Don’t forget that Larry is Canadian, though. Things may have been different there.
It’s true that this is possible - but it’s the same with live action - they could just shoot with a stereoscopic camera - it’s just that they don’t always do it - and instead choose (if choose is the right word) to add the 3D in post production, for live or animated movies - even recent ones.
I know. My point was that when a film shot in 2D and converted information has to be created that didn’t exist. When a computer animated movie is originally intended for 2D but the decision is then made to exhibit in 3D no new information has to be created, just new renderings of the existing information.
Was also curious as to what comprises “post” in computer animated movies.
I dislike 3D movies because I don’t really like having to put on a second pair of eyeglasses to watch blurry, headache-inducing images for the sake of an underwhelming gimmick that, to me, adds far less than it takes away due to the problems with the technology – and then, insult to injury, pay more for the privilege.
My eyes just don’t take well to it, I guess. I spend half the time with my eyes watering from trying to focus, and nothing looks sharp at all.
Understood that’s what they could do, but I don’t think it always is the method chosen.
What Mahaloth and I were trying to describe was when an animated movie is converted to sterescopic 3D without fully rendering the second camera - i.e. treating the finished 2D version as the source and converting to stereoscopic in the same way as one might if it was a live action film. I’m pretty sure this has been done, instead of re-rendering the second camera.
This assertion was based on my memories of the roll out of THX.
There was a lot of grumbling about ticket price increases and chains responded in part by posting notices in the lobbies making reference (in part) to audio equipment upgrades and associated licensing. This led one wag in our group to quip “THX - THE AUDIENCE IS BLEEDING,” which made a lasting impression.
I am not sure if the experience was precisely the same in the U.S., but the numbers you’ve provided don’t really disagree. Looking at the five year period that is coincident with the current 3D revival, we see ticket prices increase by an average of 4% each year. By comparison, the five year period coincident with everyone upgrading their sound systems and rolling out THX saw ticket prices increase by an average of 6% every year.
Didn’t happen in the US, or at least not in Kansas City, home of AMC, one of the largest movie chains.
Leggo those goalposts. THX involved a complete retrofit of many theaters. It was a full set of specifications and professional certification of all aspects of the theater including projection, sound, and isolation from other auditoriums. It wasn’t just about adding surround sound, which happened during the introduction of Dolby Surround during the late 70s early 80s. Look at my Constant Dollars chart. Drop from 1971 to 1982, small rise from 1982 to 1988, then a larger drop from 1988 to 1994, then a rise back to the 1988 level by 2010.
The current generation of 3D is digital-only, and has required changing the entire projection system. The 21-plex AMC we usually go to has 3D equipped 4K Sony projectors in all of their auditoriums. That is a substantial capital investment, but will pay for itself in a fairly short period of time by eliminating the shipping cost of prints and the labor to assemble and break them down. So a roughly $1 increase in average ticket price (in constant dollars) doesn’t seem unreasonable.
I’m another person who doesn’t like 3D.
I already wear glasses, and wearing the 3D glasses over my regular glasses is a pain. Also, the 3D glasses are invariably scratched and dirty (and I go to one of the more expensive theaters around; I can’t imagine how bad they are in a cheap theater!*). You have to focus where the director wants you to focus; if you look away from the 3D image the rest of the screen is out-of-focus, which is jarring. And of course, you pay more for the privilege of a worse experience.
The sooner 3D dies, the better.
*The person handing out the glasses has a cleaning rag, and gives them a once-over, but that just smears the grime. Maybe I’m OCD, but I don’t like wearing glasses with any smears on them at all. Also, you’re wearing glasses that hundreds of people have worn before you. I don’t want to stick community property on or near my face.
My main objection is the added surcharge. Movies are already too damn expensive. How about instead of adding an extra two fitty to the ticket price you make Matt Damon make due with one less pair of gold plated lederhosen?
I don’t get the objections to dirty/scratched glasses, though. Here they give you a new pair every time. Sealed in a little baggy and everything. They have bins to recycle them outside the theater, but fuck that, I paid two fitty extra, I’m keeping them.
Sure it did, according to your numbers. THX dropped in 1983.
Anyway, I don’t think we disagree on any substantial points.
Exactly so. This is why it is a mistake to go the surcharge route, in my opinion.
Maybe the technology has changed, but when I went to see Avatar they gave us glasses with electronics in them (which were fairly heavy and made wearing them over my regular glasses an even bigger pain in the ass) that had to be synced to the movie and which we had to return afterward.
Anyway, if I’m anything like a normal movie goer, then my experience with 3D was “that’s kinda cool”, followed by avoiding any other 3D movies.
Cameron was very aware of this for Avatar. In fact he actually was in pre-production of it and stopped, put the whole thing on hold for something like five years, in order for CGI computer power to finally ‘conquer’ the uncanny valley to his satisfaction. He also has a good grasp of what 3D should and should not be. He shot it with 3D in mind, but not with ‘comin’ at ya!’ shots, more as an overall immersion. He said that his goal was for you to forget it was 3D soon after you start watching it. Like I said I never saw it in 3D but from what I’ve read he mostly succeeded.
Thing is, I think his is so far the only 3D film to achieve this!
That was Dolby’s entry into the 3D sweepstakes. Active glasses have died out because, even though it is the superior technology, it requires someone to collect them and constant maintenance and replacement.
Again, THX is not Dolby Surround Sound. THX is a theater alignment and standards program, not a surround sound program.
Yes, we do. My point was, and remains, that 3D is the only “improvement” to the film-going experience that has resulted in a substantial price increase. As I believe I have proved, there have been increases in cost, but when adjusted for inflation, have varied in the neighborhood of $1.
