Movie 3d: Winner or Flash in the pan?

[No Wikipedia Cites]

Roger Ebert hates the 3d format; he predicts that it will fade away as a fad. He also wrote that it was dying out and some filmakers decided not to go with 3d.

Another source I read mentioned something like "This movie was great in 3d, only Roger Ebert would object". I also heard that the new Star Trek 2 is being filmed in 3d.

Ok enough of my poorly remembered Ebert quotes, is 3d in the movies going to last or is it a flash in the pan?

[Shawn1767]

I see it as a crutch. Instead of getting audiences in the theaters with a quality story, they're merely promoting movies as "3D!" to get people in. If it's a good story, I don't care if it's in B&W, Technicolor or 3D, but it seems as if they're just doing 3D because A) they can and B) to make more money from a crappy product.

[Tangent]

I like 3D movies that have an interesting story and good direction and cinematography. It can add to the visual experience. But I won't go see a movie just because it's in 3D. It is not a draw in itself.

Is it a fad that will soon pass? I doubt it. Last I looked, 3D movies are still making plenty of money. Theaters have invested a lot in 3D equipment, and innovations and improvements in 3D cameras and filming techniques are ongoing. Home 3D viewing options are also a rapidly growing business. There is plenty of incentive to keep making and releasing 3D movies.

There are some big name directors making 3D movies now: Scorsese, Spielberg, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, and Tim Burton to name a few. There are also some popular movies that are being converted and rereleased in 3D (The Lion King, Finding Nemo, Titanic, possibly the Star Wars prequels).

I've never put much stock in Roger Ebert's opinion in the past, and even less in recent years.

[Bryan Ekers]

I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D, and it was enough to put me off the format, as it was a distraction and a headache-inducing nuisance. I saw the movie again on cable some time later, and the story was good enough to have never needed a gimmicky enhancement.

[RickJay]

It's worth noting they said the same thing about movies with sound and movies with color.

I don't think many people would disagree that visually, 3D is absolute shit right now. All the 3D movies I've seen looked awful. 3D TV looks awful. It makes the movie worse.

But, it's a new element of filmmaking and sooner or later people will start getting it right.

[Oakminster]

I've seen Captain America and the latest Harry Potter movie in 3d. I found the experience visually impressive and well worth the extra buck or two (don't remember the price difference). 3d is not enough to make me buy a ticket for a movie I would not otherwise see, but if there is a 3d version of something I wanted to see, that's the version I'd pick in most cases.

[Cubsfan]

I see it as a crutch. Instead of getting audiences in the theaters with a quality story, they're merely promoting movies as "3D!" to get people in. If it's a good story, I don't care if it's in B&W, Technicolor or 3D, but it seems as if they're just doing 3D because A) they can and B) to make more money from a crappy product.

I don't think many movies are hard selling the 3D aspect any more. Yeah the kids movies are all about the 3D but most mainstream blockbusters don't seem to have much other than a cursory "3D" somewhere at the end of the ad now. In fact I have yet to be forced to see a movie in 3D. Even Avatar was available in 2D in it's theatrical release.

[Justin_Bailey]

I don't think many movies are hard selling the 3D aspect any more. Yeah the kids movies are all about the 3D but most mainstream blockbusters don't seem to have much other than a cursory "3D" somewhere at the end of the ad now. In fact I have yet to be forced to see a movie in 3D. Even Avatar was available in 2D in it's theatrical release.

Yeah, when the fad was in full bloom you'd get trailers like "Coming Friday IN 3DDDDDDDDDDDDDD!" "Also in 2D"

You don't see that anymore.

[Jophiel]

It's worth noting they said the same thing about movies with sound and movies with color.
They also said it about movies in Smell-O-Vision and Cinerama. Sometimes (in fact, usually) "they" are right.

They've been trying to promote 3D off and on for decades. The substantial difference now is that theaters had to invest a bunch of money into it rather than just handing out cheap cardboard glasses.

[RealityChuck]

I predicted in 2009 that 3D would last no more than five years. I'm still on schedule -- there are fewer 3D films being made, and people don't see why they should pay extra.

[Tangent]

The substantial difference now is that theaters had to invest a bunch of money into it rather than just handing out cheap cardboard glasses.

Well, and that the technology has been largely improved upon so that--when done right--a modern 3D movie can look better than a 3D movie of the past. Sometimes much better. In particular, the anaglyph (red/blue) 3D systems--sometimes used for feature films and the primary method of home viewing in the past--is awful compared to polarization or shutter-lens techniques (which are not new, but are improved and are now more readily available for home).

[Grumman]

I've got two problems with 3D movies - using them on the wrong sort of movie, and half-assing the implementation. Proper 3d (and not just flat planes added in post production that make it look like a pop-up book) in a movie with the right sort of setting is great. Anything else and you're better off with 2D.

