Yes, in the right films and filmed right. I'm perfecly willing to pay the extra £1-1.50 to see a decently prduced 3D film. Some films on the other hand would look better in 2D, much like some films look better in B&W etc.
3D: gimmick or not?
- Thread starter nicktay2605
- Start date
Yes, in the right films and filmed right. I'm perfecly willing to pay the extra £1-1.50 to see a decently prduced 3D film. Some films on the other hand would look better in 2D, much like some films look better in B&W etc.
The cinemas are dying because the percentage of people in modern society who can genuinely allow themselves to "submerge" in cinematic experience at a price of 2-3 hours of their life and a cost of 5 movies from Tesco shelf is simply a dying breed.
We are too busy, we have too little time.
And to those of us, who cannot regularly spare 3 hours to go to cinema, the idea that we would have time to sit in front of our own TV in battery powered glasses and do nothing else but watch the screen through those glasses for 2 hours to "submerge" in a 3D movie is a luxury we are probably never going to have.
What's more, once the novelty stops being a factor in your busy life, it very quickly turns out to be a favour - if you wait long enough, all of the movies you missed in cinema will be in bargain bin or endless reruns on satellite TV. And then there is the social aspect of technological race - if you do it too quickly, people just won't bother. The jump from VHS to DVD was long and well pronounced. Jump from DVD to HD was messy, short and financially ugly. Jump from HD to 3D was just blink of an eye on a geeks face. It had almost literally "WTF, what do you mean I need another TV and player" effect to most people.
What I'm trying to point at is the fact that most of us still have mums, aunts and uncles that didn't even move to full HD TV sets from their DVD home cinemas, and they don't care if batmans face show all the zits and chicken pox craters, they don't care if buildings in spiderman have perfectly rendered CGI edges and they don't care if they can see every hair on blue legs of some creature from avatar. In fact they would probably appreciate more if their Eastenders or Corry were broadcasted in SD at higher bitrate, so picture wouldn't pixelate as much on their argos freeview box hooked up via SCART to their 100Hz CRT (which "used to cost two months wages back in a day, you know and it has brilliant picture"). And it's not only them - most of us with early plasmas and flat screens, watching 99% of all broadcasts in SD, too low bitrate for fast movement and standards converted budget HD channels - 3D is something we never asked for, never wanted and was the least of our problems. For me, it would be - if all my terrestrial and satellite channels were already in HD, in proper quality, without conversion artefacts, with surround sound, at that stage, MAYBE, I would be interested in adding extra dimension to my experience. Otherwise, I bet most of us, just couldn't care less.
To me it's a bit like surround stuff. We all rushed to shops to buy amplifiers and speakers and spend weekends wiring it and moving furniture around, so the telly wasn't in the corner and sofa could have some space for the rear channels, teaching everyone in the house to work another three remotes and key combinations, then few weeks later started swearing at cables everywhere, moving furniture back to their cozy corners in our tiny living rooms and by now most probably don't even switch their amplifiers on, listening to TV on built in speakers. Because WTF has time for all of that when you only watch two or three movies beginning to end and even then you discovered you get better "submersion" by doing it on a laptop and headphones in bed, than in living room with kids running around and wife asking you to take rubbish bags out every 10 minutes.
We are too busy, we have too little time.
And to those of us, who cannot regularly spare 3 hours to go to cinema, the idea that we would have time to sit in front of our own TV in battery powered glasses and do nothing else but watch the screen through those glasses for 2 hours to "submerge" in a 3D movie is a luxury we are probably never going to have.
What's more, once the novelty stops being a factor in your busy life, it very quickly turns out to be a favour - if you wait long enough, all of the movies you missed in cinema will be in bargain bin or endless reruns on satellite TV. And then there is the social aspect of technological race - if you do it too quickly, people just won't bother. The jump from VHS to DVD was long and well pronounced. Jump from DVD to HD was messy, short and financially ugly. Jump from HD to 3D was just blink of an eye on a geeks face. It had almost literally "WTF, what do you mean I need another TV and player" effect to most people.
