3D 'works better' with animation because the reality of the 3D effect is that it is modest to negligible for most shots ... but animation allows for the use of 'invented' points of view and the use of a fake but impressive 3D effect.

Walk around with one eye covered -- that is life in 2D, and it looks remarkably like the world with both eyes in use ... 3D is a fad, one that has been hauled out to 'save' Hollywood before, and one that is no closer to becoming mainstream than the last time. It is quite simply not that significant an effect, and worth nothing like the cost to consumer or the effort to producers required to make this something other than a minor niche.

Well, except the fact that you can walk into a store and buy a 3DTV right now at a very small premium over a comparable high end HDTV. That is slightly closer to mainstream, don't you agree?

I do agree it isn't worth the production cost (except in rare cases) in terms of story. Of course we're still fairly early into "modern" 3D production. Once Sony and Panny are both in the 3D video camera game in the $10-$20k range, 3D production will explode. Once it becomes standard, there will be little difference in cost.

Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :)

But once it trickles down to parents being able to shoot 3D video of their kids, it's here to stay. That's probably the easiest sales pitch ever.

<Well, except the fact that you can walk into a store and buy a 3DTV right now at a very small premium over a comparable high end HDTV. That is slightly closer to mainstream, don't you agree?>

When Hollywood plays the 3D card in the theatre -- from the fifties to today -- they charge the same price for 3D, no premium ... which makes it mainstream. Doesn't make it dominant, or ubiquitous -- but it is affordable in theatres anyway. Everytime.

<I do agree it isn't worth the production cost (except in rare cases) in terms of story. Of course we're still fairly early into "modern" 3D production. Once Sony and Panny are both in the 3D video camera game in the $10-$20k range, 3D production will explode. Once it becomes standard, there will be little difference in cost.>

You are only talking about shooting here, there is an entire post & distribution end that will have costs. But what I meant to refer to was the increased effort required, at all levels of production -- even the big films like Avatar are only, IMHO, marginally good at mastering the editing of 3D. There are jumps and awkward cuts that would be completely unacceptable in 2D ... but the poor editor of the 3D version is stuck with trying to master transitions that are happening in 3 dimensions -- frame boundaries in all directions, what a pain!

<Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :) >

You said it brother.

<But once it trickles down to parents being able to shoot 3D video of their kids, it's here to stay. That's probably the easiest sales pitch ever.>

There have been any number of useful and inexpensive developments that failed, even in the video world. VHS HiFi stereo was immensely better than VHS mono, and significantly better than VHS linear stereo ... and yet it didn't catch on. Consumers continued to buy mono, and manufacturers shrunk their line-up to meet consumer demand. Same with S-VHS, and VHS HQ -- though the benefits were less apparent than HiFi stereo, consumers didn't bite.

And that is my real point -- frankly, 3D is not all that thrilling for most stuff. It is barely thrilling for grandiose Hollywood product designed around it ... more people will watch Avatar in 2D on a television than will ever see it in 3D in the theatre.

3D will die, again, because it is more hype than happening in most situations. And it isn't going to be worth the expense to all concerned, from consumer to producer, to pursue it. So enjoy the little flurry in the theatre, especially for those productions that actually benefit (Toy Story 3D maybe..?), don't spend the college fund on a 3D television for the rec room, and watch the 3D channels whither on the vine.

JMHO

GB

except the fact that you can walk into a store and buy a 3DTV right now at a very small premium over a comparable high end HDTV. That is slightly closer to mainstream, don't you agree?

When Hollywood plays the 3D card in the theatre -- from the fifties to today -- they charge the same price for 3D, no premium ... which makes it mainstream. Doesn't make it dominant, or ubiquitous -- but it is affordable in theatres anyway. Everytime.

Wait, what? There's absolutely a premium charge on 3D films (at least where I am). Cineplex is charging $12ish for a regular ticket,$15ish for 3D.

Anyway, I'm still not sure why you think we aren't closer to 3D now, what with 3DTVs, 3D video cameras, 3D still cameras, 3D laptops, 3D video games and actually half decent 3D production capabilities at a reasonable price. Consider the only people who had legit 3D capabilities were major studios, you have to admit we are at least a LITTLE closer to mainstream 3D than 50 ago?

As for 3D post production, I shot a short film in 3D 3 months ago and (granted it was short) the post production wasn't that difficult, and was no additional cost (besides the editor's time).

The theatre complex near me charges the same for 3D as they do for IMAX, which is to say the four big screens cost a buck or two more than the twelve lesser screens ... but it is a modest difference, not a deal breaker for anyone.

