3D's success, your current opinions please.

[Don Parrish]

I am seeking the members opinions on the success of 3D. Now that it has been out for a while I would like to see what you think.

There is no right or wrong, I would appreciate everyones personal opinion on;

1. If you own a 3d display or visit theaters, how often do you rent/buy/seek 3d media and do you find any problems, eye strain, quality, etc. Do you Like 3D ??? Have you stopped using 3D as much since you first purchased your Display/T.V. ???

2. If purchasing new gear how important would 3D capabilities be ???

3. For those that shoot for a living, how often do you get request for 3D ???

4. Any problems shooting / editing 3D.

Thank you for your time.

[Noa Put]

I saw avatar in 3d and it's the last time i will spend more money to see a 3d vs a 2d movie, the movie seemed quite dark and it gave me a headache, for me it didn"t add anything substantial, sure some scenes looked more "real" but overall I was not that impressed.
That also answers the question about me having a 3d tv, if i don't have to buy I won't, again because I don't see the added value and if I don't have to I never will invest in a 3d camera as well, I see it more as a gimmick then something that would make my videoproductions better.

[Wayne Reimer]

I think that 3D will be around to stay, however right now I see the currently technology very much a "first generation, barely out of Beta testing".

Properly done, with good equipment both on the recording side and the end viewing side, it's impressive. I can't get my head wrapped around the whole concept of needing to buy a special T.V., special glasses, just the right amount of ambient light, etc. etc. to make it all come together in an immersive experience. I believe that once technology catches up to what I'd percieve as being the perfect environment ( i.e. a transparent experience...no glasses, no special equipment, just turn on the t.v. and there it is), then we'll see almost everything shot in 3D.

We're still a few years away from that, I think. I'll continue to look forward to that day however...it's very cool to watch when it works right

[Buba Kastorski]

new PFR technology is definitely step forward, but honestly I don't think 3D will be big until they get rid of the glasses, 3D wasn't invented yesterday, was it ever more popular than 2D?
how often I get request to shoot in 3D? well, let me think, roughly half of my clients don't even have blurays, and take them only because it's included in the package;
I am getting couple scarlets ( when they're available) and will definitely start shooting 3D, at least for the self education purpose, but I don't think I'll get any 3D clients within next 3-4 years;
time will tell :)

[Andrew Smith]

It's not looking good here in Australia:

The Courier Mail - TV chiefs quietly mothball 3D plans

From the article ...

Free-to-air channels appear to have abandoned 3D technology even though thousands of Australians splashed out more than $361 million on 3D TVs following successful trials of the technology last year. Broadcasting groups have confirmed 3D TV transmitters have now been removed from transmission towers in Australia's capital cities.

There is a feeling out there that the 3D fad has stalled.

Andrew

[Simon Wood]

I personally will not pay to go to any more 3d movies (and I certainly wont buy a 3d tv) - everyone I know seems to be thinking the same thing. The last 3d movie I saw was Tron 2, but I wish I had just gone to see the 2d version instead.

I dont get any eye strain or headaches; its just that I dont see the point of it. 3d seems to actually make the picture less realistic as I am more aware of the gimmick.

I think 3d has a future with animated movies for children (Monsters vs Aliens was good); with those computer generated movies the 3d seems more integral and the kids enjoy the pop out effects. 3d may have a future with games (and perhaps virtual reality somewhere in the future).

But for now, in terms of live action movies, I'm filing it next to smell-o-vision in the gimmick category...

[Noa Put]

3d may have a future with games (and perhaps virtual reality somewhere in the future).

I believe that as well, I think 3d is going to become big with computer games because that is what a player wants the most, have the feeling he is right inside the game and controlling almost every aspect of it.
With tv you don't controll anything, it just happens and you watch.

[Charles W. Hull]

1. If you own a 3d display or visit theaters, how often do you rent/buy/seek 3d media and do you find any problems, eye strain, quality, etc. Do you Like 3D ??? Have you stopped using 3D as much since you first purchased your Display/T.V. ???

