Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Movie Studios' Big 3D Scam

Posted by timothy on from the say-it-ain't-so-joe dept.

An anonymous reader writes "There's a lot of things wrong with 3D movies. Avatar's 3D was well executed, but Alice's 3D was really bad, like all 2D-to-3D conversions. And yet, studios are reconverting 2D movies—including classics—into 3D to milk this fad. On top of that, the theaters are not prepared for 3D, with bad eyeglass optics and dark projections. In this article, a top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles calls it as it is: it's all a big scam by the movie studios."

66 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine how I feel about all that hype with only one eye...

    1. Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers by Ailure · · Score: 2, Informative

      3D glasses used in modern cinema is Polarized, not tinted with red/blue.

    2. Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers by jasonmicron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, no there haven't. They've all been polarized using Real D and passive stereo. If you went to a movie that used the different color glasses, well, I'm sorry you wasted your money because you got scammed.

    3. Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers by sopssa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Half the performance doesn't really have much point. I currently have two identical graphics cards in SLI, so the other card can be rendering image for right eye and the other one for left. You get quite much the same performance as with single card and no 3D.

      Of course it's quite much like Hi-Fi stuff. Some people want to go the extra mile, and the extra immersion it gives is great. Those red/blue glasses, no, but polarized is quite nice already.

      But whats the status on holographic 3D? What I found looks quite limited.

    4. Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Polarized glasses are not $40 and don't require anti-theft tags. They even let you walk out of the theater with them. You're thinking of IMAX.

      I'm definitely not talking about IMAX. IMAX uses polarized glasses. I'm talking about Dolby 3D. Read my post again.

    5. Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers by nigelo · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's your Grandmother got to do with this? Oh, wait...

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    6. Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're batshit insane if you think the human eye can distinguish between 60, 90, and 120 frames per second. You're equally deluded if you think 30fps isn't "smooth" when movies are played at 24fps.

      You're an idiot. I don't know where this myth came from that the eye has some set limit on framerate, but I'm tired of seeing it from people who apparently never play games. The human visual system doesn't work in terms of discrete frames, it's a continuous information flow (with a lot of processing done on it). For your information, I can tell the difference between a 60Hz and 85Hz refresh rate on a monitor displaying a still image (the former gives me a headache on most monitors), let alone moving graphics. The only reason 24FPS looks remotely acceptable for movies and the like is the motion blur that comes from the relatively long shutter speeds (the time the shutter is open per frame) of movie cameras, something that cgi artists have learned to replicate artificially, otherwise the sequence of crystal-clear rendered images animating at such a low framerate looks really janky. Higher shutter speeds can be used for effect, as seen in some scenes in Saving Private Ryan and the like (moving objects look clearer but seem to jump across the screen in discrete frames), but there's still some blur. Pause a movie during a fast action scene sometime and notice how blurry moving objects are (it's not just from digital compression, it's an artifact of the slow shutter speeds they have to use to make the movement look continuous). Remove the motion blur, and no, the image isn't remotely smooth at 24FPS. Ideally the framerate would be high enough that the individual frames could be perfectly clear (for cgi, or as close as you can get with high shutter speeds on live action), and any motion blur would come naturally from the human visual system (it would be lessened since our eyes are specifically designed to track moving objects to avoid blur), leading to a smoother, clearer picture, but the current framerates aren't up to that. I've always thought that, say, Michael Bay movies would be far more tolerable visually at something like 120FPS, because he seems to ignore the limitations, shaking the camera around and moving objects past it at speeds that turn everything into a blurry mess at 24FPS (which is a technological artifact that never should have remained as long as it has, really).

      There's a reason developers on modern consoles brag when they get their games running at 60 instead of 30 FPS (if it made no difference, they could lock it at 30 like most games and get more detail onscreen). There's a reason PC gamers like to have a framerate at least as high as their monitor's refresh rate. There's a reason for 120Hz TV's (although those are using interpolation to "fake" the extra frames, and would provide better results if the original video was taken at 120Hz). The reason isn't that all the above people are deluded, it's because higher framerates look demonstrably better.

      Do me a favor sometime, and find a CRT monitor, set the desktop to its highest refresh rate, and wave a finger in front of it without moving your eyes. You see those individual finger-images? That's from the strobe effect of the refresh rate (this doesn't work on most LCD monitors, since the natural lag time provides pretty much constant illumination, similar to how most lightbulbs hide the 60Hz AC rate). The faster you move your finger, the bigger the gaps between the finger images. If you can find a refresh rate at which the gaps are small enough that it appears to be a continuous movement even when moving your finger extremely quickly (hint: you can't on any consumer monitor I'm aware of), I'll accept that as something approaching the limits of the human eye. Until then, shut up.