What I'm trying to point at is the fact that most of us still have mums, aunts and uncles that didn't even move to full HD TV sets from their DVD home cinemas, and they don't care if batmans face show all the zits and chicken pox craters, they don't care if buildings in spiderman have perfectly rendered CGI edges and they don't care if they can see every hair on blue legs of some creature from avatar. In fact they would probably appreciate more if their Eastenders or Corry were broadcasted in SD at higher bitrate, so picture wouldn't pixelate as much on their argos freeview box hooked up via SCART to their 100Hz CRT (which "used to cost two months wages back in a day, you know and it has brilliant picture"). And it's not only them - most of us with early plasmas and flat screens, watching 99% of all broadcasts in SD, too low bitrate for fast movement and standards converted budget HD channels - 3D is something we never asked for, never wanted and was the least of our problems. For me, it would be - if all my terrestrial and satellite channels were already in HD, in proper quality, without conversion artefacts, with surround sound, at that stage, MAYBE, I would be interested in adding extra dimension to my experience. Otherwise, I bet most of us, just couldn't care less.
To me it's a bit like surround stuff. We all rushed to shops to buy amplifiers and speakers and spend weekends wiring it and moving furniture around, so the telly wasn't in the corner and sofa could have some space for the rear channels, teaching everyone in the house to work another three remotes and key combinations, then few weeks later started swearing at cables everywhere, moving furniture back to their cozy corners in our tiny living rooms and by now most probably don't even switch their amplifiers on, listening to TV on built in speakers. Because WTF has time for all of that when you only watch two or three movies beginning to end and even then you discovered you get better "submersion" by doing it on a laptop and headphones in bed, than in living room with kids running around and wife asking you to take rubbish bags out every 10 minutes.
Last edited:
i dont think 3D is as much as a gimmick as some think but at the moment it is new and is being used in very gimmicky ways
the 3D they use in cinemas is terrible compared to a good 3DTV with active glasses, there still lies the issue though that its too expensive and most people dont want to have to wear glasses to watch tv
im also in the set that gets a headache from watching 3d in the cinema after so long to the point ive sat with one eye covered till it went away.
basiicaly i think its here to stay but i wont be using it until it improves the whole film and not just a few scenes... to the point where even watching some 2D films 3D is annoying me as you can tell scenes that have only been filmed in certain ways for the 3D version
the 3D they use in cinemas is terrible compared to a good 3DTV with active glasses, there still lies the issue though that its too expensive and most people dont want to have to wear glasses to watch tv
im also in the set that gets a headache from watching 3d in the cinema after so long to the point ive sat with one eye covered till it went away.
basiicaly i think its here to stay but i wont be using it until it improves the whole film and not just a few scenes... to the point where even watching some 2D films 3D is annoying me as you can tell scenes that have only been filmed in certain ways for the 3D version
It's not going to phase out any time soon, with the likes of James Cameron using 3D the right way (and by right way I mean not converted 3D) the industry is going to boom. Currently doing a "Digital Film and 3D Animation" course at Uni and second year into it the work that's required to achieve the quality of Avatar is phenomenal and turned over $2bn.
Like many over members here have said, used in the right circumstances then 3D is an amazing tool to enhance your film but pixelated flying objects really lower the films standards and quality as a professional film. Objects flying at you should be kept to Theme parks like another member mentioned, the trick is to capture the audience with depth.
Trouble is wearing the glasses and cinemas degrade the quality of 3D and right now its expensive for people to buy the equipment with so few films that are half decent in 3D. Not converted 3D nonsense.
Did someone say Resident Evil? Terrible films that should have never been made or at least drop the Resident Evil name.
Like many over members here have said, used in the right circumstances then 3D is an amazing tool to enhance your film but pixelated flying objects really lower the films standards and quality as a professional film. Objects flying at you should be kept to Theme parks like another member mentioned, the trick is to capture the audience with depth.
Trouble is wearing the glasses and cinemas degrade the quality of 3D and right now its expensive for people to buy the equipment with so few films that are half decent in 3D. Not converted 3D nonsense.
Did someone say Resident Evil? Terrible films that should have never been made or at least drop the Resident Evil name.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,319
- Location
- Pembs, Wales
I personally like 3D in movies but I can see your point and I also understand why the sway in people preferring to watch in 2D.
When 3D was first launched it was only added to a handful of movies and the effects were amazing as the movies offering it were designed with 3D in mind this carried on (more or less) up until the release of Avatar which was a film created with the 3D effect in mind which does add an extra layer of realism to the movie.
The problem then starts after Avatar was released as production companies and studios then started jumping on the band wagon and turning the 3D concept in to a gimmick, they managed this by releasing every movie they could in 3D even if it was not originally filmed in 3D (Clash anyone) and by flooding the movie place with 3D and not offering an experience but merely a couple of bad effects in certain places in the movie.
This in turn has had a negative effect on the general movie going public.
