Jump to content


Photo

Is 3D really here to stay?


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:18 AM

Does 3D really enhance or add to the movie going experience?

Anyone?

I've seen about a dozen, and all I can say is I think I prefer traditional 2D to 3D.

Am I an old fogey, is there something to be said for 2D?
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:19 AM

I don't think 3D will really become a de-facto format. Not only for experience reasons, but also economic reasons. It's more expensive, to create, and consume. Yes, we may have some special 3d experience films--- but, overall, from all the people i've spoken to, there is a certain disinterest in 3d. What I mean by that is that most of them will see some films in 3d which seem important in 3d (like the upcoming Hobbit) and then pass on most of the others.
For me, I'd love to try to shoot 3d, but in truth, it doesn't much interest me.
  • 1

#3 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 02 December 2012 - 07:15 PM

No one else, huh?
  • 0

#4 Victor Nhat Nguyen

Victor Nhat Nguyen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Student

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:09 PM

I also prefer 2D. I saw movie like Avatar and Avengers in 3d but it doesn't really add to the movie experience. Kinda hurt my eyes sometime to be honest. I think it'll go away but only time will tell.
  • 0

#5 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

3D hurts my eyes as well. I hate it and hope it is only a gimmick that will soon fade.
  • 0

#6 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:00 AM

You know, I thought I was the only one. I don't mind 3D, but I really don't prefer 3D. I'm just not seeing its advantages.
  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:18 AM

At least for television, there seems to be more interest in IPTV than 3D.

http://www.redsharkn...or-broadcasters
  • 0

#8 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:57 AM

I have to admit, that I stream all of the stuff I watch, or rent it. I can't remember the last time I really watched TV. Last year?

Still, 3D is the issue though. I don't see it thriving much longer. I see it staying around for unique stuff, but it doesn't strike me as being worth the extra cost. It doesn't seem to have the same impact that sound and color had film when they came around.

Just my opinion, though.

No one else, huh?

what happened to all the veterans that used to like to show off their egos at a has been like me? :)

Come on, guys, where are you? Speak up.
  • 0

#9 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11941 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:06 PM

I'm with the prevailing opinion here. At the risk of rapped knuckles for a minor self-plug, I wrote about high frame rate material, with some consideration of 3D, recently.
  • 0

#10 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:59 PM

That's an interesting article, Phil. For me 3D just seems to be more of an impressive gimmick than something that's really fundamentally changed movies and film making. For some reason, and you can call me crazy, I just don't see the benefit of a 3D image over your standard 2D movie.

Even when stuff if flying at you from the screen, or suspended in some way, it almost feels like cheating to use 3D to get an effect that you should be able to achieve with regular 2D film stock (or hard drive).

I guess that's just me though.
  • 0

#11 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:06 AM

You got to be kidding me. No one else?
  • 0

#12 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:42 AM

You got to be kidding me. No one else?


I don't think anyone has much to say about it. 3D is preety much close to dead now.
Heres a BBC report to this effect and how the industry is now focused on 4k/8k.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/9774380.stm

[apologies for some of the tacky BBC "humor" in this video there is some interesting stuff amongst the drivel tho]

3d will continue in cinema for a while because it is propping up the industry. Essentially a lot of people go and watch 3d on a tidal wave of hype and then the pay a premium to see the film in that format which leads to much increased profits. It doesn't really matter if people are into 3d or not as long as they keep paying extra for it.

It's a bit like all the people who moan about there not being any quality intelligent sci-fi movies and then feel compelled to go and watch transformers 4 (even tho they know they are not going to like it) and give the little quality sci-fi films a miss.

People have power, they just give it away to others.

love

Freya

Edited by Freya Black, 07 December 2012 - 11:46 AM.

  • 1

#13 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

3D does nothing for me Ridley Scott said when shooting " Prometheus" all films should be shot in 3D no matter the subject ! Interesting that his new film now in post has not been shot 3D.
  • 0

#14 Kieran Scannell

Kieran Scannell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Netherlands/Ireland

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:24 PM

Never really got the whole 3D thing poking things at the audience seems to be It's greatest achievement.
Until I saw transformers 3 on a big screen that for me is where 3D cinema belongs.
As a cameraman I would love to shoot something like that!
  • 0

#15 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:47 PM

I don't think anyone has much to say about it. 3D is preety much close to dead now.
Heres a BBC report to this effect and how the industry is now focused on 4k/8k.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/9774380.stm

[apologies for some of the tacky BBC "humor" in this video there is some interesting stuff amongst the drivel tho]

3d will continue in cinema for a while because it is propping up the industry. Essentially a lot of people go and watch 3d on a tidal wave of hype and then the pay a premium to see the film in that format which leads to much increased profits. It doesn't really matter if people are into 3d or not as long as they keep paying extra for it.

