That’s an argument that would apply just as well to radio vs. TV. If you imagination is that good, why do you need an image on screen at all?
Well, in one sense of course I don’t. I read books, too. 
But the serious answer is that books, sound recordings, and motion pictures are just different media, with different compositional qualities and different ways of working on the brain. 3D films aren’t different enough from 2D films to be a different form, and within the existing form I don’t find the apparent trade-offs worthwhile.
I saw Avatar yesterday in IMAX 3-D. The movie looked and sounded great- the apex of film projection and sound technology.
I had seen the movie in 3-D on a regular screen during the winter.
I don’t think the film itself is so great.
I remember seeing Cameron’s Ghosts of the abyss in 3-D in 2002. It was a Titanic underwater exploration filmed in 3-D.
EXCELLENT. Doesn’t work as well in 2-D on my DVD.
Monster House and Coraline were both great in 3-D.
So, for me, it depends on the movie.
David
Don’t you mean “…four different sets of patented 3D glasses for the four different 3D systems currently in use”?
Please explain what you mean. Assume for the sake of discussion that I have been shooting and editing video for 20+ years and doing 3D computer animation for nearly as long and haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Sorry, but that is the dumbest canard pushed by the 3D true believers. I’ve been watching movies for twice as long as I’ve been shooting and editing video, and can assure you of one thing - the introduction of color, sync sound and multi-channel audio did NOT result in a huge increase in ticket prices. The handful of “road show” presentations of big films were rare anomalies, and the same films opened opened in regular theaters as well, and all their innovations made their way into the smallest theaters out there. When was the last time you saw a theater advertising that the film was being presented in Dolby Surround? You won’t, because it is now the standard and costs nothing extra.
3D is being pushed for one reason and one reason only - to increase ticket prices by thirty to fifty percent.
See above.
The 3D cameras are larger, heavier and far more finicky than regular ones and limit the freedom of filmmakers to move around. That means the director has to spend time handling the technical aspects instead of working with the actors. The situation with 3D is like the world of Cinerama - huge, unwieldy cameras, a neat visual effect and the end result was films remembered only for the spectacle.
Only one type is relevant for regular cinema 3D, and IMAX 3D glasses are a little easier to wear over regular glasses if you need to.
Doing editing for non-stereo presentations isn’t going to train you to think about parallax adjustment for scene transitions, and historically very little thought has been given to this at all. The reason that some people complain of headaches from watching 3D films is that they are being required to adjust their focal depth much more rapidly and radically than is natural. Traditionally, if you are editing a rapid-cut action scene, you probably aren’t thinking about varying apparent depth between cuts. This is important when editing a 3D movie.
When you watch a 2D film, the (actual, not camera) focal depth is constant - you’re focusing on the plane occupied by the screen. If you’re watching an ineptly-edited 3D film, the parallax may shift widely between negative and positive values, as the primary element in the shot flips between being (apparently) behind the screen or in front of it.
The importance of this is now better understood, and you won’t see this sort of thing in a well-designed 3D film. However, as someone who has spent time editing (me, too) you know that the order of shots may be substantially different once everything is in the can. Filmmakers are no longer stuck with the parallax that is there mechanically - this can be manually adjusted trivially easily, so that the shift is not too jarring. More importantly, part of the process now involves keyframing for focal depths, and an adjustment is made gradually during the scenes, to avoid jarring at the transition point.
Of course they did. Minimum admission price for Fantasia was 0.75, in 1940, when the average price of admission was .035. Sync sound pushed ticket prices up, and there were complaints about that. It is a bit naive to think that theatre operators would make significant and costly upgrades without passing some of that expense on to consumers.
Wave those hands!
Again, there are 4 different systems with different glasses. In Chicago, I see RealD glasses at AMC, but different ones at the other theater chains. It’s as if Dolby Digital required special earplugs, while the Sony SDDS and DTS systems required different ones. The post I was responding too foolishly suggested that buying these prescription glasses would mean the wearer would no longer have to put the cheesy theater glasses on over their own.
Do you deny that each system requires different glasses? Your claim that “IMAX 3D glasses are a little easier to wear over regular glasses if you need to” is irrelevant and your personal opinion and has nothing to do with my point, which was that one pair will not work for all the different systems out there.
Interesting, thanks. But this is still another limiting factor that puts an unnecessary constraint on the filmmaker and editor. And how exactly does one “keyframe” already shot real life footage?
You are talking about a “road show” presentation, the IMAX of it’s day. Fantasia was an anomaly. Star Wars was the first Dolby Surround film most people had ever heard, and they damn sure didn’t charge a premium price for it.
Show me a chart that shows this, otherwise I’ll assume you are talking out your ass. Just for my own amusment, I took the data from this page, stuck it in Excel, and the average price rose nice and smoothly, given the spotty data before 1974.