[Gukumatz]

Mod

This is probably better suited to Café Society.

Yoink.

- Gukumatz,
Game Room Moderator

[Chronos]

I don't think we'll ever see 3D go away for computer-animated movies, since it's almost no extra effort to make those into high-quality 3D. And it adds a lot to the experience of action-adventure movies, which tend to be pretty heavily effects-driven anyway, in any number of dimensions. But I don't think we'll see it much in romcoms, dramas, etc. until and unless they manage to come up with some technology that doesn't need special glasses (which I can't see anywhere on the horizon).

[Bryan Ekers]

Porn hasn't embraced it, so I don't see it having a future.

[Snickers]

Whoa. Porn in 3D. Bryan, you have a point: if anyone was going to run with it as a film-making technique, you'd absolutely think it'd be porn.

[Dr_Doom]

My girlfriend and I are sick of wearing goofy goggles to watch a movie at the theater that turns out looking roughly the same as a 1080p broadcast on my LCD TV would.

Surely we can't be the only ones.

If the tech is so amazing that consumers would rather not do without it, then it ultimately succeeds.

Is 3D so amazing?

[Bryan Ekers]

My girlfriend and I are sick of wearing goofy goggles to watch a movie at the theater that turns out looking roughly the same as a 1080p broadcast on my LCD TV would.

But you'll keep wearing your goofy goggles at all other times, right? I understand that's what the injunction required.

[Skammer]

I've avoided seeing movies in 3D where the 3D seemed to be tacked on. In fact the only ones I've seen in 3D have been Avatar and Toy Story 3 I think. I might see Hugo in 3D because I trust Scorcese.

All the superhero movies, Harry Potter, whatever, 2D was more than adequate. I don't expect I'll shell out the extra $$ to see Star Trek in 3D, as much as I like Trek.

I don't hate the format, but it seems to me to just be a way of jacking up ticket prices an extra $3-4. Totally not worth the price increase. If the tickets cost the same I'd have no problem with 3D.

[Prelude to Fascination]

I don't think we'll ever see 3D go away for computer-animated movies, since it's almost no extra effort to make those into high-quality 3D. And it adds a lot to the experience of action-adventure movies, which tend to be pretty heavily effects-driven anyway, in any number of dimensions. But I don't think we'll see it much in romcoms, dramas, etc. until and unless they manage to come up with some technology that doesn't need special glasses (which I can't see anywhere on the horizon).
Coming Summer 2012! My Dinner With Andre--in 3D!

[billfish678]

Whoa. Porn in 3D. Bryan, you have a point: if anyone was going to run with it as a film-making technique, you'd absolutely think it'd be porn.

Yeah, but in no time at all all of your viewing customers have an eye put out and you are right back to 1 eyed 2D.

[Dr_Doom]

But you'll keep wearing your goofy goggles at all other times, right? I understand that's what the injunction required.

We are reducing our carbon footprints together by only wearing recyclable clothing.

[Red Barchetta]

I predicted in 2009 that 3D would last no more than five years. I'm still on schedule -- there are fewer 3D films being made

No there aren't. There were more 3D films released this year than any other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films

[Red Barchetta]

I predicted in 2009 that 3D would last no more than five years. I'm still on schedule -- there are fewer 3D films being made

No there aren't. There were more 3D films produced this year than any other of recent times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films

[Larry Mudd]

3D is only going to get better, and it has momentum now.

Previous iterations of 3D were not practical for the sort of films which benefit most from them - special effects-laden adventures and animation.

Filmmakers now have a full set of post-production tools for working in 3D, instead of being stuck with awkward kludges and "let's hope it works, and if it doesn't, too bad.." In addition to the tools, there is consciousness of the need to keep the depth consistent to avoid viewer fatigue, and tools to adjust it in post.

There is tremendous infrastructure the theatres and at home - and in the next three years we can expect the prices for home 3D gear to come down even farther.

Proper 3D movies are spectacular. They aren't going anywhere. (I do hope they stop cranking out crappy post-conversions, though - these are a waste of time.)


And I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that the pornhauses aren't doing 3D stuff. There is loads of HD3D porn out there. (Or so I have heard.)

[GuanoLad]

It's worth noting they said the same thing about movies with sound and movies with color.But did they really? I find it hard to believe anyone credible would object to colour in movies.

I know many thought TV was a fad that wouldn't last. I know that colourising black-and-white films raised any number of objections. But surely there wasn't anyone upset by bringing colour into cinemas.

I think the objection most have with 3D is that you require the glasses, you cannot move from your seat (which in cinemas doesn't matter, but at home it does), and it gives an alarmingly high number of people a headache. Plus you're paying more for this inconvenience.

