Slashdot Mirror
Has 3D Film-Making Had Its Day?
dryriver sends this hopeful note from the BBC:
"'It's three years since audiences around the world swarmed into cinemas to see James Cameron's Avatar. It rapidly became the biggest grossing film of all time, in part because of its ground-breaking digital 3D technology. But, in retrospect, Avatar now seems the high-point of 3D movie-making, with little since 2009 to challenge its achievement. Three years on, has the appeal of 3D gone flat? Nic Knowland has been a respected director of photography in Britain for 30 years. He's seen cinema trends and fads come and go, but never one for which he's had so little enthusiasm as 3D. 'From the cinematographer's perspective it may offer production value and scale to certain kinds of film. But for many movies it offers only distraction and some fairly uncomfortable viewing experiences for the audience. I haven't yet encountered a director of photography who's genuinely enthusiastic about it.'"
It's not popular because it's false advertising. Holograms or bust.
Nor will it EVER have its day until there is a real 3D display system.
Now, stereoscopic filmmaking may be over, but that's hardly 3D except in the eyes of the bewildered.
I guarantee you, when a 3D production can be made, distributed and enjoyed, the day of 3D will begin, and it isn't likely to *ever* go back to 2D (or the pale imitation that is stereoscopy.)
Also, happy solstice + 3. I wish you a suitably bacchanalian event, complete with frolicking, consensual partner of your choice.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Stupid ass gimmick is still stupid. Doesn't make a crap movie any better. And doesn't quite look right.
Money wasted on 3d could have been spent on something better.
But i don't think it's going away yet. Now we're starting to see remakes of old movies... BUT NOW IN 3D! We run it thru our shitty 3d conversion. Call it a new movie. Charge full price for it again. AND renew the copyright date on it! win win win win win for the studios.
it added nothing and enhanced everything -- a lot.
The use of such high visual fidelity should be for things where visuals trump all. Sports (god I hate sports) benefit because you're watching the action. Nature shows (various National Geographic things or the Planet Earth series) benefit because... it's fucking nature and the only sensory experience you can get from a TV is sight and sound. Action flicks or CGI wankfests (Transformers, blah), again, because you're watching the spectacles, not the shitpoor Bruckheimer dialogue & acting.
But now what's the point of high FPS in a drama? Would Downton Abbey be that much better in 3D? Is a comedy going to be more hilarious in 1080p?
As much as I hate to say it, the 3D format for film will probably be the future. Even if this current fad dies down, the next iteration of 3D technology will probably carry it forward into the future. It's essentially the next logical step in production, the same way colorization was when it first came out. This is not to say I LIKE the 3D element in films that have been produced recently - I have seen The Hobbit and the Life of Pi in the past two weeks, neither of which where really enhanced by 3D. In fact, when I saw the Avengers in 3D, I wanted to puke from the crappy usage of post rendering. However, if you look back at early usage of colorization, it was gimmicky, and often extremely unrealistic. It took many many years for it to develop into an actual viable tool. Before everyone starts whining about how awful 3D is, there are many techniques for proper 3D rendering that modern artists haven't mastered, or have actively chosen to ignore. As an example, using deep focus to prevent blurring of items in the frame helps the human eye in 3D movies, but it contradicts pretty much most of what modern film theory tells us so far, and as such it's how we've learned to both make and perceive film. It's going to take a great deal of re-working and re-imagining to make 3D an augmentation, and not just an attraction. And this isn't counting the technological constraints of 3D, which still haven't quite made it to critical mass yet. The point is, see The Hobbit in 2D. You'll be much happier.
The sooner it goes away the better.
The primary deleterious effect of 3D in my local movie theaters is that the 2 or 3 popular movies at any time now occupy 4 or 6 screens, for the 3D and non 3D versions. This pushes out 2 or 3 other options, so there are fewer options available. This is not a good thing.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I wish the option of 2D at 48 fps was available.
For one, it's uncomfortable. They eye is constantly seeking, working to maintain the picture, and still there are lots of spots where the depth feels completely out-of-place and breaks all visual immersion. Also, having to wear silly glasses on top of glasses doesn't make it any more fun. Secondly, directors still use it as a "LOOK AT THIS EFFECT!! FUCKING LOOK AT IT!" - gimmick, totally ignoring all logic and coherence and making every effort for that particular scene to pop out as much as possible -- switching constantly between normal, non-pronounced effects on calm scenes and then the sudden onslaught of totally overdone effects on action scenes makes for a really jarring experience.
More to the point, why are people paying so much to buy 3D TVs? What a complete and utter waste of your hard earnt money...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
There are major, but short-lived, bursts of stereoscopic 3D movies seem to come every 15-20 years or so, as another new generation is available to be briefly wowed by a technology that's not new and that doesn't really add anything to the moviegoing experience. People get over it and we move on.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
that 3D works well when combined with HFR and XD. In action sequences, though, The Hobbit is just like any other action film: busy, overblown and not served well by all of the technology. The technology really shone however when just one or a few characters were on the screen. At times it was easy to forget one was watching a movie and to buy into the illusion of watching a live stage play.
The sooner it goes away the better.
Seconded. I *always* go see the 2D version of any movie I want to see.
And even those suffer, because of the scenes that are so obviously a gimmick for the 3D version. Very distracting and annoying, even in 2D.
Like so many other applications of technology, we need a better reason than "because we can".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
3D in movies is unlikely to advance further. I don't think the same can be said for video games, though. Video games have the complete scene data so instead of just having a few separate planes for action, the 3d is actually in 3d.
The big problem is that filming in 3d is costly, expensive, and requires innovation -- Avatar basically required James Cameron to invent his own 3d filming methods using his own money. It worked for him, but almost every other 3d movie is a shitty 2d->3d conversion which simply cannot compare to a full 3d experience.
The problem are the bean counter and sales bozos that rule most companies. Never asking what would make a great product, but rather keen on making shit as fast and cheap as possible. The result : annoying shit products. In this case bad 3D movies. Avatar was the high point 'cause much effort was put into its making. You need to know how to use 3D. You need to invest time and money. You need to pay attention to details (even before you start shooting). Too much for the Hollywood TRASH churned out every minute.
Thats's the problem. 3D is awesome. If it would be used correctly and wisely.
was awesome
I know they target the normal vision for these movies, but the fact is that a huge amount of people don't have normal vision and can't watch these 3d movies well. I have astigmatism, and most others I have talked to with a string astigmatism have a hard time with these movies. Personally, my eyes can't focus well, but I know others that get dizzy or headaches. It isn't main steam because they ignored a huge population base!
I have a 3d vision projector. Playing Skyrim in 3d is pretty badass. Video games have to store the render geometry somewhere, so it is available to use to create 2 views into a single render scene. No new tech needed, no hard to use filming techniques required, no massive infrastructure investment necessary.
The same projector, when used in movies, generally sucks. Avatar is basically impossible to buy, and the other movies are mostly terrible. For movies, 3d seems best on documentaries (especially space) where it adds an extra tiny hint of wonder.
I thought The Avengers kicked ass in 3D.
If you want good stereoscopic 3D, you need good contrast and high resolution details, which only a white screen and shutter glasses or Dolby 3D (Infitec color notch filtering) can deliver. IMAX, Real3d and other silver screen polarization technologies look washed out and have vignette issues. Don't take my word for it, see Hobbit at a theater that didn't chose cheep glasses over image quality.
The other problem is that creating 3D without causing eye strain requires inter ocular distance management that many movie producers don't know about (or care about). Hobbit got it right, most films do not.