This chart from the National Association of Theater Owners claims that movie ticket prices have risen less than inflation.
I have been buying tickets my entire adult life and what you claim just has not happened. I did not see an increase in ticket prices with the introduction of Dolby Surround, I did not see a jump in ticket prices with DTS or Dolby Digital. I have not seen a jump in ticket prices with the introduction of digital projection. And I saw 160 films in the theater last year. You would think I would have noticed.
Seee, I haven’t seen a movie in a year, can’t afford it. This 3=D film phenomenn is no longer my zeitgeist or even relatable experience. I like 3-D as long as the technology isn’t that red and blue bineural optics. Question: What kind of polarized glasses are issued for the avatar experience? Is it tru 3-D Hi-fi like captain EO or is it red and bluer blur?
The IMAX and RealD glasses are both polarized-- IMAX linearly, and RealD circularly (which is better). Either one preserves the true colors.
gaffa, what are the other glasses? There really aren’t any other options than those two, and everything but circular polarization is going to rapidly fall by the wayside now that they’ve figured out how to do that cheaply.
I went to the cinema last night and saw some wonderful films. None in 3D, however.
In 99.99% of the 3D movies I’ve seen, it’s a mildly entertaining gimmick. Not worth the extra ticket cost, though (as the moviemakers have guessed) we’ll spend the extra if it’s a movie the kids want to see.
The only exception so far is Avatar. A mediocre tale with fantastic visuals, and I really felt that the 3D effect added a lot, to some scenes especially.
You’ve seen ten thousand 3D movies?
No, but sometimes it seems like it!
Well, I went to see Resident Evil last night, and since (in my area anyway) it is only in 3D I broke down and actually gave it a shot. I believe I read that the movie was shot with the same 3D cameras that they used for Avatar, so it should be better than a regular movie that was converted later right? All it did was confirm my suspicion that 3D is a silly gimmick that is just not worth anywhere near the 65% price premium. I just don’t think it added anything to the film, I would have enjoyed the film more if I could have just watched it, without being distracted by the 3D.
20,000 theatres are converted for RealD in North America. Dolby 3D has less than 5,000 locations, and the glasses required are fragile and cost $30 per pair. Count them out. If you have to bet on a format (which you don’t,) bet on RealD. They win. Apart from IMAX, the only other system which is halfway relevant is Technicolor’s budget-minded 3D solution, which uses circular polarization of the same handedness as RealD.
Not a difficult constraint, as long as you are marginally aware of it going in, and now totally adjustable in post.
The adjustment is made in the separation of the images. If the director has made the choice of rapidly switching between a rider approaching on the horizon and and lookout pointing a spyglass which is apparently in front of the viewer’s nose, the correction required is to make two focal depths agree more closely, so the viewer doesn’t have to cross or uncross their eyes in order to focus on the dominant element. To increase viewer comfort, a routine part of post production involves defining the dominant elements along the z axis, making this adjustment for the overall scene, and (if required) making a graduated adjustment in separation, which the viewer adjusts to naturally through microsaccades. To keyframe it, the editor just broadly defines the dominant objects in each scene. “Here, the viewers’ eyes should be on the end of the spyglass – and here, it should be on the rider.” The software softens the adjustment.
Wow, the average price is a gentle curve – Astonishing. Do you remember all the howling about Return of the Jedi’s $4.50 admission price? (“Is this movie worth a 50% premium? ROBBERY!”) This helped offset the cost of installing THX. The 20% premium on RealD tickets isn’t really something to blink at, in comparison.
These figures are two years old, and are not exclusive of 3D films. So?
To say that 3D is “just an excuse to raise prices” is kind of misguided. The goal is butts in seats, and you can bet they’ve focus-grouped the hell out of it. They’ll charge all the market will bear, just like anything else. Be glad that the premium is transparent - if it’s not worth it to you, don’t go, or opt for a 2D screen. Let the market decide.
I think it depends on the content. I don’t think the 3D added much to Up or Alice in Wonderland, but it really helped Avatar’s immersiveness and I adored the 3D in How to Train Your Dragon. It depends on how much the movie emphasizes bringing its setting or characters to life. The best bits of Up were all psychological and graphical presentation won’t do anything for that, but a frame full of fluttering dragon wings as fog and terrain races by? Yes please!
I can admit that I have been underwhelmed by most live action 3D films I’ve seen, so far, and think of Avatar as a watershed moment.
After the success of Avatar I expect that good 3D will be considered for more top-tier movies than it has been historically. Totally animated features are fun, but it will be nice if more big Event movies are made in 3D. (I have high hopes for the new Spiderman movie.)
I also hope that they wise up and stop releasing crappy 2D to 3D conversions, which I totally agree are a pointless grab for more box office revenue with little benefit to the viewer.