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

[alioke]

Interesting discussion...

I don't think the 3D format is going away at all. Once it becomes more mainstream, there will be more titles and lower prices. We love watching movies in 3D, especially the once produced in 3D from the start. I can understand the negative responses from people who already own TV's not 3D. We chose to buy our first HD TV as a 3D because the price and opportunity was right. We got hooked in 3D at the theatre but hated the rip-off prices. Now we are building a collection of fun 3D movies.

Of course it is not for everyone so those who have no interest in it should go to another forum and leave this forum to those who own 3D TV's.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I agree with you about selling 3D as a premium - that's a huge problem. But what "ire"? Someone posted their feelings about 3D and how it doesn't "augment" the movie going experience, and I talked about how those feelings are nothing new to film history.

Not to argue this point, but I have yet to see 3-D romantic comedies, dramas, documentaries, or many other genres. It really doesn't add much to those kinds of films, and carries a pretty hefty price, at least so far.

The market penetration of 3-D would have to increase exponentially for that to happen. When genres that might be expected to employ 3-D are still debated as to whether this film or that one gets it (see anything by Nolan, for example) it's just tough to see someone greenlight a rom-com in 3-D, saying it would enhance the experience, somehow. This isn't friends or foes in the fan base making these decisions; it's studios and filmmakers, across the board.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

As for the folks who aren't interested in 3D conversions, that comes with the territory of casual movie fans who really don't know much about current conversion technology and, because of their lack of knowledge, jump on the "I will only watch 3D *native* 3D movies" bandwagon who don't realize how much of a "natively" shot 3D movie is actually converted but they are unable to tell the difference while watching the movie.

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. Remember, it's not the knowledgeable fan base that understands these factors that makes the decisions - it's the casual viewer, and for some reason, the industry has been putting out second tier product for a couple of years now, hoping for the "but you liked Avatar, there's no difference" Great Unwashed Viewer to plunk down $12 a ticket, or 200 times that for a 3-D home theater.

It isn't catching on. I say, ping the source, not damn the skeptical consumer.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

It all depends on what style of perscription glasses you choose to buy. Obviously large frames from prescription glasses may cause a problem, but there's only so much tv manufacturers can do to compensate this. Both my fiancèe and I where prescription glasses, I only need them for reading, driving and watching tv, but my fiancèe wears hers all the time because she is pretty much blind without them. We both have invested in nice light weight stylish perscription glasses which don't have chunky frames (actually my pair is frameless), and we have no problems wearing 3d glasses over them. Also most people who need to wear perscription glasses all the time often invested in contacts as well, because they don't like to wear their perscription glasses every day, so if you do happen to own contacts and wearing 2 pairs of glasses for 3d bothers you, then you always have the option to wear your contacts instead.

I have mild astigmatism, precluding comfortable contacts, and I can't stand contacts, anyway. I sure wouldn't move to them to wear electric glasses.

If it were quality 3-D, I'd appreciate the ability to get 3-D glasses with my prescription in them - if they wouldn't charge a fortune for them. I pay premium prices for glasses (there is no reason to go cheap on a medical device) but at the prices of normal 3-D glasses, I can't imagine what a prescription pair would run.

Wearing double sets of glasses is just a bad solution for most of the public. Some folks simply don't mind, but it's never going to be the norm. During normal demo testing, my wife and I were able to wear 3-D glasses over our own, which are lightweight and very non-bulky, but we both quickly agreed that wearing both sets for any prolonged period was simply too uncomfortable.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

but I have yet to see 3-D romantic comedies, dramas, documentaries, or many other genres. It really doesn't add much to those kinds of films, and carries a pretty hefty price, at least so far.

And this goes back to my earlier point. If you swap out the word "3D" for the words "sound," "color" or "widescreen", you would have the same statements made throughout the history of film. There were people who thought color was only good for epic, Gone With the Wind type films. They said it was too expensive and didn't add much to a romantic comedy or drama. The same can be said of widescreen - only the big westerns or epics were at first deemed worthy of "Cinemascope" or "VistaVision." Your feelings are nothing new. They have simply been passed on from one filmmaking innovation to the next.

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.

No doubt Penton would also confirm for you that, to date, every 3D movie shot with 3D cameras has had a good amount of conversion work done in post-production. That includes Avatar and Transformers 3 - everyone raves about the quality of the 3D in both, thinking that they were shot 100% IN 3D, and no one can tell the difference between the native and converted shots. And when you refer to "debacles," I'm not sure if you mean conversion debacles or box office debacles.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

for some reason, the industry has been putting out second tier product for a couple of years now

That's a generalization. Because you know what other second tier products the industry has been putting out for several years now? Movies in 2D. Remakes in 2D. Reboots in 2D.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

It isn't catching on.

The head of Warner Bros. once said something very similar about sound. Say that again when there are no more 3D movies in current release, or in production.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by alioke

Interesting discussion...

I don't think the 3D format is going away at all. Once it becomes more mainstream, there will be more titles and lower prices.

Just took a quick look at the 3-D titles released during the last quarter of this year. Virtually all of them were non-mainstream titles, or very old catalogue titles, or animated features, again archives. This is after two years of the genre being in place, at the height of the shopping season.

