Is 3D Already Dying? [Archive]

Tim Morten

07-21-2010, 02:18 PM

http://gizmodo.com/5592956/is-3d-already-dying

Interesting data... I have to admit that I'm a 3D skeptic. As a consumer, I have no interest in having 3D playback at home. I find it more of a gimmick than actually providing heightened experience. It makes my wife seriously nauseous.

It's an engaging technical challenge to shoot/post 3D, and there's no arguing Avatar's box office, so I understand the interest among shooters. Likewise, I understand why cinemas that have been losing customers for years are excited. I understand why consumer electronics companies who want to sell you HDTV's, BluRay players, and AV receivers all over again are excited. I understand why studios who want to sell you marked-up content are excited.

I'm just not sure that consumers are genuinely excited. After the Avatar after-glow has worn off, I suspect 3D will go back to being a curiosity rather than mainstream. I'm sure 3D isn't going away entirely, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the downward revenue trend continue...

If display technology progresses to the point where glasses are unnecessary, and headaches/nausea aren't pervasive, maybe it will be a different story. For now, I would be MUCH more excited about 4k displays at home than about 3D. Just my .02 ...

- Tim

Tom.Wong

07-21-2010, 02:25 PM

Joey R.

07-21-2010, 02:29 PM

If our own rig sales are any indication...the answer is no.

That being said, the chart isn't truly representative of 3D features and I would guess was picked to prove the writer's point. Avatar is the only film shot in native 3D. the rest are animations coupled with one utter mess of a 2D-3D conversion without even talking about the quality of the feature itself.

Mark L. Pederson

07-21-2010, 02:32 PM

Totally stupid chart.

Bruce Allen

07-21-2010, 02:51 PM

Facts are:
- a ton of theatres are now 3D-capable.
- more and more TVs each year will be 3D-capable.

Even if 3D movies "die" and we go back to 99% 2D movies (which I doubt) - there is nothing to stop another Avatar or movie that does 3D properly from being released in 3D without too much extra cost and differentiating itself all over again.

Quite frankly, I'd almost prefer it if there were less 3D films - I'll be making 3D stuff since I love it - and if there are no other 3D films, it'll make my stuff more unique :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Roberto Lequeux

07-21-2010, 03:26 PM

More data! Seems they picked a few movies instead of using all the data. 5 random movies is not useful. At least the author doesn't try to hide his bias.

Tom.Wong

07-21-2010, 03:28 PM

It's more than obvious 3d is here to stay, I just think it's been getting a bad name because of bad films "associated with 3d" and not to mention post production artificially generated 3d that makes a bad movie that much harder to watch. 3d or not, you still need to have a good movie for it to be successful. In the case of Despicable Me, it maybe just be the case that families night not really want to spend extra money on their kids like that, 2-3 kids, the tickets add up... A few isolated examples don't equate to a accurate statistic. It's like interviewing 10 people to see how much of the country's population are lefty's or righty's...

Brian Petrie

07-21-2010, 03:42 PM

If display technology progresses to the point where glasses are unnecessary, and headaches/nausea aren't pervasive, maybe it will be a different story. For now, I would be MUCH more excited about 4k displays at home than about 3D. Just my .02 ...

- Tim

I'd also prefer 4k over 3D but I don't see that happening quite as quickly. Honestly, i think that 3D will be available on most future TV's. Eventually becoming just another feature on all TV's; which some people will take advantage of and some won't ever use the 3D option just how a decade ago High Definition was only available on a few models.
While I don't see it being quite the money maker it has been, I also don't see it going away anytime soon especially because the technology to create and view it are becoming increasingly more affordable. Just my thoughts anyways...

Stephen Matthews

07-21-2010, 03:46 PM

I think post production artificial 3d work needs to be stabbed in the kidneys and forever be done away with.

And I think the key to 3d is if you can offer a viewing experience that will make the 2d version pale in comparison. Pixar like movies do some great gags, but it doesn't effect how you experience the film IMHO, avatar was meant to be experienced in 3d, and was designed and carefully crafted for that. the 2d version is pretty boring...

It will be around, but it won't be the sure fire way of making money anymore, and that's a very good thing. The over saturation of 3d to try to make money will decline, and film makers as a whole will get back to the craft, and use 3d artistically.

agree with you about the post artificial 3d, but I have the exact opposite opinion on Avatar. I thought the 3d version was very distracting and took away from the story, and restricted wondering eye's(which the expansive landscapes of this movie ask for). I much preferred the 2d version as to me the 3d seemed the gimmick in this(though this is just my opinion). I also prefer the true gimmick 3d of things popping out of the screen at you in children's movies, at this point it seems the best way to utilize the technology. Now I would like it to be used to better immerse us into the worlds we are visiting when we watch films, but unfortunately the technology is just not there yet and there are still too many restrictions that remove you from the experience and remind you you are watching a movie. I can understand some people seeing this as a huge breakthrough in comparison to older 3d technology but unfortunately it still has a long way to go.

3d will never die it just gets championed every time we have a new breakthrough claiming it's now perfect 3d and eventually the fad dies down as people realize it's not as good as it was advertised, it fades for a bit until the next breakthrough and overreaction and the cycle begins again.

have a good one.

Hrvoje Simic

07-21-2010, 03:57 PM

Chart is showing nothing. Shallow article.

If display technology progresses to the point where glasses are unnecessary, and headaches/nausea aren't pervasive, maybe it will be a different story.

- Tim

Headaches and nausea will disappear (for the most) when filmmakers learn to adequately adapt storytelling to the new medium. Right now it's in kindergarten phase.

Elsie N

07-21-2010, 04:58 PM

Viewing a 2D movie is almost god-like... that is, you metaphorically look down on those poor bastards being shot or exploded or whatever. I don't want to be in the middle of something like that. I suppose the porn industry will benefit.