    7. Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Informative

      What you are pointing out is less about frame rate, and the fact that you need a higher frame rate to compensate for the CRT drawing in the image line by line.

      You don't need as high a frame rate when the whole frame is drawn at once like on an LCD screen as there is no amount of time when the screen is blank. Higher frame rates on LCD are desired for high motion so you don't get the jumping effect. If the picture never moved, the update rate on an LCD could be even 5Hz and you'd never notice.

      So yes, I can see 60Hz on a CRT and it gives me a headache (especially with florescent lights flashing a the same rate) but not on an LCD. Film is slightly different again in that it's strobed but you essentially get the entire frame at once.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  2. Well, Yes by spribyl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.
    Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.

    1. Re:Well, Yes by c++0xFF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point of 3D is to provide an experience you can't get at home. Nothing more, nothing less. Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.

    2. Re:Well, Yes by dunezone · · Score: 3, Funny

      3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.

      For example: Jaws 3 or Friday the 13th: Part 3

    3. Re:Well, Yes by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.

      That's essentially true, but I don't think movies are simply about story telling -- movies are more about story immersion. You aren't just being told a story, you are experiencing the story through sight, sound (including the associated physical vibration), dialog, etc. In this way I think that 3D can be more than just a scam. As the summary said, Avatar's 3D really was incredibly well done. It could have been better; I read that Cameron originally wanted to film at about 60 fps but Fox shot him down, but this would have helped with both brightness and strobing issues. Once you become accustomed to the 3D picture, it really was a more immersive experience.

      Of course, I think it makes no sense at all to go and "convert" older standard films into 3D, especially because what you get isn't even really 3D. You just can't present more information to the audience than you started with. Avatar was filmed with multiple cameras and therefore had the information needed to present a real 3D stereoscopic image. The Wizard of Oz wasn't.

      Personally I think that well-executed 3D is a great boon to theaters because it provides (at least currently) a much needed physical reason for people to go to the theater to see a movie instead of just waiting to watch it at home. Hopefully they don't kill off this opportunity for themselves by overdoing or abusing it.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    4. Re:Well, Yes by Splab · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouw, here we pay 120DKR (just under $20) to see Alice in Wonderland.

    5. Re:Well, Yes by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Avatar was designed, from the ground up, for 3D. I've read bits about the problems with 3D before. Besides the pseudo 3D problem mentioned, there is the fact no one really knows how to use the extra space yet, or the loss of focus it can cause.

      Right now, a director can focus my attention on something with focus, but in 3D that doesn't quite work. Either the whole scene is blurry except what they want me to look at (which can be confusing when your eyes can't pull something you look at into focus), or everything is in focus, so I can get easily distracted looking at neat thing X in the background, and not the plot point I am supposed to be focusing on.

      We're still at gimmick stage. It's going to take some time before there are many movies where the 3D is actually worth something.

      But the whole "take a 2D movie and fake process it into 3D" thing is nearly a scam. I understand if you want to update Gone with the Wind in 3D, you don't have an option (short of a complete reshoot). But when you are starting filming this year, buy the second camera. Either you care about making a 3D movie or not.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    6. Re:Well, Yes by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

          It's more of the practicality of the modern economy. When people were making closer to $45/hr, it wasn't a big concern to drop $50 on a movie. (3 tickets + snacks)

          Now a lot of people aren't working, or are making closer to $15/hr. That $50 goes from 2.7% of the weekly paycheck to 8.3%. That $50 may be more important for paying rent, food, a utility bill, or gas to get to work. $50 for just over an hour of entertainment vs $50 for food, it becomes obvious which is more important.

          Inflation hasn't been matched by the working wages. It's actually been working inversely. Prices have gone up, and people have less money to spend. If it's different where you are, I'm moving there. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:Well, Yes by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Informative

            Movies still have their place. I've noticed that there's a substantial under-21 crowd. It's somewhere to go on a date, where you can be alone in a dark room with her. Parents don't generally tolerate sexin' up your date at home. :) Foreplay in the theater, intercourse in the back seat of the car, and back to moms house by midnight.

          The over 21 crowd usually head for bars and clubs, and then back to their own apartments.

          The over 30 crowd usually have friends over for food, drinks, and to watch movies, and then sexless nights with the wife. {sigh}

          Back to the original statement. Ya, I've noticed that the crowd is rather young, compared to the way it used to be 20 years ago.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:Well, Yes by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And colour has nothing to do with story telling, and pictures have nothing to do with story telling and audio has nothing to do with story telling.

