3-D Anniversary Special

[Konata Izumi]

How much stunts should cost, must depend on how much you mind waiting!

3d + that convention in New Zealand around shooting + Peter Jackson wanting to direct == Peter Jackson multi-Doctor in New Zealand ???

[MickJo1701]

3D is an irritating fad which I have no interest in investing my money in to experience, I'd rather they just use the usual filming equipment and spend the money on something less ridiculous.

[Haggis and tatties]

HA!!!.......I just bought a 3DTV as well.

[Chess Piece Face]

3D can go fuck itself. I love Doctor Who and I was super psyched about the Anniversary...until now.

Give us 2 hours, 90 minutes, multiple docs....ANYTHING but a 60 minute show in 3D. I'm really ready for Moffat to move along.

[Psion]

I want immersive 3D ... like Second Life but with live action so I not only see a stereographic view, but can deviate from the director's choice of camera angles on a scene-by scene basis.

Of course, that's still a bit of a ways off, but you can see hints of this in a lot of games these days, and it's sometimes quite convincing.

In the meantime, while current 3D tech is something of a gimmick, it's a pretty effective one when the director uses it carefully. A friend has a fairly decent 3D TV that uses the cheap glasses. Avatar, of course, was absolutely stunning. I even compared real 3D footage from the movie to the television's calculated 3D of 2D scenes from the same movie (while the effect looked 3D, it badly misinterpreted some scenes -- still, it was an impressive demonstration of what could be done using at-home technology).

Thor was also amazing, although a lot less immersive than Avatar, and it suffered here and there with some flat-looking objects that shouldn't have been flat-looking, moving in 3D space ... like watching cardboard cut outs of people moving closer or further away. The interesting thing is that gaming becomes super immersive in 3D. Not only do you move around freely, but your eyes are telling you the world really does have depth. This is where 3D television really shines, because most directors don't have the intuitive sense for 3D the way James Cameron does, and I really doubt Doctor Who in 3D will be anything more than a joke. But for gaming? It's the best thing since the invention of the joystick.

I wear glasses during almost all waking hours. The cheap glasses with my friend's TV are the same type used in the theaters, and she frequently brings her own to the movies these days. I find them awkward to wear along with my prescription glasses, but usually manage okay with them. I wouldn't want to wear them continually throughout an entire evening's TV watching, but a movie or two a week would be just fine. Later this spring, I plan to buy a new TV, and I'm seriously considering a 120Hz 3D flatscreen based on the experiences at my friend's. If I do, I'll also be investing in a few pairs of these for my family, so we don't look quite so dorky.

[Captaindemotion]

I have a 3D tv but I rarely use the facility, as it's too much hassle with the glasses etc. Having said that, movies which were made to be seen in 3D, in particular animated movies, do look fantastic on it. So I'll probably watch it in 3D, the first time anyway.

[Saul]

Fuck 3D. Take the money from that and make a 3 hour special instead. Gimmick.

[Tom]

Wow the BBC is totally fucking up here

[Konata Izumi]

Saul wrote:

---

Fuck 3D. Take the money from that and make a 3 hour special instead. Gimmick.

If it was 90 mins vs. 60 mins in 3d I'd take the latter, but 3 hours' irresistible

[Kelthaz]

Chess Piece Face wrote:

---

3D can go fuck itself. I love Doctor Who and I was super psyched about the Anniversary...until now.

Give us 2 hours, 90 minutes, multiple docs....ANYTHING but a 60 minute show in 3D. I'm really ready for Moffat to move along.

My thoughts exactly.

[Mr Awe]

^ I just cannot understand what TPTB are thinking. It's very strange.

[StCoop]

Mr Awe wrote:

---

^ I just cannot understand what TPTB are thinking.

"Bugger. We've spent all this money on 3D cameras that we've only used to shoot one programme with*. What can we do to help amortise the cost?"

*"Mr Stink". Viewers for 3D Version: 12,000 (Yes, that's the correct number of Zeros.)

[ATimson]

Saul wrote:

---

Fuck 3D. Take the money from that and make a 3 hour special instead. Gimmick.

Shooting 3D really doesn't cost all that much more. The cameras are paid for already; they have to update the editing software probably, and render both eyes for VFX (but that's pure computer time, not artist time).

If this wasn't 3D, the funds might be enough to pay for another 5 minutes. Certainly not 2 hours!

[Saul]

ATimson wrote:

---

Shooting 3D really doesn't cost all that much more. The cameras are paid for already; they have to update the editing software probably, and render both eyes for VFX (but that's pure computer time, not artist time).

If this wasn't 3D, the funds might be enough to pay for another 5 minutes. Certainly not 2 hours!

Give me my 5 minutes then!

[Mr Awe]

^^ It would be more than 5 minutes, I'm sure. The editting and SFx are more time consuming and costly. But, there's also more planning involved in the production to make it look nice three dimensionally.