---------------- I own a 3D TV. At first I didn't watch any 3D. Then I got interested and rented or bought quite a few 3D Blu Rays. But there is not much good content available and I have definately tapered off. The best 3D seems to be animation. For example Tangled is very well done, and a nice story. I subscribed to ESPN 3D and liked the NBA playoffs, but have not found anything as good after that. If the content was there I would watch more.

2. If purchasing new gear how important would 3D capabilities be ???

----------------- It is important for a display. I had thoughts about getting a pair of XF105s and putting together a 3D rig, but I can't come up with the projects to justify it.

3. For those that shoot for a living, how often do you get request for 3D ???

------------------ I don't shoot for a living but I do in-the-cockpit flying videos. My flying group had some interest in 3D early on, but I have not heard any comments about 3D for a while. And I haven't come up with any good 3D flying projects.

4. Any problems shooting / editing 3D.

----------------- I got a GoPro 3D setup just to learn more about 3D. I've modified the cameras with non-fisheye lenses, and with this lens mod the GoPros really do a nice 3D job. I had no problems shooting or editing once I got through the basics. (I use the GoPro software, Cineform Neo, and Premiere Pro CS5.5.)

My first take-away from this early experience is that content is king, and that if the content tapers off interest in 3D will fade.
My second take-away is that few projects are suitable for 3D. Perhaps a topic for this forum is a good discussion about what projects are suitable, and why.
I like 3D; the displays and glasses don't bother me; I don't expect I would become a 3D master but I could do acceptable work; I'm not rooting for 3D to be a passing fad; but it seems to me it could be losing momentum.

[Andrew Smith]

For me, if 3D television is to survive then it needs to be pretty much a standard 'extra' on all TVs being sold. Not something that you pay a premium for. It's the only way you will build a critical mass that future content availability can then take advantage of.

Andrew

[Adam Gold]

Jeffrey Katzenberg on the 'Heartbreaking' Decline of 3D (Exclusive Q&A) - The Hollywood Reporter

RealD Shares Collapse to All-Time Low, Lose Nearly 21% of Value - The Hollywood Reporter

[Alister Chapman]

I own a 3D TV. The TV cost no more than 5 to 10% more than a comparable quality 2D TV of the same size. It is a passive TV, so the glasses cost just a couple of dollars each. However there is a serious lack of 3D content. If there was more, I would watch more. As we go forward it is likely that most TV's will gain 3D capability and yet cost no more than a 2D TV. The same happened with HD.

85% of my work is 3D. It is exciting, challenging and lucrative at the moment.

3D is here to stay IMHO. BUT we need a change in the way people think. 3D does not suit every genre and it won't suit every film. Some films will work better in 2D, some in 3D. People should learn that just because one 3D experience was a bad one it does not mean the next will also be bad. Like all movies there will be differences in the production quality, not all films are created equal. In addition not all theatres are created equal and there are far too many examples of poorly set up theatres presenting sub standard 3D images, often down to using projector bulbs long past their prime, dirty or poor quality screens or bad alignment, all things that you would get away with in 2D. As film makers and theatres gain a more intimate knowledge of 3D the quality will improve, but also producers will also learn when to make a film in 2D and when to make it in 3D.

The cinema is only one small fraction of the 3D world. The one genre that I believe will really do well is documentary. Natural History and science programming in particular presents many interesting opportunities for the creative use of 3D.

HD TV went through very similar growing pains. Initially HD TV's attracted a significant premium, however early adopters still purchased large numbers. Initially there was a lack of content, so then HD went through a tough patch with a lack of confidence and loss of impetus. Then after a few years through continual creep the amount of content slowly but steadily increased and today there are many HD channels and it's hard to buy a TV that isn't HD ready.

Whenever you read headlines about declining box office takings you have to put them into the context of a global economy that is in a bad way. People are not spending money on expensive events or nights out and cinema box office returns are being hit hard. Without 3D it's quite possible that many of the movies released in recent months would have never made it to the big screen due to the terrible economic situation.