It's a bit like all the people who moan about there not being any quality intelligent sci-fi movies and then feel compelled to go and watch transformers 4 (even tho they know they are not going to like it) and give the little quality sci-fi films a miss.

People have power, they just give it away to others.

love

Freya

That's a great piece. Thanks for that, Freya.

I'm very impressed with the 8k television report. Thanks for that link. It confirms some hunches I had about imagery in general.
  • 0

#16 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:52 AM

3D does nothing for me Ridley Scott said when shooting " Prometheus" all films should be shot in 3D no matter the subject ! Interesting that his new film now in post has not been shot 3D.


I find Ridley a little strange. I think he says a lot of things that are more about keeping the studios happy. He has said as much. However I don't get that as he is soooo powerful at this point, and he surely has enough money to even fund his own films.

I guess it's about not wanting to rock the boat or the status quo or becoming settled with a certain situation.

Makes me feel sad tho. If you can't feel free when you are that significant and powerful...

love

Freya
  • 0

#17 Geoff Howell

Geoff Howell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:20 AM

I find Ridley a little strange. I think he says a lot of things that are more about keeping the studios happy. He has said as much. However I don't get that as he is soooo powerful at this point, and he surely has enough money to even fund his own films.


I think he's probably just showboating for the media; don't forget that he started out as an add man and knows his way around a good soundbite!

Edited by Geoff Howell, 08 December 2012 - 10:21 AM.

  • 0

#18 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1883 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

.... the industry is now focused on 4k/8k.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/9774380.stm

....People have power, they just give it away to others.

love
Freya



Freya,
I had a look at that BBC report on 8K. Without a whimper from the human population this will be fed to us as a kind of ultimate refinement. The human eye can't resolve finer than that etc. I think this is rubbish. It represents a sort of, perhaps ultimate particularization, in terms of the fine objective value of the image, but ignores finer values of perception and the value of whatever we are able to ingest through the eyes without being literally or objectively aware of it. To do with that, or taking it further, it's as if ignoring the sophistication of the human eye and nervous system.

Simply adding more pixels is a simplistic approach to refining the image. What value is there in using a computer to simulate or interpolate in order to turn those crude discrete signals into something akin to an image from a piece of film, or worse, a real object ? (rhetorical question). The engineer in the interview had a faint glow, as though he had just quietly cured cancer. Sad and ironic.

I think relevant to this.....Over on the Film vs Digital, Impact on Art, Culture, Experience I tried to make a start point for considering that comparison in a new way. Focusing on extremely refined processes in the photographic event and more subtle, subjective layers of experience. You were one of the ones I hoped might be curious at those ideas.

Mostly people have responded there as though it's just an invitation to the same old emotive arguments. It patently isn't, though I understand why it happns. But you don't need to be quantum physicist or an ocular specialist in neurophysiology to sense something about it or to offer thoughts.

Thinking of writing something about this 8K idea over there.

Cheers, Gregg.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson, 08 December 2012 - 10:13 PM.

  • 0

#19 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:27 PM

Well, 8k would allow acquisition of patterns at half the dimension of what would cause moiré in a 4k sensor...

But... yeh - not sure if that's really on top of the list of concerns for most folk.

Also, you could have a 'wider than wide' screen at the same viewing resolution - perhaps more suited to other products than cinema - I'd like to say entertainment and/or artwork, but it's just going to be advertising ...

Reminds me of the time I took my retina macbook pro into the shop as it had a dead pixel - the guy quite casually told me 'it cant be a dead pixel, you cant see the pixels'

f u c k i n g idiot :rolleyes:
  • 0

#20 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1883 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:47 PM

f u c k i n g idiot :rolleyes:


I'm glad we are allowed to say that word. I've been busting to. I'll save it up. I actually started some objective research for my F vs D theme. I was reminded that photons have no size in the common sense, but I think of them as vey tiny packets of light. Saw a reference to an experiment showing that rods in the eye can respond to single photons. A conscious response by the subject...So how many photons/frame do we think are coming from each pixel on the 8K screen?
  • 0


CineTape

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Opal

CineLab

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Opal

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

CineLab

Glidecam