5 years then it's all 3D?

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...

I'm not sure how this is relevant to 3D.

3D is not a new technology that suddenly appeared when prosumers were finally able to get their mitts on cheaper digital technology. It's come & gone a few times already, each time more polished than the last with the latest tools available at the time. Overall, it really hasn't changed that much.
 
@Steve the same thing was said about Digital Cameras when they came out:

"EVERYONE WILL BE SHOOTING DIGITAL IN 5 YEARS".

But, are there still people that use Film instead of Digital? I think so.
 
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...

I use a digital camera because of convienence. take picture> upload to walgreens> pick up from walgreens... to easy.

I was recently shopping around at my local PX and found a 36 inch 3D tv for $4000. Thats ALOT!!! not only that but the 3D glasses are $136. WTF
 
I suspect people like gooberman (and that includes all of us here)
would be happy to shoot on film if the costs were similar.

If shooting 3D becomes considerably easier and cheaper than
shooting flat I suspect 3D will take over just as digital has
taken over shooting film.

And when 3D TV’s become cheaper (or the same) as regular TV’s,
more people will buy them. Then we will see more need for 3D
product. I don’t see this as similar to the digital/film issue,
more like the laser disc/DVD issue.
 
directorik said:
I suspect people like gooberman (and that includes all of us here)
would be happy to shoot on film if the costs were similar.

If shooting 3D becomes considerably easier and cheaper than
shooting flat I suspect 3D will take over just as digital has
taken over shooting film.

And when 3D TV’s become cheaper (or the same) as regular TV’s,
more people will buy them. Then we will see more need for 3D
product. I don’t see this as similar to the digital/film issue,
more like the laser disc/DVD issue.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the market isn't really appealing to a consumer market at the moment. once all the technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, 3D will explode like MP3 and peer to peer sharing.
 
gooberman said:
I use a digital camera because of convienence. take picture> upload to walgreens> pick up from walgreens... to easy.

I was recently shopping around at my local PX and found a 36 inch 3D tv for $4000. Thats ALOT!!! not only that but the 3D glasses are $136. WTF
Click to expand...

I know! Crazy, huh!

Once other makers make those items they will come down - just like a 300G hard-drive 5 years ago cost almost 1500$
 
No. I'm in agreeance with at present it's a "fad", a tool, that i'd assume will become less desirable as time passes. But to sit at home with 3D glasses on? I think not.
 
ROC said:
I know! Crazy, huh!

Once other makers make those items they will come down - just like a 300G hard-drive 5 years ago cost almost 1500$
Click to expand...

Very crazy... something you get for free at IMAX is $136. HAHA... 1TB External hard drive= $120... oh how times have changed.
 
For movies I don't really care for 3D THAT much. Sure it's nice to see an action flick every now and then in 3D, but its never really absorbed me that much to have me want to see every movie in that format.

What I AM excited for is 3D for computers and games. Creating a depth-map in a rendered environment is a lot more automatic and mathematical than having to do it manually for every shot in a movie, imagine playing Call of Duty and you literally flinch when a grenade passes by your face. Now THAT would be intense gaming.
 
Surprise, surprise, I'm the voice of dissent. I've already said most of this in another forum, so I don't wanna rehash it, too much. Anyway, I don't think it's a gimmick, at all -- not when it's done effectively.

Zensteve said:
It's come & gone a few times already, each time more polished than the last with the latest tools available at the time. Overall, it really hasn't changed that much.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I gotta call you out on this one, Zensteve, but haven't you stated, in different forums, that you refuse to pay the money to go see one? So, how do you make this claim? 3D, today, is completely different from it's earlier versions. It's like the difference between "Jurassic Park", and the claymation T-Rex in the original "King Kong".

To me, it feels totally natural, and it's just another tool to help suspend disbelief just a little bit more. When it's done right, there isn't a bunch of crap flying at your face -- it's more like they cut a rectangle hole in the wall, and what you're watching is actually taking place, on the other side of that wall. It's not a gimmick; it's not a fad. It's a new(ly effective) tool that a filmmaker can choose (or choose not to) use. I believe it's here for good.

That being said, I can echo the seemingly unanimous sentiment that it will not replace 2D (at least not any time soon). Not everybody likes 3D, some people get headaches from it, and not all films would benefit from it. Plus, those glasses are annoying; I only put up with them in the theater, cuz I like the immersive experience; not gonna wear glasses in my home.

Oh, and one last thing -- I think it's interesting that the only live action movie to ever effectively use 3D, in my opinion, has been "Avatar", and it's a bit of a stretch to call it "live action". Is this a technology best suited for animation?
 