The third problem is bad films jumping on the 3D bandwagon to make money are re-giving it a B-movie gimmick reputation.
Best 3D films so far are Coroline, Frankenweenie, Hobbit, Monster House, Dispicable Me, and Avatar. Pixar films are way too conservative to be interesting. I totally agree that the choppy editing style is not compatible with good 3D.
I don't care whether it's 2D or 3D, or even wowza effin' holograms: it doesn't matter. What matters is the story. Shit, son, I can be thoroughly entertained by a book - imagination required. The vehicle of delivery means naught if the story doesn't compel. If the story is compelling by itself, I don't need the video embellishments. One could say that if you, as a film maker, have to resort to some form of 3D to draw an audience, that you have failed: you should not rely on the presentation to rescue your ass. Unfortunately, we'll have to learn this lesson over and over again.
Saying that high resolution, fps, and 3D don't belong in a drama is like saying a high quality sound system is only appropriate for rock and hip hop and what is the point of using one to play Mozart. The problem with 3D isn't that it is a gimmick it is that it's been marketed as one and it is a relatively poor gimmick. It isn't some stunt to deliver better graphics. Watching a movie in 2D vs 3D is like watching a play vs watching a movie. You are suspending belief which is fine and there is content worth suspending belief to consume. But I'd rather not have to and that same content would be enhanced if I didn't have to. Close one eye. It isn't a horrible view of the world but it isn't what things look like. For the most part you don't notice the world is 3D vs 2D and things aren't jumping out at you all the time. In most cases the difference is subtle. But it is there and there is no content that isn't more enjoyable looking the way it is supposed to.
Just because something isn't flashy doesn't mean the experience isn't enhanced by a high quality image, at high fps (subconsciously you see the flicker on 2D too and it tires your eyes), and 3D. The entire point of a movie is the same as a book. To escape into an alternate reality for just a bit. Look around you. Anything less three dimensional, lower resolution, at a lower frame rate, or with a lower quality of audio is less immersive. The closer a drama hits on these points, the more you feel the moment and the more dramatic it is. The more in the moment I am, the more hilarious the comedy.
Is it more dramatic when a jewelry box is opened to reveal cut glass or the sparkle of a diamond? The visual impact has a dramatic impact quite aside from the monetary one. Why would dramatic film be any different?
can't be made better with 3D.
Instead of remking shit like Red Dawn into a bigger pile of shit 20 year later give us some fucking good shows and fuck the 3D. No wonder so many people pirate. They'd rather pirate in the privacy of their own home then be seen in public watching crap.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
What I mean with drama is that the kind of subtleties, the emotional responses, the dialogue, those things are not enhanced with greater FPS, resolutions, or stereoscopic "3D". It's a seriously flat plateau as far bang for buck when it comes to quality in genre. Yeah, you probably don't want to watch an old realmedia video with massive blocking artifacts and muffled sound but once you hit SD resolution and stereo sound, that's enough. Minor jump in enjoyability for DVD quality but then after that is just a waste of storage space, bandwidth, and/or CPU use.
Also, I would say that for any sound, when given quality source files, higher quality sound systems is always better for for anything. You (a rhetorical you) could say that modern, overcompressed and low dynamic range music wouldn't benefit as much and that's probably true. ...but then I'd also say that anything over stereo would be a waste since I only have two ears anyway but whatevs.
Anyway, I feel you're missing the important distinction between emotional connection with viewer and visually immersing the viewer. Just as I don't need to be 1080p with 7.1 surround sound to mourn the death of a character, I don't even need it to be real. It could be CGI, a handdrawn comic, or just a combination of letters on a surface. It's not the number of pixels or how many are flashed at me in a second that regulates the impact it has on me.
I'm tired of another one trying to prove that 3D is money grab scheme, or just pompous extra to pay more for ticket. Essentially, *any* technical improvement ends in that bin, so please stop speculate. It all depends how it's used.
I have seen quite a number of 3D movies for these last years and as usual, it all depends on talent. "Prometheus" was just so well done in 3D - you can discuss about acting, script, but 3D was awesomely done here. Thing there and there, not overdone, but done at right time and place it made wonders.
"Hobit" 3D with all 48 FPS was also beautiful. It took time to adapt, but when I "forgot" that it moves too fast, it was amazing.
"Transfomers 3" in same time was kinda shitty, only few scenes like done specially for 3D looked good, but also not immersion, but "ohh nice 3D demo" wise (not that I'm against nice 3D demos, but that's not worth the ticket).
What about 3D scientific movies (nature movies, ocean movies)? What about Cirque du Soleil new 3D movie, which looks so artistic that I can't hardly see money maker there? What about Life of Pi?
Look, 3D is technology, essentially it's a tool - as 48 FPS, or Doubly Surround. It all matters how it's used. 3D won't make shallow movie enjoyable to me. But it sure can make movie I like more spectacular.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Just a few years ago I'd never have believed that there'd be 3D movies available every day, and that I'd not CARE enough to go see a single one of them.
Yet that's what's happened. Still a 3D virgin. It's not 3D per se, just that all big budget movies seem to be crap. Only so many times you can visit a theatre and leave disappointed.
The studios seem to be catering to an audience of attention deficient MTV-generation teenagers, with predictable shaved-down plots, storylines full of holes, same hollow stereotype characters populating every damn franchise.
Just look at what Hollywood has done to some of the greatest comic books of our time - it's like it was enough to just reproduce some of the most spectacular scenes in CGI, leaving a hollowed-out husk of a story just for excuse (and perhaps adding a romantic subplot, or some out-of-place sitcom where there should be none).
I still seem to remember a time when video games tried to mimic movies - it seems this has been completely reversed, with cheap CGI "action" taking the place of storytelling and character/atmosphere building.
...to force theaters to switch to digital projectors, and pay for it themselves. Digital distribution is orders of magnitude cheaper than 35mm film distribution, which is why the studios wanted the change. They could say to small independent theaters, "We're not sending you 35mm prints any more, so you better switch or you'll go out of business." But the MPAA needs the big chains like AMC and Regal as much as AMC and Regal need the MPAA. If AMC stops showing Universal's movies, AMC goes out of business, but so does Universal. There were originally negotiations about sharing the cost of the equipment rollout, but no agreement was ever reached. So the studios started making boatloads of 3D movies and hyping them to death so audiences would demand the change. Audiences are starting to catch on that it's just a gimmick, but it's done its job. Most theaters are digital now and the last few exceptions will be switching within the next year or so. And the studios didn't have to contribute a dime.
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
The sooner it goes away the better.
3D isn't going away for two big reasons:
1. Theaters have already invested in expensive new projectors and they're going to get their money's worth out of them, come hell or high water
2a. Animations look good in 3D. Old animations can be cheaply/easily re-rendered in 3D and put back into theaters.
2b. Because of 2a, even if everyone else forsakes 3D, kid-oriented animations will keep the pipeline full.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
About every 20 years filmmakers discover 3D, try it and then toss it aside again. Since ~1890. Yup, that's right, 1890 as in late 19th century. So far I've seen nothing to indicate this time is different...
I believe 4D (with all the physical effects) will be big and immersive in a few days. The boundaries between video gaming and media are narrowing through technology. Even if the movie studios are slow in adopting well known technology (like Stereoscopic 3D), there are going to be a few pioneers who will push the limits of entertainment.
It's not good enough, yet. It being distracting is evidence of that. Make it better, and it'll join color, high definition, surround sound, and other technological advances in their it-doesnt-make-movies-better-but-it-doesnt-hurt status. As always, story telling and character development will and always matter most.