It's been very genre-restricted by content providers, another limiting factor. No dramas; nothing in the "Oscar-Worthy" categories; no comedies; no mysteries, only a couple of adventure films (generally geared towards very young audiences), just a very limited field.

This restricts what is even available in 3-D, even if prices were lowered and the rest of the pipeline was wide open.

Originally Posted by alioke

We love watching movies in 3D, especially the once produced in 3D from the start. I can understand the negative responses from people who already own TV's not 3D. We chose to buy our first HD TV as a 3D because the price and opportunity was right. We got hooked in 3D at the theatre but hated the rip-off prices. Now we are building a collection of fun 3D movies.

What will save the concept of 3-D is fans like you. What will actually cause this media to thrive will be the content producers themselves, not the fans. If you enjoy it, go for it - it's out there, nothing wrong with that, or any other genre of entertainment.

Originally Posted by alioke

Of course it is not for everyone so those who have no interest in it should go to another forum and leave this forum to those who own 3D TV's.

How can that be? Everyone has an interest in what is available, how it works, what the price is, what the drawbacks and benefits are - and most definitely, what is restricting large-scale adoption.

Some are concerned that development and availability costs are being passed on to 2-D viewers, probably not the case. But the bigger question - which should be directed to the people who created this format (and they shouldn't get a pass on it) - is why the obvious problems aren't being addressed, by producing higher quality, lower cost, and future-proofing.

This is not a new format any more. It's been around for two years, and you're still paying $35-$40 per Blu. The general public is not eagerly adopting this, and they should be able to do this.

It's a legitimate topic, I think, and I also think people who aren't entranced by it shouldn't be rude about it - they should point out problems, have their complaints evaluated by their peers for validity, and then present them to content providers and manufacturers as things to be solved, so those guys can make more money, selling what the naysayers will REALLY want to buy.

It's out there - you like it, and you're not alone - so civility and common purpose should work.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I have mild astigmatism, precluding comfortable contacts, and I can't stand contacts, anyway. I sure wouldn't move to them to wear electric glasses.

If it were quality 3-D, I'd appreciate the ability to get 3-D glasses with my prescription in them - if they wouldn't charge a fortune for them. I pay premium prices for glasses (there is no reason to go cheap on a medical device) but at the prices of normal 3-D glasses, I can't imagine what a prescription pair would run.

Wearing double sets of glasses is just a bad solution for most of the public. Some folks simply don't mind, but it's never going to be the norm. During normal demo testing, my wife and I were able to wear 3-D glasses over our own, which are lightweight and very non-bulky, but we both quickly agreed that wearing both sets for any prolonged period was simply too uncomfortable.

That's all good and everything but that's you not everybody (your eye problems and whether you personally like contacts or not wasn't what I was saying), but you can't base how comfortable or uncomfortable the rest of the worlds populations is with it on what you and your wife felt, just like I can't even though my fiancèe and I have no problem with it, and have worn 3d glasses over our perscription glasses for over 4 hours in more than 1 sitting without feeling any discomfort. Yours and your wife's opinion is no more valid than mine and my fiancèes. Of course you are going to find complaints about it on the Internet, because most people only ever take the time to say something when they are not happy, but the thousands of complaints that can be found on the Internet certainly doesn't speak for the entire world.

Wearing 2 pairs of glasses may not be ideal and a bad solution to some, but that's what's required if you want to watch 3d because that's how currently the technology works and has always worked. Manufacturers can't just click their fingers and magically change the whole foundation of how 3d technology works, so what do you propose they do about it?

Complaints are understandable if someone actually does like 3d but not the glasses, but in most circumstances the people complaining don't even like 3d anyway, glasses or not, so they are just whinging about something for the sake of it.

At the end of day IMO 3d glasses are just an accessory which is required to use it, no different to needing a controller to be able to play a console game or a gas bottle so you can use your BBQ to cook meat. Yes those things don't make the experience of using the product uncomfortable for some, but they are still required to be able to use the product never the less. So if you don't like using the accessories that are needed to work a product, then simply don't use it. 3d glasses aren't just an inconvenience that have been introduced for no reason, they are an equal part in the technology and 3d currently wouldn't work without them, just like cars and petrol etc. There are other products on the market where you have to wear something to able to use it, such as a welding mask, I'm sure they aren't very comfortable especially after a couple of hours either, but wearing them is just something you have to accept if you want or have to use a welder.

[Nommag]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

At the end of day IMO 3d glasses are just an accessory which is required to use it, no different to needing a controller to be able to play a console game or a gas bottle so you can use your BBQ to cook meat. Yes those things don't make the experience of using the product uncomfortable for some, but they are still required to be able to use the product never the less. So if you don't like using the accessories that are needed to work a product, then simply don't use it. 3d glasses aren't just an inconvenience that have been introduced for no reason, they are an equal part in the technology and 3d currently wouldn't work without them, just like cars and petrol etc. There are other products on the market where you have to wear something to able to use it, such as a welding mask, I'm sure they aren't very comfortable especially after a couple of hours either, but wearing them is just something you have to accept if you want or have to use a welder.