Patrick Tresch

07-21-2010, 08:40 PM

Jean-Luc Godard plans to shoot in 3D. This surely doesn't mean 3D has a great future but there is real interest for a lot of directors.

Mickey Conway

07-21-2010, 08:53 PM

What impact will 3D have on home entertainment? Tech companies such as NVIDIA have already started producing and distributing video cards and monitors which support 3D gaming. Blu Ray discs have more than enough capacity to hold all the data, and 3D LCD televisions are already available to those who have recently won the lottery. But will it be the same at home? Is the “event” element a major part of enjoying the experience? Will watching on a home set up take away the impact of 3D viewing? It’ll be a long time before the technology is mainstream enough to become affordable, and only then will 3D’s staying power be tested.
MC

Jaime Vallés

07-21-2010, 09:06 PM

Well, I find 3D to be cool yet sort of distracting for the first 5 minutes of the film, and then I forget I'm watching it in 3D and just enjoy the movie.

Of course, if I forget I'm watching it in 3D after 5 minutes, what's the point of watching it in 3D at all? Might as well save me the extra $5 bucks and become absorbed in the 2D movie from the get-go.

jonnycom

07-21-2010, 09:22 PM

As 3d bluray and specifically PORN have not started shipping yet I think it's safe to say it has not even started. You have to remember that Avatar was shot almost 5 years ago with 10 year old tech....... I don't think many people have seen perfect 3d yet.

P Andersson

07-21-2010, 09:29 PM

Just got a gorgeous Samsung 3D TV as a perk from a job. LOVE IT. Even though the only movie I watched so far is Monsters vs Aliens as that came in the package. I keep thinking it would be amazing if Blade Runner or Stalker or 8 1/2 had been done in 3D so I could now watch them again in a new way.

Doubtless it is a fad, but it is a fad that is here to stay.

Jim Hoffman

07-21-2010, 09:59 PM

I think video gaming and 3d computer monitors will also push this forward.

C. Jagan Mohan

07-21-2010, 10:20 PM

Not all subjects are fit for 3D. In any story telling if there is a benefit of 3d dimension than that 3D movie will be successful at bo. 3D is just at infancy, the graph at this stage doesn't make any sense.

Lucas Wilson

07-21-2010, 11:38 PM

Let me make it clear I'm not trying to shoot the messenger here. : )

http://gizmodo.com/5592956/is-3d-already-dying

Thanks for posting this. The only thing I can think of is the old quote of "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I'm just not sure that consumers are genuinely excited. After the Avatar after-glow has worn off, I suspect 3D will go back to being a curiosity rather than mainstream. I'm sure 3D isn't going away entirely, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the downward revenue trend continue...

I'm in Beijing this week doing a lot of work that involves stereoscopy. At least here, there is nothing but upward momentum. And it has significant government backing, which in China means everything.

Best,

Lucas

Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

Milan Spasic

07-21-2010, 11:54 PM

Jean-Luc Godard plans to shoot in 3D. This surely doesn't mean 3D has a great future but there is real interest for a lot of directors.

Knowing Godard he will find the way to poke fun at the 3D craze.
At least I hope so.

I'm sure that 3D will keep the Hollywood fans captive for a few years.
But I also know that any serious filmgoer will refuse to wear a contraption in order to view a movie. If someone finds a way to make the 3D experience more organic and have 3D enhance the story instead of being a story in itself — then maybe it stands a chance of lasting. For now it's just a gimmick.

Just my 2 dinars.

Lucas Wilson

07-22-2010, 12:12 AM

But I also know that any serious filmgoer will refuse to wear a contraption in order to view a movie.

I wear corrective glasses for my astigmatism and an awful lot of my friends wear contact lenses, bifocals, trifocals, magnifiers, etc. We all go to the movies a lot.

Now what was that about wearing contraptions? ; )

Lucas

Paul Watt

07-22-2010, 12:16 AM

The growth of 3D will also be pushed by sports broadcasts, and action sports. A few years from now, most tv and computer screens will be 3d because it will cost very little more to include the technology. There will be lots of different content choices, as the costs of production come down too. I agree that we're seeing the very beginning, not the end.

Jose Lomeña

07-22-2010, 04:57 AM

dying?... In my opinion 2010 is the challenge year.

This year the number of movies in 3d are awesome. Great and bad movies...

For me, 2D vs 3D, is like sound, Stereo vs 5.1

Is dying 5.1?, The most TV is Stereo, but all new movies are in 5.1. You can decide if you want to listen stereo or surround. Stereo is the past, surround the future.
For me 3d is the future for all contents. And I think the future of cinemas. 3D is a very great experience in cinemas, but, no so great experience in a small TV. 2D cinema is good, but i prefer my TV in my house for this contents.

Why a drama in 3d?... I like the face of actresses in 3d. This is what I most like. The effect in 3d for me are very distracting, like in sound. But the third dimession are great, its an inmersed experience.

Any of you saw "Street Dance"?... I recomend to see it in cinema. 70% with redone?. Low buget movie, but a great 3D movie.

This is only my point of view.

Saludos,

Jose.

M Most

07-22-2010, 07:50 AM

For me, 2D vs 3D, is like sound, Stereo vs 5.1

Is dying 5.1?, The most TV is Stereo, but all new movies are in 5.1.

In the US, nearly all prime time television, both broadcast and cable, is mixed and aired in 5.1. The fact that the vast majority of homes have not equipped for it, and the additional fact that most people don't seem to even know about it, to me only strengthens the argument that 3D in the home might likely encounter a similar degree of apathy from the general viewing public.

Tim Morten

07-22-2010, 07:55 AM

Great to hear all the opinions!

Charts can definitely be "spun", so I have to agree that the data presented is not proof that 3D is dying. Still, the data is thought-provoking. I don't have a horse in this race, but I will watch with interest as this plays out in the next year.