Took my kids to see The Hobbit today. We planned to go to the 1330 conventional session but it was sold out. Neither I nor the kids wanted to see it in 3D at 1400 but it was either that or turn around and go home. The 3D session was far from full so that said something. After nearly 3 hours watching this movie I was mentally exhausted and more determined than ever not to watch another 3D movie.
Perhaps if the theaters didn't try to rape our wallets for the 3D glasses (every time), then - to add insult to injury - ask us to "please recycle them". I can't imagine the things the theaters sell cost more than a nickle to make in volume. Perhaps if they let us buy a permanent pair and/or bring our own. Ya, I get that's how they try to recoup their expenses for the 3D projectors, etc, but that's their problem, not mine.
Perhaps it's how the 3D isn't used to add anything of real value to the plot, movie or viewing experience - like watching the News on TV in high definition (seriously, a channel in my area advertises that as a plus). It's the frelling NEWS people. Avatar wasn't too bad in 3D, as it seemed to add interesting visual depth, but I also saw it in the theater in 2D for comparison and much preferred the movie and experience in 2D.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Saying that high resolution, fps, and 3D don't belong in a drama is like saying a high quality sound system is only appropriate for rock and hip hop and what is the point of using one to play Mozart.
With all due respect, your analogy was seriously flawed. Mozart is PRECISELY the kind of music I would want to listen to with super-duper Dolby Megastereo THX 15.3 sound of the highest quality available, because it has lots of different instruments playing at once, and die-hard Mozart fanboys love to hear all the notes played by every member of the orchestra, right down to the guy with the tambourine sitting at the back near the toilet doors.
I have the impression that around 50% of the people like 3D and the rest doesn't. Because theaters have invested a lot in 3D this means it won't go away for a long time.
-- Cheers!
Just saw "Rise of the Guardians" in 3D with the entire family. Visually fantastic, and without doubt the best 3D film I have seen. So the clear answer to the OP question is simply "No".
It may just be that the filmmakers need to learn how to best use 3D, the same way they had to learn using color.
and have fun African sound tracks : 3d movie
... and it was thirty years ago.
Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Avatar is basically impossible to buy,
Say what?
The problem is that the movie industry sees it as the new cash cow.
* When you look at good movies like Avatar and Hugo you will notice that there is such a thing as doing 3D right. The problem is that this is not the case for most movies.
* Most movies available are (bad) conversions of movies that where never produced with 3D in mind.
* It is ridiculous expensive not only the movie tickets but you need to see the prices they are asking for one stupid 3D movie here in this country. 28 a 35 euro's... And then they complain those things aren't selling even if a lot of people have 3D tv's at home (as you weren't able for a period of time to buy tv's without 3D)
I hated 3D because the active glasses made me sick and gave me headaches, with the passive versions I don't have a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor
When "Technicolor" was first announced to the world it was BIG NEWS.
Folks flocked to watch movies shot in "Technicolor" just because they were not black and white.
Even lousy movies, movies that are worthless/meaningless, raked in truckloads of cash, just because they were in color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Technicolor
Then, the fancy died down.
This 3D thing is of course no different.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Which film won all accolades last year?
Hints: it is mostly silent, black and white and most definitively 2D.
3D is the overall strategy of the big studios to keep milking the blockbuster, a cinematic product whose cost is spiraling out of control and will continue to make money only as long as the average public is shown new shiny gimmicks.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That's not a tambourine he's shaking.
APK = Dalek, you = Cybermen - Quoting Dr. Who episode "Doomsday" with video (lol):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysvNOmDMVvk
See position 2.50 on the YouTube player control... says it all about you Sardaukar86 vs. myself (you nobody "ne'er-do-well" troll who hasn't done SQUAT of note in computing who trolled me REPEATEDLY yesterday... & you failed!)
Proof?
Sure - See the link below with it - your NUMEROUS fails vs. myself where, of course? You were SHOWN failing for proof... as always.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3339513&cid=42391603
(ROTFLMAO!)
Especially since you're "the inferior species known as cybermen" (trolls actually).
APK
P.S.=> Quoting the Daleks regarding YOU, vs. myself? Ok:
"You are superior in only 1 respect - YOU ARE BETTER AT DYING", ala -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3339513&cid=42391603
... apk
I was searching if anyone mentioned hr3d, to mod him up. But unfortunately not, so instead of modding i have to mention it myself.
HR3D (high rank 3d display, where rank stands for high rank matrix used in calculations) is the future of 3d displays. It uses the parallax effect, but to much higher extend, using dual or triple stacked LCD displays. Where each display is serving as a special parallax barrier. HR3D is calculation intensive currently, this is why it is not widely adopted. But the computations costs will decrease, and it will become popular. It is not only two viewing angles for two eyes. It can have 16, 25, 36 or even more viewing angles. And you could look from far above, from far below, from far left from far right. And even look behind something. Though generating content for hr3d requires having 16, 25, 36 or even more cameras (each recording from another perspective) instead of just two cameras recording for two eyes. So it is mostly suitable for digital content, or simply put an OpenGL driver to display OpenGL graphics in real 3D. If a movie director wanted to make a movie, with actors, his camera would look like an insect head, due to so many cameras required. Or maybe some special 3D-camera that records everything and recalculated whole scene in 3D.
I am watching their progress, and can't wait when I'll be able to buy some hr3d display with OpenGL drivers for linux. Also if they went IPO I would buy their stock immediately.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
I watched Avatar. Managed to get through it. Had serious eye discomfort by the end. Haven't been to another 3D movie since. I don't like paying extra in order for the privilege of experiencing discomfort.
All that's happened as a result is I go to far fewer movies, as the local theatre is fond of putting as much in 3D as possible. So I guess the upside is that Hollywood's desire for this is saving me quite a lot of money.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
People said this about widescreen on VHS ('what's the point?')
Then they said it about surround sound ('why would I need this at home?')
Then it was about DVD ('This is just to get us off of VHS and buy all those films again')
Now it's about 3D - ingoring that many are quite happily watching Hugo in 3D at home right now. Yes, there actually have been a number of popular 3D films since Avatar - unless you have an axe to gring, it would seem. TinTin, Tron Legacy and even some of the post-jobs like Avengers are very, very good, to say nothing of 3D offerings available right now like The Hobbit, or upcoming converstion like the remaining Star Wars films that my kids can't wait to see.
And *that's* before we get to the likes of Battlefield 3 in 3D - but hey, go right on complaining about the first-gen 3D TV's as if they'll prove your point, you won't sound like people trumpeting the end of Windows when Vista came out...and will probably look just as foolish too.
Sorry but this article puts nothing new on the table table, and is just another whinge by someone not on board that doesn't like change.
Would Downton Abbey be that much better in 3D?
At least the non-action material wouldn't suffer from the problems associated with fast camera movements. Then an 8k version could bring a show into a living room almost life-sized. Dresses and the set would be shown like never before. Yes, it's and will be too expensive for some time for a normal series.
Saying that high resolution, fps, and 3D don't belong in a drama is like saying a high quality sound system is only appropriate for rock and hip hop and what is the point of using one to play Mozart.
Mozart would be the audio analogue to to all those flashy movies that have high sensory demands. What's the point of using a high quality sound system for most rock and hip hop? Might as well use a electric cheese grater.
Is it more dramatic when a jewelry box is opened to reveal cut glass or the sparkle of a diamond? The visual impact has a dramatic impact quite aside from the monetary one. Why would dramatic film be any different?
