quote:

---

Let me go on record with this now, while the 3-D bubble is still inflating: Katzenberg, Quittner, and all the rest of them are wrong about three-dimensional film—wrong, wrong, wrong. I've seen just about every narrative movie in the current 3-D crop, and every single one has caused me some degree of discomfort—ranging from minor eye soreness (Coraline) to intense nausea (My Bloody Valentine). The egregious side effects of stereo viewing may well have been diminished over the past few decades (wait, does anyone really remember how bad they were in 1983?) but they have not been eliminated. As much as it pains me to say this—I love 3-D, I really do—these films are unpleasant to watch.

---

We've talked before how 3-D viewing is both, a matter of taste (some love the Technicolor look, i.e, some may hate it as "too artificial") and a matter of perception (we all see things slightly different).

As a result, at least 10% of the population have and always will have problems watching 3D films, mostly due to medical reasons (amblyopia, strabismus). They either don't see it or hate it.

Also, there is some people that can chew any 3-D you throw at them: good or bad, full of ghosting or whatnot, their visual systems are tantalized so much they will enjoy it no matter what. I call this the "3D nuts" and they will love most all 3-D films, good and bad.

These, I informally found, are also about 10% of the population.

Most of the rest of the people, seem to fall in the in-between, with most enjoying the 3D, specially as a novelty, but not enough to really make too much effort into going to watch it (i.e. they are not happy to pay much more for it and have to put up with glasses and dark images).

If the quality was the same and the price only $1 more, I'd say most of them would quite happily go to the 3D version once the novelty wears out (and if the movie is not heavily promoted as MUST BE SEEN IN 3-D OR IT WILL SUCK).

The problem lies when one of the first two groups of people, those that LOVE 3D or those that HATE 3D are either in charge of writing an article or in charge of a movie studio (Katzenberg, or a director like Cameron). Their perspective on the subject is skewed by their personal experience which they think it's the same for everybody else.

Once the novelty wears out, after watching 10 or 20 3D films, I'd say some 75% of people don't give a rat's behind about it anymore, nor are they willing to put up with any shortcommings or extra expenses compared to 2D (except, once again, for specialty movies that "must" be watched in 3D).

Just my 2.5 cents.

I will always say that if 3D was so good that "nobody" could live without it, at least 5% of the movies would've been made that way in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. Instead, we have the occassional Spy Kids or Jaws 3D and only around 200 3D films in the whole history of cinema. That's like 30% of all films made in Hollywood in just one year (or 25% of the movies made in Bollywood ), while cinema is about 100 years old.

There must be a reason for that, other than cost or technical ("cheap" and "good" ways to make and exhibit 3D films have always existed and, again, if 3D was so incredibly good and financially worthit, I'm sure even better and newer systems would've been developed).

Also, just for the heck of it, Panasonic is teasing with a pro-sumer 3D HD camera.

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=12503

quote:

---

The twin-lens P2 camera recorder enables the capturing of high-quality live 3D images, says Panasonic. Due to the solid-state construction of the P2 system, the camera recorder will be compact enough to allow 3D shooting in a way that's more flexible than current stereoscopic 3D rigs. 3D Full HD recording using Panasonic’s proprietary P2 system enables recording of two channels of Full HD images on the P2 card.

---

I still have my Toshiba VHS-C 3D camera from the 80's, but it no longer works after a submarine accident with it while in a shoot underwater in a cave

[ 04-22-2009, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-22-2009, 09:03 AM:
 
Julio, beautifully said. I happen to be in that 10% who are mezmerized by and love 3D -- any 3D. But I think I am objective enough to know that the majority of the population aren't so inclined. If they were, that would have been the economic imperative for it to never have died out, just like scope didn't and continues along side flat. But all one has to do is look at the 50s and how 3D went from every studio tripping over itself for three years to make every release in 3D to it just falling off the cliff, literally in a matter of months. History speaks to us. You just need to listen.

True, some of the issues with the technical side of early 3D have been resolved with this new wave of 3D presentation, but that basic, underlying nemisis still remains -- not every genre lends itself to the process and even discounting the 10% who hate it based strictly on physiology, the rest of the bell curve are probably too ambiguous to guarantee it as a sustainable success both economically and in popularity.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-22-2009, 09:47 AM:
 
For what it's worth, we just finished playing "Monsters vs. Aliens" and not one person complained or even commented about our lack of 3-D. The movie grossed just fine. In fact, we had several repeats.