It's not so much that it's a fading fad, as it's just not worth the hassle, so will rapidly become less popular and not financially viable.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I've seen one new movie in 3D - Thor. It made the movie really dark, and the benefits of having the foreground stand out a little bit more distinctly from the background was definitely not worth it. I know more people who dislike 3D than like it. I hope it goes away, but if it doesn't, it's no skin off my nose. I only go to one or two movies in the theater a year anyway.

[Larry Mudd]

I've seen one new movie in 3D - Thor.Thor was not shot in 3D, so please don't judge 3D movies on that basis. Go see Hugo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR-kP-olcpM) and then let me know what you think.

[Jophiel]

This Ain't Avatar XXX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Ain%27t_Avatar_XXX_3D)
After the original events of Avatar, Jake (Chris Johnson) reveals in a video log that the Na'bi has a darker side. After sexual flashbacks which show moments in the movie which purport to show what actually transpired, the film shows what occurs after the human corporation leaves Panwhora. The Na'bi turn out to be "fetish-fueled sex fiends", who have a massive orgy after the corporation leaves, and then reveal their true purpose for keeping humans in a twist ending
And it's in 3D!

[faithfool]

I've only seen one recent movie in 3D and I was sitting in almost the exact center of the theater. Unless whatever object was headed straight for you, the effect was lost because there was almost no discernible difference with 2D. Except you paid more, had to wear the stupid glasses (awful if it's over your regular glasses) meant to be returned and the whole time you had a nagging feeling that peripherally, you were missing something.

I won't do it again. It's not that I hope it goes away, but there should always be the availability to see a movie the way God intended.... 2D.

[Red Barchetta]

Except you paid more, had to wear the stupid glasses (awful if it's over your regular glasses) meant to be returned and the whole time you had a nagging feeling that peripherally, you were missing something.

Which is ironic because peripherally, you're actually seeing more than the 2D version.

[Dr_Doom]

Thor was not shot in 3D, so please don't judge 3D movies on that basis. Go see Hugo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR-kP-olcpM) and then let me know what you think.

I don't know about "shot in 3D", but it required me to wear the glasses where I saw it. They called it "Real D 3D", and I removed the glasses a couple times and found the movie simply looked slightly fuzzy without them. There weren't any sequences with the "OMG! Duck!" effect in the film.

[Ludovic]

There weren't any sequences with the "OMG! Duck!" effect in the film.And if there were, people would complain that 3-D is just a "gimmick". Myself included. 3-D is so much more than "the spear is RIGHT IN MY FACE!!!11". We see the world in 3-D. Seeing a movie in 3-D seems much more immediate to me than seeing it on a flat screen.

[Dr_Doom]

I do enjoy the visuals of these movies with the "laid-back" 3D, but really, they seem to be no better than a Blu-ray on 1080p. Which wouldn't bother me, except for the stupid glasses.

[Jophiel]

Except you paid more, had to wear the stupid glasses (awful if it's over your regular glasses)
Amen. I've seen native 3D stuff like Avatar, animated 3D like Despicable Me and 3D conversion stuff and it all looks like hell when you have to juggle those stupid glasses over your regular specs.

[Untoward_Parable]

if they can't fix he problem of it giving a significant number of people headaches and nausea it seems pretty bad for business.

[Untoward_Parable]

The hobbit is being shot in 3D =P, kind of scares me, having to amp up the saturation of the sets and makeup and costumes to compensate for the darkening, watching the film with glasses on, bleh, seems like a lot could go wrong there to make it not near what the original 3 were like in quality.

[MrDibble]

I like 3D, if there's a choice I go and see the 3D version (unless I know it's postprod 3D).

I wear glasses and have never had a problem with the second set.

[Larry Mudd]

I don't know about "shot in 3D", but it required me to wear the glasses where I saw it.Many filmmakers shoot 2D and then rush a 3D effect in post-production - which looks terrible.

Imagine you have a 2D photograph, and want to make it stereo after-the-fact. The problem is straightforward: just recreate all the parallax shifts that would be there if the camera were moved a little bit to the right. Obviously, it's not practical to aim for a very detailed stereo image - you'e going to focus on the main elements - and you end up with a crap effect where you're just putting various elements on different planes, but they are by-and-large flat cut-out looking things - especially when you consider that you have to process about 150,000 frames this way - you can't hope to approach the level of detail you would have if you actually originally had another lens recording the scene for the second eye. (And re-rendered the effects shots, instead of fudging the entire composite.)

In short, 3D conversions suck.

[Jophiel]

I wear glasses and have never had a problem with the second set.
You're more blessed than I am. Besides being physically distracting, the 3D looks like crap to me.

[Brandus]

The colors are horribly diminished when wearing those stupid glasses. I'd rather see rich , luscious colors than a snowball or something stupid pop out on the screen.

