I remember for a short time, 3-D was all the tech range. First there were several 3-D movies (What got me thinking about this was the Avatar sequel talk), then they made several TV's hyping that technology. And i remember COmcast highlighting a lot of 3-D options. I don't remember when they disappeared, but....anyone know what happened? ANy of those 3D TV's still out there, or being newly produced? ANd if so, at what Price Point?
At least in theaters, 3-D has actually become the norm for most major releases (other than Chris Nolan films, but that is a specific Nolan choice). As for TVs, well, I don't know, I don't have one, but I also only have a minimum wage job income to work with. I do know they still release movies on 3-D BluRays.
Don’t know which theatre your going to, but most theatres are moving away from 3-D. https://entertainment-focus.com/2019/09/07/with-a-decline-in-3d-box-office-revenues-is-3d-dead/ I know that I watched a few 3-D IMAX movies and I was really wondering why I paid the money. I found I got a more 3-D feeling from watching a movie on a regular 2-D IMAX screen than wearing those glasses in a 3-D theatre.
It sounds like it might be more of a temporary thing, because who wants to deal with recycling the glasses during Covid? At the least, it's accelerated moving away from it. But for the longest time, it seemed theatres tried to make as many showings as possible in 3D while limiting regular showings, and then on top of that, some theatres would have motion seating.
I don’t think Covid has anything to do with it as the article I linked was from September 2019, months before Covid.
Sure, I know that, but I hadn't personally seen any evidence of it declining until Covid, where in my part of the world they've been using it as much as possible to make a buck. Before that it may have been more gradual, but now? Definitely not an option.
Pretty much, yeah. I'll admit, in recent years, the number of 2-D screenings of major blockbusters had been increasing compared to the early days where the theatres seemed to push 3-D screenings for everything with the 2-D being one screening at an inconvenient time, but still the major releases still had a very prominent 3-D presence all the way up to Rise of Skywalker, the last major release I saw. Granted, this year the movie theatres are seeing a general decline because of the pandemic. but it would not surprise me if even after the pandemic clears people decide not to bother with 3-D anymore because of recycled glasses, among other things.
There have been two films in 3D here in the past two years: Star Wars IX and Toy Story 4. The fad died because instead of actually filming in 3D, studios were just converting film in post, which don't look that great. Nothing has ever really matched Avatar in immersion, in my opinion. A lot of people have complained about wearing the glasses at home or not being able to tell a difference in 2D and 3D. I have a 3DTV but I haven't seen a 3D movie in years. 4K and HDR is much more impressive.
Yep, that's what I'm talking about. Up until Covid, It was actually quite common to have 3D showings outshow the regular 2D showings, but that Covid has forced their hand. Yeah, there's just been very few movies filmed with 3D in mind as part of the development process. I was rather impressed by Tintin. But it seemed the theatres would use 3D as an opportunity to charge people more, and I'd be seeing this practice up until Covid.
Yeah, I haven't seen many 3D showings at all in the past few years here. Just Star Wars, Toy Story 4, and the Avengers.
I was born in the 1960s, and I've seen the 3-D fad come and go from movies/TV at least three times. It's cool when first introduced, as it provides a type of visual we're not used to, but slowly becomes tedious, as attempts to adapt to it without the special glasses usually don't pan out. It's never lasted more than a few years, in my experience. I'm actually surprised it's lasted as long as it has this time.
I saw it reported that James Cameron's sequels to Avatar will be 3D stereoscopic without requiring special glasses to be worn. I'm a bit dubious about that as it would presumably require cinemas to install new technology. I'm also not sure what new technology would be required. It sounds like the position of the eyes of each member of the audience would need to be tracked and somehow each eye presented with a different stereoscopic image. I can't envisage how that would work other than by directing beams of light into each person's eyes from a distance, which seems mad.
Yeah, it does seem rather expensive on the end of the theatre. I'm rather skeptical that such a thing could even work. I mean, a hand-held console is one thing, as it's a personal device, but when you think of it in terms of a theatre with many eyeballs without glasses, it just sounds insurmountable.
There are significant problems with 3D on both the content and delivery side. On the content side, apart from 3D blu-rays of action blockbusters, there isn't really any content. No TV shows or sports, and only a few video games produce stereoscopic content, and that was a brief that largely died out years ago. I would have thought that gamers would embrace 3D, but I guess the serious ones spend so much time looking at their screens that the eyestrain becomes a major factor. Indeed, one could argue for that very reason that 3D is better suited to shorter stuff like TV episodes. Series with sparse post-production effects, such as sitcoms or reality shows, would seem to be be ideal content drivers, but they haven't been. Also, stereoscopic porn never became a thing; even if you have a 3D TV, there's virtually no such smut to be found. On the delivery side, consumers have been disinterested in 3D TVs, doubtless due in large part to the dearth of content. Also, 3D would really only be immersive in the biggest screens. Projection might seem more promising here, but one either has to get expensive battery-operated glasses that rapidly shutter lenses on and off (resulting in a sub-optimal presentation), or buy dual-lamp projection hardware for twice the cost, plus a particular type of reflective screen to watch 3D content with non-electronic glasses. Roger Ebert used to say that all movies are 3D movies, because we unconsciously interpret them that way. When we're riveted by the drama of a scene, we don't stop to wonder why the actors' noses aren't jutting out in front of their mouths. I think there's a lot of truth to that. Personally, I'd love to splurge on a dual-lamp projector plus special screen setup, and watch shows like Westworld and nature docuseries in 3D. (Maybe even an occasional presentation of adult ladies massaging each other, also.) But all that investment for a handful of 3D blu rays of about exclusively superhero movies (in the past decade, only a handful of drama films have had 3D versions) doesn't seem worth it, at least not at the moment. The big hope for 3D outside of occasional action movies now seems to be VR headsets, where one doesn't need any additional tech to view 3D images. But even with affordable sharp and light screens at that size, there's no guarantee the tech will catch on in large enough numbers to drive a substantial increase in content.
Relatively few 3D movies are really worth the price of the experience, because they're not really shot in 3D and directors fall back on - or are encouraged by their bosses - to shoot with an eye toward spectacular and cliche visual sequences. Avatar arguably launched the last big 3D push, and remains the best example of how to do it right. Doing it right takes time, planning, money and skill.