i already posted this in my 3D thread, BUT since you guys post in threads that don't really pertain to the subject, i shall re-iterate it here =^).

3D will ONLY work if the medium is interactive. meaning, if you're playing half-life2, doom3, farcry, THEN having total immersion/3D is a MUST have. 2D is a LIMITATION for the interactive medium. i'm thinkin star trek's holographic projections. in fact, artists can even create "holo-novels" or stories taht utilize 3D but the reader/audience actually interactes much like today's games (MMPORG).

but for film, film was created as 2D. "MOTION PICTURE". the 3D "gimmicks" as most of you have said only work on limited basis cause people don't wanna watch their stars becoming 3Dimensional all of a sudden. film by its very nature do NOT require 3D. even those "3d" rides like the Borg ride in Vegas is relying on interactivity of the seats moving. but for NON-interactive mediums, most people don't want to have 3D. i mean, would you want to take 3D pictures? maybe, if it's practical and if you can interact with it. but film? i don't think so.

A well-written, well-acted, well-filmed, and well-edited story that connects with its viewers is, in itself, already a sufficiently immersive experience.

But I suspect that it's hard for George Lucas to walk away from perhaps the $50 mil-$100 mil that Star Wars devotees, a crowd well-primed to buy into gimmicks, will likely reward him for such an effort.

An interesting argument for 3-D.

heath

3D won't be an effective antipiracy measure. Movies that are pirated from studio sources will continue to leak out through the same channels they leak out through now: in-house screener copies; it is unclear whether there will be some countermeasure preventing theater pirates from simply pointing their camcorders through one eye of the shutter goggles. (So you won't be able to view it in 3D on your TV or computer? Many might consider it an improvement: no need to wear any hoo-ha.)

Is the internet really to blame for killing theatrical exhibition? The numbers do not support this assertion made in the first several sentences of Harry's column. Hollywood posted record years for revenue through 2002, but even if internet piracy is to blame for the slump in attendance in the most recent years, it doesn't explain the explosion in DVD sales, whose revenue numbers rival the numbers for theatrical. And any decline from piracy in the Hong Kong industry is almost certainly attributable to the proliferation of cheap bootleg discs sold in the streets in broad daylight, not clandestine distribution over the internet.

Will 3D bring people back to the cinemas in the same way sound, color, and wider aspect ratio succeeded in bringing people back to the theaters in past eras? More likely, 3D will succeed in bringing people back to the theaters equipollently to the way 3D brought people back to the theaters in its original life--i.e., not appreciably. We should not forget that 3D was among those gimmicks introduced in the '50s to reclaim television audiences, right along with color, Cinerama, CinemaScope, Todd-AO, Smell-o-Vision, Illusion-O, among myriad other ballyhoo. It didn't work back then, and the new generation of Hollywood executives, perhaps ignorant of history, would be unwise to place faith and investment dollars in new slates of gimmick productions: the one thing that 3D production is guaranteed to do is complicate and expensify the cinema business at every level--production, post, exhibition--thereby heightening the risk for film investors.

As for the less-expensive repurposing of back catalogues, as I've already contended, the 3D-ifying algorithms can't and don't do anything more than your brain already does while watching a 2D movie, but beyond that, are audiences really going to clamor to pay a nearly double ticket price to sit with an ill-fitting shutter goggle apparatus to watch Constantine in 3D? Casablanca? "If you liked it in 2D, you're going to love it in 3D!"? I think not. "If it stunk in 2D, it might be a little bit better in 3D!"? A guaranteed no.

The Aint it Cool News piece has the same view I do.

Anyone with half a brain can see that 3D Cinema isn't even an argument. The cinema professionals who make $ are going to use whatever technology is available to draw eye balls into theaters. The numbers are hurting and there is no doubt that 3D (as well as other new technology) will be used to bring people back into theaters.

