Will 3D be a major part of the theater experience in 2016?

[MsWhatsit]

@Mahaloth

It’s also being filmed at 48 frames a second, which I actually wished they’d been doing for years.

Can you expand more on this? I know next to nothing about frame rates, etc., but this sounds interesting.

[Mahaloth]

@MsWhatsit

Can you expand more on this? I know next to nothing about frame rates, etc., but this sounds interesting.

Here is what Peter Jackson said about it:

The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps [i.e. frames per second], rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920′s). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok — and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years — but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”

You can read about it here, which is where the quote comes from.

[Mahaloth]

And here is a comparison of frame rates.

[MsWhatsit]

Thanks, Mahaloth.

[Annie-Xmas]

Every theatre I go to is in 3-D.

If you’re takling about movies, then no.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@Mahaloth

And here is a comparison of frame rates.

The 60 fps graphic looks like someone is holding down the fast forward button.

[Mahaloth]

@Annie-Xmas

Every theatre I go to is in 3-D.

If you’re takling about movies, then no.

No it won’t be a major part of the movie experience?

[Hampshire]

My latest TV purchase I ended up with a 3D set. Not by purpose but it just so happened that the plasma set I liked at that price had 3D capabilities. I had no intention of ever using the 3D since glasses for the thing are around $50/pr but the sales guy told me it came with two free pair. And buying a blu-ray player with 3D capabilities cost the same as one without.
I have exactly ‘one’ 3D blu-ray disc (Tron:Legacy) since it was $5 more than the regular blu-ray. It’s nice and all but more of a novelty than anything.
What’s really disappointing is the selection of titles available in 3D. Some of the bigger titles just aren’t available. Avatar 3D is only available through Amazon for something like $140. Up and ToyStory3 are not available. Neither is How To Train Your Dragon. I’m not really interested in dropping $30 on Gnomeo and Juliet.
For all the talk of the industry pushing the home 3D sets they have really failed to come through on the software end.

[elfkin477]

@Mahaloth

No it won’t be a major part of the movie experience?

Do you want her sarcasm explained, or would you like to reread her comment?

[Sparky_the_Wonder_Spirit]

@Equipoise

You people are trying to do with Avatar what was done with Titanic, make it seem like a horrible everybody-hates-it movie. Won’t work. Didn’t work for Titanic, which is a classic, haters or no. Won’t work for Avatar either. (Most of) the people who love those movies will always love those movies, but, with occasional exceptions, such as me now, will keep quiet and roll our eyes at people like you who assume that everyone feels the same way. You and your merry band of haters are just noisier. Doesn’t make you right. [/hijack]

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I had to add an “in my opinion” if front of a statement that was obviously an opinion. I don’t remotely care about your feelings on the film; if you enjoyed it, more power to you.

[Mahaloth]

@elfkin477

Do you want her sarcasm explained, or would you like to reread her comment?

I guess I was wooshed. I did not get it.

[zombywoof]

@Mahaloth

I guess I was wooshed. I did not get it.

The “actors on a stage” kind of theater (like everything you see else in real life) is in 3D.

[Mahaloth]

@zombywoof

The “actors on a stage” kind of theater (like everything you see else in real life) is in 3D.

Ah, of course.

[Magiver]

I anticipate 3D will dominate animation and computer games but will fade with live action movies unless the directors learn some basics about it as an art form.

[Eutychus]

The rumors I hear in the animation community (where the current 3D fad started) is that, because traditional film costs so much to produce and ship, the movie studios are trying to push theaters to digital projection. Since most 3D require digital, they have to convert or not show a movie in 3D. However, the thinking is that once a majority of theaters have converted to digital projection, the studios won’t push 3D as hard and it will probably die out until a system that doesn’t use bulky glasses is found. The big push for 3D right now is simply a ploy by the studios to force theaters to convert and make distribution easier for them.

[Chronos]

I don’t think 3D animation is going away any time soon, for the simple reason that it’s almost no added cost to do computer animation in 3D rather than 2D. At most, it’s twice the rendering cycles, but computer time is cheaper than human time. And there are probably some clever tricks in the rendering algorithms that make it considerably less than twice the time.

[jackdavinci]

Given the advances in no-glasses 3D starting to take over TV and hand helds (even ipods!), I’m guessing by 2016 we’ll have no-glasses 3D in movies too which will revitalize the format.

[Chronos]

Given the advances in no-glasses 3D starting to take over TV and hand helds (even ipods!), I’m guessing by 2016 we’ll have no-glasses 3D in movies too which will revitalize the format.

I wouldn’t conclusively rule it out, but the methods used with the handhelds don’t work well for multiple viewers. And in fact I don’t know of any method that could be used with a large number of viewers, using anything resembling current technology.