There are lots of issues shooting and editing 3D. There is the extra time it takes, restrictions to the kind of shots you can do etc. But get it right and it's possible to produce breath taking content.

I just buy two of everything so that I can use it for 3D.

[Adam Stanislav]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

It is a passive TV, so the glasses cost just a couple of dollars each.

A passive TV? How does it work? I did not know it was possible for a TV to be passive. Does it use polarized glasses then? Does it have every other row polarized the other way or how does it work? Do you get full HD in each eye?

You really peaked my curiosity. Recently (as mentioned in another thread) I saw Harry Potter in 3D and the passive glasses (RealD 3D) felt very natural. I put them on as soon as I sat down, long before they were needed and it did not even feel I had them on. With my active glasses I get tired after a while and need to take a break every hour or so.

[Andrew Smith]

Wouldn't surprise me if the transmitters being used for the 3D content broadcasts were leased or rented. Easy enough to have them back when things change, I guess.

Andrew

[Adam Stanislav]

Originally Posted by Charles W. Hull

But there is not much good content available

Not to sound facetious, but there is not too much good content available in 2D either.

At any rate, it is not the fault of 3D that whenever 3D is in, studios rush on the bandwagon and quickly churn out poor content thinking that just because it is in 3D, people will love it. That happened in the 1950s, and it happened every time someone released a successful 3D movie since, which has always been successful for being a great movie to start with. Most recently that happened after Avatar came out.

3D is not something you just tack on. A properly made 3D movie should need to be in 3D, so it should never be released in 2D. Just like a sound movie is never released without the sound.

3D has been around for thousands of years. Live theatre has always been in 3D and its directors instinctively make the 3D work. It simply would not work in 2D. Statues have always been in 3D and they are a completely different art form from a painting, which is a different art form from mosaic, etc. One is not better than the other, they are simply different.

The problem is that most 3D movies made these days do not really need the third dimension. There are exceptions. I cannot even imagine watching the last Harry Potter in 2D. It would still be a good movie, mind you, but the threediness does offer something that the 2D version simply cannot give you. At least in the most important scene of the movie (no, I’m not about to spoil it), it just would not be the same without the 3D.

Often filmmakers think of 3D in the way the creators of Wizard of Oz thought of color. It was completely unnatural and exaggerated because it was something new (though, strangely, it actually worked for that particular movie). But no one would apply color that way today. Heck, for the so called “film look” digital filmmakers go out of their way to desaturate the colors. Good 3D must look completely natural. It must not be overwhelming. But, as I said, it must be essential to the story, so if you saw the same movie in 2D something would be missing. That may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. After all, we do not make sound overwhelming, yet if we take it off, something is missing.

Once filmmakers realize that 3D movies are as different from 2D movies as statues are from paintings, they will be able to produce truly excellent 3D movies (and continue making truly excellent 2D movies, just taking a different approach to each).

[Mark Pavy]

I couldn't agree more with Alister Chapman:

"The cinema is only one small fraction of the 3D world. The one genre that I believe will really do well is documentary. Natural History and science programming in particular presents many interesting opportunities for the creative use of 3D."

I reckon the best 3D gives the viewer a chance to explore the 3D scene in detail, similiar to taking in the view from a "Lookout". I often find I forget that I'm watching 3D in the cinema sometimes because either the scene cuts are too quick, the camera is moving too quickly or the scene itself doesn't lend itself to 3D, I always seem to remember a few scenes because of the 3D, not the entire movies 3D. The helicopters flying through the floating mountains in Avatar come to mind, I felt as though I had time to explore the scene. I tend to think that movie edits (2D) have evolved around the fact that the viewer has a fixed focus on a 2D plane when viewing, the depth that 3D offers creates the need for the viewers eyes to do some work by focussing on different objects at different depths, like in real life. Maybe this is why I only remember some of the scenes in a 3D movie, I just don't think your eyes/brain can appreciate the 3D in an action sequence with 1-2sec cuts.