I guess I'm in the camp that thinks 3-D is OK, and even quite cool when it comes to a theme park ride, but I have no desire to watch a feature film that way. I just don't see where it's necessary. There are ways to have things be "in your face" in a movie without them having to be literally in your face.
 

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 04-22-2009, 11:45 AM:
 
I'm in that OK group too. It's novel and everything but I don't think I find it relaxing to go sit and watch a movie with those glasses on... there's just something about it that implies "FOCUS ON MOVIE AND NOTHING ELSE!!!". But I think this aspect is just a habit. If enough movies came out in 3-D and there wasn't a huge upcharge, I think I might get used to the idea.

I also agree, most people don't care. Working at one of the drive-ins I had a lot of people ask if we had Bloody Valentine in 3D and when I explained that we didnt (and why) they bought tickets anyway.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-22-2009, 11:50 AM:
 
It's funny how just about all these articles complain about how "bad" and hurtfull 3D was before and how the "new technology" has mostly rid of the "problems".

I don't agree with that at all.

The "3D" itself was just fine all along the history and it's EXACTLY the same in use today. Put two views shot at about the same distance as human eyes on a screen so that each eye sees each view.

Now, that doesn't mean that some products are shot by stereo-monkeys just like some films may get shot by cinematography-monkeys or edited by monkey-editors.

Many 3D products were the cheap type made by "amateur" film makers that either didn't have the proper equipment or didn't know how to use it properly. But quite a few were decent and even good films and just fine from the 3D point of view.

That's still true to today's 3D, although the costs have come down and digital technology makes it harder to make uncorrectable mistakes by monkeys

But there has always been good "systems" to make and project 3D films through the history, as there has been good (from the 3D point of view) films. And yes, even a few in the 80's can scape the axe During that time, since the 3D was done "optically" in-shot, the method of shooting involved converging views instead of parallel ones, so more care and restrictions had to take place (which, of course, was often ignored).

The problems with 3D has always been and remains to be the same, to a larger or smaller degree and affects all 3D films to a larger or smaller (i.e. acceptable) extend:

-Ghosting when projecting
-Convergence/accomodation breakdown when viewing
-Undesireable asymmetries of any type when shooting or projecting

In the 00's, we even introduce theatrically a new 3D "problem" never really seen in cinemas before. Temporal asymmetrical disparity ("flicker"). Except for Sony and Imax.

Go figure.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-22-2009, 01:20 PM:
 
I'm in the "OK" group. I love 3D still photographs but movies? Eh. You just can't appreciate the 3D as much in a movie because everything is always moving. Should movies like Last Chance Harvey be in 3D? Why not? It would add the same effect as a movie like Monsters vs Predator or UP starring Pixar or whatever it is called (looks boring). That same effect is... whatever.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-22-2009, 02:04 PM:
 
"The Stewardesses" is a must see-3-D film. All others not! Louis
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-22-2009, 02:11 PM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

"The Stewardesses" is a must see-3-D film. All others not! Louis

---

I remember projecting that film ... (Polarator adapter flipped sideways for the side-side anamorphic print)

Opinion as to the quality witheld as to not start a flame war ...

I enjoyed other risqué 3D films more than that one. I remember a german one that was most fun. And a swedish one that was boring and in a really strange format (was over/under, but pillar-boxed to 1.85 or so).
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 04-24-2009, 09:53 AM:
 
I was skeptical of the new 3D wave, but having seen a RealD presentation of Monsters, I was most impressed. For an entire movie to have depth like that was fantastic and for it to work well from all corners of the auditorium was a surprise. I haven't heard any complaints from any of my customers regarding discomfort related to either viewing the image or wearing the glasses. Obviously some people just may not have said anything, but being a month into its run I think I would have heard something.

I think this new 3D is fantastic. I was amazed by the quality of the picture. We have no ghosting, flicker or any other "problems." While I understand it may not be for everyone, the great majority of my customers with whom I have spoken, upon leaving, have indicated they would spend the extra money every time having seen the difference. Now it's just up to the companies to make good movies - the bulk of which will of course be kids' movies. I think Up and Ice Age 3 will be huge. In areas where there is no 3D, the customers won't know any better, so those movies will still do well in 2D, but when given the choice, I predict people stepping over each other in line to pay the extra.
 

---