Well said and to make this example more relevant to our field of interest my girlfriend wears reading glasses while watching movies so she can see the 1080p image clearer. She has not complained once, nor has she ever complained about 3d glasses.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

And this goes back to my earlier point. If you swap out the word "3D" for the words "sound," "color" or "widescreen", you would have the same statements made throughout the history of film. There were people who thought color was only good for epic, Gone With the Wind type films. They said it was too expensive and didn't add much to a romantic comedy or drama. The same can be said of widescreen - only the big westerns or epics were at first deemed worthy of "Cinemascope" or "VistaVision." Your feelings are nothing new. They have simply been passed on from one filmmaking innovation to the next.

I'm not going to swap out 3-D, in it's current format, for "sound, color, or widescreen". None of those items require face-mounted equipment to get them to work, for example. And some of them produced sound, color, and widescreen with absolutely terrible execution; it's the same with any technology. Compare the Wright Flyer to the Space Shuttle for an example.

It is not my decision, or yours, to use 3-D for specific genres, or for everything filmed; it is a cost-benefit analysis of the artist, and if Woody Allen decides to make his next film in 3-D, more power to him. I don't think 3-D would add much to My Dinner With Andre, newsreels about the Kennedy assasination, or some conversion of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. No need to describe me as a Neanderthal for saying so.

Further, 3-D still isn't perfect - far from it. As a fan of photorealism, I understand the desire to see everything on film as it really is, and my best example in 2-D is Lawrence of Arabia, at the well with his guide, and we see a small figure in the distance. A shot rings out from the figure, who takes perhaps a full minute to be close enough to clearly discern who it is. Would an accurate 3-D rendering have improved this scene? Perhaps, but I have yet to see anything as impressive in 3-D (though the Imax Grand Canyon work is very, very good). Would it have been less impressive without color, or widescreen, or sound? Yes, these were necessary components, to carry the impact of the scene. Are studios doing work this stunning for romantic comedies, or animated stuff like Megamind? Not even close.

So my statement that not much would be added to Sleepless In Seattle by 3-D is based on watching a man, riding a camel, firing an ancient carbine hundreds of yards away, and the scene being a success. It's not the maunderings of a Luddite, wishing Leonardo had carved the Mona Lisa, instead of just painting it on flat canvas.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

No doubt Penton would also confirm for you that, to date, every 3D movie shot with 3D cameras has had a good amount of conversion work done in post-production. That includes Avatar and Transformers 3 - everyone raves about the quality of the 3D in both, thinking that they were shot 100% IN 3D, and no one can tell the difference between the native and converted shots.

He's confirmed that, but being Penton-Man, he won't reveal what's converted and what isn't (being a clever devil, he makes you look). I certainly don't think conversion is flat-out evil, but certain material doesn't work with it, and there's the matter of thumb-fingered execution as well. But until we find the Tak Fujimoto of conversion doing this stuff, the quality will remain suspect, and the fan base restricted to only those with the purest 3-D hearts.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

And when you refer to "debacles," I'm not sure if you mean conversion debacles or box office debacles.

Both, and perhaps one led to the other. Take a look at the reviews of the guardians of Blu, our reviewers, and they're pretty straightforward about the limitations of Blu 3-D movies, if they are present in a film - and they're not charitable, if a better job could have been done. On the whole, they have not been kind. They better not be, at $40 for these films.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

That's a generalization. Because you know what other second tier products the industry has been putting out for several years now? Movies in 2D. Remakes in 2D. Reboots in 2D.

No question, but there is no reboot of your television, Blu player, and possibly your audio electronics to get them to work. For the general public, this is a huge investment; even for me, who has a higher absorbable overhead, it's daunting. In 2-D, there's a lot more to avoid, leaving a lot of content still available. In 3-D? There are slim pickings to start with.

I get your point, though. I've gotten two movies since November. One is an archive release. There's precious little out there that I haven't either already purchased, or dismissed as not worth it. For 3-D, with a much smaller pie to slice, it's even worse, and some of the more venal producers out there do a cheap production, slap 3-D stickers on it, and wait for the money to roll in. Turns out that doesn't work. We won't see Green Hornet 2.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

The head of Warner Bros. once said something very similar about sound. Say that again when there are no more 3D movies in current release, or in production.

I'm sure you're used to discussing this with people who abhor 3-D, some with hidden reasons, some with health reasons, some with money reasons, etc.

I'm looking for manufacturers and producers to give a hoot as much about their work as a brain surgeon at work, or a general at war, and I am not seeing that. I'm also waiting for someone to prove me wrong that a standard, "King's Speech" type movie will be enhanced by a well done 3-D presentation, without "Comin At Ya!" stunts. I'm not really impressed by the grumblins of a 19th century man questioning 20th century technology - I was one of the first to adopt Blu, run a network in my home, and I'm a cautious but relentless early adopter.

3-D Lords Of The Universe need to show some real commitment before I show mine, especially with these price tags.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

That's all good and everything but that's you not everybody (your eye problems and whether you personally like contacts or not wasn't what I was saying), but you can't base how comfortable or uncomfortable the rest of the worlds populations is with it on what you and your wife felt, just like I can't even though my fiancèe and I have no problem with it, and have worn 3d glasses over our perscription glasses for over 4 hours in more than 1 sitting without felling any discomfort.