Where would this "dramatic impact" come from? I doubt ten percent of the audience could discern any difference.
Specifically the difference between what the camera has focussed on and what your eye is trying to focus on.
When we look at things In Real Life we look at something close, like our hand, and objects in the background are blurred. Your eye is not focussed on them. If we look out to the middle distance though, our eye quickly re-focusses and things near to us become blurred.
But in a 3D movie this doesn't work. Whether something is in focus or not is decided by whether the CAMERA was focussed at that distance when it was filmed. This is just as true in 3D movies as it is in 2D movies.
Now in a 2D film your eye never changes focus. It's focus is the movie screen. There is the false focus of the camera, but we're used to that. It's one tool (the primary one) the director has for telling us what is significant in the current shot.
In a 3D movie however, apparent distance is changing and your eyes ARE adjusting shot by shot, for parallax at least. But you have to guess what the camera has focussed on, or your eyes are going to strain to focus on objects that will simply never come into focus.
This is why 3D movies are so much more tiring to watch. And one of the reasons why it's not real 3D. And why I'm still suspicious of whether it will ever become the dominant form in the art of cinema.
Interestingly, there is the potential for CGI to make much better 3D movies, for the simple reason that everything can be in focus all the time. I have yet to see a fully CGI movie in 3D I believe.
Discuss,
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
Actually, It's been around for a while, but there is a new technique that works better than you may ever have seen, I've seen it, needs some brushing up - but it works far better than Nintendo 3DS & LG Optimus 3D type parallax glasses free screens.
This screen was demoed in Copenhagen, I think it was about 6 years ago at the 3D festival, it was the most impressive "parallax type" plasma screen I've ever seen, it was a movement based parallax screen, albeit limited to about 30-40 cm of "walking" before you would clearly see a "shift" that breaks up the image, but it was very convincing, you COULD in fact LOOK AROUND the object, albeit limited, but FAR better than the stereoscopic parallax images that the 3D phones & Nintendo have.
I bet that'll blow your mind too. But for now, the technology is just too expensive, as you'd need at least 10 tracks of 3D video (same film from 10 different angles) just to use this technology, better yet...if it was real 3D rendering data (eg. rendering in real-time) you'd be limiting this technology to animated movies only (which I think...was the case of that screen they demoed).
But I can promise you this, the technology is here, I bet ya won't like the price tag.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
But now what's the point of high FPS in a drama? Would Downton Abbey be that much better in 3D? Is a comedy going to be more hilarious in 1080p?
All high end TVs include 100Hz or more motion processing to boost the 24/25/30 fps they receive to something much smoother, and consumers seem to love it. Personally I enjoy it, even on period dramas. It's easier on the eye, stuff isn't as blurred and indistinct, and motion, especially panning shots, is much nicer.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Imagine if the Star Wars universe was "updated"* to reflect the latest recording technology. Not only would R2D2 have hi-def, but everyone would be walking around the Star Wars universe twittering and watching movies on their smartphones. If the population of Alderaan was a bunch of smartphone addicts then when the Death Star wipes them out a million souls would text in terror "OMG! WTF!" and rush to update their Facebook status before they were vaporized, but a billion more would cheer the Death Star on.
* Don't worry. George has sold it to the Mouse. He can destroy your child hood memories no more.
> scenes that are so obviously a gimmick for the 3D version
Why are you blaming better technology for what is in essence just bad film-making?
I hated the sounds of early CDs, I was a vinyl lover, and it was only later when talking to a hardware engineer who'd worked in the digital audio field that it was revealed to me why I hated the sound - because they were deliberately engineered to sound as unlike vinyl as possible. And in part, that meant deliberately screwing up the frequency response. So it wasn't the better technology that was to blame, it was humans making crappy products.
You probably don't remember some of the tragically awful repeated pans that infested music production not long after stereo became popular - left - right - left - right - left - right - jeez, I get the message, I've got two ears and you've got a crack-monkey for an engineer, enough already.
The technology is best when you *don't* notice it.
Exactly the same with 3D cinematography. Just wait for the gimmick to wear off, then you won't have to put up with inane gimmickry.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I've stopped going to theaters the day that a single ticket (in Germany where I live) starting costing 9 Euros. About 15 Euros if the movie lasts more than two and half hours. All was in favour for home theater, which was more comfortable, cheaper, and convenient. But when my old big CRT screen died two years ago, I also stopped watching movies and TV at home altogether. Why?
- DVD are not HD. Blue rays cost about 25 Euros in Germany. All with the classical FBI don't pirate message crap and unskippable commercials for old movies, as a mean of thanking you for buying the film
- Open channels suck really big time. It is basically Christian TV and buy-your-crappy-as-seen-on-TV channels
- Cable TV already charges you for non-HD crap. If you want, then pay more for HD crap
- Things start to become watchable after folding about 50-60 Euros per month. But you need to use *their* receiver if you want to record movies that you can keep for just one day. Have fun with 3 remote controls by you couch, and explaining your wife *every time* how to use it, while she laughs at you. Oh, and you can't skip commercials for the *paid* channels.
- Pay more if you want 3D movies.
- Google Movies: in Germany, they cost like a DVD and *only* come with German tone. So let me get this straight: Google sells you something that cost as a 10-year old technology. They benefit from the digital era by cutting cost, but they don't transfer a single cent to you. In return, they give you a cripple experience much worse than the old one. No original tone, no subtitles, no director comments, and usually worse quality. No thanks.
In short, I'm sick of these new technologies that are only meant to give more profits to media producers, and they don't care at all about what the customer wants. I vote with my money, by not having a TV anymore, and spending more time outside with my family. It was tough for the first 6 months, but now I don't miss it at all, really. And my kids don't even know what they are *missing*.
I live in French, where american movies are usually shown dubbed.
While the dub is usually "quite good", the original version, as played by the original actors, is always better, so I prefer watching films in their original language.
The problem is that now, with 3D, you either have the following choices: French in 3D, French in 2D, or English in 3D.
I don't even know why, since 3D and subtitles hardly go well together.
For this reason I'm forced to either watch sub-par 3D, or listen to sub-par voice-over. Or just download from the pirate bay.
Go watch Life of Pi. It's a great example of good 3D. The 3D is unobtrusive, yet beautiful.
In the Avenger's commentary director Joss Wheaton describes why they stopped shooting in 3d.
He said the technical problems with the equipment meant they were losing 3 hours of shooting each day.
That, and he cited advancements in post-conversion technology.
The sooner it goes away the better.
Seconded. I *always* go see the 2D version of any movie I want to see.
And even those suffer, because of the scenes that are so obviously a gimmick for the 3D version. Very distracting and annoying, even in 2D.
Like so many other applications of technology, we need a better reason than "because we can".
Me too. Mainly because when I went to the movies it was with the whole family and I was quite aware of how easily I get motion sickness and it would really suck to have to leave in the middle of a film. Then I went and saw the latest Resident Evil in 3D (can't knock it until you tried it, right? I only took the oldest child so having to leave during the film wouldn't suck so much) and it was awesome. I went in with pretty low expectations of 3D but I was blown away. It really looked like Alice was standing there and if I reached out I could touch her, not just projected onto a flat screen. I take back all the uninformed negative speculation I had about 3D movies.
I get how some movies might be like "lets do this scene this way because it will be really great in 3D" at the expense of other aspects of the movie, and until the novelty wears off that might be a good reason to hate it, but for me 3D really enhanced the whole movie.