      That said, each adds its own twist on the telling of a story and changes how and what one can do as a story teller or artist for their audience.

      As movies became a dominant form of media, the experience of those producing allowed for new and interesting ways of making movies that hadn't been considered before. 3D, like adding colour, or audio to those original moving pictures, adds another tweak that can be used by the director to do something different with their camera work, and at the same time, restricts them from doing others.

      Just as high definition is going to mean the end of actors with skin blemishes (imho), 3D will mean the end of certain camera angles that cause eye strain. Current 3D movie direction is still in its infancy.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:Well, Yes by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      I noticed that too, it seems like 20 years ago there were a lot more people my age that went to the movies. Now it's all just a bunch of youngins.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    10. Re:Well, Yes by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Social? Movies? If anything, the people around me are the biggest reason why I would NOT go.

      Quite seriously: When I hear "social", I'd expect some kind of interaction. Sitting next to each other watching something and not having anything in common but to be annoyed by the chattering teens behind us is not what I'd consider a social experience.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Well, Yes by Hucko · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are still paying to watch the ads. I don't mind watching a preview or two, but sitting in the cinema and being told downloading is stealing is a bit hard to take.

      Paying to be told the industry is dying, when the apparent evidence is to the contrary... /facepalm

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    12. Re:Well, Yes by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Insightful

          Actually, that number is terribly skewed.

          90% of the population aren't actively collecting unemployment. You only count as "unemployed" if you are collecting unemployment. Those who don't, either because they couldn't (the company fought against unemployment benefits), or have fallen off the books because their unemployment ran out, don't count. They also don't count if they seem to willingly be unemployed. Like, a housewife or retired person isn't counted in the unemployment figures, because they chooses to stay home. The real unemployement number is closer to 25% unemployed but looking.

          "underemployed" don't count either. If you were a senior IT person for years making 6 figures, and have a wealth of experience, but can't get a job doing IT, and went to work for McDonalds making minimum wage, you aren't unemployed. You may not be able to afford your bills, but you're not unemployed. Those count for a very substantial number, probably 15% to 20%.

          There are groups who assemble the more realistic numbers, and they really aren't pretty. Of all my friends, who were gainfully employed a few years ago, less than 10% are working now. The rest are sending out resumes every day, and spending their unemployment money driving around to find work. That includes myself.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  3. Avatar pains by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know about anyone else but I've seen a lot of 3d movies before, but Avatar gave me a splitting headache at the end of it. I don't know quite what it is about it, but watching it was painful (not being sarcastic BTW.).

    1. Re:Avatar pains by lolocaust · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen Avatar twice (both times were because someone else wanted me to accompany them when they went to see it). Once in a regular theatre, and the second time in an Imax theatre.

      I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting. The cheapo cinema used circular polarization, which was more comfortable and caused me no eye strain at all. Perhaps something similar happened to you?

      --
      Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
    2. Re:Avatar pains by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I got headaches only with the Imax version because of the linear polarization which meant if my head was tilted even slightly to the side, there would be ghosting.

      Actually, IMAX 3D uses circular polarization.

      I saw the film both at a normal theater (polarized) and IMAX 3D and found the IMAX version to be much more enjoyable. The bigger screen made the entire think much more enveloping: It was more like being in the middle of the action instead of looking through a window into the 3D world.

      That's my biggest beef with 3D, actually. Many theaters just aren't built with it in mind. If there is anything in your field of vision that is either illuminated or obstructing the screen, it will completely destroy the illusion of depth and drive your eyes and mind nuts. Even just the black border of the theater wall against the screen was enough to distract at times (as I said above, the "through a window" effect).

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    3. Re:Avatar pains by Zalbik · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://lmgtfy.com?q=circular polarization

    4. Re:Avatar pains by Shirakawasuna · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wikipedia is wrong. IMAX 3D is and has been linear polarization for quite some time now (when it wasn't the shuttered glasses). The only way it could be accurate is if IMAX switched within the last few weeks, which would not represent an Avatar experience anyways.


      I know this because I've worked at an IMAX theater for ~4 years. Here's a quick test to see if the 3D glasses you are using are circularly or linearly polarized:

      1. Get to pairs of glasses (borrow a friend's).

      2. Place one of the lenses of one pair in front of one from the other so that you're looking through two lenses at once.

      3. Rotate the glasses, see if the light getting through cycle through black/clear (a period of 180).


      Linearly polarized glasses will do this, since it relies on the angle at which you overlap the glasses/projected image. Circularly polarized will not and will be either all-dark or all-light regardless of rotation.