Hey, whatever floats your boat is cool with me. I have no idea what the rest of the world's opinion is about wearing one pair of glasses, or three, or ten - all I'm saying is, 3-D adoption is fairly flat, and it shouldn't be. If I, and other people of my age and income are avoiding 3-D for some reason, it's a sales problem that affects the technology. Is there a fix? Of course there is. Do you personally need it? Apparently not. Is this good? Absolutely not, because - to return to square one - 3-D adoption is fairly flat. Is that what you want to be happening?

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Yours and your wife's opinion is no more valid than mine and my fiancèes.

My money is also no more valid that yours, and what we do with it isn't an opinion; it's a purchase. You purchased the equipment, and enjoy it; we didn't purchase it, and won't, until our opinion turns into a purchase.

It has nothing to do with valid opinions. You guys bought it, you like it, and I'm glad you did. I hope you didn't look for some other motivations for my questions. We found wearing two pairs of glasses for more than a few minutes uncomfortable. I really can't see where that relates to you at all. In fact, I thought your comments were helpful.

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Of course you are going to find complaints about it on the Internet, because most people only ever take the time to say something when they are not happy, but the thousands of complaints that can be found on the Internet certainly doesn't speak for the entire world.

Internet opinions are not what makes manufacturers and producers wake up screaming into the night. That's why they've had focus groups, advertising campaigns, roving demonstrations, and other ways to figure out how to sell 3-D. They measure sales results, and the results are hollow, to this point. 3-D is not going away, but the problem is, it's not doing as well as it should be, given its potential.

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Wearing 2 pairs of glasses may not be ideal and a bad solution to some, but that's what's required if you want to watch 3d because that's how currently the technology works and has always worked. Manufacturers can't just click their fingers and magically change the whole foundation of how 3d technology works, so what do you purpose they do about it?

Maybe you missed the part where I discussed getting prescription glasses for 3-D, and wondered what they would cost. I propose they find a way to make solutions like that possible. I don't want to reinvent the wheel; I'm wondering if they can put inflatable rubber tires on this car, instead of stone wheels, so driving around doesn't bust all my teeth out. Is it too much to ask? In fact, did anybody ask at all?

Pilots have custom glasses. Shooters in gun competitions have glasses. Divers have glasses. And race car drivers, and jewelers, and lots of other folks. Did they have to click their fingers and summon magic to get them?

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Though complaints are understandable if someone actually does like 3d but not the glasses, but in most circumstances the people complaining don't even like 3d anyway, glasses or not, so they are just whinging about something for the sake of it.

I bet in the old days, when people said they didn't like cars because you had to use a hand crank to start them, auto fans said, "Those folks just don't like cars. They want automatic transmissions, and electric starters, and windshields, too. With windshield wipers, can you imagine. What do they want, manufacturers to just snap their fingers and use magic? Cars were always like this."

Originally Posted by Cevolution

At the end of day IMO 3d glasses are just an accessory which is required to use it, no different to needing a controller to be able to play a console game or a gas bottle so you can use your BBQ to cook meat. Yes those things don't make the experience of using the product uncomfortable for some, but they are still required to be able to use the product never the less. So if you don't like using the accessories that are needed to work a product, then simply don't use it. 3d glasses aren't just an inconvenience that have been introduced for no reason, they are an equal part in the technology and 3d currently wouldn't work without them, just like cars and petrol etc. There are other products on the market where you have to wear something to able to use it, such as a welding mask, I'm sure they aren't very comfortable especially after a couple of hours either, but wearing them is just something you have to accept if you want or have to use a welder.

They've got to overcome the objections of potential purchasers, at least the reasonable ones. They have time, but not much, before this iteration of 3-D morphs into something else completely.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Hey, whatever floats your boat is cool with me. I have no idea what the rest of the world's opinion is about wearing one pair of glasses, or three, or ten - all I'm saying is, 3-D adoption is fairly flat, and it shouldn't be. If I, and other people of my age and income are avoiding 3-D for some reason, it's a sales problem that affects the technology. Is there a fix? Of course there is. Do you personally need it? Apparently not. Is this good? Absolutely not, because - to return to square one - 3-D adoption is fairly flat. Is that what you want to be happening?



My money is also no more valid that yours, and what we do with it isn't an opinion; it's a purchase. You purchased the equipment, and enjoy it; we didn't purchase it, and won't, until our opinion turns into a purchase.

It has nothing to do with valid opinions. You guys bought it, you like it, and I'm glad you did. I hope you didn't look for some other motivations for my questions. We found wearing two pairs of glasses for more than a few minutes uncomfortable. I really can't see where that relates to you at all. In fact, I thought your comments were helpful.




Internet opinions are not what makes manufacturers and producers wake up screaming into the night. That's why they've had focus groups, advertising campaigns, roving demonstrations, and other ways to figure out how to sell 3-D. They measure sales results, and the results are hollow, to this point. 3-D is not going away, but the problem is, it's not doing as well as it should be, given its potential.