Most films are crap. Adding extra gee whiz works for a short while. But most films are still crap.
What about the big effing elephant in the room: BRIGHTNESS? One of the things Cristopher Nolan doesn't like about 3D is that the polarized filters in the projector and glasses kills about 2/3 of the original brightness, and they didn't triple the luminance (or whatever) of the projectors to compensate. Everytime I see a 3D flick I feel like I'm going friggin' blind: some scenes in Avengers where apparently made for blind people (w/ dialog only), 'cause the only 5 things I could see where Capn' 'Merica, Thor, Loki, Jack, and Shit. Remember Avatar The Last Airbender? Might as well have been a BBC Radio Show like The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy for all people cared.
What's the point of 3D when I'm seeing more details in the 2D version? We get 90% of depth information from 2D anyway, plus the 3D effects are fscking unnatural: hey is that the Avengers Airplane flying over the ocean, or a TOY AIRPLANE LEVITATING OVER A BUCKET? 'Cause I didn't know I could see stereoscopically that far, with the paralax and all...
Grammar poop!
For your parallax problems: your eyes won't pop out of your sockets from the strain anymore!
I keep hearing this. 3D is dead. No one watches it. Etc. Etc.
Except I love it. I feel that it's a sharper image for me. In fact I just bought an LG passive 3D TV.
I've for some friends who don't like the effect. But I have many who do.
In fact, I pretty much feel its blithering critics who keep making these comments and articles. But these were the same folks downing Netflix since 2000.
I think it'll grow...
It doesn't have to push anything out. With the theaters switching to all 3D projectors, they've also switched to all digital. That means they can easily switch what movie is playing on a given screen on every screening, assuming they have the film archived on a storage array.
That's why we now have theaters showing special live events all the time. When the event is over, they just swap the next movie into place, and your local 12 screen theater can show 20 different things per day. What you lose isn't the number of movies, it's the flexibility of available show times that suffers, but even then only to the extent of the local market demands.
Difference is that color actually added to the ability to tell a story, using color to evoke emotion or focus the viewer's attention.
There is no reason why 3D cannot do the same thing if used properly. 3D can create a sense of space or vastness or depth. Flight is inherently a 3D experience which is hard to properly capture in 2D. Just because movie makers have done a generally poor job of using the technology does not have anything to do with the potential uses of 3D if done well.
I have yet to see any 3D scene where the 3D is used as a storytelling device rather than just a fancy special effect.
There's nothing wrong with fancy special effects (color is one) though I understand what you are saying. Bear in mind that movie directors mostly still don't know what to do with 3D yet. They're still figuring out where it makes sense. The only way to figure it out is to try a bunch of stuff and see if it works. This means 3D is going to be used badly quite a bit for a good long while. Eventually they'll settle down as they figure out what works and what doesn't. This happens every time there is some new innovation in movies. Stop motion, bullet time, CGI,
An apostrophe has its use. That wasn't one of them.
When a movie is genuinely shot in 3D as some films are, either CG or live action, AND the director is mindful of the limitations AND avoids the cliches of the format it can be watchable and add something. Of course if the movie itself is trash then making it in 3D just means it stinks in another dimension.
I think however that a higher framerate combined with digital projection has more to offer the cinema going experience than 3D, although 3D would benefit too from a higher frame rate so it's not an and / or kind of thing.
I went to my first 3D over the weekend, The Hobbit. Here's my take. First the technical aspects are challenging, e.g. holding your head properly aligned, objects near the screen edge get funky, fast moving objects can show color fringes, etc. that gave he headaches at times. More importantly though, I don't think the film industry has learned the art of 3D. There were too many gratuitous 3D effects (like objects flying toward you) that are more appropriate at Disney - they do nothing to enhance the presentation of the story. There were times though when the effect was quite nice and made the characters more real. I'll try 3D again but the film industry needs to figure out how to use the technology to enhance the presentation of the story, and not to be the story itself.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
48fps made the 3D better, but the 2D version of the hobbit was still better.
The problem with 3D in The Hobbit is that they created a bunch of unnecessary quasi-floating environments where none really needed to be. There really was no reason for the goblin caves or the dwarf kingdom of Erebor to be a bunch of platforms suspended the way they were. Logically it makes little sense (think about the physics of hollow mountains) and there was no storytelling reason to do that. They did it simply to make it "more 3D" and I don't think it helped the story at all. 3D is fine but it still needs to make sense within the context of the story.
3d is more than just a parallax effect. It allows two independent images to be overlaid with each other. That allows for really cool effects like Ghosts, dizziness, non-euclidian madness, etc. Many of these things are impossible to capture in a 2-d screen.
You're welcome.
I just saw this in 3D at the theater yesterday, and I had two experiences with it. First the tickets were more expensive. Second the 3D effect (which had a lot of potential), was almost non-existent. There was a bit of added depth, almost as if they were trying to be subtle. However there was absolutely nothing about that experience whatsoever that made me think, "neat, that was 3D". Frankly it was a waste of money to see the movie in 3D, and the same has been true for other movies I have seen in 3D. It's just not worth it.
Going to the movies is expensive enough. The 4 tickets I need to buy for my wife, two kids*, and me easily costs over $25. I don't need to pay an additional surcharge just to see 3D when most of the 3D movies are "we're in post-production and decided to take on 3D now" junk. (I'm going by opinions I've heard from plenty of other people who have seen 3D movies.) I'm on a limited budget and going to the movies is a rare event for us so we'll stick to the normal-priced 2D movies. We definitely don't feel like we're missing anything.
* Another reason we avoid 3D movies: My younger son doesn't like the 3D effects and often winds up trying to watch the movie without the glasses. So I end up paying extra for him to view a harder-to-watch version of the movie!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Mozart would be the audio analogue to to all those flashy movies that have high sensory demands. What's the point of using a high quality sound system for most rock and hip hop? Might as well use a electric cheese grater.
Not arguing that classical music benefits hugely from having a good sound system set up, but I will argue that *good* rock/hip hop will benefit from a good sound system just as much. Any music that takes advantage of dynamic and acoustic ranges will benefit from a sound system that's capable of reproducing it. The problem with the genre isn't the genre itself, it's the studio execs who have decided to dynamically compress modern recordings. If you can lay your hands on a recording that hasn't been munged up like that, then it will benefit just as much and it will suffer just as much from a shitty stereo.
Actually, I can't think of a single genre that doesn't benefit from a good sound system, as long as you have a *good* recording.
You think Hollywood gives a fuck about what a few pretentious nerds think?
If they catered you the nerds here whining about 3D and other shit they'd be out of work.
If 3D makes your movie better, your movie sucks. Exception: Surfing movies
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
The recent musketeers with milla jovavich used 3d well.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
What ever happened to BD-live? Seems like fewer and fewer Blu-rays have it anymore.
I would just like to point out that the headline of this post is posed as a question.
Movie prices are getting silly.
I flinched when they shot that arrow in hobbit. My brain disagrees with your assessment that it's false advertising.
Didn't you know the new version is just propoganda put out out by Latin America so that we focus more on the North Koreans? Note that the North Koreans are close to Russia!!!
The original is a great movie, to be watched on July 4th. RIP, Patrick Swayze. Except for that dirty dancing stuff.
BlameBillCosby.com
My understanding of the current and all 3D up to this point, is that it's basically a series of optic illusions, abusing the limitations of the eyes/brain, making you not see reality as it is. And I find that scary. One image is fine, but I don't want to sit through hours of it.