  4. Own them all! by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blade Runner U.S. theatrical version
    Blade Runner Criterion Edition
    Blade Runner U.S. broadcast version
    Blade Runner Director's Cut
    Blade Runner 25th Anniversary Edition
    Blade Runner Ultimate Collector's Edition
    Blade Runner 3D
    Blade Runner 3D BluRay
    Blade Runner 3D Enhanced Sensory Edition
    Blade Runner 3D Olifactory Special Release
    Blade Runner Ridley Scott Memorial Edition

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Own them all! by hansamurai · · Score: 3, Funny

      Blade Runner The Unicorn was a Replicant Edition

      --
      Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    2. Re:Own them all! by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about a spoiler warning, ass.

      ;)

    3. Re:Own them all! by bickerdyke · · Score: 2, Funny

      No need to worry.

      In the next release it will be cut out again completly.

      --
      bickerdyke
  5. Perish the thought? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hollywood pursing a fad for money?!?!?

    But seriously, Avatar is the only movie I've seen in modern 3D. It added slightly to the movie. A few scenes stood out for some pretty cool 3D effects, but most of the time I was thinking "This just looks like flat 2D layers set slightly above one another." But I don't see it as anything more than a novelty. Hollywood is jumping on it because it's a way to get away with charging $15 for a ticket instead of the usual $9. But it won't make a bad script better. It won't make a bad actor deliver a better performance. It won't make Michael Bay any less an annoying hack. And it won't get me into the theater to see a movie that I normally wouldn't have wanted to see in regular 2D.

    Cool shades, though.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. I am an audience member. by onion2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I go to the cinema a lot. I watch pretty much all the new releases. I always have. I don't agree that all 2D-to-3D releases are bad. I've rather enjoyed them. Ok, Avatar's 3D effect was better than Alice's. Nevermind, I paid my money and I walked away at the end of it feeling I'd had a good time nonetheless.

    I certainly wasn't under the impression anyone had scammed me. I've read the article. I'm still not. I got what I paid for.

    --
    http://twitter.com/onion2k
  7. The glasses suck terribly by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have yet to go to a 3D movie where I didn't leave with a headache from the glasses themselves. I wear prescription eyeglasses, and without fail before the movie is over I am sore from the poor fit of the 3D glasses. Some of them fit so poorly that they end up putting all their weight on the end of my nose to make life even more interesting.

    I think next time I'll save the $3 and see the movies in 2D instead. The theaters should be able to provide us with more comfortable glasses by now...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  8. 3D is stupid anyway by BetterSense · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing wrong with 2D. Our brain fills in the depth. Been doing it for eons with other types of pictures.

    There is an entire art of photographic/cinematographic composition that relates to how lines, shapes and form relate to the frame. What does that mean where the 'frame' is all fucked up on the edges from the lameass "3D" effect? Better just put everything in the middle. OOh, that shark looked like he was coming right at me!!!1111

    What people really want is honest-to-god VR. The full immersion kind with goggles with eye-tracking and head tracking, soundstage-shifting binaural sound. Come up with something like that and I'll take interest, but the 3D fad is just stupid, stop it please.

  9. Mostly hype, but can be done effectively by hattig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, Avatar was made made in 3D and it shows, it was very watchable even with the glasses (dunno what the article's author Alexander Murphy was going on about, his eyesight must be ruined already). Didn't notice any problems but it didn't redefine my life.

    Converting 2D films into 3D is just not going to be the same. Even if you can extract objects from scenes into an accurate 3D space, you're going to have to generate content that is obscured in the 2D original, and this is surely going to be noticeable?! The article suggests it would look layered, like an old 80s arcade game with parallax scrolling.

    Maybe 3D scenes could be re-rendered, an option for Titanic 3D surely, but you're not going to get any better 3D depth when Kate Winslet is posing for the painting, only the CG parts (and reworking them is probably a good idea anyway).

    At least the 3D sports broadcasts are being done with proper 3D cameras.

  10. But it is +1 better by gregg · · Score: 3, Funny

    3 > 2 so 3D must be better than 2D. Personally, I waiting until they 'turn it up' to 11D.

    1. Re:But it is +1 better by EvilXenu · · Score: 2, Funny

      I could watch 44DDs all day long.