My personal perspective: none of THIS consumer's dollars will be going towards 3D in the next year. My super-un-scientific poll seems to indicate that the majority of people I talk to outside of production feel the same way.

For a theatrical experience, glasses are clunky (even if you already wear corrective lenses as I do). Germophobes hate them. The image is dim. Many people complain of headaches and nausea. The premium that gets charged for the tickets reminds people why they stopped going out to theaters in the first place.

For a home experience, you won't have enough sets of glasses at home for a superbowl party, and the glasses aren't compatible across different TV manufacturers. There is visible "shuttering" on home sets that I find interferes with the viewing experience. Even though the tech is "easy" to add to components, manufacturers are charging a premium.

Bottom line: there is a "gee whiz" factor that gets people to try 3D. After the "gee whiz" wears off, most people don't seem to feel any more immersed than when they watch 2D. There are still obvious frame edges, and there is still a distance between viewer and subject (which changes with every cut) that undermines any attempt to make the audience feel like they are actually on the set themselves. Many perspectives are exagerrated to play up the 3D, resulting in distortion of the world that feels unnatural.

I found Avatar in 2D to be every bit as entertaining as Avatar in 3D, and in a lot of ways, less distracting. Unfortunately, the script didn't improve in either format. :)

The industry is SO behind 3D, I'm sure it's not going away. But I do believe it's going to have a minority audience... time will tell. New tech always excites me, and 3D production appeals to the engineer in me. But I believe those factors are unrelated to actually providing long-term value to consumers after the "gee whiz" wears off.

Best,
Tim

Dustin Cross

07-22-2010, 08:04 AM

I think 3D looks great until fast motion and then it annoys me. Even on the animated movies, fast motion ruins the 3D.

I just saw Avatar on Bluray and thought it looked ten times better than the 3D I saw in Imax. It looked very much like video and amazing animation, but I thougth it looked better than 3D Imax.

So from my experience with 3D the only movies I think should be shot in 3D are dramas, and a drama in 3D is the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

I am ready for 3D to go, except as a gimmick in Horror movies. It actually takes away from the movie experience right now.

I have no problem working on movies shot in 3D, I just don't want to watch them in 3D.

Dusty

Jose Lomeña

07-22-2010, 09:49 AM

In my opinion the big problem of 3D is bad movies and bad projections.

Bad movies = headache
Bad projections = headache + lost of illussion

What projections do you use to watch movies?

I like XpanD with christie projectors. I think is the best. All movies i watch with it, are perfect, I never saw ghosting.

XpanD are planning a new glasses X103 compatible with all consumer tv.

http://www.xpandcinema.com/news/43/

Maybe it can change a bit the illusion in 3d. I don't like Samsung glasses, it has a lot of ghosting.
I don't like polarize glasses too.

My recomendation is only watch 3D movies in good projections cinemas. And only watch movies if other recomend to you.

I'm not assuming here, only my opinion.

Saludos,

Jose.

Eric Lange

07-22-2010, 10:44 AM

Tim I really liked your post.

I do have a couple of horses in this race. For fifteen years I have been working with advanced stereo photogrammetric VR applications for basically recording things and re-presenting them as accurately and realistically as possible in various ways.

The problem here is a sort of chicken and egg. Consumers are not going to demand 3d especially at home, as they have not yet experienced anywhere near the potential that 3d has to offer. So to close this gap the relevant industries particularly SONY have to push this on everyone first so that at least a certain percentage of consumers get the chance to experience what it’s all about. That hasn’t quite happened yet and it’s clear that after enough “pushing” and deployment of “systems” that a certain critical tipping point MAY be reached where the consumers WANT to take up the technology and create an actual demand.

I think the best “cultural” value that 3d has to offer is for live 3d broadcast and “edutainment” or even a combination of the two. I think the combination of immediacy and immersion is very powerful.

Imagine Nat Geo or Discovery, Zahi Hawas, “makes a new discovery” of a tomb in the Valley of the Kings; and we get to follow Zahi to open the tomb or the mummy or the whatever, for the first time in four thousand years. I think broadcast 3d has the potential for a truly immersive experience where you can in essence almost experience much more fully the “moment” of discovery. 2d is not so experiential in this way.

A lot of the work we do is focused on very high quality and high res work because the fields of application demand it; but fundamentally a 2d image is ambiguous and visual “data” is literally missing. (Artistically of course this ambiguity is exploited by Cinematographers). In terms of documentaries and educational (type) media the perceived third dimension offers so much and enables one to present very complex visual information that would be impossible to communicate in 2d. Or the ability to present environments that can not normally be accessed in a much more immersive and physical way, such as the deep sea, space or the red carpet on Oscar’s night. I think what people conceptually miss about 3d and S-3d is that the perceived third dimension offers a much a higher form of visual communication than 2d in terms of spatial understanding as well as enabling the unambiguous perception of very complex scenes and situations in three dimensions. This is why nature invented a spatial sense and stereopsis. Football players need stereopsis and a spatial sense to gauge position and distances, and similarly a 3d version of the game removes nearly all of the spatial ambiguity of dimensions collapsed onto an arbitrary 2d plane.

Sports, learning and documentaries, and live events with or without the stars, that’s where it’s at ( I believe), the focus is going to shift from movies to broadcast; bring it on!

Rob Delafonte

07-22-2010, 11:50 AM

A bit of a side note here, but at CES 2008 (yeah, over two years ago) every major both - Sony, Microsoft, Intel, PC vendors - were showing off 3D movies and games (Monsters vs. Aliens, WipEout HD on PS3) running off LCD displays using REALD 3D tech... as in Non-powered, borderline weightless $0.25-a-pair, polarized glasses. Fast forward two years, and all the consumer TVs available require expensive ($150!?), heavy, battery powered shutter glasses... As in the same tech we've had for two decades with none of the benefits of the polarized method of 3D that theatres are currently using.

