When digital 3D first came out I was pumped. I loved the old stereoscopic 3D movies as a kid, and then they just quit making them. I had plans to buy a 3D television and projector for my home theater when this new thing showed up. I'm happy I didn't, however.
My local theater is showing San Andreas twice a day in 3D and seven times a day in 2D. The same for Poltergeist. When the new digital 3D showed up they were showing 50/50 3D/2D. Now it seems most people aren't interested enough to bother with it.
The first digital 3D movie I saw was Avatar, and I thought it was breathtaking. Then I went to a bunch more, and wasn't so impressed. Now I don't bother. I'd like to see Avatar again in 3D to see if it still impresses me. I think it would. If I get to the theater and have to wait 45 minutes for the next 2D, I'll buy a 3D ticket if the time is right, but I don't think it's really worth the extra 3 dollars.
I'm thinking for the second time in my life, I might see 3D come and go. I still think the idea is good. Well, it sounds good, but right now, it sounds better than it actually turns out to be.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 11:47:02 AM
When digital 3D first came out I was pumped. I loved the old stereoscopic 3D movies as a kid, and then they just quit making them. I had plans to buy a 3D television and projector for my home theater when this new thing showed up. I'm happy I didn't, however.
My local theater is showing San Andreas twice a day in 3D and seven times a day in 2D. The same for Poltergeist. When the new digital 3D showed up they were showing 50/50 3D/2D. Now it seems most people aren't interested enough to bother with it.
The first digital 3D movie I saw was Avatar, and I thought it was breathtaking. Then I went to a bunch more, and wasn't so impressed. Now I don't bother. I'd like to see Avatar again in 3D to see if it still impresses me. I think it would. If I get to the theater and have to wait 45 minutes for the next 2D, I'll buy a 3D ticket if the time is right, but I don't think it's really worth the extra 3 dollars.
I'm thinking for the second time in my life, I might see 3D come and go. I still think the idea is good. Well, it sounds good, but right now, it sounds better than it actually turns out to be.
Yeah, I lived through the first stage, as well. At first I was eager to see more of them. But for some reason after 3/4 of them they failed to excite. This go around I saw Avatar in 3D and was very impressed with the 3D in that movie. It really enhanced the scenery and made it feel more immersive for me. Loved it. Then saw Alice in Wonderland with Depp. The 3D was okay. I haven't seen one since. I think it will fade away and then come back again.
I'm too young to have experienced the first wave (1950s), but I was a teenager during the second wave (1980s). That didn't last long; the movies sucked. This third wave has lasted about 6 years now, and has legs. I believe this is because they're actually making GOOD MOVIES in 3D this time.
What I'm waiting for is virtual reality. Movies where you interact with charging Rhinos, and fend off monsters.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 03:24:12 PM
What I'm waiting for is virtual reality. Movies where you interact with charging Rhinos, and fend off monsters.
Is that what you really want to have in your virtual reality???? :)
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 01, 2015, 05:13:01 PM
Is that what you really want to have in your virtual reality???? :)
I actually, printed something else entirely, and then I decided to tone it down. :biggrin:
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
I actually, printed something else entirely, and then I decided to tone it down. :biggrin:
Seems like we are thinking along the same lines. :)))))
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 11:47:02 AM
I'm thinking for the second time in my life, I might see 3D come and go.
And the third time in, well, my dad's lifetime.
QuoteI still think the idea is good.
I disagree and am prepared to back up my position.
First of all, what is called "3D" isn't. It's stereoscopy, placing two slightly different images before each eye to create the illusion of depth. It's not actual depth or else when you lean side to side you would be able to look around objects. Like this shot from the original Rosemary's Baby that got the entire theater to lean to the right.
(http://www.stevenbenedict.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Baby-700x375.png)
So, stereoscopy is a 2D image with the illusion of depth. Now, it has been pointed out that this shouldn't matter as motion pictures are a series of still images that provide the illusion of movement in the first place. It would be OK if stereoscopy is just an enhanced form of 2D presentation, but it has a problem with convergence.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o521/theantithesis/getImage.xqy.jpg)
If you know someone, and you probably do since about 20% of the population does, who doesn't like stereoscopy because it causes them discomfort, headaches, eyestrain, etc. It's because of convergence.
Look at the figure on the right. See that gap between where the object appears to be and where the eyes should be focused? That's the source of the problem. The eyes automatically focus on an object where it appears to be. Some people can focus on a different point. Some cannot. It's the same as those damn magic eye things.