  11. The hidden perk of 3D... by Manip · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People might think 3D sucks or isn't ready, but if anything gets movies to be shot with two cameras then I hugely support it. While I agree that today, right now, we lack the technology to display 3D well, we might have that technology soon and if we haven't shot our stuff correctly we won't be able to enjoy it that way.

    Plus we might get digital media that allows us to "look around" during a live movie. Can you imagine watching Lord of The Rings about being able to turn your head to get an entirely new perspective of what is going on? Plus the cameras can be stitched together to get EVEN HIGHER resolution than HD.

    1. Re:The hidden perk of 3D... by cptdondo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bah humbug. Most HD stuff is indistinguishable from DVD stuff, at least for normal people at normal viewing distances on normal equipment.

      I don't see a movie shown in a "holotank" or whatever Heinlein called it. You'd have to have cameras all around, and then stitch them together.

      I abhor the current fixation in Hollywood on big-bang graphics and effects at the expense of any real plots or enticing characters.

      Heck, get a copy of Metropolis; shot in 1927 without any fancy technology, it still leaves you deeply disturbed and affected, far more than most of the hi-tech hi-def crap that rolls out of Hollywood today.

    2. Re:The hidden perk of 3D... by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most HD stuff is indistinguishable from DVD stuff, at least for normal people at normal viewing distances on normal equipment.

      I think you meant crap equipment. I absolutely (and my wife) can tell the difference between a DVD and a bluray at 1080p.

      And since we still have SD in one room, we continue to see the difference.

      I abhor the current fixation in Hollywood on big-bang graphics and effects at the expense of any real plots or enticing characters.

      You must not be seeing the right movies then, because there are plent which are more than big-bang graphics and effects. And as far as 3d goes, i think Avatar shows it can add something, when used properly. It will take filmmakers time to figure out how to use 3d, just like it did 2d, but they'll get there. I'm sure the people said the same thing when they first added color. Sure, B&W might have a great plot, but you're not as immersed as you are with color. I think the same will be said for 3.

      Heck, get a copy of Metropolis; shot in 1927 without any fancy technology, it still leaves you deeply disturbed and affected, far more than most of the hi-tech hi-def crap that rolls out of Hollywood today.

      You're blaming technlogy for bad movies, when hollywood is doing what its ALWAYS done; making a ton of crap with a few gems. If you haven't been able to find great films in recent years, I suspect you're the problem, not hollywood. They are out there, you just need to find them.

  12. Bad summary. by kurokame · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The summary overlooks some important points in the article, thereby giving a completely different take-home message. For example: "The good Avatar 3D experience happened because James Cameron is a technically savvy director, and thus the 3D aspect of Avatar was technically well executed. When done right it allows the viewer to more seamlessly enjoy a 3D film."

    The author is not arguing that 3D is a scam. The author is arguing that people are jumping on the 3D bandwagon because they smell money while not always delivering a good product. Specifically:

    * Retrofitting 2D movies for 3D does not work. You can fake it, but the result is crappy if you didn't actually shoot it for 3D.
    * There's no point to using 3D if you're not going to use it creatively. The result will be worse than if you just kept your mediocre movie in 2D.
    * The quality of the result is strongly affected by the quality of the 3D implementation.

    And that's all, folks. It's a good article to read if you're not familiar with the issues.

  13. 4D the ULTIMATE EXPERIENCE by wsanders · · Score: 5, Funny

    Think of the advantages: With 4D movies, if the movie sucks, you'll be able to get the three hours of your life back that you just wasted.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  14. Where 3D works by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    3D works for computer graphic animation, given twice the rendering capacity you would otherwise have. It's pretty simple to move the "camera" point and render again. There will be some tuning of textures, etc., to look right when viewed simultaneously from two camera points. So, given sufficient computer capacity you can get a 3D movie without significant additional labor, and it's the labor that is really expensive.

    3D works for new live action, given proper cinematography.

    Conversion of existing 2D film to 3D is garbage, and should rightly be called a scam. Remember colorization? It was mostly done because the tax write-offs on "new" film were more lucrative to the film company than on legacy film. It wasn't that the audience experience would be enhanced by fake color. When the tax law changed, colorization mostly went away.