Back on topic, that kind of backwards (or at least non-progressive) thinking is only holding back 3D tech. More over, it *almost* seems like the current crop of consumer 3D tvs were only pumped out to ride on the success of Avatar (made more believeable by the wave of shot-in-2D-converted-to-3D movies that followed Avatar's release) . So regardless of whether or not it's here to stay, it seems like vendors aren't even trying to give the customers the best 3D experience (the exception being Nintendo.)

On the flip side, if all current TVs supported 3D (with cheapy RealD style glasses) then no one would have a problem since, at the very least, it would be considered a cost-free bonus to the consumer. As it is now, you have to pay quite an expensive premium just to have access to a technology that is neither fresh or exciting (since it seems so hacked together and the only worthwhile effort has been Avatar or CGI movies).

I think 3D tech *could have* capitalized on the new-found excitement that Avatar brought, but vendors tried to use it as a cashcow even though no one really wanted to pay for it. As for shooting 3D; I'd only do it if I honestly felt the movie would benefit from it (e.g. it was a big budget action/adventure movie like Avatar) OR it came at little-to-no extra cost to the production (which is, currently, wishful thinking).

Jose Lomeña

07-22-2010, 12:20 PM

A bit of a side note here, but at CES 2008 (yeah, over two years ago) every major both - Sony, Microsoft, Intel, PC vendors - were showing off 3D movies and games (Monsters vs. Aliens, WipEout HD on PS3) running off LCD displays using REALD 3D tech... as in Non-powered, borderline weightless $0.25-a-pair, polarized glasses. Fast forward two years, and all the consumer TVs available require expensive ($150!?), heavy, battery powered shutter glasses... As in the same tech we've had for two decades with none of the benefits of the polarized method of 3D that theatres are currently using.

Back on topic, that kind of backwards (or at least non-progressive) thinking is only holding back 3D tech. More over, it *almost* seems like the current crop of consumer 3D tvs were only pumped out to ride on the success of Avatar (made more believeable by the wave of shot-in-2D-converted-to-3D movies that followed Avatar's release) . So regardless of whether or not it's here to stay, it seems like vendors aren't even trying to give the customers the best 3D experience (the exception being Nintendo.)

On the flip side, if all current TVs supported 3D (with cheapy RealD style glasses) then no one would have a problem since, at the very least, it would be considered a cost-free bonus to the consumer. As it is now, you have to pay quite an expensive premium just to have access to a technology that is neither fresh or exciting (since it seems so hacked together and the only worthwhile effort has been Avatar or CGI movies).

I think 3D tech *could have* capitalized on the new-found excitement that Avatar brought, but vendors tried to use it as a cashcow even though no one really wanted to pay for it. As for shooting 3D; I'd only do it if I honestly felt the movie would benefit from it (e.g. it was a big budget action/adventure movie like Avatar) OR it came a little-to-no extra cost to the production (which is, currently, wishful thinking).

Shutter glasses are expensive now. But I think the price will decrease. How is possible that a glasses cost like a 24" tft monitor?... this is crazy!.

Only time I think. But polarized system, at least for me, is not the present or future, for me, is the past. Because the vision angle and ghosting are a big problem that you can't fix easily with cheap monitors. Do you know any polarized single lens projector for home cinema?

Saludos,

Jose

Rob Delafonte

07-22-2010, 12:38 PM

Shutter glasses are expensive now. But I think the price will decrease. How is possible that a glasses cost like a 24" tft monitor?... this is crazy!.

Only time I think. But polarized system, at least for me, is not the present or future, for me, is the past. Because the vision angle and ghosting are a big problem that you can't fix easily with cheap monitors. Do you know any polarized single lens projector for home cinema?

Saludos,

Jose

I don't think there are any consumer-level (affordable) polarized single lens projectors, but I was talking about LCDs (or LED TVs) that were displaying polarized images (they worked with REALD-branded polarized glasses.) As far as ghosting, I think it'd be because the image resolution would need to be dropped to 540p in order for a 1080p display to show both images simultaneously, but it looked really good even at 52" (or whatever size the demo TVs were.)

Also, not that I tested, but isn't the viewing/vision angle supposed to be awesome with polarized images, or is it only awesome with projected polarized images?

In either case, I still think they dropped the ball with this current resurgence of 3D. Hopefully, with cameras like epic/scarlet and panny's new one, the cost of shooting 3D becomes so miniscule that it'll make shooting in the format a much easier pill to swallow from a budget standpoint. However (as someone else mentioned above) it's the post production costs that'll drive up the budget.

Emanuel A.

07-22-2010, 02:05 PM

Totally stupid chart.Really stupid ;-)

Ravi Kiran

07-22-2010, 02:23 PM

Eric Lange

07-22-2010, 03:48 PM

2D to 3D conversions make 3D look bad. It hasn't even been a year since Avatar was released, so it will take time for movies shot in 3D to hit theaters. The studios could easily cause a backlash by putting out dim, poorly done post-3D films for which people get tired of paying extra. If anything, they should advertise that their true 3D movies were shot in 3D. I think

As for 3D in the home, I haven't seen any 3D TVs yet, but I would think that 3D really needs a big screen to shine. Otherwise, is it very immersive? 3D might be best experienced in a movie theater rather than in the living room, but maybe I'm wrong.

I agree with that.

TVs are big enough, in terms of angular field of view, especially now their growing size year on year seems virtually unabated.

It’s not so much about full body immersion like a VR Cave™, but more about eliminating the inherent dimensional ambiguity of 2d images and the perception of fine and complex three dimensional features and textures. I.e. it brings about a higher degree of spatial comprehension and engagement. Whether that translates into dollars or not is really down to the imagination of the producers and content creators. The tools and will are there; the market will come, but can we as technicians, creators and inventors deliver exciting and useful media with the new opportunities offered by this potentially very powerful communication medium? Before long we can’t blame the limitations of the technology but rather the limitations of our creative abilities.

