More words on 3D -- what is your opinion?

don patterson

don patterson

Big-budget sci-fi caper "Prometheus," director Ridley Scott, said at Comic Con, he would never work WITHOUT 3D technology again, "even for small dialogue scenes," for the remainder of his career.

Martin Scorsese is on the 3D band wagon too. Of course James Cameron. The list grows.

I wrote on these forums a long time ago, how much I loved the 'new' 3D look. I have a 73 inch high-def 3D screen, with very small trim -- the picture is better then IMAX. YES. The glasses are a pain. But the images -- blow me away, as well as everyone else who has been over to view 3D on our new flat screen. Even the NBA finals in 3D were awesome!

If I had the money, to shoot one of my screenplays in 3D, I would not hesitate for one second to do so. Of course, that isn't likely to happen, I have no rich friends, wealthy relatives and my foot is not in any studio's door... To shoot a movie like SOUND OF NIGHTMARES, WILLIE, DOWN or anyone of my 28, in 3D would be absolutely awesome...

So. Is 3D dying? No. Looks like it is growing as more viewers become aware that this is not 1950's anaglyph 3D!

There are new technologies on glass-less 3D attempts. Heard it is at least eight years or more away for any 'large' screen format. Of course, 3D will NOT make a bad script a good movie! We've seen that carrot in front of the horse many times! A movie is only as good as it's weakest link. Whether it be director, cast, limited budget on cheesy SFX or a bad story to begin with... ETC.

So. What is your opinion?
 
It certainly looks like it has spiked.

More people chose to see Harry Potter 8, Pirates of the Caribbean 4 and Transformers 3 in 2D than in 3D and this seems to indicate a downward trend. Obviously the big 3D movies that are currently in production will keep being made but I think the studios are keeping a very close eye on how things go with the next few 'big' 3D releases. It's a shame that they've committed so early to shooting things like The Hobbit movies in 3D...
 
i think 3D is a waste of time. too many optical related health problems.
also, just out of preference, i'd rather pay to see 2D than 3.
 
Waste of time, don't think so.

The nice thing about 3D production, that while you set up for 3D effects, the camera also can maintain the same high quality imagery in 2D to satisfy those that are glued to 2D imagery. As prices drop, more will get the 3D interest. I don't like the additional price for theater 3D, myself. But when i buy the 'movie' -- if 3D is available -- I always go that route.

Dig it, you will never be forced to watch 3D if you do not want to.

I see where most 3D movies (BluRay) include 3D, BluRay disc and digital, some also include a standard DVD. Such a set, (if you shop around) can go for as low as 29.99. Single 3D discs go for 24.99 to 31.00 (unless you want Avatar 3D which is locked to Panasonic starter kit until 2012).

I see the price dropping. Prices on 3D players are already kind of low. Such is technology. Hey, there were many that refused to get off of a horse and onto a machine with four wheels... Took a few generations to make the switch. LOL. Just having fun...
 
I HATE 3D with a passion. If someone likes it, more power to them, but there is absolutely nothing about 3D I have ever found remotely enjoyable. I have lazy eye, and the 3D just doesn't work right for me, so anytime I watch a 3D movie I have to close one eye or it will give me a headache and nauseating feeling.

Also, I find the glasses a pain in general as they aren't even comfortable, and on top of that movie tickets for 3D movies cost more than regular, so I have no drive to see 3D movies in the theater.

Just my opinion though.
 
Recently I saw the latest Harry Potter in 3D, only because it was the next available screening and I didn't want to wait another hour for a 2D version. My basic feeling was that when I noticed it, it was distracting, and when it wasn't distracting I simply didn't notice it - it might as well have been in 2D.

I've seen a few other movies theatrically in 3D, the only one where it added much to the experience was 'Up' - during the fight scene on the dirigibles it really enhanced the feeling of being up high and made it feel much more dangerous. In general though I don't think it's worth it for most films.

don patterson said:
The nice thing about 3D production, that while you set up for 3D effects, the camera also can maintain the same high quality imagery in 2D to satisfy those that are glued to 2D imagery.
Click to expand...

Actually this isn't entirely true - sure you can maintain the quality of the imagery for 2D, but the shot composition, camera movement and edit flow need to be different for 3D vs. 2D. Right now we're mostly getting films that are not really optimized for either so both versions suffer... a film that is truly produced to be great in 3D will feel odd when watched in 2D, like watching a pan-and-scan version of a widescreen film.
 
The new 3D is solid technology, not a gimmick like in the 50's.

I'd love to use it, but the cost of a solid 3d dual epic atom rig with matched lenses etc is up around 320k.

The only real problem is the lack of adjustment.

in cgi, I can tune the camera width to my actual eyes, and the result gives depth 3-5x as deep as I see in 3d movies.
 
3D is great where it's great. The vast majority of complaints I see about 3D are from low budget filmmakers, most everyone outside of the industry (and a fair chunk inside) are for it.

I was playing around with an old teleprompter set up. I think I can use it like a beam splitter, will try some 3D here before too long using a couple Canon 7Ds. Won't be perfect, it doesn't have all the minute adjustments, but it'll be fun :)
 
So Nate,


When are we going to start shooting DOWN in 3D? How long till you get the investors on board? I know you'll like the CGI challenges... Do I get a say in 'who' we cast as Mary, Blonde 1 and Blonde 2?