    It's not an experience you can't have in your home. Samsung has a "3D ready" 55 inch TV on the market now, for $2300. The price will fall quickly enough.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:Where 3D works by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would imagine they did save the data and backups of the software. But don't underestimate the complexity of this task. There is a lot of one-off software and if you don't have someone who understands it still in house, you might be stuck. When I was at Pixar a technical director had to know 29 computer languages, due to the 30-year continuous evolution of their software. I think in the case of Toy Story there was a lot of conscious work put into keeping the film in a state that it could be re-rendered, simply because the folks involved knew how much faster computers would be in a few years, and they hoped to be able to make a sequel - it was a key to selling Pixar as a film studio worth the investment.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  15. Re:Well, duh by Enry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll pay more to see a movie in true IMAX (and there are a few theaters in my area that do that), but the regular movie theater charges extra for the 3D glasses but doesn't list what the surcharge is. Last I asked, the surcharge was $5, or an increase of almost 50%. Not worth it for a pair of glasses.

  16. New tech by Sitnalta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    3D isn't inherently bad, but it's still in the gimmick phase. The simple fact is it's a new technology (anaglyphic doesn't count) and filmmakers aren't that familiar with it (or hate it just as much as you do.) So you're going to see several movies crash head-first into that learning curve.

    And, hey, if 3D makes you sick or hurts, watch the 2D version. It's cheaper.

  17. Alice by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can anyone tell me what was wrong with Alice's 3D exactly? I saw both versions and the 3D one was far, far better. I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.

    I don't like the fact they encourage you to leave the glasses in a recycling bin then try and charge you for a new pair each time now. I also don't like how much more 3D films cost, but personally, 3D is about the only thing I applaud Hollywood for- all 3D films I've seen so far have been stunning, and finally, they're actually doing something to give me a reason to go to the cinema again, rather than just trying to sue pirates into giving them money without actually innovating, or trying to sell me HD copies that don't look that much better than the upscaled DVD copies of films I have already, only for twice the price.

    I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way- they get told off for trying to protect a dated business model in the harshest way possible, and now it seems if they do something fresh to earn their money like so many people, they get slagged of for it too.

    I feel dirty defending Hollywood, but is it so bad that they've decided to offer a new way of viewing movies, that for many people, like me, does in fact make the films that much more fun and enjoyable to watch, without getting rid of the classic 2D versions for those who prefer to keep watching it in 2D?

  18. Re:Bad? What about it was bad? by b0bby · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have to agree with the summary; I thought that Avatar's 3D was well done and unobtrusive, but I saw Alice in Wonderland this weekend & the 3D was really annoying to me. It's hard to describe but it seems like moving objects in the foreground get kind of transparent. I had noticed it during the 3D ad before Avatar, and it made me think that Avatar would be the same, but since Avatar was ok I figured maybe they'd just overdone it a bit for the trailer. I liked Alice, but I was wishing I was in the 2D version for most of the movie. The rest of my family, however, had no complaints, so I'm probably just weird.

  19. Depends on Which 3D Tech... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are three main 3D formats out there, IMAX 3D, RealD, and Dolby 3D. IMAX 3D uses linear polarization, RealD uses circular polarization, and Dolby 3D uses the Red/Blue color separation. In the first two, the glasses appear light gray, while the last has obviously colored lenses. I saw Avatar in the first two and Alice in the third.

    My personal preference is for the polarized techniques. The IMAX was definitely the most immersive. The Dolby 3D seemed too dark and sometimes lighting made me aware of reflections on the inside of the lenses. Additionally, in the Dolby 3D, some of the colors, particularly greens, just seemed off.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Depends on Which 3D Tech... by Tacvek · · Score: 5, Informative

      The IMAX3D is pure marketing. The technology used is not standardized. In some locations they use linear polarization, in others they use circular polarization, and in some places they even use LCD shutter glasses.

      RealD always uses circular polarization, although the glasses polarization is actually slightly elliptical. If you tilt you head while wearing them the brightness of the film can vary some, but ghosting does not occur. Of course, tilting your head by too much will destroy the image. (Thing about watching the move with your head at a 90 degree angle to the horizon. The images would then appear to overlap "vertically" rather than horizontally, and since they don't when overlapped) like that...)

      Dolby 3D does not use the old 2 color glasses trick, but does use a related trick, where there are two red wavelengths used, two blue wavelengths used, and 2 green wavelengths used. One set of RGB wavelengths is intended for each eye, and the glasses contain filters so only the correct light for each eye enters. This can cause some issues with color perception, as at most one of those could be tuned to the optimal wavelengths for each of the cones in the eye. Further the fact that the different eyes are seeing different wavelengths can result in different perceptions of brightness of two "equal" reds for example.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  20. It's early in the industry, consistency will come. by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A former vfx animator here and cinema fan. I watched the three hour spectacle that is avatar in RealD with the circular polarized glasses and came away with no ill effects. The brightness was adequate, the new glasses let through more light than the old horizontally polarized glasses, if I remember the older IMAX experience correctly. I also thought the 3D in alice was fine, they did not go with the temptation to put the Cheshire Cat in the forward plane, which they could have because he is a floating entity that can be shown off without touching the sides of the screen, like the bird critter from Captain EO that made you cross-eyed. (with the re-release coming up you can do go to Disneyland and see what I am talking about)