Cheers,

Eric

Joel Kaye

07-22-2010, 03:55 PM

Eric Lange

07-22-2010, 04:28 PM

Is 3D dying? Not for studios. For consumers it was never alive in the first place.

The chart might be stupid but can anybody show any evidence 3D boosted any movies sales? I believe Avatar's sales had very little to do with the fact it was in 3D. It was a great movie. I saw it in 2D first. 3D popped me out of the movie a few times when I did see it that way.

My experience is 3D has ZERO buzz in the real world for real moviegoers. Other than Avatar, I've never heard anyone mention it as a reason to see any movie, anywhere anytime.

Does Inception earn another dollar if it's in 3D? It certainly could have been in 3D. And Salt?

Piranha 3D. Does the audience out there care about the technology? Like fake vs. real 3D? They don't care about 3D at all. Why the would they care if it's real 3D or not?

Are a ton more movies going to be shot in 3D? YES!! 3D is one more thing to talk about and Hollywood likes things to talk about. But to assert consumers give a crap is totally different than saying 3D is important to the studios.

So the author of the article is probably sorta right and those that think more 3D is coming are surely right.

I think you make some good points.

Initially the market data a few years ago was trying to make out that 3d means triple the revenue and run time because of the novelty that people go see the movie more than once.

Well to ask the question another way, if it was mandatory that all movies were made in 3d, I think movie goers would be really pissed off and would picket outside of studios and cinemas.

On the other hand If 3d movies were banned then most consumers would shrug their shoulders and go “oh well..”.

I think the big players and manufacturers are looking to 3d as more of “life style” set of applications in the home. So can a die hard sports fan live without his football games in 3d; videos of holidays and happy snaps of the kids in stereo and so on, awesome CG games in 3d and so on. It’s pretty easy to see that the latest offerings from for example SONY (not to go on about SONY too much) in terms of prosumer video cameras (14MP Exmore sensor) etc. NEX-5 etc. seem VERY tweekable for 3d applications and it seems perhaps pretty soon that useful S-3d products will be put into the hands of the consumers. I think cinematic S-3d may become more saturated more quickly than people will imagine but S-3d for the home is where the big players are really thinking towards and that may in turn ultimately boost or continue use of s-3d in the cinema.

Lucas Wilson

07-22-2010, 05:15 PM

My experience is 3D has ZERO buzz in the real world for real moviegoers. Other than Avatar, I've never heard anyone mention it as a reason to see any movie, anywhere anytime.

Do you have kids? : )

My 10 and 7-year old *absolutely* think 3D is a reason to go to a movie, and given a choice (which I have given them many times) they always choose the 3D movie.

Much of this technology is going to take a few years to mature, and the dollars in this battle are not about us, but about our kids and where their overwhelmingly powerful 18 - 24 demographic dollars will go.

Lucas

Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

Eric Lange

07-22-2010, 06:03 PM

Do you have kids? : )

My 10 and 7-year old *absolutely* think 3D is a reason to go to a movie, and given a choice (which I have given them many times) they always choose the 3D movie.

Much of this technology is going to take a few years to mature, and the dollars in this battle are not about us, but about our kids and where their overwhelmingly powerful 18 - 24 demographic dollars will go.

Lucas

Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

I have to stop agreeing with everybody.
Lucas I totally agree…

Anyone seriously working in this area is looking to develop technologies and techniques for the long term. It takes so long in some cases to bring things to market you always have to try and plan where everybody is going to be in ten years, not where they are now. You pass the ball to where someone is going to be not where they happen to be now, as nothing is static and we are all moving forward (like it or not). It’s only about now that the various big and smaller players really see that this long term goal is now possible, whereas before everyone was a bit on the side lines. Now we can see that these things are doable and worth investing in or worth pushing for (as for a lot of corporations and manufacturers there isn’t anywhere else to push forward and go right now, in spite of being a bit of gamble). If we weren’t doing 3d (apart from 4k which seems much/a bit further away, what would we be doing “new” right now instead?

Joel Kaye

07-22-2010, 07:27 PM

Do you have kids? : )

My 10 and 7-year old *absolutely* think 3D is a reason to go to a movie

It could be. But kids want all kinds of crap just because you put it in front of them. Like toys in cereal boxes... right? So is 3D just a marketing thing that hooks kids or do kids actually like it better? Have your kids ever picked a 2D movie over a 3D movie?

From a marketing perspective I'd be making 3D movies if I was a studio - especially kid movies.

Hollywood is the absolute king of selling you something you didn't even want yesterday. They do it every time a new movie comes out. 3D is something to talk about. It's worth doing.

But honestly - have you ever had a normal human adult moviegoer BRING UP 3D? I never have. I've had producers bring it up. The 7D probably comes up 20x as often that. That thing actually is a consumer demand phenomenon.

M Most

07-22-2010, 07:39 PM

2D to 3D conversions make 3D look bad.

Bad 2d to 3d conversions make 3d look bad. Good conversions make it look good. If you think all conversions are bad, you haven't seen conversions done properly and well. That doesn't mean they don't exist and it doesn't mean more of them won't exist.

The fact is that 3D production is a pain and is quite limiting at this point in time. That's one reason why a number of very large pictures due for 3d releases are going the conversion route, but doing it properly, with good, experienced vendors, sufficient time to do it right, and proper planning and execution during live production.

Eric Lange

07-22-2010, 08:09 PM

It could be. But kids want all kinds of crap just because you put it in front of them. Like toys in cereal boxes... right? So is 3D just a marketing thing that hooks kids or do kids actually like it better? Have your kids ever picked a 2D movie over a 3D movie?

... phenomenon.

Mine did, a twelve year old and a seven year old.

I wanted to see Despicable Me in 3d but my kids wouldn’t have it.

The problem was a few years ago we went to Disney in Florida where they had permanent “old style” 3d cinematic installations, Donald duck and bugs and the like (not even captain Emo…); The kids complained that 3d makes you sick…and this and that….

I say “no, no, 3d is really good now,…really, they have RealD and all that and the image is really steady as its CG rendered and digitally projected, and it’s not gimmicky stuff that comes out of the screen all the time..”

Young Henry says, “No, I don’t want to risk it and besides I hear the colors are really dark and Zoe will have to hold the glasses on her head the whole time as she is so small…”

“Ooooo K, so we’ll see the 2d version.” (So I’m the disappointed kid).

Kids are more savvy, fickle and discerning than you might think. Bad 3d seems however to leave a lasting impression, given that kids are inherently of an impressionable age. So maybe we need to make our 3d REALLY good in the first place!

Lucas Wilson

07-22-2010, 08:10 PM

Your points are good points and not to diminish them, but just as a point of interest...

Have your kids ever picked a 2D movie over a 3D movie?

No. Not when there was a choice between 2D and 3D. Not even a close call.

Lucas

Leo Sardello

07-22-2010, 11:32 PM

According to this article (3rd paragraph from the bottom):

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/26/ready-or-not-the-latest-3d-technology-is-coming-home/

4% of people are physically incapable of experiencing 3D, while another 56% of people between 18 and 38 may have difficulty in getting the whole of the 3D experience. Now if those numbers are correct, in theory I would think we would start to see a drop off in 3D ticket sales at some point as a portion of that 60% discover the experience isn’t worth the extra money for them. I have to think that if the experience isn’t pretty amazing for a person for any reason, they’re only gunna pay the premium to try it a couple of times before they give up. Poor conversions certainly can’t help this.

While the data gizmodo is citing is far from representing an accurate picture of the current state of 3D; I’m curious if this drop off could be related to the above, or due to something else like the lack of a true event movie to drive the extra cost during the summer. Interestingly enough my 15 year old niece claims to see no difference between 2D and 3D and hates the glasses. I on the other hand have thoroughly enjoyed all 3 3D experiences I’ve had (Up, Avatar, and Coraline).

And a problem with 3D in the home is that the HDTV penetration in the US only broke the 50% mark this year. Many of those people who just bought new TV’s are not going to be very interested in purchasing another one so soon. If 3D is here to stay, I think it will be quite awhile before we see any type of broad adoption of it in the home. The local sports bar might be a different matter ;)

jonnycom

07-22-2010, 11:46 PM

Many of the HD TV's sold in the past year are already 3D ready if they can do 120hz, just add the nvidea kit for $170. But it will really take off when the passive TV's start shipping which are right around the corner. I think the active systems being sold now are just a way to get rid of the old panels. I saw Sony's true 1080 xpol and it was amazing, also a new passive laser TV is getting close to coming out.

Leo Sardello

07-23-2010, 12:52 AM

That’s true to an extent, but my understanding is that there is a difference between a “3D ready” TV, and a TV that merely has a 120hz refresh rate. Especially when it comes to the new 3D Blu-ray players that pump 3D over HDMI 1.4. The number of TVs ready to accept content from 3D Blu-ray is relatively small, very recent and still rather expensive. Unless the consumer purchased a “3D Ready” labeled TV, their display is unlikely to be ready for the new standards for 3D delivery.

The 120hz 3D Vision compatible TVs listed on Nvidia’s site have used DLP’s 3D technology which makes them 3D ready.

But if I’m wrong on any of this, I hope to be corrected :wink5:

Jay A. Kelley

07-23-2010, 05:44 AM

I think 3D has a lot of life left to it, that said, I do not see it as ever replacing 2D films. I see it more as an "extended option" for those movies where it makes sense.

Right now, people are stuffing anything they can find into 3D to make some extra coin. This could be the killer for 3D. If enough crappy product is released, then overall sales will go down and studios will lose the incentive (thank you "Last Airbender").

"Avatar" made a statement: "This is how you do 3D right". But the movies which would follow Avatar's example are still in production. We'll have to see how this all shakes out.

As a consumer, I no longer see a movie in 3D just because it is. I check to see if it was shot in 3D or just messed with after. As for films like "Toy Story 3" My kids do not give a rip about 3D, and my 3 year old will not wear the glasses. HOWEVER we saw "Dispicable Me" in 3D and they loved that, especially the end credits.

Jay

Petri Teittinen

07-23-2010, 05:57 AM

But if I’m wrong on any of this, I hope to be corrected
You're not wrong. There are two worlds of consumer 3D around at the moment and it gets confusing. PCs attached to a 3D monitor capable of 120Hz refresh rates use "time-sequential" or "page flip" structure, i.e. the graphics card is simply pushing 120 frames per second to the display. New HDMI 1.4 consumer 3D HDTVs are unable to process 120fps time-sequential video streams, so you can't connect a PC to a HDMI 1.4 3D HDTV and expect it to work.

Nvidia is working on a piece software called 3DTV Play which is supposed to bridge this gap.

Blu-ray 3D uses "frame packing" structure where every frame has a resolution of 1920x2205. It contains both left and right eye images inside a single frame with 45 'empty' pixels in between. Blu-ray 3D players output these frames at 24p which the new HDMI 1.4 3D HDTVs are designed to display.

Time-sequential 120Hz monitors and older 3D DLP TVs are unable to process or display "frame packed" video from a stand-alone Blu-ray 3D player.

Eric Lange

07-23-2010, 06:12 AM

According to this article (3rd paragraph from the bottom):

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/26/ready-or-not-the-latest-3d-technology-is-coming-home/

And a problem with 3D in the home is that the HDTV penetration in the US only broke the 50% mark this year. Many of those people who just bought new TV’s are not going to be very interested in purchasing another one so soon. If 3D is here to stay, I think it will be quite awhile before we see any type of broad adoption of it in the home. The local sports bar might be a different matter ;)

The big players are looking at 3d TV as a long term investment, so minimally let’s say a fifteen year arc to see a real return on investment. Very different from a movie production that may get its money back in four years after initial investment.

A few years ago at a major stereo conference they had the inventor of the DLP give a presentation. He was saying at that time there were 2 million 3d capable TVs in people’s homes in the US; (interdigitated 3d). It’s not hard to see that in the next few years there will be at least 10 million 3d capable TV’s in people’s homes. Maybe a third of those owners will stump up for the extra kit to actually experience s-3d. To manufacturers that may be of the order of $500 (additional) per unit x 3 million users = $1.5 billion additional dollars at point of sale. That’s pretty conservative and that’s just the US. The big players don’t really get to see much of the revenue created by a $7 increase in ticket price at a 3d movie (it’s a bit of closed loop, and the cookie jar is not that big).

I think over the next 15 years a broader uptake of S-3d in the home will be unavoidable. Anyone who grew up in the 60’s or 70’s will probably appreciate the fact that very few of the promises of the FUTURE ever came to pass. We don’t fly around in fusion powered automobiles, or have weekend trips to the moon, BUT for $500.00 we can have 3d TV???? That’s a no brainer. I used to be a millionaire, but regardless of how much money you have I think you are pretty careless or decadent if you buy a 60” plasma. I think with s-3d you get a lot more bang for your buck, and fifteen years from now most people will have junked their 2d HDTV’s. I think within five years the psychology of keeping up with the Jones’s or the Rendons is going to take over and within ten years at least quarter of American homes COULD have 3d capability. Advertising of course is going to pay for most of this which is what pays for most of the channels and programming we have; in the first few years people will be captivated by Big Macs spinning slowly in their living room that appear to drip ketchup onto the living room carpet. I think only fifteen years from now can we say yup 3d worked or became a major flop.

Like the “graph” the s-3d movies will come and go in waves like the ebb and flow of the tides. Next year will see a glut and over saturation of 3d movies, but ultimately S-3d at home and many billions of advertising dollars will carry the general use of S-3d and that will ultimately spill over to the cinema. Who knows maybe people go to see 2d movies just as a relief to get away from all that bloody 3d!

Cheers,
Eric

Tim Morten

07-23-2010, 08:42 AM

Possible.

Or it could be a fad, despite the best efforts of the consumer electonics marketing departments.

Time will tell... I'm sure we'll see an uptick in consumer 3D capability (you can only go up from zero), and it may eventually add so little cost that there's no reason NOT to have a 3D set.

I guess the question to answer is: will 3D content be the de-facto standard, or will it only garner a minority audience who continue to harbor enthusiasm for it?

Some believe the former, some the latter... I'm definitely in the second camp.

Cheers,
Tim

Rick Burnett

07-23-2010, 09:42 AM

What amuses me is here you can get a 3D system for your home television in 1987!

http://books.google.com/books?id=AuQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=atarist+shutter+glasses&source=bl&ots=9M0Q-wvPn-&sig=pbC697c8sVcsJUyWUObgl4Rf5N4&hl=en&ei=EcVJTMWoLMH98Aa_h7WRDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I remember even earlier, the Atari ST had 3D shutter glasses available as well. This tech has been around for A LONG time.

I agree with one thing, so far, 2D to 3D conversions have been horrible. I really disliked the 3D of Alice in Wonderland, as they did NOT do a good job of building a realistic 3D experience. Avatar on the other hand was MUCH better done (obviously recorded in 3D).

Not that a better 2D to 3D is not possible, but clearly it's not trivial either. With something like a pair of Scarlet 2/3 running, I have to imagine acquisition will get easier with smaller gear. For post, yeah, that's a tough one. Especially for VFX work where you are doing things like rotoscoping dual viewpoints. I don't envy the person compositing those shots.

One thing I will point out that many of you might not be aware of but gaming is going to be really pushing 3D technology for NON 3D purposes. Sony is working on a system where two players can watch two different full screen images on a 3D set for multiplayer modes. This is AWESOME as split screen has always been so horrible.

All that said, I have NO desire to get a 3D projection system or TV. I'll just go to IMAX with my power pass and see 3D films for $5.

Leo Sardello

07-23-2010, 11:36 AM

Sony is working on a system where two players can watch two different full screen images on a 3D set for multiplayer modes. This is AWESOME as split screen has always been so horrible.

I too was reading about that. Totally sweet concept! :cornut:
And certainly the more ways the technology can be applied the more reasons to buy into it.

There’s also a demo of a Microsoft display that can track two people and display a 3D image to them independently for their viewing angle, without glasses. That’s got some potential.

Although, another thing I’ve noticed for myself in the theater is that the screen really has to cover my field of view for the 3D to be very effective for me. Not that I don’t see an effect farther back, but it just kind of looks like a moving diorama to me when I can see the frame. This will definitely affect my decisions in purchasing a home display if I ever choose to do so. I wonder if this is true for other people too.

Rick Burnett

07-23-2010, 11:56 AM

I too was reading about that. Totally sweet concept! :cornut:
And certainly the more ways the technology can be applied the more reasons to buy into it.

There’s also a demo of a Microsoft display that can track two people and display a 3D image to them independently for their viewing angle, without glasses. That’s got some potential.

Although, another thing I’ve noticed for myself in the theater is that the screen really has to cover my field of view for the 3D to be very effective for me. Not that I don’t see an effect farther back, but it just kind of looks like a moving diorama to me when I can see the frame. This will definitely affect my decisions in purchasing a home display if I ever choose to do so. I wonder if this is true for other people too.