Maybe you missed the part where I discussed getting prescription glasses for 3-D, and wondered what they would cost. I propose they find a way to make solutions like that possible. I don't want to reinvent the wheel; I'm wondering if they can put inflatable rubber tires on this car, instead of stone wheels, so driving around doesn't bust all my teeth out. Is it too much to ask? In fact, did anybody ask at all?

Pilots have custom glasses. Shooters in gun competitions have glasses. Divers have glasses. And race car drivers, and jewelers, and lots of other folks. Did they have to click their fingers and summon magic to get them?



I bet in the old days, when people said they didn't like cars because you had to use a hand crank to start them, auto fans said, "Those folks just don't like cars. They want automatic transmissions, and electric starters, and windshields, too. With windshield wipers, can you imagine. What do they want, manufacturers to just snap their fingers and use magic? Cars were always like this."



They've got to overcome the objections of potential purchasers, at least the reasonable ones. They have time, but not much, before this iteration of 3-D morphs into something else completely.

Ok, you took more from my post than I meant. I wasn't and am still not interested in debating with you about why you think 3d is struggling and how it's future is in jeopardy, like you are with Dotpattern. I was merely stating that I don't agree with you about how uncomfortable wearing 3d glasses are either on their own or over prescription glasses, and how you feel that the majority of people share your views. I personally don't really think the glasses are a huge road block for 3d at all, that's just my opinion.

I agree that there are a few factors that are hurting 3d's success but I think the glasses are at the bottom of the list, and is nowhere near the main concern or reason for it. I don't think having to buy HT equipment which is 3d compatible is the problem either, maybe to people who purchase equipment to keep for 15 years, but not to people who upgrade their gear every 3-5 years or so. We are just about to hit the 3rd gen of 3dtv's now, and imo based on the fact that 3d was introduced to HT technology just 2 short years ago, I think it's doing ok. History has shown that other HT technologies have followed the same suit in their infancy, give it another 3 years and then I think there will be something to talk about. Until then I think having this conversation is ridiculous.

I apologise for not including a reply to your whole prescription 3d glasses comment, I meant to but I accidentally left it out. Samsung in fact do currently offer prescription active 3d glasses (which are the only company who currently do as far as I know) and have done so for almost a year, though I'm unaware of what they cost.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by alioke

Interesting discussion...

(Yeah, and it'll be more interesting once Blu-Dog lets anyone ELSE post...)

I don't think the 3D format is going away at all. Once it becomes more mainstream, there will be more titles and lower prices. We love watching movies in 3D, especially the once produced in 3D from the start. I can understand the negative responses from people who already own TV's not 3D. We chose to buy our first HD TV as a 3D because the price and opportunity was right. We got hooked in 3D at the theatre but hated the rip-off prices. Now we are building a collection of fun 3D movies.

Except for the ones saying "I hate the stupid glasses, and all they make are Dreamworks comedies--That's why it's a flop, it'll be dead tomorrow!"
(Our greatest enemy at the moment, is that we are living under the despotic self-styled tyrant rule of the Kings of Wishful Thinking... )

I prefer to be pleasantly cynical--okay, maybe "realist" is a better term--and think that as long as there are studios, for the moment, there will be studios using 3-D to cram us into the theaters for that all-important box-office weekend, and as long as there are studios using 3D to cram us into theaters for box-office weekends, there will be Blu-3D as an excuse to sell as many different home-video editions of the same movie at Best Buy on day one.
Yep, we're suffering under those rich corporations for now, with no end in sight...Makes ya feel like one of the 99%, don't it?

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog B, who wants to show off creating his own reality and martyrs himself under "attack" from imaginary enraged fanboys because he didn't like Kung Fu Panda 2

Just took a quick look at the 3-D titles released during the last quarter of this year. Virtually all of them were non-mainstream titles, or very old catalogue titles, or animated features, again archives.

Last quarter?--Okay, well, going back to October, I'm looking at Harry Potter 7.1&2, Captain America, Fright Night, Pirates 4, DolphinTale, The Smurfs, Glee: the Concert, and then Transformers 3 for the January quarter. Hopefully, we'll get an actual live-action mainstream box-office hit by then.
(But yes, "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" could be considered an "arthouse" title.)

And if we DIDN'T have The Lion King, Beauty & the Beast and Toy Story 1&2 last quarter, I suppose we'd be getting the old birth-of-Blu-ray argument of "It's a ripoff, all they want to release is new movies for short-attention fanboys, and let the old catalog archive rot; don't they even remember movies from more than three years ago?"?

No dramas; nothing in the "Oscar-Worthy" categories;

For Your Consideration, Best Picture:

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog A, who agrees that Blu3D is suffering similar temporary birthing problems and outside mismanagement that Blu-ray faced and survived

The waters muddied too fast. Broke-ass mainstream, non-technical "reporters" who couldn't afford any of this stuff were quick to condemn Blu, but they got backhanded by an enthusiastic public who did a one-two whammy on them: first, they went to Sears or Best Buy and saw the difference, then, the Format Wars. Sony hatred was rife, but died quickly.

(It's hard to keep the two posters straight when they both use the same screenname... )

Remember when we used to call ardent HD-DVD warriors "Rootkits", because of their holy faith in their one "secret weapon" word when they were trying to persuade us that Blu in itself must be a failure/swindle because it was Sony's idea and Sony Was Sneaky and Evil?