We are all God's parents.
I mean.. imagine Flatland made into a 3D movie.. what's the *point*?
Without the 3d, is Avatar just a re-write of Dances with Wolves?
It's OK as a gimmick once in awhile. If it adds to the story, it could be worth doing. But 99% of the movies I'm going to want to see are going to be 2d. They will rely on story telling to compel me to watch.
The Big difference with 3D today and 3D in the past, today half the TVs being sold are equipped with 3D. Whether you use the 3D feature or not, it's there, and people will want the option to view their favorite film in 3D if they choose.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
There were some scenes in Burton's 2010 adaptation of Alice In Wonderland where 3D helped tell the story.
In some of the grade-B monster thrill movies of the 1950s, having the monster "jump out at you" from the screen adds to the thrill, which in these kinds of movies is part of the reason for seeing the film in the first place.
But I agree, by and large, it doesn't do much.
Then again, there are lots of modern movies whose stories wouldn't lose much if they were screened on a black and white TV with "mono" sound (letterbox of course, pan-and-scan almost always hurts the story).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I would *love* to see more 3D done using a "deep screen" effect rather than the "things popping out" effect that is commonly used - i.e. the stereoscopy is calibrated to make it look like everything is *behind* the screen instead of in front of it, like you're looking through a window. It's a more subtle effect, but far more consistent. When you try to put stuff in front of the screen you inevitably end up with large borders where only one eye is getting an image of something that both eyes should be seeing, and personally I find the effect quite distracting and uncomfortable. Not that it doesn't have it's uses - when I saw the IMAX 3D Oceans there were incredible scenes where sea snakes, cuttlefish, etc. were floating right in my lap / the center of the screen, but then a school of fish would try to swim across the theater and go all wonky except for the narrow window where both eyes were getting the proper image. Avatar had the same problem - the 3D was actually pretty good, but you still had large, wonky borders because stuff was floating in front of the screen and going invisible to one eye.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Color has no place in a serious drama either. This was the prevailing attitude for a long time too.
The main problem with 3D in my opinion is that it tends to be dim compared to 2D movies. So scenes that are already murky are even murkier, sometimes making it difficult to tell what is going on. I remember the Alice in Wonderland 3D movie being particularly bad for that, but even in the Hobbit there were a few scenes, such as the troll encounter, where I was unable to get my bearings at times. Roger Ebert has famously complained about this, and other aspects of the 3D experience, more than once.
But notwithstanding the occasional dimness, and Ebert's negative opinion, I generally enjoy 3D movies. I don't understand, though, with regular LCD TV's coming down so much in price, why it is almost impossible to get an inexpensive 3D television, say a 32" model for $459 or so. My feeling is that it would be easier for 3D to gain a foothold in the household if it started off in the kid's room and then once a few 3D blu-rays are purchased, people would be more inclined to maximize their experience with a deluxe 55" 240Mhz "smart" model with all the bells and whistles.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Hear, hear. Current stereoscopy could be used to create an awesome "holotank" effect up on the stage where everything is nice and 3D on the other side of the screen. As soon as you try to bring stuff in front of the screen you get borders where things get wonky because only one eye can see it, the other has a line-of-sight through the virtual object to a point somewhere off-screen, rendering the object effectively invisible to one eye, something our brains aren't really wired to interpret.
If directors insist on putting things in front of the screen then yeah, we need to have either full field-of-view screens, or movies that limit their "popping out" effects to a very small window in the middle of the screen to avoid breaking the effect.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Close one eye. It isn't a horrible view of the world but it isn't what things look like.
It's what they look like to me: I have two functioning eyes but 3D vision just doesn't happen in the real world. (It did a few times in my teens, when I was really tired, but at that point I didn't know I wasn't seeing 3D the rest of the time, so it was just "something weird".)
3D movies are the *only* time I see in 3D. 2D movies just look like the world does anyway.
I am a 3D skeptic with very limited stereoscopic vision. I saw "The Life of Pi" in 3D. I think 3D made sense for that movie. The movie probably would never be done without it. I watched "Avatar" in 2D and enjoyed it. I still expect that "Avatar" in 3D would give me a headache. I think 3D can hold on in a fashion similar to IMAX. I am looking forward to resolutions increasing.
Then you don't have two correctly functioning eyes. Or you are mistaken.
3D isn't and isn't supposed to be like the cheap 3D effects seen at the theater when they throw something at you or you get from those pictures you cross your eyes to see. It is far more subtle than that. If you really can't see 3D at all it would mean you have no depth perception and that would cause serious problems in life. If you can say catch something thrown at you, then you are mistaken.
It is sort of like old SD images before there were HD for us to compare them to. People have been so conditioned to look at 2D images they have trouble seeing it.
One good way is to take a large rectangular object like a flat screen monitor and put it on a 25 degree angle from the wall and then put a second tall object (maybe a pc speaker) behind it and then position yourself on the open side of the angle facing directly onto the corner edge of the monitor. Depth should be reasonably pronounced in this view and the difference from one eye and two should jump out more.
Another even easier one is to extend your arm out in front of you and turn your hand back toward your face and curl your fingertips toward you. Think Jim Carey's "The Claw" on liar liar. Then compare with one eye vs two. The effect is subtle, it is supposed to be. But once you notice it consciously and know the visual effect you are looking for, it is literally everywhere.
It actually had it's day over 50 years ago. Flopped then. If they can figure out a way to see it *without* glasses it may work. As far as buying a 3d tv... you still need glasses. Back in the 50's there were 3d movies on tv. With glasses. (that were free or you could make them yourself for pennies) No idea if the new tv 3d is better or not. But hundreds of dollars vs free...
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
If by "had its day" you mean "now the default for big budget movies" then yes, 3D has "had its day."
I watched The Hobbit in 3D at 48 fps. It was fine. Nobody threw up or got violent. It will look fine on my 2D television and flat panel computer displays when I buy a copy in a year or so.
What is the problem, exactly?
Screw 3d...who wants to wear ugly glasses during a movie and be distracted with junk flying at you and swatting at 3d bugs....
Haven't seen a single 3D movie where the 3D made any difference at all. Not even Avatar.
My city has an ample amount of movie theaters. Within 5 miles of my house there are at least 62 movie screens. Stretch that out to 14 miles and the number jumps to at least 260 screens. There are only 1.2 million people in my metro area, so though not tiny it is far from big city. Thus the issue you mention is not a problem for everyone.
No, it didn't. Color motion picture film was around in 1899, and was used in feature films in the first decade of the 20th Century, but the big push where color "took off" (and went, in a few years, from a fairly small minority of films to a majority, at least in the US) wasn't until the 1950s.
E.g., about the same length of time color filmmaking was around before it took off.
I don't think its likely that stereoscopic "3D" (which is only slightly more 3D than traditional film, as most depth cues used by the human brain are already in traditional film, and stereoscopy adds one [but not all] of the missing ones) will ever be as near to universal as color, but I think that as with color, advances that bring down the marginal cost of using it while improving the quality (combined with increased understanding of how to use it effectively) will continue to make it, if you look at the long-term trend, more popular over time. I think the short-term trend is going to show surges and retreats, though, but I don't think that even the retreats are likely to go back to the point where S3D is such a novelty that you'll go years without a major feature film being released that uses it -- unless projection holography becomes practical and economical, at which point, yeah, S3D is dead.