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 of the adage "you've got to spend money to make money". AVATAR made money, so Hollywood wants to cash in the success. Then you get the backlash over CLASH OF THE TITANS in 3D. It's very basic, the studio system is not about creativity, it's about making money. Cashing in on the fad and hedging their bets that this MIGHT take off, then the manufacturers are making money the whole time. When it falls on it's face (as it has each time 3D became a fad in the past 70 years), they will stop trying.


Cracker Funk said:
I don't think it's a gimmick, at all -- not when it's done effectively.
Click to expand...

I agree.... WHEN IT IS EFFECTIVE. Again, why would it be effective to see ANNIE HALL in 3D? Will THE OFFICE really be enhanced by being in 3D?

Most movies, TV shows, and motion picture stories of any style don't really need 3D to be effective or make their point well. AVATAR was way better in 2D for me personally. On BLU RAY, I could finally see most of the image. AVATAR was the best 3D I've ever seen.... and it still wasn't life altering of worth the hype (the 3D not the movie itself).

It's a trend that will only last as long as it makes money. Animated movies done in 3D (which AVATAR counts) are naturally in true 3 dimensional space and thus easy to manipulate in that realm. Live action movies are radically different and harder to create that well, and it limits the traditional filmmaking assets of the camera and the viewer.
 
Cracker Funk said:
Sorry, I gotta call you out on this one, Zensteve, but haven't you stated, in different forums, that you refuse to pay the money to go see one? So, how do you make this claim?
Click to expand...

First... never call people out. It's rather poor form.

I have never said that I "refuse to pay the money to go see one". I have said that I will not pay the excessive rates that current shows charge. In fact, if you source my information that you are paraphrasing, you'll see where I was talking about $18 tickets. I'm pretty sure that in that same discussion (or thereabouts) I mention Alice (and some other 3D material) that I had free tickets for, that I have seen... and commented on.

It's no secret I'm a cheap bastard. I have also not found it necessary to mention that the local dollar-theater I frequent (I'll wait 30 days to catch films at the second-run, no prob) has a 3D projector. For the unholy price of
FOUR dollars
:secret: I can view exactly what you have been watching - after a brief delay 'til it hits the second run.

Imo, even first-run non-3D films are overpriced and not worth my wallet.


3D, today, is completely different from it's earlier versions. It's like the difference between "Jurassic Park", and the claymation T-Rex in the original "King Kong".
Click to expand...

No, it's not even comparable. Improvements in animation & CGI ain't even the same ballpark as being a 3D experience.

The 3D experience of today is almost exactly the same as that of the 80's... but with better eye-candy.
 
Zen this is the last time I'm going to ask:

WHAT THEATER IS IT THAT YOU GO TO.

You might meet me in person. Who knows.

......It is a mystery
.o.o.
......
 
I'm pulled here cause I do some what agree with all of you but not full board heres why:

Tesla Invented wireless power over a hundred years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Hmm? What does he mean by this?

Yes 3D has been around and when it popped back in the 70's 80's it was a fad, but do things come back twice and become a fad twice? WAIT I'm coming back to Tesla now wireless power is now back again but cooler and has more spunk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer

And check out these products: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/wireless-power-takes-another-baby-step-at-ces-2010-with-qi-stand/

So your thinking ok man what's your point. Well I hope by now you kind of see where I'm going with this.

Please bare. So your driving 65 in a 45 you get pulled over and you say dude I never got a ticket and I was driving safe give me a break. Cop says LAW buddy sorry. So my point is there is a universal law at work.

Tape cassette=Dead
CD=Dying
MP3=Alive

Universe has a law that works if you like it or not. Think about when you watch old movies they look kinda cheap and Fx are wack! Not saying there not great classics, but I feel Film, and 2D will be that. May not be in 5 years but one day it will happen if we believe it or not. I sat in a conference with Panasonics CTO he talked all about making 3D the mainstay.

So I understand it's hard to grasp and old thoughts and maybe your crying inside cause you don't want it to dye is what's holding you back. But I feel a rise coming and Avatar started the fire.

Problems with 3D:
Expensive to shoot in
Glasses hell no, not wearing them at home.

Solutions with 3D:
New panasonic camera I started this thread with 21K not to bad.
Glasses REALLY: http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/70685.html?wlc=1285222226 I don't think so they are coming up with ways to make it Glassless if thats a word.

Boo, Zen, all you awesome filmmakers, I see where your coming from It's all about making money true, but for now until we take over as INDIE WOOD HEHE! If they say we are going 3D then we must adjust and go with the curve, just saying.

I'm not right about all this but I do feel that a make a good point on where things are going.

And some of you have really good points, even if Hollywood doesn't drive it gaming will.

P.S Hologram technology is next haha!

Much Love.
 
ROC said:
lol I mean with a blue and red one to watch 3D movies :)
Click to expand...

Blue%20Sclera.jpg
Red-Sclera.jpg


Taken from FXeyes.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top