(http://www.magiceye.com/saturn.jpg)
(Do you see the sailboat? Then, fuck you!)Which brings us to the big lie of stereoscopy. Know why only 20% of the population is negatively effected? Because all stereoscopy presentations are
flattened. They reduce the apparent depth of the image until only an acceptable percentage is negatively affected. If they didn't do this, no one would like stereoscopy. So when you see a featurette on some movie and they start talking about how they used new cameras to capture more depth, don't believe them.
So does this mean that actual 3D is not a viable thing?
I honestly do not know. Actual 3D would be so different from what we're used to, I cannot even predict if it could catch on. It would be everything we know about filmmaking would go out the window. it would be at least as big a change as when they introduced color. (look up Max Factor and how make-up had to change with the advent of color) it'll probably mean loads more changes in how films are made and sold and watched.
Which is why I am sure stereoscopy is a dead end. It changes nothing. It's a marketing gimmick to wring a few more dollars out of the movie-going populous.
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 01, 2015, 05:52:16 PM
(http://www.magiceye.com/saturn.jpg)
(Do you see the sailboat? Then, fuck you!)
Rising to the challenge, I stared into this image for 4 minutes, and low and behold, I saw a 3D image, but it wasn't a sailboat. It looked like the inside of a flying saucer or some kind of cavern with a dome ceiling. But it was most certainly in 3D (or whatever you want to call it).
But your post does describe something I think I experience when watching one of these movies. My eyes don't seem focused on the screen. It's slightly odd, but I don't get headaches from it.
http://www.reelz.com/article/816/a-tour-through-the-history-of-3-d-movies/
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 06:15:49 PM
Rising to the challenge, I stared into this image for 4 minutes, and low and behold, I saw a 3D image, but it wasn't a sailboat. It looked like the inside of a flying saucer or some kind of cavern with a dome ceiling. But it was most certainly in 3D (or whatever you want to call it).
I don't know what it is. I can't see those fucking things. The image name is "Saturn" so whatever.
QuoteBut your post does describe something I think I experience when watching one of these movies. My eyes don't seem focused on the screen. It's slightly odd, but I don't get headaches from it.
Different people feel different amounts of discomfort. Most people feel it, but can get used to it. I can't, which is why I hate 3D.
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 01, 2015, 07:16:17 PM
I don't know what it is. I can't see those fucking things. The image name is "Saturn" so whatever.
Bingo! It was Saturn. Yep that's what it was. However, it was inside out. It was like being in a hollow Saturn. I'm going to look again, now that I know what it was, and see if it might reverse itself.
Nope, I couldn't get it to come in this time. I'll try again later.
Edit: It is inside out. Weird.
Face it. .it's a bunch of colored stars, nothing more, nothing less. .
Whoever makes that shit needs beat daily and twice on Sunday. .
Was it back in the 70s or 80s when they figured out how to make those 3D posters? Seems like almost everyone had one of them on the wall. Some people could see the images. To others, they were just a source of hair pulling frustration.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 11:30:49 PM
Was it back in the 70s or 80s when they figured out how to make those 3D posters? Seems like almost everyone had one of them on the wall. Some people could see the images. To others, they were just a source of hair pulling frustration.
I was/am in the hair-pulling camp. I briefly considered the possibility that a sizable chunk of the populace might be schizophrenic, a suggestion that has not been assuaged by watching them pray.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 01, 2015, 06:51:07 PM
http://www.reelz.com/article/816/a-tour-through-the-history-of-3-d-movies/
Thanks for that trip down memory lane. I remember seeing many of those at my local theater. I also remember another Vincent Price "spectacular". I think it was House on Haunted Hill... Filmed in Emergo.
Emergo? What's that you ask? Well it was a new and exciting cinematic concept destined to compete with 3D... or not. Toward the end of the movie there is this sequence where this couple is in the empty house, and they are attacked by a skeleton, but it turns out the skeleton is a man sized puppet being controlled by Vincent Price who was trying to scare the hapless couple, or whoever it was, for some reason that I can no longer remember. The camera zooms in on the wires controlling the skeleton, and the camera follows the wires into another room where Vincent Price is doing a Wizard of Oz thing behind a curtain. And just when you are starting to relax because it's not a real skeleton, they spring the really frightening Emergo techinique on you.
