3DTV Fad over?
- Thread starter borich_planner
- Start date
3D will stay.
Does it cost more to film something in 3D than normal, Maybe a little but you use the same footage so its no hassle. As long as the manufacturers are making money off 3D in teh cinema, TV sales, glasses sales and the 3Dblu-rays they will continue to sell and create things in 3D.
Its not brilliant but its good in some films. 4k / 8K is the future though
Does it cost more to film something in 3D than normal, Maybe a little but you use the same footage so its no hassle. As long as the manufacturers are making money off 3D in teh cinema, TV sales, glasses sales and the 3Dblu-rays they will continue to sell and create things in 3D.
Its not brilliant but its good in some films. 4k / 8K is the future though
Soldato
I must admit I like 3D as long as it's filmed properly. Prometheus, Avatar, Hugo and basically every 3D animation is just amazing (not sure about the pop outs, more the impression of depth)
I have over 60 3D Blurays now..some are shocking like Harry Potter.
I have over 60 3D Blurays now..some are shocking like Harry Potter.
Soldato
Amazing how most folk either hate it or love it. I'm in the love it camp, gaming on my Pc and watching 3D Blu-Rays. Gotta love the guy who says 3D gives him migraines and then he watches a 3D movie and gets a migraine and complains. Doh.
List?
Can only find about 7 I like
As a side, I also found out youtube has 3D!
I'm gonna have to buy tmt5 soon :-\
That Sony 4k tv is insane. Starting at $25,000. http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/st...551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&identifier=S_4KTV
3D has been old hat for nearly 100 years lol
3D films have existed in some form since 1915
Film critic Mark Kermode[72] argued that 3D adds "not that much" value to a film, and said that, while he liked Avatar, the many impressive things he saw in the movie had nothing to do with 3D. Kermode has been an outspoken critic of 3D film describing the effect as a "nonsense" and recommends using two right or left lenses from the 3D glasses to cut out the "pointy, pointy 3D stereoscopic vision", although this technique still does not improve the 30% colour loss from a 3D film.[73] Versions of these "2-D glasses" are being marketed.[74]
Film critic Roger Ebert has repeatedly criticized 3D film as being "too dim" (due to the polarized-light technology using only half the light for each eye), sometimes distracting or even nausea-inducing, and argues that it is an expensive technology that adds nothing of value to the movie-going experience (since 2-D movies already provide a sufficient illusion of 3D).[75] While Ebert is "not opposed to 3-D as an option", he opposes it as a replacement for traditional film, and prefers 2-D technologies such as MaxiVision48 that improve image area/resolution and frames per second.[75] Director Christopher Nolan has stated that while two dimensional film displays at 16 foot lamberts of luminance, the addition of 3D sacrifices up to three foot lamberts, which he criticises as, "A massive difference. You're not that aware of it because once you're "in that world," your eye compensates, but having struggled for years to get theaters up to the proper brightness, we're not sticking polarized filters in everything."[76]
Another major criticism is that many of the movies in the 21st century to date were not filmed in 3D, but converted after filming. Filmmakers who have criticized this process include James Cameron, whose film Avatar was created in 3D from the ground up and is largely credited with the revival of 3D, and Michael Bay, whose film Transformers: Dark of the Moon was also created in 3D from the ground up and has been considered the best use of 3D since Avatar.[70]
Director Christopher Nolan has criticised the notion that traditional film does not allow depth perception, saying "I think it's a misnomer to call it 3D versus 2D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it's three dimensional... You know 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2D movie a '2D movie' is a little misleading."[77] Nolan also criticised that shooting on the required digital video does not offer a high enough quality image[78] and that 3D cameras cannot be equipped with prime lenses.[77]
3D films have existed in some form since 1915
Film critic Mark Kermode[72] argued that 3D adds "not that much" value to a film, and said that, while he liked Avatar, the many impressive things he saw in the movie had nothing to do with 3D. Kermode has been an outspoken critic of 3D film describing the effect as a "nonsense" and recommends using two right or left lenses from the 3D glasses to cut out the "pointy, pointy 3D stereoscopic vision", although this technique still does not improve the 30% colour loss from a 3D film.[73] Versions of these "2-D glasses" are being marketed.[74]
Film critic Roger Ebert has repeatedly criticized 3D film as being "too dim" (due to the polarized-light technology using only half the light for each eye), sometimes distracting or even nausea-inducing, and argues that it is an expensive technology that adds nothing of value to the movie-going experience (since 2-D movies already provide a sufficient illusion of 3D).[75] While Ebert is "not opposed to 3-D as an option", he opposes it as a replacement for traditional film, and prefers 2-D technologies such as MaxiVision48 that improve image area/resolution and frames per second.[75] Director Christopher Nolan has stated that while two dimensional film displays at 16 foot lamberts of luminance, the addition of 3D sacrifices up to three foot lamberts, which he criticises as, "A massive difference. You're not that aware of it because once you're "in that world," your eye compensates, but having struggled for years to get theaters up to the proper brightness, we're not sticking polarized filters in everything."[76]
Another major criticism is that many of the movies in the 21st century to date were not filmed in 3D, but converted after filming. Filmmakers who have criticized this process include James Cameron, whose film Avatar was created in 3D from the ground up and is largely credited with the revival of 3D, and Michael Bay, whose film Transformers: Dark of the Moon was also created in 3D from the ground up and has been considered the best use of 3D since Avatar.[70]
Director Christopher Nolan has criticised the notion that traditional film does not allow depth perception, saying "I think it's a misnomer to call it 3D versus 2D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it's three dimensional... You know 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2D movie a '2D movie' is a little misleading."[77] Nolan also criticised that shooting on the required digital video does not offer a high enough quality image[78] and that 3D cameras cannot be equipped with prime lenses.[77]
Soldato
Given the difference between non 3D Bluray and 3D is only a couple of quid, I tend to buy the 3D versions anyway.