[FlyingDragonFan]

I've got two movies in 3D for my home theater, Alice in Wonderland and Tron Legacy, and I saw Avatar in 3D in the theater and have the BluRay at home. In all three cases, I do think the 3D version has a little added something that makes it a richer experience. But I'm also content to watch them in 2D if I don't feel like wearing the glasses. 3D is cool, but not essential, when it's a movie I enjoy.

[FordTaurusSHO94]

Christopher Nolan doesn't think the image quality of 3D movies is as good as regular movies. That's why The Dark Knight Rises will not be in 3D. I have to agree with him. All of the 3D movies I've seen have looked fuzzy or blurry, like my contacts are acting up, but I never can get them cleared up all the way.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I hope 3D movies are a passing trend (like the last time the fad hit in the 1980s) but am a bit pessimistic about the chances of this happening. It just feels to me like too many film-makers are relying on 3D to turn their movies into some kind of theme park ride instead of just focusing on making good movies in 3D or not.

[fumster]

Hugo is worth seeing in 3D

[Steve MB]

Is it a fad that will soon pass? I doubt it. Last I looked, 3D movies are still making plenty of money. Theaters have invested a lot in 3D equipment, and innovations and improvements in 3D cameras and filming techniques are ongoing.

The same was true of Sensurround and previous iterations of the ThreeDee fad.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Christopher Nolan doesn't think the image quality of 3D movies is as good as regular movies. That's why The Dark Knight Rises will not be in 3D. I have to agree with him. All of the 3D movies I've seen have looked fuzzy or blurry, like my contacts are acting up, but I never can get them cleared up all the way.When Thor wasn't too dark for me to see what was going on, I kept trying to clean the smudge off my 3D glasses. Maybe it wasn't a smudge?

[Steve MB]

It's worth noting they said the same thing about movies with sound and movies with color.

1. Adding sound and color did not require the viewer to wear special glasses.

2. Adding sound and color did not induce nausea in a significant portion of the audience.

3. Adding sound and color did not degrade image clarity or brightness.

[Steve MB]

Roger Ebert hates the 3d format; he predicts that it will fade away as a fad.

One point he makes (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/the_dying_of_the_light.html) is that the prevelance of ThreeDee causes movies in general (not just ThreeDee showings) to be projected at half normal brightness, because it's easier for multiplexes to leave the ThreeDee polarizers in place than to have the projector minion take the time to swap it out (and possibly break something in the process).

[Steve MB]

Go see Hugo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR-kP-olcpM) and then let me know what you think.

This column (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/11/22/can-scorsese-save-3d/) posits that Hugo may be the technology's last stand -- either turning the decline around, or rendering it one with Nineveh and Tyre and Sensurround and Smell-O-Vision:

That’s where Scorsese comes in. If “Hugo” stuns audiences, perhaps they’ll give 3D filmmaking a second chance. If not, we might as well stow away those black-framed glasses until the next generation of filmmakers decides it’s time to try 3D all over again.

[Chronos]

3. Adding sound and color did not degrade image clarity or brightness. Early iterations of color would have degraded both clarity and brightness, until they learned to compensate.

[Larry Mudd]

This column (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/11/22/can-scorsese-save-3d/) posits that Hugo may be the technology's last stand -- either turning the decline around, or rendering it one with Nineveh and Tyre and Sensurround and Smell-O-Vision:There isn't any "decline" to turn around. The linked article reads a bit like Python's Black Knight in terms of denial. Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron are making 3D films. I don't recall Billy Wilder, John Ford, and Elia Kazan making films with "Percepto" to see if there might be something in it.

When top-tier filmmakers go 3D, you see the difference. It's not a crap effect applied in post, and it's not a tool that's wielded half-assed and clumsily - these guys are serious. The impression you have after seeing The Hobbit will not be compare with the feeling you have after sitting through Captain America "in 3D."

[Steve MB]

There isn't any "decline" to turn around.
Evidently there is, as indicated by the cited examples:

Audiences quickly caught on, and box office numbers for 3D films sank. “Drive Angry,” “Step-Up 3D,” “Fright Night” and “The Three Musketeers” all flopped, while other 3D films simply underwhelmed (like this month’s “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas”).
We’ve been hoodwinked (another 3D flop) and we’re not in the mood to keep paying extra for the chance to see a movie’s title float off the big screen.

The impression you have after seeing The Hobbit will not be compare with the feeling you have after sitting through Captain America "in 3D."
Actually, the experience will be precisely identical:

1. Captain America is coming out "in 3D." 3D gives me a throbbing headache. I pay money for products that cure headaches, not products that cause them. Pass.

1. The Hobbit is coming out "in 3D." 3D gives me a throbbing headache. I pay money for products that cure headaches, not products that cause them. Pass.