Are you ready yet for the sequel to THE SOUND OF NIGHTMARES? Called THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES... Let me know when we start shooting, been ready for several years... LOL...
 
I have seen very few movies that made me care about 3d. It IS much better than it was in the 50s. The tech is awesome. I saw Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3D and it was beautiful; light on the gimmicky side of things and really helped immerse me in the film. I'm still not so convinced with live action. Sure, I enjoyed Avatar, but even more so when I watched it in 2d. I usually go 2d when I have a choice, and 3d if friends insist. 3d movies can be fun (though as someone who wears glasses, they're sort of annoying), and I love pushing the boundaries of technology. I don't think it's going away; it's far too popular and, again, really good these days. But I think we need another breakthrough of the magnitude of the current tech over the old tech before it replaces 2d film.

Me, I'd like to see good holographic ACTUAL 3d!
 
I like when a film is in 3D when its needed. But when its not neccisary to be in 3D, why put it in 3D? its just a gimmick from hollywood for them to charge you an extra 4 bucks to see the same movie and at the same time get a head-ache. To tell you the truth if they never made another 3D movie i wouldnt care. If a film is special put it in 3D like the good ol' days. Like Jack ass 3D, i thought was great the 3d just added to the funny. But now litterly every single new movie comming out is in 3D and its just plain annoying.

Thats my 2 cents :D
 
Just as a reminder, many said the same thing about sound in movies almost a century ago. "why do you need to hear them talk?" Same with color film and later color TV. It seems like 3D may be less important than some of those things, but in 50 years when nothing is 2D it will be the norm. Color doesn't make a movie good, but it helps.
 
The format that films are shot in is not dictated by filmmakers but by film audiences and at the moment film audiences seem to be clear in their stance that they don't want to pay extra for 3D films when the format has become synonymous with terrible movies.

Obvious the technology is much more stable this time round but there are still huge holes in its usability and I have the feeling that there's going to be a period where the technology is taken back to the workshop to try and trash out these kinks. At the moment it only really works when things are flying, falling, jumping, being thrown...etc, but once they can get the technology to truly add a depth to the film then it might be practical to ask audience to pay extra.
 
This is an easy argument because it's not an argument at all. If you film something in 3d, you can play it back in either 3d or 2d. So you can't really hurt you film with it, just provide more options for people with different tastes.

Also, if you're serious about film, there is always the marketability issue. 3d films are hot right now, and you can pull an extra 70 million bucks on a feature by offering 3d as an option. If you feel like getting to make a second movie, that's a consideration.

look at 3d performance in film finance at boxofficemojo.com
 
Nate North said:
This is an easy argument because it's not an argument at all. If you film something in 3d, you can play it back in either 3d or 2d. So you can't really hurt you film with it, just provide more options for people with different tastes.

Also, if you're serious about film, there is always the marketability issue. 3d films are hot right now, and you can pull an extra 70 million bucks on a feature by offering 3d as an option. If you feel like getting to make a second movie, that's a consideration.

look at 3d performance in film finance at boxofficemojo.com
Click to expand...

This would be not an argument at all if 3D wasn't an expensive and time consuming process. Post conversion 3D is fine so long as you are willing to throw the extra money at it and the extra time to get it done but shooting in proper 3D is to the detriment of the 2D product.

3D films aren't terribly hot right now. If you study the Box Office stats a little more closely you'll see that all the major 3D releases over the last couple of months took more money from 2D sales despite having wider openings on 3D screenings. The reason that 3D films are looking 'hot' at the moment is because massive bankable franchises (Transformers, POTC and Harry Potter) are releasing their first films in 3D. That's not a good way to judge the viability of 3D because you know as well as I do that the studios can keep shitting out their turds of films (Harry Potter not included) and they'll take a billion dollars because they're part of the franchise, not because they're 3D.

I think there is a genuine weariness with 3D at the moment just because so many terrible, terrible films are being released in the format. Hollywood has invested big time in its success so they're going to keep pushing it whilst there are so many scheduled 3D releases but the current climate is suggesting that it doesn't have any real future without some significant changes.
 
Last edited:
don patterson said:
So. Is 3D dying? No. Looks like it is growing as more viewers become aware that this is not 1950's anaglyph 3D!....So. What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't see much improvement in the process. I get a headache or distracted, every time. I'm glad that the DSLR rage and interchangeable lenses (non-3D techniques like shallow focus) have pretty much taken over. Few indies talk about it anymore, because deep focus lends itself to the video look and betrays the lesser quality sets and lighting design of low budget movies.

At first, 3D was a cash cow, as 3D venues had higher ticket prices. That trend has been fading. Before TRANSFORMERS 3 came out, my friend at Lionsgate said that the box office tracking data showed a huge decline from 3D venues and that revenue from 2D venues of the same movie had increased. Apparently, the audience gets geared up for the big AVATAR-like events, but a large percentage does not want to see it with every movie.

Some people have one eye or vision stigma. 2D will need to remain an option for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top