^Thanks for that, think I have all I want tbh. Most of those are kiddies things lol.
Was watching avatar last night in 3d, it looked fab, and way better than 2d IMO, have just bought prometheus steelbook and will watch that when it comes.
One thing that does annoy me is I have to rip it to an ISO and mount it in a virtual drive to get full 3d. No mkv full 3d yet
Was watching avatar last night in 3d, it looked fab, and way better than 2d IMO, have just bought prometheus steelbook and will watch that when it comes.
One thing that does annoy me is I have to rip it to an ISO and mount it in a virtual drive to get full 3d. No mkv full 3d yet
Man of Honour
The thing is people like these fads and will buy into it and invest in it, and as such it'll keep being produced. I don't mind it in the cinema, but to be honest, I'd rather pay extra and go to a large screen IMAX type of cinema and not have 3D - then go in a medium to small sized cinema and have it in 3D.
On a TV I can't imagine it being anything but lol worthy. Having to wear glasses to watch a film to me is just a pain and inconvenient and unnecessary.
However, we all have our own choices and likes / dislikes.
The world would be boring without such things!
As long as they keep manufacturing high quality tvs without 3D then I'll be happy!
On a TV I can't imagine it being anything but lol worthy. Having to wear glasses to watch a film to me is just a pain and inconvenient and unnecessary.
However, we all have our own choices and likes / dislikes.
The world would be boring without such things!As long as they keep manufacturing high quality tvs without 3D then I'll be happy!
Soldato
Has anyone actually filmed any in 3d?
Soldato
Well, I'm not that bothered about 3D, but when done right it can add to scenes. The problem is its not used intelligently in many cases, and just...well looks garish.
4K is closer than we think though IMO, perhaps not digital download, but other mediums. As other people have said, 4K media is being produced now; my company was involved with filming some just recently for Japan's NHK TV, it will ofc take some time for that to filter back to us...but...5 years perhaps, maybe 10...but it IS coming.
4K is closer than we think though IMO, perhaps not digital download, but other mediums. As other people have said, 4K media is being produced now; my company was involved with filming some just recently for Japan's NHK TV, it will ofc take some time for that to filter back to us...but...5 years perhaps, maybe 10...but it IS coming.
24" monitors displaying 4k res have been demo'd already and the picture is no less stunning than on a 84" screen. It's a myth that you will need 50+ inch screens to see the benefits of 4k.
There seems to be an awful lot of other disinformation in this thread. Mainly by those that (i suspect) haven't even bought or watched a good 3D TV yet.
3D isnt going anywhere any time soon. Most of you also seem under some kind of illusion that 3D is some "new fad" It's far from it. It's just in another iteration at the moment and there will be more to follow in future years. As an example i'd like to point out the recently released "Creature From The Black Lagoon" BluRay release in 3D. This is a movie that was 3D back in 1954!
3D isn't new nor will the story end here for it. It's just evolving as is all tech that is worth pursuing.
You also have to factor in that 3D is the darling of movie studios for one simple reason.... It decimates piracy! Sure you can download some crappy SBS or OU of a bluray (which in reality is only 720p) for 10GB or so. Do these "Rips" compare to the retail quality in any way? Nope. Can a "Cammer" go into (lets say) Judge Dredd 3D and record it for upload for torrent sites etc? Nope.
The studios love this. It's their fightback. The one way they can keep a little control.
There is much more to the 3D movie industry than how crap movies look on the latest substandard LG TV.
Soldato
That doesn't stop it from being **** though does it?
Man of Honour
Here here!
There still isn't a huge demand for 3D (fortunately) - and they won't shoot themselves in the foot by releasing 3D only films.
There still isn't a huge demand for 3D (fortunately) - and they won't shoot themselves in the foot by releasing 3D only films.
I know what your saying ZG002 but i do quite like watching the odd 3D film myself. I'm also quite happy with the balance between 2D and 3D releases at the moment both cinema and BluRay. I wouldn't want to start seeing a higher % released in 3D though. It seems OK right now. As long as people have the choice i think they can live on together.
Soldato
Unless 3D TV can be done properly without glasses then I will never care.
Even if 3D takes off, it will be years before we get mainstream HDTV. Most of the UK only got HD regular TV last year, yet HD TVs have been out for a decade.
Even if 3D takes off, it will be years before we get mainstream HDTV. Most of the UK only got HD regular TV last year, yet HD TVs have been out for a decade.
More misinformation for this thread *sigh*
Sorry. Apart from your first sentence i can't understand the rest. Do you mean 3D becoming mainstream? because if that's what you mean then no it won't be mainstream for TV transmissions and isn't really what anybody is aiming towards.
4K will interest you more for sure. As that gives an almost 3D perception of depth and removes the barrier between the viewer and the screen display with no glasses. If this is what you mean by HDTV then yes this will be years off from being mainstream.
Not sure where you live in the UK but iv'e had my Sky+ HD box for several years now. (i'm on my 3rd box)
Last edited:
Associate
i have 3d and must admit out of 20-30 blu rays i have seen theres about 4 that really stand out, avatar hugo and i forget other , rest are not worth it.
i only got iy cos i had some spare cash burning
i only got iy cos i had some spare cash burning