[Steve MB]

Missed the edit window, but did want to offer my condolences in case your optimism led you to make some bad investments (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-31/entertainment/30031288_1_reald-3d-imax-screens). :smack:

shares of RealD, a 3D technology company, are crashing -- down 11% today (5/31/11)

[Red Barchetta]

Missed the edit window, but did want to offer my condolences in case your optimism led you to make some bad investments (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-31/entertainment/30031288_1_reald-3d-imax-screens). :smack:

That article's from half a year ago.

[Steve MB]

That article's from half a year ago.

Hokay, here's one from three hours ago (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/29/reald-shares-plunged-what-you-need-to-know-.aspx):

What: Shares of 3-D projection technologist RealD (NYSE: RLD ) are out of focus today after falling as much as 10.1% on very timid trading volume.
So what: RealD jumped sky-high on Monday as legendary director Martin Scorsese pounded the table on the virtues of three-dimensional storytelling. Today, the same man vowed to stay away from remaking any of his old films in the new format. Scorsese's strong support is yesterday's news and investors are going back to the same old fundamentals; Monday's gains have all but disappeared.

As for the longer-term trend, the shares are trading at a bit under $10, down from a 12-month peak of about $35.

[Chronos]

Coming back to normal after a spike is hardly evidence that the technology is failing.

[Justin_Bailey]

Evidently there is, as indicated by the cited examples:

Audiences quickly caught on, and box office numbers for 3D films sank. “Drive Angry,” “Step-Up 3D,” “Fright Night” and “The Three Musketeers” all flopped, while other 3D films simply underwhelmed (like this month’s “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas”).

What that proves is that we're very far away from every movie being in 3D (which moviemakers keep threatening us with). I've never seen a 3D movie (unless you count an IMAX nature film with the cardboard glasses when I was 10), but I don't think there's enough evidence to show a trend either way at this point. Big event films do well in 3D and smaller (usually gimmicky) 3D pictures do terribly.

[Grumman]

Christopher Nolan doesn't think the image quality of 3D movies is as good as regular movies. That's why The Dark Knight Rises will not be in 3D. I have to agree with him.
He's missing the point. The reason The Dark Knight Rises shouldn't be in 3D isn't because of concerns about image quality, it's because Batman movies aren't the sort of movie that benefits from 3D.

[Bryan Ekers]

Come to think of it, the only 3D film I've enjoyed was during the Terminator 2 3-D: Battle Across Time attraction at Universal Studios, probably because they didn't overdo it. There are a few awesome moments of a Robert Patrick T-1000 literally poking his head out into the audience, but no real effort to render the motorcycle chase in 3D - it was limited to the CGI effects only.

[Steve MB]

He's missing the point. The reason The Dark Knight Rises shouldn't be in 3D isn't because of concerns about image quality, it's because Batman movies aren't the sort of movie that benefits from 3D.

There's also the fact that the Dark Knight tends to operate in, well, dark settings, which means that the movies would be extra-vulnerable to the inherent 50% or worse brightness degradation caused by the process.

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, the new Tron was a complete waste in 3D for that reason - most of the characters were dressed in black, most of the landscapes were in black, most of the vehicles were black, with neon highlights. Watching it in 3D was like watching a bunch of kids running around at night waving flashlights.

[Larry Mudd]

Evidently there is, as indicated by the cited examples:Bollocks - you might just as well point to four random 2D flops and conclude that the film industry in general is in jeopardy - besides which, "Harold and Kumar" is well-reviewed and doing great box office. 2011 saw Rio, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, Hugo, The Cave of Forgotten Dreams, and Tintin. (I'll leave off Harry Potter because it was fake 3D.) That's not even touching the plethora of 3D films which are arguably crap (such as the latest installment of the Final Destination franchise) which still manage to out-compete comparable offerings in 2D.

Next year looks even better - we are looking forward to quite a few top-tier titles such as The Hobbit, Prometheus, The Amazing Spider Man, Frankenweenie, Life of Pi, Brave, ParaNorman, Jack the Giant Killer, The Lorax, Wreck-it Ralph, and 20+ other titles.Actually, the experience will be precisely identical: [...] The Hobbit is coming out "in 3D." 3D gives me a throbbing headache. .It is not possible for a properly-made 3D film to give you a headache.

Common causes of this in the past were impossible interocular distances (necessary because of the size of the cameras) being difficult for the viewer to reconcile, and rapid and frequent switching between near and far focal points. Technological advances in cameras and post-production technique (together with filmmaker education) mean this will never happen now.

[Paranoid Randroid]

It is not possible for a properly-made 3D film to give you a headache.

Whether or not Steve MB can possibly get a headache from “properly-made” 3D films, I at least can report identical outcomes:

1. Captain America is coming out in 3D. I cannot see 3D and must either refrain from paying the extra money, or pay extra money for a diminished experience.