A spot light near the stage flicks on and directs your attention to the back of the theater where high up on the back wall there is an outhouse sized thing that suddenly opens and a life size skeleton comes slowly sliding down to the screen on a cable that no one in the theater had noticed before. It takes a minute or two to pass over everyone's head to the front of the theater, and then it reverses and takes another minute or two to get pulled back over everyone's head to it's hiding place again. Everyone is now all Oooooh, eek, or snicker snicker depending on how macho you are.
But here's the thing. It's not even an authentic looking skeleton. It's one of those plastic blow up balloon type things with a skeleton painted on it. I think it may have even had a light bulb inside of it. Now I'm only 10 years old, and I'm thinking to myself, "This has got to be the most God dammed stupidest looking thing I've ever seen."
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, was the first and only time the Emergo technique was ever used in theaters.
Hey, I just googled Filmed in Emergo and found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Castle
QuoteHouse on Haunted Hill (1959). Filmed in "Emergo". A skeleton with red lighted eye sockets attached to wire floated over the audience in the final moments of some showings of the film to parallel the action on screen when a skeleton rises from a vat of acid and pursues the villainous wife of Vincent Price's character.[6][p. 16] Once word spread about the skeleton, kids enjoyed trying to knock it down with candy boxes, soda cups, or any other objects at hand.
I hate the 3D-gimmick with a passion. Mostly because I can't see, it ruins good movies, the glasses fuck up the colour and all you get is a headache.
Fuck that. Its the only reason I even moderately disliked Mad Max, cause I had the misfortune to bee dragged to a 3d showing by friends.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 11:30:49 PM
Was it back in the 70s or 80s when they figured out how to make those 3D posters? Seems like almost everyone had one of them on the wall. Some people could see the images. To others, they were just a source of hair pulling frustration.
I remember them as being in book form. I bought several as presents. Had one in the house. And I was one of the frustrated ones, for I could not see anything. And I could not find Waldo very well, either. Nor those numbers in the page of bubbles of various sizes. Frustrating.............
I never see anything in those "magic" images and 3d movies make my head hurt. *sigh*
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 01, 2015, 05:52:16 PM
(http://www.magiceye.com/saturn.jpg)
(Do you see the sailboat? Then, fuck you!)
.
I stared at that for 4 minutes and eventurally saw Jessica Alba's head gently bobbing on my lap.....very nice too...even started to feel like it as well.....er....gotta go....
I have never seen anything in those damned pictures...
I hate wearing the glasses over my glasses so I usually opt for the regular version.
The new system has the advantage that the movies are in full color, and the polarized light system works well (if you want to see something weird, keep a pair of the movie 3D glasses and look at yourself in a mirror and see which eye sees which lens blacked out). But yes, to us glasses-wearers, it's a bit of a pain.
The only movies I've gone to see 3D have been animated features like Despicable Me. I haven't bothered with any "serious" 3D releases, so I can't judge the live-action ones. I don't mind it, even though it encourages gimmicky padding so they can show off the 3D effect. Though I would like to see them offer a clip-on option for those of us who already wear glasses. But by and large, I don't go to the cinema often enough to care whether it's 2- or 3D. I'm kinda in the "wake me when it's holographically projected in the round" camp.
Quote from: aitm on June 02, 2015, 12:24:24 PM
I stared at that for 4 minutes and eventurally saw Jessica Alba's head gently bobbing on my lap.....very nice too...even started to feel like it as well.....er....gotta go....
What is it with you and old ladies?
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 01, 2015, 05:52:16 PM(http://www.magiceye.com/saturn.jpg)
(Do you see the sailboat? Then, fuck you!)
Looks like a ringed planet to me. Like Saturn. But colorful and starry.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 11:30:49 PM
Was it back in the 70s or 80s when they figured out how to make those 3D posters? Seems like almost everyone had one of them on the wall. Some people could see the images. To others, they were just a source of hair pulling frustration.
Those posters became a thing in the early 90's.
I had said sailboat earlier as a reference to the movie Mallrats.
Quote from: Atheon on June 06, 2015, 10:19:50 AM
Looks like a ringed planet to me. Like Saturn. But colorful and starry.
That's what I see, but I'm still seeing inside out.
Quote from: SGOS on June 06, 2015, 10:53:19 AM
That's what I see, but I'm still seeing inside out.
Yeah, exactly. I always see these things sunk in, not sticking out.