    I do agree that 2D -> 3D conversions of older films are the equivalent of colorizing a black and white film ted turner style, it shouldn't be done out of respect for the original film. But the industry will always exploit their properties as much as they can. If you don't like it, don't watch it. And I also agree that movies intended for stereo showings should be shot with two lenses, not converted later. Both processes bring up multiple difficulties in post production, in different ways. With true stereo shooting you can't fake nearly as much stuff, you have to map it in 3D space rather than faking comps in 2D post. With fake 3D you can do more VFX compositing in 2D, but then a thousand monkeys will spend a thousand hours rotoing into 3D.

    Last year at NAB I saw some incredible demos of 30" - 50" polarized plasma sets. Every other horizontal line was polarized opposite, and with 1080 lines there was not an appreciable degradation of resolution per eye and it looked amazing. The brightness was there too since LCDs and plasmas can put out a lot of light. The first models were selling for $10,000 etc. but the price will come way down as they figure out how to manufacture it more inexpensively. As a long time fan of stereo imaging, I am looking forward to the new stereo blu ray format. It uses the same RealD circularly polarized glasses. In fact I used the RealD glasses I got from the RealD demo theater earlier in the day. The RealD theaters are powered by the Sony CineAlta 4K projectors...really nice stuff and affordable compared to what digital projection used to cost.

  21. Serves you right by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you're douchey enough to go see the movies that get 3d-ified, and they suck, you only have yourself to blame.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  22. Re:but 3D home theater is next. by hrimhari · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's an interesting notion, but I don't think that nostalgia would sell as much as quality + novelty does.

    Their current strategy is to show it first, cash as much as they can in 2 months, then launch it on DVD to cash in more, then finally go to TV to squeeze the last drops.

    It works quite well, actually. The real problem is that every model has a limited growth potential, and the movie theaters have reached theirs. They're now trying to insert a new model to increase their growth: 3D.

    It's not a scam. It may or may not give you more fun than 2D. If it does, and you're willing to pay the extra, then it works for them.

    If you prefer to pay less, watch in 2D.

    Sometimes the 3D will be good, sometimes less so. Just as sometimes a movie is good, sometimes less so. What's the big deal?

    --
    http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
  23. Stop calling it '3D' by johnlcallaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a '3d Simulation'. The people on the right side of the theater don't get a different perspective than those on the left. Avatar was not a '3d' movie, it was a 'simulated 3d' movie.

    I kinda like the 'depth' that the effect brings to the screen. But what drives me nuts is that I can't bring out of focus images into focus. I think this is why I get headaches, my eyes try to focus on the 'close' stuff or the 'far' stuff and can't. Avatar drove me nuts with the stupid bugs 'in front' of the screen. I don't mind things flying out at me, they are gone quickly enough. But when things are made to appear right in front of my face and stay there, my eyes want to focus on them and can't. I found that my eyes were tired after the movie, and I wondered if that was from an unconscious attempt to focus on things that weren't in focus. My wife said she didn't notice it such an effect at all, and she didn't get a headache.

    I saw Alice in Wonderland without the 3d simulation, and in the future will probably skip 3d simulated movies if I have an option. Although I might try an Imax version of Avatar if it's still out in a few weeks after reading some of the responses about not getting headaches at those theaters.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  24. Re:Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Last I asked, the surcharge was $5, or an increase of almost 50%. Not worth it for a pair of glasses.

    Worse still: when I saw my first new 3D movie in the local theater I asked what the extra cost was for. They told me it was a surcharge for the glasses, so I kept the glasses. When I returned with my glasses to see another film in 3D I was told I still had to pay the extra surcharge since now it wasn't for the glasses, but a cost for the upgraded theater.

  25. milking it by __aaoyac5342 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah I definitely agree that Alice in 3D was quite terrible 3D work. I hardly noticed I was in a 3D show other than the fact I was wearing the stupid glasses and that the screen looked much darker than normal. Maybe it was the theater I went to but I felt like they had somehow conned me into paying an extra $5 to see the not as good version of the movie.