2. The Hobbit is coming out in 3D. I cannot see 3D and must either refrain from paying the extra money, or pay the extra money for a diminished experience.

No headaches, true, but I suspect that my failure to discern objects jutting from the screen has had minimal impact on my viewing experience. I won’t make any predictions but I do hope this is a passing fad.

[GuanoLad]

I'm no fan of 3D, but I've never noticed this dark image thing you all are talking about. They seem to play movies at the required brightness level here*.

*Australia

[Steve MB]

Bollocks -- you might just as well point to four random 2D flops and conclude that the film industry in general is in jeopardy
The telling statistic is the ratio of 2D to 3D revenue; that cancels out the individual film's success or lack thereof. The trend line is clearly dipping below breakeven for 3D (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/09/who_killed_3d.html).

It is not possible for a properly-made 3D film to give you a headache.

And it is not possible for there to be American tanks in Baghdad; their crews are too busy burning their stomachs in hell. :rolleyes:

Oh, wait; you said "properly-made". Does the mysterious studio that does it "properly" serve sugared porridge in their commissary?

Common causes of this in the past were impossible interocular distances (necessary because of the size of the cameras) being difficult for the viewer to reconcile, and rapid and frequent switching between near and far focal points. Technological advances in cameras and post-production technique (together with filmmaker education) mean this will never happen now.

No technological advance short of holodeck-style projection can overcome one of the fundamental causes of ThreeDee nausea (conflict between the presence of binocular parallax and the absence of head-shift parallax).

[Galileo]

It is not possible for a properly-made 3D film to give you a headache.Please provide an example of a "properly-made 3D film" and then provide your scientific research which demonstrates that it is impossible for that film to give anyone a headache.

Anyway, for now I find 3-D to be disruptive rather than immersive, at least in a movie that is supposed to have characters and a plot, in contrast to an amusement park type of movie.

I haven't seen Hugo.

[Justin_Bailey]

The telling statistic is the ratio of 2D to 3D revenue; that cancels out the individual film's success or lack thereof. The trend line is clearly dipping below breakeven for 3D (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/09/who_killed_3d.html).

This is the most convincing argument I've heard yet for why this latest wave of 3D movies will become part of a fad just like all the waves that came before it.

[Steve MB]

This is the most convincing argument I've heard yet for why this latest wave of 3D movies will become part of a fad just like all the waves that came before it.

The most obvious interpretation is that theater owners overinvested in 3D projectors, then found themselves holding the bag when fading demand was spread across a glut of 3D screens. Being as susceptible to the sunk-cost fallacy as anybody else, they are slow to adjust by reverting to 2D projection or at least dropping the 3D surcharge. Reality can only be denied for so long; eventually the number of 3D screens will shrink to fit its niche, and the per-screen totals will settle somewhere near a 1:1 equilibrium with the main 2D releases (still a net loss for the studio, since 3D doesn't have 2D's post-release home-video market, but they too are likely to succumb to the sunk-cost fallacy and soldier on for a while).

[MrDibble]

still a net loss for the studio, since 3D doesn't have 2D's post-release home-video market...yet

[Enright3]

I seem to like animated 3d movies better than live action ones. But I can take it or leave it. What I don't get is why 3d TV is being shoved down our throats. There's no way I want or care to watch everyday tv with 3d glasses on. What a pain in the ass.

[Larry Mudd]

The telling statistic is the ratio of 2D to 3D revenue; that cancels out the individual film's success or lack thereof. The trend line is clearly dipping below breakeven for 3D (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/09/who_killed_3d.html).This is anything but a death-knell for 3D and is perfectly explicable when you consider that 3D conversions account for the lion's share of movies which are shown in 3D and also on a significant number of 2D screens. Actual 3D is still a reliable draw. There are definitely points I agree with in the linked article - ticket prices need to be normalized, and (most importantly) studios need to stop shovelling crappy 3D conversions at us just because they can. Other points not mentioned is that they need to understand their audience a little better and not bother with 3D for movies where the target demographic is <7 years old.[/QUOTE]Please provide an example of a "properly-made 3D film" and then provide your scientific research which demonstrates that it is impossible for that film to give anyone a headache.The mechanism of the eyestrain and potential for inducing headache in older 3D presentations is well-understood, this comes from rapid and frequent changes in apparent convergence. (And worse, poorly-registered images.)

Stereographers have a now better understanding now of what is necessary for viewers' comfort, and have a wide array of tools which make this easy to deliver. Scenes are set up from the start (and adjusted in post) to keep the apparent depth of focal objects consistent between shots.

Optically, there is now no significant difference between watching a current 3D movie and watching a stage production.