No, but the execution by the movie producers have failed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The storytelling of the "Turnerized" shot-in-BW-converted-to-color movies and TV shows may have benefited from the process, even if many or most did not.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Government studies on stereoscopic viewing shows that viewing artificially created 3D can lead to a loss of depth perception. I built 2 different 3D CAVE/powerwall systems at the DOD. Engineers were limited to 5 hours per week which was considered the safe exposure rate. Viewing generated 3D can be used in some cases to treat strabismus, but normal eyes it's known to cause strabismus (more easily termed, permanent lazy eye).
Of course Hollywood would never tell you about such dangers since it would hurt their bottom line. Here is a link of note, which is important to note " 1 + 2 = if you use stereo 3D routinely and intensively, you will develop strabismus, period. Government studies showed that damage is not always from "routine" and "intensive" viewing. 8 hours a week had a very high rate of eye damage which is why we limited Engineers to 5 hours.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You probably don't remember some of the tragically awful repeated pans that infested music production not long after stereo became popular - left - right - left - right - left - right - jeez, I get the message, I've got two ears and you've got a crack-monkey for an engineer, enough already.
No, I don't remember that, and I'm 60. Can you name a single song from the '50s that did that? The only two I can think of are from the seventies (thirty years after the development of stereo LPs), both Led Zeppelin songs. One is "Whole Lotta Love" from the second album and "Hats Off to (Roy) Harper" from the third. In that one, the singer comes out of one channel while the guitar plays from the other.
But again, stereo was old hat by the seventies. I have an awful ot of music from the '50s when stereo was new and I can't think of a single song like that.
Free Martian Whores!
As far as I can tell, while it doesn't 'have' to push anything out, it does. I have no interest in watching 3D, crap films or special events. I only want to watch good films. There are less good films on at the cinema, even though there appear to be enough good films in circulation to meet my occasional desire to go to the movies. They simply are not being shown, or being shown for 3 milliseconds in the middle of the week while I'm not paying attention.
We went to see no movies this Christmas. There were three evenings where we decided to go and see one, but we found nothing we wanted to see, despite three large multiplexes in the vicinity. Netflix and Amazon streaming filled in at home. I highly recommend 'Rare Exports' for the best Christmas movie ever.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
"Avatar now seems the high-point of 3D movie-making, with little since 2009 to challenge its achievement" is not a statement that 3D is winding down, it's at best a claim that 3D isn't improving any more. Mature technologies don't improve. It's been a while since we've had much noticeable improvement in 2D film quality or techniques, but 3D film hasn't died. We should expect that at some point--maybe even Avatar--3D should stop improving. But that doesn't mean it's dead.
Also, notice that the current 3D film trend has already been going on much longer than the 1950's and 1980's ones.
A while ago I saw a movie called The Cave of Forgotten Dreams. It is an exploration of 40000 year old cave paintings found in Europe. It is shot in proper 3D, and is mainly concerned with actually exploring the caves. It gave a sense of being inside the caves that I believe would otherwise be impossible. Since these caves are generally kept sealed off from visitors, this movie allowed me to visit a place that would otherwise be inaccessible. Apart from Avatar and The Cave of Forgotten Dreams, I have not seen a 3D movie that adequately makes proper use of 3D technology.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Facial emotions and subtleties.
Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail has been released on Bluray recently. 720p (calling it 1080p is a bit of a stretch) allowed me to see even more of the awesome subtle expressions in the faces of the actors and made it even more hilarious than it already was. It's not hard to imagine how more detailed facial expressions in drama could add to the experience.
High definition sound and video definitely expose more flaws, but they can also expose more excellence. In all genres.
As for stereoscopic 3D, I'm pretty sure it adds little to the above, but a funeral scene done well could enhance a feeling of emptiness. It could add in how tiny one feels (the characters to be) when shown a vast landscape, how claustrophobic one feels when shown the perspective of someone buried alive, etc.
I really believe that directors who think of 3D in such a way can make it work.
This is the real problem. With the exception of a couple of films most are made in post production or made with disregard for how scenes should be shot and edited together. Anything not filmed in 3d just suffers greatly. Cameron took the time and care to learn how best to use and make 3D mind blowing. Of course the script and direction are of paramount importance too. But until film makers "get" the techniques 3D will be mediocre. I don't see how even holograms or a better technology could possibly change the plain facts that a good film needs a good director, script and art direction.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Do you mean "Plan 9 from Outer Space"?
We should write a musical version for Broadway.
Can anyone here think of what rhymes with "stupid, stupid, stupid"?
One eye is definitely dominant, but both work. They just don't work together; I'm reasonably sure that the right eye is being suppressed when both are open. I can see the difference between my left and right eye by closing each in turn, but I can't merge the two images into a 3D picture of the world. I rely entirely on knowing the size and shape of objects (the monitor is rectangular, and how trapezoidal it looks tells me how far off straight it is), and on occlusion of one object by another (I'll sometimes catch myself moving my head slightly, or more than slightly, to make that happen). Friends have commented that I have a habit of bumping into things when walking - but I'm fine at driving. No, really! :) And I suck at catching, although that might just be a Slashdotter thing...
I only discovered that I had no proper 3D when I was specifically tested for it as part of a pre-employment medical. Of course, this came as something of a surprise to me, given that I'd been landing planes quite happily for ten years (which came as something of a surprise to the doctor), although thinking back to my training, I can see how it wouldn't be an issue. I was taught to look for the runway to be a certain 2D shape on approach, symmetrical with a given height:width ratio, and for the flare and touchdown all I had to do was look at the far end.
So yes, I have ways to cope, but I don't have 3D vision in the conventional sense, and a doctor can prove it.
Except in the cinema... which I find intriguing. And I do see the subtle 3D, not just the in-your-face 3D (which I really hate, because it completely destroys my immersion in the story just to make me feel like the extra two bucks were worth it....grrrr....). Clearly I can still do it, and all the relevant hardware and software does work. Just not in the real world.
I just got back from seeing The Hobbit in 3D IMAX today (unfortunately in 24 fps, which made for some ugly, blurry pans of the countryside). I can confirm that I have zero enthusiasm for this "trend." I would pay premium prices for a 70mm class, true THX theatre experience, but stereoscopy adds little to my experience, and creates too many problems. Going from silent to talkies it ain't.
The only thing I ever saw that really worked was the Tron sequel. A bad movie, but it had some very nice computer generated 3D sequences. But not while you can see the actors. That's the real problem. For me, people as stereoscopic subjects enter that uncanny valley where something tiny isn't right, all the time, and it activates a sense of revulsion, distraction, and displeasure. Multiple people create problems because if you turn your head even slightly during the scene, the fact that you are watching stereoscopy and not a true 3D scene becomes immediately apparent. It gets worse rather than better on the bigger screens, because you're more likely to need head movement. I understand fully CG animation does very well, but that's for my kids, not me. It makes sense, as animated characters are a major discrepancy from real images, not the tiny and unsettling sort.
The motorized Lazy-boy seats my local theatre just put in add more to the experience than stereoscopy ever has. So I am a dissatisfied customer, and I won't pay a thin dime more for any "3D," and am now actively seeking 2D presentations.
My open mind is now closed for business on the subject. It's been a disappointment. If I were to suggest a good place for a new trend to make theatres worth the trip, it would be wiring all the seats with a speaker array and using that to generate truly spatial and also asymmetrical (crowd noise, ambient) sound effects.
Throwing junk at the screen is NOT using 3D "well". It is just doing the old crappy trick over an over again.
Nothing beats watching a Cirque du Soleil LIVE. No video technique can recreate the experience of being there live.