Punishing the technology because of old tangentially-related side grudges not directly related to the format itself....Weren't those days SILLY?

They studios got bogged down pimp-slapping each other in the Format Wars, the biggest impediment to early adoption - not technophobia, exactly. The studios and the public were being hornswoggled by Toshiba, bags of bribe money were being tossed to the studios by Toshiba from passing cars, and the public just wanted to see hi-def movies and figure out which format it was on. Two sections of movies in stores. It was insane - when that died down, Blu adoption took off quickly.

Yeah, good thing we don't have anything like that now:
Nowadays, instead of Talladega Nights going head-to-head against Star Trek:TOS, all we had at the beginning were studios taking hostages in the Exclusive Wars--The public just wanted to see a mainstream 3D movie to experiment on their first player, and figure out what the heck brand to buy, just as soon as the private three-way deathcage match between Avatar, Shrek and the Mad Hatter was over with.
Unlike the Format Wars--since there were no competing 3D formats--instead of a defeated Toshiba in the bunker (yes, some of us remember how those YouTube Hitler videos were first invented), we instead had Samsung offering ceasefire peace-talks in the hopes of a universal glasses format...As they realized that taking escalating hostages doesn't create "winners", just three losers who aren't selling something the public CAN afford to buy.

They didn't have much to work with, and it spoke of desperation. Evangelism works - when you have an intrinsically value-laden item to sell. We've seen, in the last 40 years:

- 4 & 8 track tape, then cassettes
- VHS and Beta Tapes
- CD, DVD, and Laser Disc
- Blu Ray and briefly, HD-DVD
- 3-D Blu-Ray

While on that subject, it worth mentioning that there is a certain psychology that drives Progress: Every new innovation sets out to solve an Old problem, and succeeds in creating a New one for the next innovation to solve--The auto can replace the horse, but you'll need new roads, and a different kind of wheel for it that the old blacksmith can't make.
Once people accept the solved problem, they don't like feeling they're "apologizing" for, or hampered by, any new limitations that keep them from reproducing the experience completely--We watch a movie at home to reconstitute the experience of going to a theater, but nobody ever said "Screw the theaters, I'm watching Gone with the Wind on my iPad!"

At the risk of sounding like Spencer Tracy from "Inherit the Wind", every new invention comes with an imperfect limitation, and that's been the case with forty years of home theater:
- Television gave us "You can watch movies in your living room!...BUT, you'll have to watch them with commercials, and pretty much watch what we feel like showing."
- VHS/Beta gave us "You can choose what movies to watch in your living room any time!...BUT, you'll have to watch them in a linear progression, fast-forward several minutes to find a scene, and spend ten minutes rewinding them when you're finished--Oh, and the quality will degrade slightly every time you watch."
- Laserdisk gave us "You can watch movies in long-lasting better quality than VHS, and skip forward or back through chapters...BUT, you can only enjoy them on one certain machine, you'll have to watch them on 12" LP's, it'll take you about four or five of them to watch a Criterion classic, and you'll be in an expensive collector's niche because the studios gave up on us by the time we caught on."
- DVD gave us "You can watch movies in crystal clarity on a laserdisk the size of a CD-Rom, with more room for bonus features, and you can play them on your computer--BUT, how good could the quality be compared to theaters, when it's still playing on the state of television resolution today?"
- Blu-ray and HDTV gave us "You can watch movies in new high-resolution clarity exceeding your local theater--BUT, that's unless you want to watch 'Avatar', of course, and then you're pretty well screwed for watching the 2-D version and just remembering how neat it looked in the 3-D theaters."

Now, cue the folks saying "Watch, Samsung will come to the rescue with that no-glasses screen they're working on, and then I won't have to wear those stupid things over my bifocals!"
Possibly, with a little innovation, they might come up with a non-handheld sized screen....Not holding my breath, but not ruling it out. And if it works, I'll take a look, and maybe throw out my $99 rechargeable glasses.
That's the psychology of the acceptance of progress: We accept the highest current level of technology if no better offer is available, but nobody likes to be a But-head.

[Nommag]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

I apologise for not including a reply to your whole prescription 3d glasses comment, I meant to but I accidentally left it out. Samsung in fact do currently offer prescription active 3d glasses (which are the only company who currently do as far as I know) and have done so for almost a year, though I'm unaware of what they cost.

Search google for 'prescription 3d glasses', their seem to be a lot of fairly accessible option out their. I remember reading about oakley offering both prescription and novelty passive 3d glasses which is quite cool.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I'm not going to swap out 3-D, in it's current format, for "sound, color, or widescreen". None of those items require face-mounted equipment to get them to work, for example.

You completely missed the point then. The comparison was not on the technologies. The comparison was on the attitudes of the technologies.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I don't think 3-D would add much to My Dinner With Andre, newsreels about the Kennedy assasination, or some conversion of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

And around and around we go. See my original comments about similar ATTITUDES about other film technologies.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

No need to describe me as a Neanderthal for saying so.