But you are correct and I would be churlish if I didn't agree that the prices are lower to the consumer than anytime in the past, and technologies accessible in a way that was never available before.

In the end though ... it just isn't engaging enough to be more than a fad is my point.

Cheers,
GB

I feel ripped off... we pay the same for 3D whatever screen it's on...
I'll make it back by selling clients on 3D production services (while I can if everyone is right and I'm wrong). :)

Probability that "3D" will be the "big hype" in technology for a few more months, at least through Christmas 2010 - 100%

Probability that most of us, myself included, will spend at least SOME $$$ on "3D something or another" somewhere along the way - 100% (my kids like the 3D bonus "Bob's Big Break" bonus from Monsters v Aliens, I think it looks horrid)

Probablity that "this time it's different" - how many zeros after that decimal point?

Probablity that "joe sixpack" will be shooting the kids in 3D, making granny ill when showing the footage - somewhere in the neighborhood of 15%... leading to:

Probability that "joe" will be shooting more 3D - pretty small...


The news is already covering the petri dish of noxious organisms on those goofy glasses (even the ones in the wrappers supposedly sanitized), the reports of actual physical adverse effects from 3D viewing are popping up quite a lot, and "terrible" content can't be a long term "bonus".

To make 3D work:
1) Get rid of the glasses (Fuji has something in this department)
2) Figure out how to make it 100% accessible
3) Make the content compelling (I'm intrigued by what Pixar might be up to, but I like animation anyway)

Any of those 3 falls short... and another "fad" bites the dust, I don't care HOW much marketing $$$$ gets thrown at it. PT Barnum had it about right.

I like toys and new tech, but I've seen plenty come and go (and people make money in the process) - I don't see the "staying power" behind a technology that causes physical discomfort for some viewers, and makes you use goofy glasses... sorry, not convinced.

"Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :)"

This is probably the bottom line. Especially for home use, I still think that 3D is marketing hype and while the kit might be available, I don't want to sit at home and watch the likes of badly shot reality tv in 3D or home movies. This bad viewing experience is what could kill the format in it's early days.

When it comes to film production though, I do think Pixar are leading the way again here. As most big budget action films contain a large amount of CG elements, I'm now sure it's possible to make even more engaging content in this medium, with the appropriate production design, lighting, cinematography etc.

I'd imagine the 3D capable TVs will operate the same way HD capable televisions do with many, perhaps even most, people just watching SD programmes on them.

PAL looks pretty good on a HD set, assuming you don't go for too large a screen size for the viewing distance.

These TVs could, in the end, be mostly used for the new generation of 3D games in the living room environment. These are intended to be more communal that the up the the bedroom games

"Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :)"

I think that was me. It reminds me of the digital revolution . Suddenly anyone with a still or video camera could be a "pro" and the bottom dropped out of the market. It takes years for people to realize that cheap but capable equipment is no replacement for the ability to use it.

I think 3D doesn't have a chance until it's easier to digest. No consumer is going to shoot 3D until he can point a camera at his subject, and a 3D DVD craps out the back end. I already do not know one person (who isn't a pro) who edits his home shot material. And that's 2D.

And I still think the timing is wrong because everyone just upgraded to HD sets. How many people, myself included, are going to upgrade again so quickly? Not that many. Think about how long you had your last CRT set. They lasted forever, and I don't have any reason to change my plasma, which is a beautiful unit, for years.

Yes, I agree that there will be a slow adoption of 3D sets if there is no price premium, and they enter the home as people upgrade normally, etc. But that doesn't mean they will be used for 3D. My plasma has a very capable and customizable PIP ability, but I've not used it even once. I'm not interested.

The news is already covering the petri dish of noxious organisms on those goofy glasses (even the ones in the wrappers supposedly sanitized), the reports of actual physical adverse effects from 3D viewing are popping up quite a lot, and "terrible" content can't be a long term "bonus".

Dave:

The only 3D film I have seen in the past year was Avatar. I paid my money, watched the film and the very next morning, I woke up with the worst case of Conjunctivitis my doctor or I had ever seen. My mom was a nurse and I know what causes Conjunctivitis and I have never had it in my four decades. We both figured it was from the 3D glasses. The glasses for Dolby 3D are kind of thick and chunky and when pressed to your face, portions of the glasses sit amazingly close to your tear ducts in the corner of your eyes.

Last 3D experience I will ever have without alcohol swabbing to disinfect the glasses myself.

It was horrible and lasted about five days. Beware that most theaters don't do anything with the glasses than collect them and hand them out again to the next show's audience.