  26. Do what I did for my daughter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You should do what I did for my 3yo daughter. After the second 3D movie in which we received the cheap plastic one-size-fits-a-few glasses, we opted not to recycle them in the drop box. When we got home, I popped out the lenses of the 3D glasses and the lenses out of some old sunglasses my daughter didn't wear anymore. I trimmed up the polarized film using the lenses from the sunglasses as a mask. then popped the new polarized lenses into the old sunglasses. Now, until she outgrows her old sunglasses, she has a custom pair of 3D glasses. compatible with all RealD-3D projectors.

    I imagine you could do something similar, possibly even attaching the filters to your existing prescription glasses.

  27. Dislike it as well by Strider- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dislike the 3D movies as well. Though, in my case, it was because of how they played with the depth of field. Much of Avatar was stunningly beautiful, but half of the time my ADD mind wanted to look at things that Cameron didn't want me to look at, and were thus out of focus. The strain of trying to focus on things that my brain was telling me I should be able to focus on, but couldn't, drove me nuts.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  28. Its high time for higher framerate by electrogeist · · Score: 2, Informative

    I saw Avatar in 3D (twice) and I do like the new polarization method versus the old color seperation method, which always made colors weird for me. However the low FPS of movies is much more annoying with 3D. Quick moving objects in a close z-axis really strobe across the screen

  29. Re:but 3D home theater is next. by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > The problem is that the business model you are talking about is being destroyed by piracy.

    Nonsense.

    The problem is that their business model is being destroyed by bean counter filmmakers, cinema
    management that has no clue what their audience want and a healthy market in SALES of content.

    I can buy the movie for less on the day of it's DVD release.
    I can wait for the price to drop to half price or $5.
    I can rent it from redbox or blockbuster.
    I can put it in my Netflix queue.
    I can wait for it to get on cable.

    "theives" are the least of the worries here.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  30. Re:Well, duh by Tekfactory · · Score: 3, Funny

    So after the movie you kept the theater right?

  31. IMAX is useless for most movies. by maillemaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find IMAX to be useless for non-landscape footage.

    Yes, IMAX is great when you are looking out over an ocean, or a moonscape, or a desert, or whatever, when you are simply "taking in a scene".

    But IMAX is terrible for movies where there are characters on either end of the screen talking to each other.

    For example, we went to see one of the Harry Potter movies in IMAX. It is like watching tennis - you constantly have to drive your attention, and turn your head, from the left to the right, in order to follow the dialog. And while you are looking at the person speaking on one side of the screen, you are missing the facial and other reaction by the characters on the OTHER side of the screen.

    Unless a film was shot for IMAX, just blowing up the image size does not make it better.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  32. If you have headaches or can't see 3D... by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... It is probably means vision problems: http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=253449

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  33. Not necessarily polarized lenses by MDMurphy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Geek that I am, I tried to observe the polarization in the glasses while waiting for Avatar to start. Not noticing anything I used my phone and looked up Dolby 3D ( which was used in this theater ) and found it doesn't use polarized lenses, but different color filters.

    Unlike the old cereal box red/blue glasses though, they block part of what we see as a particular color, so we're still seeing some of each of the blocked colors in each eye, just not the full frequency range. Dichroic filters are incorporated into the lenses to pass/reflect the appropriate frequencies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infitec

  34. Re:but 3D home theater is next. by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a treadmill that the movie theaters can't get ahead on. Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill, they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etc

    That's a nice thought, but we live in an age where people answer their phone while watching a movie. I'd be all for a cinema that disciplined or ejected these people for disturbing other patrons. Unfortunately, those people seem to be in the majority now, so by pissing off the cellphone talkers, they would be eliminating their major source of income. It seems like an intractable problem, unless etiquette somehow becomes trendy all of a sudden.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  35. Re:Of course it's all a bit scam... by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    $10 for (about $1.00 worth cost-wise) soda and popcorn

    A large bag of potatos cost a dollar or two, depending on potato, store,m etc. A single potato will make two $1.00 bags of McDonald's or Burger King fries, or a whole $4 bag of potato chips. Of course, you have to make the fries and chips yourself.

    Soda? It's just carbonated sugar water and costs almost nothing to manufacture. A large fountain coke costs the restaraunt or theater a penny or two; the cup costs them more than the contents.

    People will pay a dollar or more for sixteen ounces of water, while my water bill for the whole month, including bathing and washing dishes and clothes, is about twenty bucks.

    In short, people are stupid and wasteful. What gets me is the guy walking down the street drinking bottled water who won't give a buck to a homeless guy. He'll gladly give a rich man a dollar for nothing at all, but refuse to help the destitute.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!