I challenge you to quote me as to where I did.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Further, 3-D still isn't perfect - far from it. As a fan of photorealism, I understand the desire to see everything on film as it really is, and my best example in 2-D is Lawrence of Arabia, at the well with his guide, and we see a small figure in the distance. A shot rings out from the figure, who takes perhaps a full minute to be close enough to clearly discern who it is.

Less than 30 seconds, actually.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

So my statement that not much would be added to Sleepless In Seattle by 3-D is based on watching a man, riding a camel, firing an ancient carbine hundreds of yards away, and the scene being a success. It's not the maunderings of a Luddite, wishing Leonardo had carved the Mona Lisa, instead of just painting it on flat canvas.

And yet, you believe the scene (and the movie) are effective with sound, and in color and in widescreen. But there were many people before you who would have disagreed with you that sound, color or widescreen would have made Lawrence of Arabia any more effective...as I keep saying, and as you keep ignoring.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

He's confirmed that, but being Penton-Man, he won't reveal what's converted and what isn't

Why not just tell us yourself? Since you seem to believe that a difference can be detected - watch the movies and tell us which scenes were shot in 3D and which scenes were converted. Let me astound you with my perceptive prediction. You won't. Because you can't. Because the difference between "native" and converted are negligible.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I certainly don't think conversion is flat-out evil, but certain material doesn't work with it, and there's the matter of thumb-fingered execution as well. But until we find the Tak Fujimoto of conversion doing this stuff

We already have. They're the ones who did the conversions on Transformers 3 and Avatar and Hugo and Coraline and Tron Legacy and Resident Evil 4, etc, etc - all movies that everyone says the 3D is excellent. But you can't expect every conversion to look as good as those, just as you wouldn't expect every movie not shot by Tak Fujimoto to look as good as movies shot by Tak Fujimoto.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Both, and perhaps one led to the other. Take a look at the reviews of the guardians of Blu, our reviewers, and they're pretty straightforward about the limitations of Blu 3-D movies, if they are present in a film - and they're not charitable, if a better job could have been done. On the whole, they have not been kind. They better not be, at $40 for these films.

$40! What a bargain! I remember when VHS tapes ran up to $90!

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

No question, but there is no reboot of your television, Blu player, and possibly your audio electronics to get them to work.

Really? So I can watch a color movie on a black and white TV? I can listen to 5.1 surround sound through my TV speakers?

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

For the general public, this is a huge investment

So was VHS to DVD, and projection TV to HDTV, and DVD to Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

even for me, who has a higher absorbable overhead, it's daunting. In 2-D, there's a lot more to avoid, leaving a lot of content still available. In 3-D? There are slim pickings to start with.

Just like Blu-ray during the first few years.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

For 3-D, with a much smaller pie to slice, it's even worse, and some of the more venal producers out there do a cheap production, slap 3-D stickers on it, and wait for the money to roll in. Turns out that doesn't work. We won't see Green Hornet 2.

Which means nothing since we would not see Green Hornet 2 even if the first one was released only in 2D. The movie wasn't good. Period. The 3D had nothing to do with that. Or do you really expect anyone to believe that the movie was a turd BECAUSE it was in 3D? Are you really suggesting that the movie is actually good if it's watched in 2D? You're losing credibility fast.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I'm sure you're used to discussing this with people who abhor 3-D, some with hidden reasons, some with health reasons, some with money reasons, etc.

No, I'm just used to discussing 3D with people who have little to no idea what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I'm looking for manufacturers and producers to give a hoot as much about their work as a brain surgeon at work, or a general at war, and I am not seeing that.

You may not be seeing it (although that might have something to do with your admittedly poor eyesight), but I am. I think Cameron, Spielberg and Scorsese have done interesting things with 3D already. And I'm looking forward to seeing what Webb, Jackson and Scott will do with it.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

3-D Lords Of The Universe need to show some real commitment before I show mine, especially with these price tags.

I honestly don't think anyone cares if you show your commitment or not. 3D movies are moving on with or without you.

[brando79az]

Some of my favorite movies are black and white. Color is good too but there is also no difference in ticket/BD pricing between the two.

I don't have preference over widescreen or square but because the films are framed in widescreen I eventually purchased a widescreen TV to keep the aspect ratio. However, when I did that the square TV's were not hi-def so I don't consider that "Extra Money" for the gimmick.

What makes me most upset is that I don't have choices. Transformers special features are only on the 3D? B.S. Why make me buy the 3D (does me no good with my present setup) just for special features (which probably are not in 3D format.) That is a cheap ploy and I am voting with my feet by not purchasing either (I really want to see it again so I will probably break down soon. .) Anyway, these tactics do not give consumers choice to purchase the better product (best for them at least.) This is just coercion which frustrates me.

[tinkertokoton]

And do you know what one of the best things about 3d tv's are?

we get to watch 2D stuff too.

This summer prometheus is released, shot nativley in 3d by one of the worlds greatest directors, who by all accounts has sworn to only film in 3d from now on,,,and i would be gutted if i had spent thousands of pounds on sub-standard equipment which wont allow me to watch a movie THE WAY IT WAS MEANT TO BE VIEWED.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by brandoaz79

Some of my favorite movies are black and white. Color is good too but there is also no difference in ticket/BD pricing between the two.