3D's not going away. Sorry about you folks who have trouble with it, but they're still making 2D versions just for you. Enjoy.
No, 2D is still the most popular. Around here, 90% of the projection time seems to be devoted to 2D. I suppose it's because some people can't watch 3D, and some people like me don't care enough about it to pay the extra $3. Roger Ebert carried on an outright attack campaign against it. I never understood why, but it seemed like he was trying to drive it out of the theaters all together. Maybe I misread him, but I sensed an ulterior motive, although I couldn't begin to guess what it might be.
Who were you responding to?
To you, although it was a general comment. You just said something that got me thinking, and the thing about Roger Ebert just seems to stick in my mind. I really liked Ebert, but he just seemed to have an unusual bug up his ass that has continually perplexed me. Whether people want to see things in 3D or not doesn't seem like it would pose some kind of threat to the quality of movies, so I don't see a reason to be opposed to 3D.
I've just started noticing that 3D seems to be generating less interest as time goes by. Since I was looking forward to it so much, and then lost interest myself just seems to point to a pattern, albeit a rather mundane pattern that doesn't necessarily foretell where things will go. And like you, I don't expect 3D to go away again, nor am I hoping that it will.
The increase in sales of 3D TVs bodes well for the process, especially for the people who retro-fit 3D onto old movies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 10, 2015, 12:01:33 PM
The increase in sales of 3D TVs bodes well for the process, especially for the people who retro-fit 3D onto old movies porn.
ftfy. :biggrin:
3D isn't a turn-off for me, but I don't go out of my way to see movies in 3D. I don't even turn it on when I play my 3DS very often. Strains my eyes after awhile.
Having survived "Adventures in the Forbidden Zone" I appreciate the current 3D technology. I think that everybody who doesn't like it should be rounded up and kept in tunnels under abandoned Wal-Marts until they either come around to the acceptable attitude or they're processed into Soylent Green.
Just my personal opinion, of course.
(https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/3d-film-chart__140203201938-575x359.png)
3D would be one facet of those numbers. How good were the movies in 3D?
Here's the link to the above graph:
http://deadline.com/2014/02/2014-box-office-will-be-hurt-by-diminishing-popularity-of-3d-movies-analyst-676253/
Quote
The year will have 28 films in 3D â€" down from 34 last year and a peak of 39 in 2011 â€" which is one reason why Morgan Stanley’s Benjamin Swinburne says today that he expects this year’s domestic ticket sales to fall as much as 2%. Another reason: The analyst predicts that audience interest in 3D will continue to cool. He foresees 3D showings to account for just 39% of the total box office for films released in 3D, the lowest ratio in seven years and down from 42% in 2013 and 53% in 2012. The exhibition companies he tracks already are hurting from these trends. Consumers’ average outlay per admission in Q1 will rise just 0.5% as price increases of about 2.5% are offset by lower sales of the premium priced tickets for 3D movies.
Yeah, OK. Things are disappointing for investors. But is this glass half empty or half full? I know investors get grumpy when any kind of sales go down, but 3D sales are only disappointing, not a catastrophe. So instead of thinking sales are down, maybe you could look at as sales were up for a short while. In fact, they are still up, just not as much up from the first years 3D started. Unless I'm missing something, 3D is still adding revenue to an already successful industry. So the movie industry will just have to go back to the bleaker past where its executives made millions and millions. Apple computer turned out a lot of failed ideas in the past, and Apple is still doing fine. Wish I would have bought their stock 30 years ago.
I think Steven Spielberg warned that movie theaters would become a thing of the past. I think it was because of streaming and home theaters. I'm still doubtful about that. At any rate 3D doesn't have anything to do with it. Maybe Spielberg is worried that he may have to go back to earning millions and millions like he did when times were hard.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 15, 2015, 06:18:26 PM
3D would be one facet of those numbers. How good were the movies in 3D?
For a while 3D seemed to have attached itself to lower quality movies. I think that's changed as most of the sci fi blockbusters are now coming out in 3D. They started with mostly animations, and 3D entered traditional films with Avatar, which was an incredible movie as well as an incredible 3D experience. After that, it seemed like they started using 3D to increase interest in some of the box office bombs. But even using it with the blockbusters, they sell more tickets for the 2D versions. I was disappointed with Jurassic World in 3D, but I saw it on a huge IMAX screen, where 3D anomalies may have been more distracting.
I'll wait to see how it parses out when 3D and 2D cost the same at the box office.