What mechanism do you propose which might induce a headache? A polarized light allergy?There's no way I want or care to watch everyday tv with 3d glasses on. What a pain in the ass.Agreed - I am still looking forward to the day that they come down below my price-point, though. I don't think anyone wants to watch The Big Bang Theory in 3D, but BluRays of good 3D movies and Xbox games? Count me in.

[Justin_Bailey]

still a net loss for the studio, since 3D doesn't have 2D's post-release home-video market

...yet

The buy-in required for 3D TV is really far out of the reach of the average TV watcher and currently offers little content in return. Not to mention that 3D Blu-rays are being priced at an even steeper premium than theatrical 3D movies.

[OpalCat]

What is it that makes a given person "unable" to see the 3D effect? Is there a specific eye defect that causes this? I've seen it mentioned before but don't understand it.

[Steve MB]

What mechanism do you propose which might induce a headache?
I already explained that -- the presence of binocular parallax and the absence of head-motion parallax sends conflicting signals, which is the basic cause of motion-sickness-type problems. Maybe the theaters could give out head clamps for an extra $4 premium.

Another problem occurs when theThreeDee specs are precariously perched over another pair of glasses -- when the lenses shift out of place, the polarization plane gets a bit off kilter and cross channel bleed-through blurs the image.

Other points not mentioned is that they need to understand their audience a little better and not bother with 3D for movies where the target demographic is <7 years old.
How so? If anything, kiddie animation seems to be 3D's natural niche market.

[Steve MB]

What is it that makes a given person "unable" to see the 3D effect? Is there a specific eye defect that causes this? I've seen it mentioned before but don't understand it.

People get multiple distance cues on objects (binocular parallax, head-motion parallax, perspective); apparently some brains process them a bit differently from others and thus don't deal well with synthetic images that emphasize one (binocular parallax) and exclude another (head-motion parallax).

[Paranoid Randroid]

Not to mention that 3D Blu-rays are being priced at an even steeper premium than theatrical 3D movies.

Not to mention (even further) that adoption by consumers of new audio/visual equipment seems to be slowing relative to the past, in which new technology tended to imply significant quality gain. As of June, at least, Blu-Ray had only penetrated something like 15% of the market (cite (http://technologizer.com/2011/06/09/the-blu-ray-cup-is-fifteen-percent-full/)) despite half a decade’s availability.

If 3D does catch on for home viewing (and it may), I suspect it’ll be very gradual and only once the implied additional cost is low. I doubt it’ll be soon enough to help out theaters.

[Paranoid Randroid]

What is it that makes a given person "unable" to see the 3D effect? Is there a specific eye defect that causes this? I've seen it mentioned before but don't understand it.

I don’t know enough about the technology to describe why exactly I don’t see the 3D effect. But it must result from my impairment of binocular vision; I use one eye at a time (particularly my left, while my right drifts off and does its own thang).

This has very little practical impact on my life, except for some discomfort when I have to use my right eye for some reason, e.g. to see something outside of the left’s field of vision. Beyond that I fail those little eye exams where (say) one is supposed to see a triangle in a square; I can’t do Magic Eyes; and I can’t see the 3D effect in movies. And I really am quite unable, no scare quotes needed. A modern 3D movie is no different to me from a 2D movie, except it’s dimmer and I must wear glasses that don’t fit my giant head.

[Larry Mudd]

I already explained that -- the presence of binocular parallax and the absence of head-motion parallax sends conflicting signals, which is the basic cause of motion-sickness-type problems. Maybe the theaters could give out head clamps for an extra $4 premium.How much do you move your head when you are sitting in a theatre? At any rate, the primary cause of motion sickness is the conflict between visual signals and signals from the inner ear.Another problem occurs when theThreeDee specs are precariously perched over another pair of glasses -- when the lenses shift out of place, the polarization plane gets a bit off kilter and cross channel bleed-through blurs the image.This should not occor with circular polarization. When was the last time this happened to you?How so? If anything, kiddie animation seems to be 3D's natural niche market.There are two reasons that 3D is really not appropriate for very young children. First, just in practical terms, they are liable to be distracted by the oddness of the image looking different with and without glasses, to the point that they don't pay attention to the movie and fail to be engaged by it. Perhaps more importantly, stereopsis is still developing in very young children, and so they may either simply not notice any particular effect, (and of more concern) it is not known whether or not prolonged 3D viewing has any significant effect on the development of this faculty.

I agree that animation looks great in 3D and will line up for features with adult appeal. (Coraline was fantastic in 3D.) But, I went to see Despicable Me twice - once with my wife in glorious 3D, and once more at a 2D matinee so my daughter could see it. 3D is not a good choice for movies where the only people with fully-developed stereopsis are there only as chaperones.If 3D does catch on for home viewing (and it may), I suspect it’ll be very gradual and only once the implied additional cost is low. I doubt it’ll be soon enough to help out theaters.Currently, one in five new sets sold are 3D capable. This is a much better early conversion ration than colour sets enjoyed. (Still too pricey for me, but I am waiting patiently. :D )

[Galileo]

stereopsis is still developing in very young children, and so they may either simply not notice any particular effect, (and of more concern) it is not known whether or not prolonged 3D viewing has any significant effect on the development of this faculty.But, according to you:Optically, there is now no significant difference between watching a current 3D movie and watching a stage production. Putting your two quotes together, this means that very young children should not watch a stage production, right?