At one time, there was. Tickets for Gone with the Wind did not cost the same as a black and white film. But I think we've all already agreed that premium prices for 3D is a problem. I've stated as much in this very thread.

Originally Posted by brandoaz79

I don't have preference over widescreen or square but because the films are framed in widescreen I eventually purchased a widescreen TV to keep the aspect ratio. However, when I did that the square TV's were not hi-def so I don't consider that "Extra Money" for the gimmick.

You may not "consider" it extra money. But unless you got your HDTV for free, you paid extra money.

Originally Posted by brandoaz79

What makes me most upset is that I don't have choices. Transformers special features are only on the 3D? B.S. Why make me buy the 3D (does me no good with my present setup) just for special features (which probably are not in 3D format.) That is a cheap ploy and I am voting with my feet by not purchasing either (I really want to see it again so I will probably break down soon. .) Anyway, these tactics do not give consumers choice to purchase the better product (best for them at least.) This is just coercion which frustrates me.

This is nothing new and not isolated to 3D titles. Avatar was released as a bare bones, movie-only title and then re-released a few months later with all the special features. I believe Batman Begins was also released this way (but I may be wrong about that). In fact, currently in stores there are many 2D titles where you have an option to buy the movie-only, or the one with the special features and the special features edition costs more than the bare bones version.

When Paramount/Dreamworks and Michael Bay announced Transformers 3 on Blu-ray, they specifically stated that they would first release the movie-only, and then later release the 3D version with all the special features. This may be a cheap ploy, but at least they were up front about it. Someone who doesn't own a 3DTV and wanted the special features could buy the 3D version and still watch the movie in 2D. Then, if that person eventually bought a 3DTV, they would not have to purchase the movie again. Sounds like strategic, forward thinking to me.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by tinkertokoton

pffft and WHO wants to buy a new tv today unless it comes 3D....NO-ONE

Me.

I have no desire for 3D, but the GT30 I bought this summer has it, so I'll watch the occasional movie IF I can get it for a price comparable to the non-3D version. It's a novelty, at best, for me. Try as you might, "wanting" 3D to become mainstream will not make it so, nor will it change the feelings of people like me. It's obvious from the article in the OP (and other similar articles) that (so far) the majority of consumers feel the same way about home 3D. Will this change over time? Who knows, but manufacturers are not going to continue with a format that appears only to cater to a small (but vocal) segment of consumers.

[Dragun]

Let's wait a few years before declaring 3D at home a failure or success. We're in a down economy, and 3DTVs haven't been around for very long.

We also have to take into account the sales of 3D Blu-Rays and 3D on-demand content. I bet a lot of people who will end up buying 3DTVs in the future didn't necessarily want 3D specifically, but got it as a bonus, since it doesn't add that much to the cost of a new TV. The number 3DTVs is one thing. How much they actually use the 3D feature is another.

[nycomet]

It would help if there was more 3D content available on the networks.

Give us the Super Bowl in 3D.

Give us the Academy and Grammy Awards in 3D.

Give us the 2012 London Summer Olympics in 3D.

Give us the Indy 500 in 3D.

Give us Lady Gaga in 3D.

Give us Wheel of Fortune in 3D.

etc.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by tinkertokoton

And do you know what one of the best things about 3d tv's are?
we get to watch 2D stuff too.

Many people actually don't know that: Ask a newbie about why he thinks 3DTV's a Fad, and he starts going into abstract arguments about "What, are they going to do cheap conversions on everything, just to show on it?--You wouldn't watch Citizen Kane in 3D, would you?" No, but I can watch the B/W Kane on a color set, and I can watch the color Wizard of Oz, too.
(Blu-Dog's been taking his exact same arguments over to the Smackdown thread where it's allowed, and the B/W & Color metaphor seems to have sprung up from the posters there as well.)

When I got my set--came into some money last summer, and wanted to upgrade the dinky lil' 720p I'd had for five years--I knew enough to want to be prepared this time, and got a set that could show 3D if it had to. Lately, it's been having to a lot.

Originally Posted by nycomet

It would help if there was more 3D content available on the networks.

Give us the Super Bowl in 3D.

Give us the Academy and Grammy Awards in 3D.

Give us the 2012 London Summer Olympics in 3D.

Give us the Indy 500 in 3D.

Sky3D UK gave viewers Prince William's royal Wedding in 3D, and a few soccer cups, but then, they had a satellite network to fill.

[Show spoiler]

The Royal Wedding 3D -Sky TV- by TOYin3D - YouTube

Over here, ESPN-3D was a good starter, but started too early, was alone in the wilderness, and paid the price. 3Net took up the idea of live golf-finals in 3D, and let its viewers write in--Most of the tech-savvy viewers were amused (...golf?? ), but liked the idea and wanted to see more.

Right now, we're down to 3Net carrying the satellite-network burden, but then, they have Sony, Discovery and IMAX backing them to sell. (Disney's the other industry booster, but they're probably going to lick their ESPN wounds for a while before trying again.)
For now, you can now catch just about all the original 3Net channel series (Bullproof, Live Fire, etc.) available on PSN Store--It's not classy, but at least it's airing.