History is the greatest tool in making an educated guess on what will happen next. The theaters at this point have maxed out technology based on "old school" - the traditional projector is on its way out. The 5.1 digital audio was the start of the "digital" change. I should know a thing or two about theaters - I was a projectionist in a theater! It's appalling what happens to the films at the very last part of the cinema chain. The film comes in on 7-10 different reels, some stupid kids splices it together, cuts segments out because the theater owner wants to save time (yes, up to 10 minutes are cut out of some films sometimes and you don't know it...true, true, true!! later on DVD you wonder why you didn't remember a certain part!), also the old projector pumps immense light (heat) onto the film...burning it beyond belief! The physical mechanics happening during a presentation are the worst....everytime a film is projected the quality goes down and down. Unless you see a film on opening weekend - you're seeing a print that's degraded.

So, digital projection was needed yesterday. Everyone knows that digital means unlimited and infinate creative choices. It's totally obvious that Imax and all those other 3D technologies are successful. It's the independent movie theaters scattered all over the place that are the hold up.

Doesn't anyone remember the "monopoly" break up of the movie studios owning theaters? All the studios owned theater chains, but the gov broke them up a long time ago. Now the studios are at the mercy of the theaters....and they hate it. But, they have to play ball. I've been there in the office when movies are being ordered - the typical deal is the movie studios take a percentage of the opening weekend - like 90%. Then the following week it's 80% or less depending on the success of opening weekend. The only thing theaters can take is consession stand - they own that. So, it's a huge battle. The theaters don't want to invest in anything that won't help bring in people buying food and drinks.

However, it's a SAFE BET for the theater owners to invest in digital/3D because those particular films will be BLOCKBUSTERS out of the gate. Everyone knows that blockbusters bring in audience and they buy popcorn. The local theaters need blockbusters much more than art films, so they will cater to the "wiz bang" if they need too. Think about the sound thing...they went digital because home theater went there.

Newspapers - 100's of years
Radio - early 1900's
Kinescope - 1947
Personal Photography - early 1800's
4:3 Cinema - early 1900's (Edison before that)
Black and White Television
16x9 Cinema - because they wanted to compete with TV
Color Television - 1960's
Color Cinema - before television, so it had that edge
Home Black and White Film Cameras - mom and dad make their kids stars
Home Color Film Cameras - the home videos is color!
Home Video Cameras - cheap and every family has one now
HD Television - 1997 in USA and Japan has had it for longer
Streaming Video on Internet - the start of the digital revolution
NTSC and HD content available on Internet - you can download anything now

You mean to tell me that theaters won't offer 3D even though HOME USERS can download FULL SCREEN HIGH DEFINTION MOVIES right now???? Are you on drugs or what?!

http://www.cinemanow.com/browse.aspx...0&channelId=64

I don't care that few people are actually doing it right now - the point is they can and there are millions more people online then in theaters everyday. It's the exact same thing - a theater and your home entertainment system. If you can download a perfect digital HD movie now...they had better get 3D going ASAP.

In addition, HD movies are available "On Demand" on my Comcast HD cable 24/7 too. That's perfect HD quality, 5.1 and whenever I want it. How are theaters competing?? They're not when it comes to presentation....3D would change that for blockbusters.

3D Cinema - just like Lucas and the others say...it's next for theater cinema!!!

re: well, we'll see what happens 5 years from now =^).

i coulda sworn that photography was around in the 1800s and so was the first film cameras (hand cranked).

15 years ago, did anyone know about DVDs? 11 years ago, yes, but no one cared even when they premiered in lated 1997. It wasn't totally adopted until the late late 1990s/early 2000s.

My point--who knows what's next?!

heath

DVDs are just a storage medium. You can safely predict that there will be better and bigger storage mediums in the future.

Now, the introduction of mass VHS (er... Beta) was revolutionary.

"You mean to tell me that theaters won't offer 3D even though HOME USERS can download FULL SCREEN HIGH DEFINTION MOVIES right now???? Are you on drugs or what?!"

In the immortal words of the would-be immortal slugger, I'm not here to talk about the past...

