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.
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.
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.
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.
Whether or not Steve MB can possibly get a headache from “properly-made” 3D films, I at least can report identical outcomes:
-
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.
-
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.
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
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.
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?
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).
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.
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).
…yet
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.
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]
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
How so? If anything, kiddie animation seems to be 3D’s natural niche market.
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).
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) 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.
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.
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.
This should not occor with circular polarization. When was the last time this happened to you?
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.
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. 
)
But, according to you:
Putting your two quotes together, this means that very young children should not watch a stage production, right?