5 years then it's all 3D?

I think it's another fad that won't take off as fully as they are predicting. It's still a gimmick. I can't imagine a Woody Allen film in 3D and it's not really necessary for a lot of storytelling, so they won't spend the money on it.
 
I'm not a fan of 3d. Between having to wear the glasses and the depth of field issues, I just don't find it very entertaining and in fact, find it unnatural to view.

I don't think it will go away, but I also don't think non 3d movies and shows will go away. There are still some great photographs printed in B&W. I see 3D the same way. It's a different media.



learnfilmonline said:
So I'm sure most of you have seen this camera by panasonic http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/3d/ag-3da1/index.html.

I'm thinking 5 years from now we will see more standard 3D stuff, with ESPN launching a 3D tV station, and many more to follow. What are your thouhgts in the 3D world?
Click to expand...
 
Because marketing departments have more sway than they should. These things come and go, 3D, "interactive movies," etc. It's a different format, "added value" is a term I imagine someone throwing around at a board meeting. It won't replace anything, just supplemental.

Besides, it takes a LOT longer to shoot in 3D. For each shot you have to set (or even pull) IO distance, convergence, and focus. You also need more light than you would initially think, which means additional g/e gear and crew. More cost per shoot day, and more days of shooting because of the added time to each shot. Even if the gear is relatively inexpensive (half-silvered mirror rigs with Sony EX-3's are common) the added production cost will be prohibitive for a lot of projects for quite some time.

It's hot now, and will probably see lots of play in specialty areas - sports for example, but taking over completely? Doubtful at this point, certainly not in 5 years.
 
Last edited:
I dont think its going to take over. But i do think it is here to stay and will have its place, even though im not a big fan.

And taking over in 5 years? Fuhget abawt it!
 
I think the answer to '5 years then it's all 3d?' is a categoric no.

That said it's clear they're going to make inroads into TV, and considering TV is making inroads into Cinema, then I think Cinema is going to be increasingly pushed to provide a visual spectacle that you can't provide on the small screen. So I expect the vast majority of studio money to be thrown at 3D Blockbusters. But that's already the case. Some movies will continue to be made as they have always been made.

The real question for me is how big a market there will even be for cinema in 5 years?
 
This new surge of 3D is another Hollywood attempt to separate itself from TV. TV Technology (HD, surround sound) is pretty awesome right now and the turnaround time for movies from theater to DVD is rather fast these days, so many people can get close to the movie going experience at home. So to keep the turnstiles a'turnin' and butts in theater seats Hollywood revamped this old gimmick (yes they have used 3D before) to separate themselves from TV land.

3D is just not natural to view, is cumbersome (I already wear one pair of glasses now I have to don another?) and unless it's done right it is not aesthetically pleasing either - even with today's better technology.

3D is here to stay (heck it never left), but take over? Me don't think so.

It's not all bad though, and I do love the pressure that TV is placing on Hollywood. If the Tinsel Town folk address it honestly (instead of playing the old 3D card or some other gimmick like that) then there could be some other cooler invention that comes from all of this. Remember it is this separation (between the glorious cinematic experience and that talking box thing in your living room, or wherever you put one these days in your house) that gave us the super awesome anamorphic wide-screen aspect ratio.
 
LOL wouldn't it be classic if it evolved into being so 3D the only way to make it better is to have the real-life actors in front of you? Then we'll have Live Theater all over again, and thus the cycle has come full circle.

Kind of like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drx9zbB4ZRQ
 
Bwanadevil3.jpg
 
learnfilmonline said:
So why would these companies spend all this money on creating the technology and TV stations launching new channels?
Click to expand...

Because the people who run companies sometimes
make mistakes. The see a threat from the movies
(people leaving their homes to go to a theater) so
they spend all this money in hopes that people will
stop going to the theater and stay at home.

A company (or several companies) spending money
doesn't always mean their attempt will work. I agree
with sonnyboo; most TV shows and most movies do
not need to be in 3D. I believe this will be poorly spent
money.
 
I think the long pole is display technology. It just isn't there.. with the glasses etc .. not a seamless experience... something will need to fundamentally change in how we VIEW content before something like 3d takes off.

In five years, it will be a give away item, sure all TV's will playback 3d movies, and there will be more and more 3d movies made, or cheaply converted, but I bet most people will not bother to watch 3d... though the hard core gamers might change this game a bit..
 
Personally, I'd prefer interactive holographic (ST:TNG holodeck style) entertainment.

There are several movies that would be really cool to watch with that kind of immersive technology -- matrix, braveheart, etc.. :D
 
I don't think 3D will totally take over rather it will be another option. there are people out there that can't see 3D like my dad. I think its because he has to wear trifocals. Iv never talk to anyone else thats had this problem so it may just be him.
 
Well let me ask this:

Has everyone switched to Digital Cameras after they came out and does anyone shoot on Film anymore?
 
ROC said:
Well let me ask this:

Has everyone switched to Digital Cameras after they came out and does anyone shoot on Film anymore?
Click to expand...
Not everyone. Many people still shoot film.

But that's apples/oranges. Watching an intimate drama or
atmospheric thriller or outrageous comedy shot digitally or
on film doesn't make much of a difference. There is really
no need to see most movies in 3D. So it's a gimmick. Often
a great gimmick and in some cases used well (Avatar), but
still a fad.

Seriously, would "American Beauty" or "To Have And Have
Not" be better (or even acceptable) in 3D? But either could
have been shot digitally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top