And it’s not as if theater prices go up in cents. It always goes up in $.50 or $1.00 increments, on a region by region basis - lurching up as it were.
The thing is, digital projection and distribution means the theater owner is spending less to show a movie. In our parent’s day, each screen employed a projectionist to change reels every twenty minutes. Then platter systems meant that one person could start it one auditorium, then start another ten minutes later, hopping from one to the other. Now, only the manager is needed to schedule every film, trailer and pre-show feature for every auditorium.
That should mean a drop in ticket prices, but it won’t. Anyway, the conversion from film to digital projection is nearly complete, and now that it’s job is done, 3D can go back the the hole it crawled out of.
At the IMAX at Navy Pier in Chicago, they give out these weird oversized glasses that do get scratched and scuffed and you have to take what they give you. I’ve taken mine back and asked for clear ones and they hate that, but it’s my right as a paying customer. A lot of people don’t bother though.
I just saw *Hugo *in 3D. Loved the movie, and it was probably the best use of 3D that I’ve seen yet. The sets looked amazing and were shot beautifully, and the 3D really gave a great sense of depth to the picture. The long narrow passages and winding staircases, the clockwork mechanisms, the gorgeous Parisian street scenes–they all looked great. It didn’t feel gimmicky for a minute, even though there are many scenes that were certainly thoughtfully composed with the 3D effect in mind. And the $7 ticket was not a walletbuster. Anyways, 2D or 3D, go see Hugo.
Count me (if you’re polling, OP) among the “I have f-ed up eyes that don’t allow me to see 3d movies in 3d” crowd.
My daughter and I went to Best Buy to look at a new TV - they had 3d TV’s there and she was absolutely blown away… to me, it looked exactly like a regular 2d image. I kept asking her “what are you seeing that’s so amazing?” (she was like all “Whoa” and shit) and she couldn’t understand why I wasn’t as excited as she was (well, she is 10, so that has something to do with it, I’m sure. 
)
I just wasn’t seeing the “3d”. So we got a 2d TV, and I have no reason to ever buy a 3d TV - she can spend 3 large on one if she wishes, but I’m not holding my breath on that.
Smart move on your part. Regardless of the future of 3D movies, I firmly believe that 3D TVs are nothing more than a fad. Or rather a technological (and marketing) dead end that will go the way of quadrophonics.
And as for 3D films, here’s my official prediction: There will be a dearth of them in 2012, but again primarily in the big summer releases. And because of past audience complaints all of them will be real 3D, not the crappy added-in-post kind, and consequently all of them will be really expensive. And almost all of them will lose money. A lot of money. The fans will resoundingly reject 3D, and the studios will follow suit and abandon it. Except for the very few high-end releases made by Spielberg, Cameron et al who are so powerful they can do whatever they want…
Brightly-lit daytime scenes are enhanced by 3D, but dark, nighttime scenes are actively hurt by it. And most of the movies I’ve seen in 3D (Coraline, the last Narnia movie, Thor and Avatar) were just dark and gloomy enough that I’d have opted for 2D if it had been offered as a choice.
And..? It was an initiative which required theatre operators to make capital investments to improve the experience with the aim of putting butts in seats - and it demonstrably had an effect on the cost to the consumer - the only difference is that it was made as a series of incremental increases for all tickets, and therefore less prone to produce sticker shock.
This is simply wrong. THX certification stands out as the most prominent spur of higher ticket costs, but (as you would expect) any innovation which requires a substantial outlay of cash is going drive up the cost for the consumer, and widespread adoption of new technologies certainly had a their predictable effect.
Look at any five-year period’s ticket prices, and think about it in terms of what new technology was being embraced by theatre operators at the time, and you should not be surprised to find that the period associated with the widespread adoption of improvements remains unsurpassed in price hikes. This began 1976 when Dolby rolled out optical stereo w/ noise reduction, getting a boost in 1977, when Star Wars showed people just what you could do with that, and another huge boost in 1983 when THX was rolled out (with Return of the Jedi.)
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, here.
Sure, but the expense is up front, and it doesn’t matter if you’re a publicly-traded corporation or a Mom & Pop, you want the books to look good now. That said, it’s commonsensical that ticket prices will level off now - attendance is at an all-time low, and something has to give.
Heh. Halfway there! Not bad for ten years. There are lots of benefits to digital projection, not just for operators, but for audiences, too. It is sooooo nice to be able to watch a movie without being distracted by anachronistic real-change punch marks. I also don’t miss crappy splices or degraded quality from watching movies near the end of their run. (I don’t like crowded theatres, so I’ve tolerated a lot of this in three decades of movie-going.)
If those benefits have been largely on the backs of people who are willing to pay for 3D, so be it - but I don’t think 3D is going anywhere, it will continue to be a draw.
Maybe I am misguided - after all, I have been hooked on stereographic everything since about 1980.* I am fecking stoked, because as much as I liked the effect when I was a kid, my enjoyment of 3D was always tempered with, “This looks great - imagine how much better it would be if they showed good movies in 3D.” Well, here we are.
*Yes I like to make 3D pics with regular cameras, which has gotten a hell of a lot easier since the days I was making anaglyphs on film with colour filters and double exposures. Hell, I can show you a 3D photo of my firstborn, fresh out of the vag and still full of waxy nastiness, if you have the stomach for it.
But honestly, even though I was a sucker for 3D back when the best on offer was Parasite, now that it has matured I sincerely hope it is sustainable. I am vaguely aware that I can be a bit of a dick on this subject, so please accept my apologies if any are in order. “You don’t like 3D?! What are you, blind?” “Well, you’re half right.” “Haw, haw, you just don’t understand awesome.”