|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The decline of 3D
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-01-2017 03:26 AM
quote: Dennis Benjamin
I stood at the theatre entrance with the 3D glasses collections box at the end of the show. Not one single patron remarked about the fact that the movie was not in 3D. As a matter of fact some commented on how good the 3D effects were.
I was floored....
I once went into a show as a patron, where left and right were swapped. Once the 3D show started, I immediately noticed there was something amiss. It didn't take long to figure out left and right were swapped.
So, I walked out to inform the guy on duty. He walked in, took some 3D glasses and told me: I don't see the problem, the 3D is working. It took some time to convince him left and right were switched, he simply couldn't see it. Still, he apparently tried to alter some settings, as the show was stopped and started a few times. The problem wasn't fixed and he told me he couldn't find the problem.
My solution was a rather uncomfortable one, I turned the 3D glasses upside down. I was already too far into the movie to give up on it.
Still, the only one except me that seemed to have noticed anything was my girlfriend. The rest just sat there. The few people I asked after the show all told me, they didn't see anything wrong with it.
Watching an inverted 3D show is just plain horrible. I cannot explain how anybody could have watched an entire show like this. It's far more distracting than watching a 2D show through a pair of sunglasses, yet most people don't seem to mind.
So, your story of people of complimenting you for non-existing 3D somehow feels familiar. It's also a testament to how much crap you can feed people before they actually seem to notice or start to complain about it.
Regarding 3D in general:
I've never had a problem to perceive 3D, fortunately, it also isn't causing any major discomfort in the form of headaches, although it surely strains the eyes more than watching a plain 2D movie.
But quite frankly, I've personally never seen the value of feature-length 3D presentations. I do see the added value for things like theme park attractions, but not for a 90 minute or more show.
Why? Because the distractions are just not worth it. Even the best 3D system currently on the market is creating more artifacts and distractions than what it's usually worth to endure. That's also what makes it different from color v.s. black and white. Also, the WOW effect wears off quite rapidly. Nobody is amazed at seeing a movie in color nowadays, because we're used to it. Nobody is really amazed at seeing a movie in 3D anymore, because most of us have seen plenty of them.
So, now consider a movie like Avatar, with a runtime of roughly 160 minutes. I can tell you, that after about 90 minutes into the movie, you don't really care about the 3D anymore. Yes, there might be exceptions if you really into 3D and the occasional negative parallax ("in your face") 3D effect might grab some of your attention now and then. Yet still, the immersive effect is entirely negated by the glasses getting kind of heavy and irritating and by the lack of brightness in the picture. Also, for many people, some kind of fatigue will set in, after a prolonged 3D experience, even for those who don't generally have a problem with stereoscopic 3D images.
Like Mike already mentioned, it all starts with a good movie. And a good movie is so far more immersive than any 3D could ever be.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-01-2017 04:50 PM
In the aforementioned case, it also happened after a software update. You'd say it would be easy to spot, then again, most people operating those things nowadays alongside serving popcorn are just a bunch of kids with no affinity to the business whatsoever.
quote: Randy Stankey
Take two pairs of glasses and swap the lenses so that one pair is L/L and the other is R/R. You now have two pairs of "Un-3D" glasses.
I used to keep a pair of these doctored glasses around for whenever I didn't want to watch a movie in 3D... especially bad post-conversions.
They're an actual product and you can buy them from Amazon. DCINEX/CinemaNext, one of Europe's largest integrators has them made with your logo on it, just like regular 3D glasses.
I know at least one chain that offers them as an option, instead of 3D glasses. The irony is, they come with an additional charge. So, in order to see a 3D show in 2D, you've to pay up double.
Quite frankly, those 2D glasses suck. They might be a solution if you go out with a group and some can't handle the 3D, but I'd never go see a show that way. You get all the distractions of those glasses, but none of the remaining benefits of 3D.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-06-2018 02:00 PM
Another article on the death of theatrical 3D: Yahoo Finance
quote: Yahoo Finance
Could it be that the scourge of 3D film is coming to an end? The box office contribution of 3D showings dropped in 2017 to 12 percent of the U.S. and Canada's $11.1 billion total take, its lowest point essentially since 3D movies became a thing.
The numbers come straight from the horse's mouth: an MPAA report on ticket sales. It's a mixed bag altogether, for the most part positive: people are still watching lots of movies, and they're paying to go to theaters all over the world. Global box office hit a new record ($40.6 billion) even if the U.S. and Canada dropped 2 percent.
The decline of 3D, however, is really only noted in the following chart:
You can see that at 12 percent of total box office, it's the lowest percentage and absolute amount of ticket sales for 3D movies since 2009. The peak, in 2010, was largely due to Avatar, surely the most impressive 3D film and certainly the highest grossing, even if it did use Papyrus for its title font. It's been largely downhill since then.
And why not? 3D is expensive, uncomfortable, degrades the quality of the picture, rarely adds anything to a film, and in fact is often bolted on after the fact in post-production. (CG films, more easily converted and aimed at a younger crowd, are an exception.)
3D TVs failed, 3D gaming failed, VR's special take on 3D is at the very least failing to succeed — so why not 3D film?
As an embellishment on moviemaking, it's largely bankrupt of possibility, but the idea of creating a "premium" tier of moviegoing (the sort-of-stealth motive of 3D) is far from a bad idea. People will pay extra for things like big seats, 21+ showings where you can drink, good food, and so on. And as MoviePass has shown, they'll also pay for theaters as a service — although whether the company can pull that off at the current price point is a matter of some debate.
Even if Avatar 2 were to give the 3D box office a shot in the arm, it's unlikely that the enterprise is considered worth saving when other, fresher opportunities to put butts in seats are in the offing. Here's hoping 2018 or 2019 will be the last time you have to specify 2D when buying tickets.
While I like 3D when it is well done, my experience is that most people are indifferent to 3D (at best), but actively hostile to the up-charge. It is a shame, because they finally got 3D, both home and theatrically, to the point where it worked really good, but killed it off with too many mediocre movies that had no reason to be in 3D. It was no longer something special, deserving of a higher price.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic