Thread: Is 3D dying

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 218
  1. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Montreal - Toronto - NYC
    Posts
    1,706
    Some 3D films do very well in 3D, and some people do like 3D. I think it has settled into a certain percentage of releases, maybe 15% or so, and it will stay there. I for one would not welcome the headache of shooting in 3D, but it has its place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,203
    US sports broadcaster ESPN will shut down its three year old 3D channel by the end of this year.
    There is a lack of viewer interest in watching 3D content at home. ESPN 3D's audience ratings were below Nielsen's measurable threshold.
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...-eyeing-567624

    We are committing our 3D resources to other products and services that will better serve fans and affiliates," the company said in a statement. "We continue to experiment with things like Ultra HD TV production tools to produce our current ESPN family of HD channels
    __________

    Vince Pace says Glasses-free 3D makes business sense

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...glasses-437013
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member Brad Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    956
    With ESPN backing out, 3D TV is dead. 3D cinema is still making money. However the consumer has gotten smarter about 3D movies. Post converted movies do not do as well in 3D at the B.O. as movies shot and developed for 3D.

    IMAX does great in cinema and that is the true future. 4K + and giant cinema screens.
    Scarlet X - 643 "Kong"
    DP Reel
    www.digitalladder.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Webb View Post
    With ESPN backing out, 3D TV is dead. 3D cinema is still making money. However the consumer has gotten smarter about 3D movies. Post converted movies do not do as well in 3D at the B.O. as movies shot and developed for 3D.

    .
    Really? Iron Man 3 and Star Trek didn't do as well as....what? I think a lot of people here who are either involved in or want to be involved in stereoscopic production would like for what you state to be true. Except that it isn't. The public is interested in what they're interested in, and it has a lot more to do with the movie itself than whether it was post converted or shot stereo. And from where I sit, the 3D pictures that do the best 3D business are animated features - which aren't "shot" at all...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,621
    3D is not going anywhere. Itīs a proven money maker, and all tent-poles are embracing it. Itīs too much a of a money maker to pass up. Its also an experience, especially in IMAX, that is very difficult to replicate at home, which is another very strong SELL.

    As more film-makers embrace it, the medium will get better. Remember, most directorīs have only taken one crack or maybe two at 3D. Wait until until some of our best directors and DPīs have shot 4 or 5 pictures in 3D....their syntax will only get better, and their pictures stronger. Like any medium, it will get better with time.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member Mike Garrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,173
    Personally I always assumed 3D in cinema was an anti-pirates measure. Now with digital distribution the need for it is dwindling. Plus there are too many non original capture 3D movies which have sullied the 3D name . I still remember "Clash of the Titan's " with the hero's ear grafted onto his shoulder in glorious 3D, made a motza but looked appalling. For broadcast it was never going to happen, mainstream anyway, too much like looking like an ant farm with little people running around inside. So are paying audiences really going to miss it , will they pay the extra dollars to see it, are producers going to miss the extra dollars required to make it happen, are cinemas going to miss running that extra projector & halving the costly bulb life in a climate of diminishing demand ?

    I believe that's a emphatic NO on every front.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Garrick View Post
    Personally I always assumed 3D in cinema was an anti-pirates measure. Now with digital distribution the need for it is dwindling. Plus there are too many non original capture 3D movies which have sullied the 3D name . I still remember "Clash of the Titan's " with the hero's ear grafted onto his shoulder in glorious 3D, made a motza but looked appalling. For broadcast it was never going to happen, mainstream anyway, too much like looking like an ant farm with little people running around inside. So are paying audiences really going to miss it , will they pay the extra dollars to see it, are producers going to miss the extra dollars required to make it happen, are cinemas going to miss running that extra projector & halving the costly bulb life in a climate of diminishing demand ?

    I believe that's a emphatic NO on every front.
    You may be right about the early growing pains of 3D, but this doesnīt change the fact that Hollywood has embraced 3D, and just about EVERY SINGLE tent-pole movie is REQUIRED to deliver in 3D. Itīs almost like the studios consider it fiscal suicide to give up the extra $$$ they are making on those screens. I have to imagine if they were LOSING MONEY, they wouldnīt be doing it. But clearly, itīs creating revenue, so they are plunging full speed ahead. Here are some interesting quotes from this article in Business Insider:

    First of all, 3D seems to be making money...