Chris's assertion that 3D will foment an overbearing market pressure to convert to digital projection is predicated on the premise that audiences en masse will pay premiums to see blockbuster films in 3D that they wouldn't pay to see in 2D. Time will tell, but here are some ponderables for the suits in the meantime.

(1) About 10% of the population lacks stereoscopic vision.
(2) Most young children have a hard enough time sitting through a 2-hour film without an extra half a pound of front-heavy weight pushing their chins to their chests. 3D animation is supposed to be a major market for inexpensive 3D treatment, but the major audience demographic for films like Finding Nemo, Shark Tale, and Chicken Little are families with young children.
(3) Wearing shutter goggles interferes with many of the pleasures of the movie-going experience: putting your head on your sweetheart's shoulder becomes an impossibility; looking into your friend's eyes to gauge his or her reaction during a mutally meaningful moment is thwarted; and one is hampered wiping the tears away during the end of Forrest Gump 3D.

Finally, to retread the "3D as antipiracy measure" applesauce:
Pirates are clever. That's what make them pirates. If a 3D film can be exhibited, it can be pirated, in 2D and with ingenuity and a little compromise, in 3D also. 3D exhibition complicates things for pirates, but not appreciably, especially seeing as a lot of piracy results from leaks that occur within the production and distribution chain before prints are even screened commercially. But more significant is the fact that despite piracy, and VHS, and DVD, and pay-per-view, and cable TV, and all sorts of entertaining programming on all sorts of televisions channels, and myriad other options for entertainment on a Friday night, going out of the home and seeing a movie at a theater remains the weekend ticket of choice in industrialized nations.

Put simply, 3D is a non-solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

Robert, I honestly don't see one thing you've said that supports your argument.

I haven't stated that 3D films are profitable today by studio standards - wait, isn't "Polar Express" in 3D right now making $$$$$$? ::)))

We now have HARD FACTS that some of the most successful filmmakers in FILM are endorsing 3D filmmaking. The #1 movie all time "Star Wars" will be coming to theater near you (2007 is tomorrow!) in 3D.

Titanic's director (Cameron) is ONLY 3D from this point forward. Let me remind you that Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time (DVD, theater etc).

Where is the argument? The fact is 3D is here according to the top filmmakers of all time. I rest my case!

The exciting thing is that in 5-10 years indie filmmakers will have access to affordable 3D equipment....if they so choose to use it! :)))

3D film PRODUCERS -- Lucas, Jackson, Rodriguez, Zemeckis and Cameron - what more do you want? What's the Box Office with these guys alone? 10+ BILLION? They say "yes" and you say "no"? Who's right? lol

What they are right about, if they are right at all, is that in ten years 1 screen out of 30 in America will be equipped to exhibit 3D features which will constitute roughly 1 major studio release out of every 100.

If this is a revolution, then viva la revolution.

Where did you read that fact?

It's my prediction, based on an educated guesstimation of the break-even point for premium exhibition and the number of "blockbuster"-budget films released each year that would potentially qualify for the added expense of the 3D treatment. (In business as in engineering, every decision is based on cost-payoff tradeoffs, and in business decisions as in life, every poor decision is punished by immanent justice, in this case the immanent justice of plummeting profitability should the number of 3D releases exceed the market's demand for them.)

If you also have a prediction about the numbers, then in ten years we can compare notes and see who was closer. I'm sure you'll be right, though. After all, didn't sales of Anna Karenina explode when it was released as a pop-up book?

In the meantime, you can feast your stereoscopic vision on this criticism of current-generation 3D technology. At least one of the criticisms will hopefully not apply to high-refresh-frequency DLP 3D, and perhaps others will be remedied in films to yet to be released as they are better-considered.

like i said boys, we shall see, BUT in the meantime, 3D will NOT be here this year NOR the next year in massive volumes. the industry will NOT move that quickly. that's why lucas said 2007 =).

so all in all, wait+see attitude.

I think we're getting a little impassioned in here, let's cool down for a bit, okay?

Thanks,

heath