Dan

The 3D partisans should find this story (http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health/) interesting. Turns out that there have already been studies done that show that 3D gaming and TV viewing leads to strabismus. Children under seven are especially at risk. But even adults are at risk if they watch enough 3D.

I don't much care for 3D for aesthetic reasons. But now I wonder if the industry hasn't shot itself in the foot with this headlong rush into 3D.

That story is freaking me out Bruce.

Dan

Me, too.

I actually remember those VR helmets being announced as the next big thing, thinking they were a cool idea, and then wondering what happened to them.

Sounds like the slight headache I get a 3D movies is something to avoid for sure.

I can take or leave 3D. I have low vision but still get the effect. I prefer a well done movie rather than something that has gimmicks to make it different than the home experience. I keep thinking Jaws when I think 3D.

For me, the experience of a theater is the experience. When a theater is nearly filled and the crowd is engaged in a great movie, that is a "Theather" experience.

Hopefully, the 48 fps format that someone mentioned early will take the place of 3D. That would be like going from VHS to DVD and then Blueray. That combined with a great movie that generates a great crowd would be my theater experience.

Jeff

Even though it has been talked about and pushed for years, I have doubts if 48fps will ever see the light of day as a popular shooting and projection format. 3D is visually loud, gimmicky and spectacular, all of the things Hollywood likes. Hollywood doesn't do subtle and 48fps would be considered by exhibitors and a large percentage of the public to be subtle.

It's just like when Blu-ray came out. Something like 70% of viewers couldn't tell the difference between Blu-ray and an upconverted NTSC or PAL DVD. If people pay extra for something, they expect to be hit over the head with the "improvement".

Dan

When I went to see Avatar and Alice In Wonderland in 3D, I was constantly just distracted by the 3D effect. It didn't pull me into the movie, it did the opposite. All the people I have been talking to (and literally, all of them) didn't like it either. Everyone I talk to about go seeing a movie in 3D, they all now say: "Meh, I don't like the whole 3D kind of thing".

A week ago I went to see Toy Story 3. In 2D. What a great film. I had no distractions at all, bright colors, and the movie effected me enormously. Because I wasn't wearing any glasses or seeing all kinds of innaproperiate effects, I could also just focus on the story and the emotions.
Glad I saw it in 2D.

Please Hollywood, stop this 3D madness.

Here are some 3D TV issues:

BBC News - Quality warnings issued over 3DTV (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10446419.stm)

All this negativity is going to drastically hinder the holodeck development process. Is that what you want?

I'd assume that would use a totally different technology to 3D TV.

But if the powers that be feel that we're all satisfied with our simple two dimensions, they're never going to work to give us a third, and the tactile feel. MMMM. . .tactile.

YouTube - Virtual 3D Tactile Touch - NTT COMWARE : DigInfo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td7QcAgCtWE)

Or are you thinking of a full suit??

I was just being a jackass. In addition to being 3D, what separates the holodeck from a 2D experience is that the image has substance. . .you can touch/interact, etc. That's what I was getting at.

I guess that would depend if it was virtual substance that give the transparent appearance of real substance.

The one time Ebert agrees with me :D

It will be interesting to see where this all is by the end of next year.

Dan Brockett

And here we are now Dan :) 3D films haven't gone away, the hype has slowed somewhat but IMO films and the medium is being refined as producers come to grips with it.

Here the sales of domestic 3D TVs have slowed but 3D live sports TV telecasts are growing slowly. Maybe keeping up with the competition. 3D games too.

Cheers.

I am the wrinkly generational exception. I do like the 3D experience "IF" it is done well. Being the fussy wretch I am, I take the time to find the row of seats in the cinema with the natural human field-of-view relationship with the screen. I then shift about until I get the audio balance good and mark that as my own personal spot and get there early enough to claim it.

In this spot, the Avatar 3D was fine for me. If there was a poisoned dog which should go all loopy with 3D imaging, it has to be me. I am short-sighted, have age-related visual deterioration, slightly red-green colourblindness, am wrong eye dominant and am about 15db down in the right ear.

Here's a nice article about 3D by Alexis van Hurkman, colorist:

I Don’t Hate Stereoscopic Films | Alexis Van Hurkman ? Thinking Aloud (http://vanhurkman.com/wordpress/?p=1509)

Daily Report: End of ESPN in 3-D May Herald the Format's Demise - NYTimes.com (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/daily-report-end-of-espn-in-3-d-may-herald-the-formats-demise/?smid=pl-share)

That's too bad. I watched an Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) event in a theater in 3D. Other than the "over-3D" titling, 3D was overall gentle and enhanced the experience despite the need for glasses.