now if 3dtvs could actually do what samsung commercials look like http://hd.engadget.com/2010/03/08/sa...ng-the-oscars/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thhNNKQv1EM
then yeah i would buy why is it people in this commercial don't need glasses
i laugh when people say they get headaches from 3dtv

[Jezza]

My main issue is that not everything works in 3D, I mean look at all these romantic comedies and dramas, how do they work in the 3D world, they don't.

Really the companies need to tone down 3D A LOT so that it is more a novelity than the norm. An example of this would be, say there are 25-30 major blockbusters this year, really only about 10 of those should be in 3D as it more of experience so you think "WOW, that looks fantastic". The only films that should be in 3D are computer animated movies and fantasy action ones like Avatar.

This is would also help people if they wanted 3D in their homes as they would be able save more money for a TV and player instead of spending more money to see the 3D versions of the movies in the theatre as that is the only place they can truely see the 3D version.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Clone Trooper

My main issue is that not everything works in 3D, I mean look at all these romantic comedies and dramas, how do they work in the 3D world, they don't.

Really the companies need to tone down 3D A LOT so that it is more a novelity than the norm. An example of this would be, say there are 25-30 major blockbusters this year, really only about 10 of those should be in 3D as it more of experience so you think "WOW, that looks fantastic". The only films that should be in 3D are computer animated movies and fantasy action ones like Avatar.

This is would also help people if they wanted 3D in their homes as they would be able save more money for a TV and player instead of spending more money to see the 3D versions of the movies in the theatre as that is the only place they can truely see the 3D version.

How do you know? There hasn't been a romantic comedy or drama in 3D yet. I think it'll be like any other innovation. Maybe limited to a certain genre, but as soon as someone who knows what he's doing uses it in an unexpected way, it should be a great, alternative way to make movies.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Clone Trooper

My main issue is that not everything works in 3D, I mean look at all these romantic comedies and dramas, how do they work in the 3D world, they don't.

Really the companies need to tone down 3D A LOT so that it is more a novelity than the norm. An example of this would be, say there are 25-30 major blockbusters this year, really only about 10 of those should be in 3D as it more of experience so you think "WOW, that looks fantastic". The only films that should be in 3D are computer animated movies and fantasy action ones like Avatar.

This is would also help people if they wanted 3D in their homes as they would be able save more money for a TV and player instead of spending more money to see the 3D versions of the movies in the theatre as that is the only place they can truely see the 3D version.

Reminds me of when many claimed that filmmaking inovations like color and cinemascope only were made for biblical epics and such and smaller films would suffer with them. Well they were wrong there and you are wrong applying this arguement to 3D. When done correctly (aka natively shot not converted in a few weeks) 3D benefits any movie and there is not a single upcoming movie I don't wish will be shot in 3D.

Whats more is that 3D is not being forced on any consumer. There are plenty of 2D screenings of every 3D movie for a cheaper price I might add and the 3D on 3D Blu-Rays can be turned off with a click of a button. WHAT ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT?

[Hale-Bopp]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Whats more is that 3D is not being forced on any consumer. There are plenty of 2D screenings of every 3D movie for a cheaper price I might add and the 3D on 3D Blu-Rays can be turned off with a click of a button. WHAT ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT?

Sadly, you could post this on every message board, in every thread and even make it a headline on the front page and people will still complain. They just see what they want to see. It's just the way it is.

[azereus]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Reminds me of when many claimed that filmmaking inovations like color and cinemascope only were made for biblical epics and such and smaller films would suffer with them. Well they were wrong there and you are wrong applying this arguement to 3D. When done correctly (aka natively shot not converted in a few weeks) 3D benefits any movie and there is not a single upcoming movie I don't wish will be shot in 3D.

Whats more is that 3D is not being forced on any consumer. There are plenty of 2D screenings of every 3D movie for a cheaper price I might add and the 3D on 3D Blu-Rays can be turned off with a click of a button. WHAT ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT?

Defensive much?

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by azereus

Defensive much?

Im for free choice. 3D haters seem to strongly oppose it. I never see a 3D supporter angry that a movie will get 2D screenings. Yet with every announcement of a movie being done in 3D there are a group of people who freak out about it. Nobody is trying to take away 2D viewing. Nobody is forcing 3D on anyone. 3D haters just seem to oppose freedom of choice. Whats wrong with giving people an option should they choose. It just doesn't make sense to me. I personally have no desire to eliminate 2D viewing but I believe that more well done 3D movies are a plus.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

How do you know? There hasn't been a romantic comedy or drama in 3D yet.

not to be a pain, but if you go back to the 50's you will find more or less every genre being done in 3D

I think it'll be like any other innovation. Maybe limited to a certain genre, but as soon as someone who knows what he's doing uses it in an unexpected way, it should be a great, alternative way to make movies.

agree, I don't understand this attitude of such and such movie can't benefit of 3D. The real world has three dimensions and our brain is built to assume everything has three dimensions. Everything becomes more realistic with 3D. Now maybe a producer might not want it for a particular film (the same way B&W still come out from time to time) or might not have the budget (the same way that movies where still filmed in B&W to cut costs for several years after colour film was available) but how does it make any sense to someone that 3D will be negative for a genre.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Im for free choice. 3D haters seem to strongly oppose it. I never see a 3D supporter angry that a movie will get 2D screenings. Yet with every announcement of a movie being done in 3D there are a group of people who freak out about it. Nobody is trying to take away 2D viewing. Nobody is forcing 3D on anyone. 3D haters just seem to oppose freedom of choice. Whats wrong with giving people an option should they choose. It just doesn't make sense to me. I personally have no desire to eliminate 2D viewing but I believe that more well done 3D movies are a plus.

agree, could not say it better

[john_1958]

http://www.themarketfinancial.com/pr...s-otcpvho/2086

now if they could do how samsung commercial displays like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLohTlq9kx8

and i do find if tilt head sideways the samsung tv does go black

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by john_1958

http://www.themarketfinancial.com/pr...s-otcpvho/2086

nothing new, and the people waiting on this miss the key fact that make this useless

Originally Posted by from article

The only obstacle with this technology is that viewers have to be standing in a specific place for each eye to view different versions of the images, thus viewing the images in 3D.

that is an incredibly BIG obstacle and one that cannot be eliminated. For two reasons

1) every room is different, every seat is different, so there is no "one answer", right, someone could have 6 HT seats in a row and someone else one couch

2) even if people did spend the $$$$$$$ and bought the right seating for it to work, the reality is that we are talking about inches making the difference, correct, the two images have to be exactly right for each eye, so if my left eye is where my right eye should be (or vice versa) then the 3D effect is ruined. So if you cuddle with the person beside you or are tired and lean a bit on the arm rest or the person next to you "poof" there goes the 3D. Will people really want a vice grip around their head (or be patient enough to have their head at the exact right spot) for it to work