Absolutely! This is why I only go to the IMAX for 3D and sit in the middle.

jonnycom

07-24-2010, 12:37 AM

The future is already here.

Marc Wielage

07-24-2010, 03:01 AM

Miltos Pilalitos

07-25-2010, 10:33 AM

No matter what the companies want or what kind of technology is developed, the only thing that counts at the end is what the audience wants.

This is a report from last day's ComiCon about Cowboys & Aliens:

Favreau told the crowd that he wanted to do a straight up John Ford-esque Western with old school sci-fi elements reminscent of films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He also insitigated a monstrous cheer from the crowd when he announced the film wouldn't be in 3D. A sign of what's to come? Perhaps

Justin Armstrong

07-25-2010, 12:14 PM

In response the 1st post, god I hope so. Watching a 3d tv display at best buy is cool for a good 5 minutes, but that's about it in my opinion.
I think this kind of technology goes hand in hand with the idea of people thinking everyone will have a 4k tv in their living room tomorrow. It's not gonna happen...for a long, long, long time. (if not, longer)

If you think about it, how many people actually have HDTVs? And then, what is the much smaller percentage of people who have it hooked up to a bluray player or HD input.
Seriously, the average joe is fine with just a big LCD tv and the up-rezing of a standard def source. I seriously dont see this changing for a long time, let alone 3d or upwards of HD resolutions.

This is why I think Jim is "before his time" so to speak.

Sure, 4k, 5k and 128k is beautiful to look at and cool to think about but the only people who really give a damn are those who are in the digital/film industry and a few visual-philes (and a few people who are just so rich they need to say they have a 4k display for their security system on their private island :laugh:).

In the future will it be here, probably. The very distant future.

No matter what the companies want or what kind of technology is developed, the only thing that counts at the end is what the audience wants. I can completely agree with this...

So you can smack me with all your statistics about your "idealistic market" and what not, and trust me it all sounds cool, but I'm just being realistic here.

Joel Kaye

07-25-2010, 09:16 PM

Very interesting piece on TheWrap.com about "The Dark Side in 3D's Bright Future":

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/3d-progress-lost-dark-19392

No question, the article is written with a negative slant, but the essential facts are true: you do lose more than half the light in a one-projector/polarized system. I think this will eventually be solved, but there are a lot of tough challenges for theatrical 3D projection.

Maybe that explains why I liked the 2D version of Avatar so much.

Darkness aside - I just don't think watching a movie in 3D is a particularly enjoyable for 2 hours.

I mean, if Comicon crowd cheers when a movie that probably warrants 3D is NOT in 3D then who the hell is the audience? Just think about that for a second... that kind of public reaction is really, really, really bad. It's a story that's going to travel. The second 3D becomes uncool for the techno crowd (early adopters) is the same second it's over. People start getting a negative feeling about it and it's going to be hard to fix that.

I still think the studios are going to keep trying... but if big, powerful Directors like Nolan keep saying NO - that'll be the end of that.

Leo Sardello

07-26-2010, 02:01 AM

I mean, if Comicon crowd cheers when a movie that probably warrants 3D is NOT in 3D then who the hell is the audience?

That point could be debatable. To play devil’s advocate… The Comic-con audience is very sophisticated when it comes to genre. It could simply be that they see a “John Ford-esque Western with old school Sci-fi elements” as better suited for a 2D release. They may just get that vision and were worried about that particular film being made in 3D. I mean this is the same target audience that packed in to see 4 min. of Avatar last year just to come out praising its 3D brilliance.

Though either way I completely agree that kind of perceived backlash will spread fast and only adds to the general negativity toward 3D being espoused in the media right now.

Ravi Kiran

07-26-2010, 11:13 AM

It hasn't even been a year since Avatar was released, so it will take some time for true 3D features to start hitting screens. Those should have better looking 3D effects, and hopefully they're actually good movies too. Hollywood could kill 3D by making the audiences fed up with paying extra for dim 3D conversions with a poor 3D image. The Average Joe probably doesn't know that Avatar was shot in 3D, while Clash of the Titans wasn't, so they may end up thinking that all 3D sucks.

IMO the only way 3D will become as ubiquitous as color is if they get rid of glasses, the image is bright enough, and we don't have to pay extra for 3D. I still think 3D is going to be a niche presentation format primarily used for horror, fantasy, and children's films. Unless the above three conditions are met, I doubt you'd get a lot of people to see a dialogue-heavy romantic comedy in 3D.

As for 3D TV, I think 3D needs a big screen to actually be immersive. When you can see the framelines and your surrounding room (unlike in a movie theater), it doesn't exactly feel like you're in the movie, even with 3D.

Erica Garcia

07-26-2010, 11:30 AM

Guys I might sound stupid, but give me The Godfather 1 in 2 D and I´m happy. I particularly find 3D disturbing but I accept that a lot of people like it. I just think that 3D is another genre , it will evolve as a genre, let´s see...

Tim Whitcomb

07-26-2010, 12:42 PM

Totally stupid chart.

I nominate this for REDUSER POST OF THE YEAR!

too funny Mark since you guys are killing it with 3-D.

Elsie N

07-26-2010, 12:49 PM

I just think that 3D is another genre , it will evolve as a genre, let´s see...
Makes sense.

Michael McVicar

07-26-2010, 04:58 PM

Favreau told the crowd that he wanted to do a straight up John Ford-esque Western with old school sci-fi elements reminscent of films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He also insitigated a monstrous cheer from the crowd when he announced the film wouldn't be in 3D. A sign of what's to come? PerhapsActually the cheer came up when he said he wouldn't do a 2D to 3D conversion. He also said that he was shooting film to not have that digital look. It looks like it's going to be a good film by the way. At least the short segment was. It has a unique concept of genre blending with some very talented people working on it.