Not arguing that classical music benefits hugely from having a good sound system set up, but I will argue that *good* rock/hip hop will benefit from a good sound system just as much. Any music that takes advantage of dynamic and acoustic ranges will benefit from a sound system that's capable of reproducing it.
You got me. I have to agree with that. Maybe some sort of drums solo or organ music. It's hard to get dynamic range with some instruments.
It seems to be here to stay, but it's a niche. About 30% of the people seem to like it, and that will be a market to target some of the more popular flicks for. Better software and 3rd-world "slaves" will make it cheaper to artificially add 3D such that even if the fad-ness dies a bit, there's still money to be mined from the niche.
Table-ized A.I.
I certainly hope so. The last 3D film I went to was Tron: Legacy, and the reason it was my last was before the movie started, there was a disclaimer that said that all scenes were not in 3D, but to keep the glasses on. If everything is not in 3D than what the hell am I paying an extra six dollars for? I also never liked 3D anyways since I do not enjoy having to wear an apparatus to view it.
You can do stereo badly, okeyish or well, independently of how well it is done it does not bring an iota to the story.
Furthermore, we humans are wired in a particular way and the focus/convergence issue highlighted by Walter Murch (big respect here) I feel is a dealbreaker.
The fad is over, let's face it, it is jus the studios pushing it down our throats but its a matter of time for the whole thing to implode, if you need proof of this look how many adverts are done in stereoscopic (3D)? zero, that says everything in my book.
I can't name a single stereo record from the 50s at all. So either all of them, or none of them did the annoying panning thing, depending on how you wish to divide by zero.
... "Whole Lotta Love"
/I Feel Fine/ - dong (left) wooo (right), standing out all on its own before anything else starts - if that's not saying "hey - we've got stereo - listen to the width of our soundstage", I don't know what is. That's 1964.
> thirty years after the development of stereo LPs
Whole lotta love was released in 1969, and according to wikipedia "In 1958, the first group of mass-produced stereo two-channel vinyl records was issued". So you appear to be confusing 11 years with 30 years.
I can't name any examples of such repeated panning, but I think your 1969 can be pushed back a few years by looking in the direction of Hashbury. Or even before that. What do you make about the very first note and the subsequent ringing of The Beatles
I know most of the vinyl I have from the 60s has either "also available in mono" or "also available in stereo" (I even have something with "also available in quadraphonic", IIRC) printed on it, so, in the absense of sales figures, I feel it's not too great a leap to say that stereo was still establishing itself at that point. Notice how I said above becoming *popular* rather than merely becoming *available*. You appear to have conflated becoming popular with not just becoming available, but with its development. You're creating a bit of a straw man with such leaps.
However, perhaps the message from the audio world is that such gimicks will last for the best part of a decade before people grow out of them.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I saw the first installment of "The Hobbit" trilogy in 3D over the holidays. Aside from predictable dizzy-making fly-throughs, the 3D element added nothing enjoyable to the experience. I've tried, really, I have, to "get into" 3D, but the experience leaves me unimpressed (except for Avatar). Either directors aren't using the technology appropriately, or the technology needs to advance a lot.
This is a really important point. 3D in games looks excellent because the 3D data used is accurate. Also 3D CG movies are equally as cool because the 3D data is accurate and tweakable by the directors. I don't waste my money on live action 3D because its almost always underwhelming. Avatar's best moments were in the CG 3D segments. A lot of people hate on stereo 3D, but they aren't watching the right movies (or haven't played the right games with it).
So you appear to be confusing 11 years with 30 years.
Yes, you're correct about that. I'd thought it was 1948. But still, it was 11 years after stereo that LZII came out. Between the two dates were the Yardbirds (Jimmy Page's old band) and a ton of other bands, including the Trashmen, whose "Surfin' bird", perhaps the world's first punk rock song since every punk band afterwards covered it, didn't do that. And the 11 year later effects in "Whole Lotta Love actually worked from an artistic standpoint.
I know most of the vinyl I have from the 60s has either "also available in mono" or "also available in stereo"
Actually, no. Stereophonic LPs were backwards compatible with mono. Played on a monophonic record player, both channels played from the single speaker. I thought the way they did it was a great design hack; the up and down motions of the needle represented both channels while the sideways motion represented a single channel. It was fed both into the amplifier and mixed with the up and down channel phased to cancel it out for the other channel.
However, there were still a lot of monophonic-only records in the '60s. But if there was a stereo version, there was no mono version, because it was unnecessary. It's possible that a mono record was re-recorded in stereo later (it would have to be completely redone by the band unless the mono record was produced using a stereo tape).
As to stereo being popular, it was popular quickly. My folks bought a big stereo in 1964, and we were far from rich. Cheap stereo record players only cost slightly more than monophonic ones.
However, perhaps the message from the audio world is that such gimicks will last for the best part of a decade before people grow out of them.
I do see one indication that 3D may some day take off -- quadraphonics. It came out sometime around 1970 iirc and was soundly trounced in the marketplace, because of the cost. You needed twice the speakers and amps, and the speaker is the most expensive part, especially woofers. So a $500 stereo sounded far better than a $500 quad setup. Cheap electronics and the advent of "subwoofers" made Surround Sound possible, so it may be that a similar change in 3D could make it viable.
Free Martian Whores!
There is a new technology emerging that uses multiple simultaneous cameras to record/broadcast events under viewer control. It's currently being proven out in the music concert markets. It allows a viewer with a computer controller to actually change the viewing perspective in real time. In other words, you can actually walk around on the stage of a concert using a joystick controller, and experience a live concert from any angle you wish. The technology couples fast video with artificial reality technology to essentially reconstruct the world in a way that allows the viewer to walk through it. I have seen a walkthrough of a museum and several sporting events recorded this way, and it is spectacular. Imagine streaming a movie on your home TV and being able to walk around inside the set and see different angles. There could be whole backstories going on in addition to the main story. Imagine even commercials recorded this way, so that viewers can walk around in a short story, being exposed to multiple products. It is total immersion experience and it wipes out 3D.
I knew you could...
When your standard of comparison is the #1 film of all time, everything is going to be downhill. There have been other notable artistic accomplishments in 3D (Hugo would be my #1 pick) but nothing to rival the box office success of Avatar.
But now we have The Hobbit, a film that is destined to be a big box office success despite the mixed critical reviews. (The negatives are the thinness of the story for a three film series and some dislike of HFR; all accounts have it using 3D well.) And it's the beginning of a three film franchise. And it shows off a new technology, HFR 3D, that steps up the immersion level another notch. (Maybe too high.)
It doesn't look as though the all 3D all the time future that some people predicted will happen, but 3D remains a good option for the right kind of film and when it's done well. (The other big 3D release this year, The Avengers, is an example where 3D was not done well; it's a good film but 3D doesn't add much to it.)
Last weekend, the wife and I saw the Hobbit in 3D. The effects were just OK, not spectacular. But, what I noticed most was the lack of definition. This pic was supposedly shot at 48 fps. You'd think the definition would be superb! But, no, it was horrible. I've seen better definition on the old 480i standard. What gives?
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
It's shit.
1) Horrible picture quality
2) You get maybe couple scenes in the entire movie that are truly 3D
3) They try and push 3D in every movie genre, and it fucking sucks
I hope 3D dies, not only dies but fucking burns right through hell and into the abyss.
special effects are always supplemental to story.
the bar for what 'dazzles' the film-goer raises over time but regardless of technique (3D, Stop-motion, green screen, CGI) a bad story will not become better with 3D.
-badford