While I agree that people have many ways of watching films these days and have very busy lives, hell I work in the industry and don't even go to the cinema as much as I should... but what goes totally against this is that numbers and profits for Cinema box office sales are the highest they have ever been. It's not undergoing anything of a downturn.
People may not care, especially as you point out older people, they aren't rushing out to buy the latest tech compared to the younger generation.
However that's not how it works.
Technology doesn't last forever... I got ten years out of a Sony Home Cinema Amp which was pretty impressive to be fair. What I'm saying is that people have to replace their technology in many cases because they have to, rather than it simply being a case of wanting the latest thing.
If you buy a new TV now, good luck finding one that isn't HD. It's that market saturation that eventually makes it become the standard.
3D has a long way to go because there are too many competing formats at the moment and more importantly, the future will really be without the use of glasses. In part it's a format war, but at the sometime it's not, there won't be an eventual looser.
On another note regarding 3D glasses that I've seen people mention. There are different technologies being used, similar to 3D home televisions. If the Cinema is using a polarising system like RealD, then you can certainly reuse glasses. Cinemas using systems like XpandD require their own active shutter glasses which you can't bring your own.
I actually think a lot of the eye and headache issues people have come more from the active shutter systems. If you've not seen it, they usually work by receiving a signal from a transmitter in the cinema. When they are actually active, the shutter is flickering extremely fast right in front of your eyes, but you wouldn't know that unless you've seen it with the glasses running while off your head.
There is also the fact that battery powered glasses run down which can cause inconsistencies. On the last film I worked on, when the batteries will low on the XpanD system, it was even reversing the eyes!
There has been a big push by some of the TV manufacturers to club together to start using polarising technology, which is a bit more expensive but you can use the same polarising glasses you get in the cinema at home.
If there is a choice between seeing a film in 3D or not at the cinema me and my missus will always choose the none 3D version. I don't see the point in 3D at all, it doesn't seem to bring anything to the films, I would much rather watch a decent film with a good story and acting than see some crap flying out of the screen.
As 3D in the home, I don't want to spend my time watching films with annoying glasses on. I have to wear glasses anyway so wearing two pairs is just a pain and doesn't work too well especially the cheap ones they use in the cinemas!
As someone posted before, I would much rather all my TV channels were broadcast in HD with surround sound before having 3D rammed down my throat.
As 3D in the home, I don't want to spend my time watching films with annoying glasses on. I have to wear glasses anyway so wearing two pairs is just a pain and doesn't work too well especially the cheap ones they use in the cinemas!
As someone posted before, I would much rather all my TV channels were broadcast in HD with surround sound before having 3D rammed down my throat.
Just a little rumour that has going around the broadcast world for you. Sky have been looking at pulling out or at least scaling back their 3D offerings. As I said, take it as rumour but I've heard it from 2 very well connected people in the broadcast industry.
What is currently on offer as 3D is pretty rubbish isn't it. In that sense it's just a rip off gimmick, at least it means "normal" HD TVs have come down in price though as a result.
Now the real 3D I look forward to is some amazing technology but it's actually already available....
In the future I envisage an entire football match played out on my living room floor as if I was looking down from high up in the stands - sort of star wars hologram style - now that is what I'd call 3D
Now the real 3D I look forward to is some amazing technology but it's actually already available....
In the future I envisage an entire football match played out on my living room floor as if I was looking down from high up in the stands - sort of star wars hologram style - now that is what I'd call 3D
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 745
- Location
- Kent, England
I liked "Tangled" in 3D when I watched in cinema, compared to other movies.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 1,950
- Location
- Cornwall
Gimmick in my opinion.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 2,544
- Location
- Reykjavik, Iceland
Deff a Gimmick for me. Totally ruins the experience. Looks awful. And they have the nerve to ask you to pay MORE for this? lol.
As if charging £9 for a standard movie isn't bad enough...
To be honest, i've gone right off the cinema completely since 3D came out as the 2D versions have far less screenings. Plus, as I say, the prices they ask are insane considering I can buy the Bluray for less than 1 cinema ticket and with my surround sound system and TV it's actually a better experience anyway, and far more comfortable and private.
Would never buy 3D for the home, for movies or games.
As if charging £9 for a standard movie isn't bad enough...
To be honest, i've gone right off the cinema completely since 3D came out as the 2D versions have far less screenings. Plus, as I say, the prices they ask are insane considering I can buy the Bluray for less than 1 cinema ticket and with my surround sound system and TV it's actually a better experience anyway, and far more comfortable and private.
Would never buy 3D for the home, for movies or games.