[Steve MB]

But, according to you:Putting your two quotes together, this means that very young children should not watch a stage production, right?

Ah, there ya go -- some people can't see ThreeDee effects because their parents took them to stage productions when they were too young and messed up their brains!

[Larry Mudd]

There is no demonstrable difference, yes. But the development of children's brains is important enough that I ain't about to roll the dice on it. This is in the same category of the long list of drugs which are recommended against during pregnancy on the basis of an absence of studies of their effects on fetal development. We can't in good conscience make any studies, and as there is not much benefit in a 3D presentation for someone without a fully-developed faculty of stereopsis, there's no call to look at it further.

Quiet apart from that, if there is a single group of people restless enough in their seats for the lack of head motion parallax to approach significance when viewing stereo, it's five-year-olds.

[whole bean]

The last 3D movie I saw was Avatar. I'll occasionally try a 3D set at Costco or BestBuy. In both the theater and with the set, the effect sucks. I see a shimmering 3D image. It is distracting. Until it chnages, I will not watch 3D. The Salon article linked above leaves me with the impression that it will not go away.

[OpalCat]

And I really am quite unable, no scare quotes needed.

I didn't mean them as "scare quotes" and I'm sorry if that offended you. For some reason, that seemed like the way to type it at the time. Now looking back, I don't really see the need for the quotes. Again, I didn't mean to imply that you were faking or something.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Currently, one in five new sets sold are 3D capable. This is a much better early conversion ration than colour sets enjoyed.

That may be, but the proportion of newly-purchased TV sets with some special capability is not necessarily a good indicator of market share. I’d wager my left pinky that most households buy televisions only to replace sets malfunctioning or donated to one’s children. Anecdotally, our current TV is about three years old, and prior to that we used a TV purchased in the mid-90s — however much I want a 1080p display I doubt we’ll buy another TV until this one dies. Most people I know behave comparably.

(When our old TV died we hired someone from craigslist to fix it; it worked for about three minutes and then he wouldn’t return our calls, despite claiming loudly of his guarantee. Bastard.)

[Chronos]

I would think that the biggest counterindication for 3D in kids' movies is that the parents are less likely to want to pay a surcharge when what they're really buying is a couple hours of peace, and they'll get that just as well from a 2D movie.

Note, incidentally, that there is no fundamental reason why "computer animation" and "kids' movie" should be synonymous. There happens to be a large overlap, but there are still plenty of kids' movies that aren't computer animated, and a smattering of computer animated movies that aren't targeted at kids.

[Jophiel]

What is it that makes a given person "unable" to see the 3D effect? Is there a specific eye defect that causes this? I've seen it mentioned before but don't understand it.
I'd be curious to find out because I'm being told that there's absolutely no reason for 3D to not look glorious to me and, yet, it doesn't work for me. I had chalked it up to wearing regular prescription glasses under the plastic 3D lenses but I'm being told that doesn't make a different either.

Hey, who knows. I just know what I see regardless of what others are insisting I see.

[Spectralist]

Optically, there is now no significant difference between watching a current 3D movie and watching a stage production.
Sure there is. The depth differences in 3D movies still exist on a physical plane and so require no accommodation of the lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28anatomy%29#Accommodation:_changing_the_power_of_the_lens). Meaning focusing on one virtual plane wont blur the other virtual planes the way it does when looking at an actual 3d scene. But since most, if not all, 3d pictures already apply a depth of field blur(either as a side effect of simply focusing the cameras or, for cgi, through rendering) to anything not at the depth that the movie makers intend you to focus on it's probably not generally noticeable.

[Tabby_Cat]

I've wondered about this. I always get a "double vision" effect when watching 3D movies, kinda similar to when I go without glasses. I have very mild shortsightedness, but more astigmatism, and I'm wondering if that's what's affecting the polarisation, given that astigmatism is basically having an off-axis eyeball.

[slm2955]

I hope 3D isn't going anywhere, I like it.

[Larry Mudd]

Sure there is. The depth differences in 3D movies still exist on a physical plane and so require no accommodation of the lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28anatomy%29#Accommodation:_changing_the_power_of_the_lens). Meaning focusing on one virtual plane wont blur the other virtual planes the way it does when looking at an actual 3d scene.Oh, sure. By "significant" I meant specifically in the sense of being a trigger for headaches.