    For the most part, the latest round of films to come out in 3D are earning money. For the most part, the latest round of films to come out in 3D are earning money...
    The tent poles are clearly doing well by delivering in 3D.

    After looking at the highest-grossing films of 2012, nine of the top 15 were in 3D, helping to make this year at the box office the biggest yet with a projected $10.8 million earnings worldwide.
    And then look at this note about how well 3D does internationally:

    Jeff Gomez, CEO of Starlight Runner Entertainment, shared another important fact about 3D with us — the lucrative international revenue.

    "It's important to remember that 3D does dynamite overseas, accounting for a significant percentage of foreign box office for the studios," says Gomez. "So I don't think the studios will be put off the process any time soon."
    If itīs making money and driving the big blockbusters, then I assume...for better of for worse...its hear to stay.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Garrick View Post
    ... are cinemas going to miss running that extra projector & halving the costly bulb life in a climate of diminishing demand ?
    The only common theatrical format that requires two projectors for 3D is Imax. All others, including RealD, Dolby, and XPand, are projected using a single projector, with the only change in bulb life attributable to running the bulb a bit "hotter" to achieve an acceptable light level on the screen through the 3D system.

    Personally, I don't see prospects for any real growth in theatrical 3D. I really don't see the number of screens increasing from here on out, if anything, the opposite might very well be the case. The interest in it has already peaked, and unless there is a real technical breakthrough - like, for instance, actual 3D instead of stereography - I don't really see it returning, just as it didn't return the 4 or 5 other times it's been tried in the last 60 years or so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Boca Raton, Florida.
    Posts
    140
    3D is to film what digital was to photography. Is the future. You want to live in the past... is your choice. Dreamwork pioneers, Sony any major brand you name it you got it, all are moving into it like frantic crazy. These are the Gods of now and near future technology. I have seen 3D that is way better than real life 3D!!! And I do it myself also all the time for yrs now. We have a fixed mm vision. If you use lenses from 6mm to 12000mm that I have used to produce awesome jaw dropping 3D then you will look at 2D like a very Very VERY un natural representation of reality (Even if you have one eye). RED is super smart to acquire Element Technica. I still remember people who were saying that the digital will never catch to film. Now they eat their words. Same thing will happen with all those who claim that 3D is no good, will never catch up etc. Wake up NOW!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    First of all, 3D seems to be making money.....The tent poles are clearly doing well by delivering in 3D.
    One can interpret numbers in many different ways. I would argue that tentpoles would be "doing well" and making money with or without 3D versions. I really don't think the box office on, say, Star Trek or Iron Man would have been any lower in terms of numbers of tickets sold without the 3D version. Those pictures are doing well by delivering movies that people want to see, period. And I think the gravy train of higher ticket prices for 3D is definitely coming to and end.

    And then look at this note about how well 3D does internationally
    For most foreign territories, the 3D is still a bit of a novelty, just as it was in the US a few years ago. We'll see if that interest continues. My guess is that it very well might not.

    If itīs making money and driving the big blockbusters, then I assume...for better of for worse...its hear to stay.
    I think it's quite a stretch to say 3D is what's "driving the big blockbusters." The big blockbusters are driven by what they've always been driven by, which is a lot of pent up interest created by either well known characters, a sequel to a popular franchise, or a tie in to something like a video game or comics. I don't think "Oblivion" suffered at the box office one bit by not doing a 3D version. Nor did "Skyfall," "Hunger Games," "Twilight Breaking Dawn," "Ted", "Django Unchained," "Snow White and the Huntsman," or a number of other pictures that were among the largest grossing releases in the last year. Studios make decisions based on either optimistic scenarios or fear, sometimes both. The 3D goose is no longer laying the golden egg every time out, and the studios know it. How much it continues is anyone's guess at this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts