Is all this 3-D stuff a phase?

[C.E. Evans]

It's a phase, until we get 3D movies that you can watch without glasses, how ever that should work.

Sony and Toshiba already have working glasses-free 3D television and laptop display screen prototypes, so that's coming.

Not all movies. Perhaps all the big budget special effects-laden/CGI movies will be in 3D, but smaller movies in which there aren't any explosions and things flying towards the camera will likely continue to be made in 2D, IMO.

I swear I heard the same argument about CGI in movies.

That not every movie will feature CGI? Looks like they were right about that one...

And about digital film.

Generally, the industry has been quite receptive towards digital film (and most movie and t.v. audiences probably aren't even aware of it and couldn't have cared less if they had).

 

[Kaziarl]

I swear I heard the same argument about CGI in movies.

That not every movie will feature CGI? Looks like they were right about that one...

And about digital film.

Generally, the industry has been quite receptive towards digital film (and most movie and t.v. audiences probably aren't even aware of it and couldn't have cared less if they had).

Actually, I remember seeing a test reel for one of the companies that does post production. I don't know if this is true for all of them, but apparently a lot of movies now a days use CGI and digital imaging techniques to clean up scenes that might surprise most people. Like a simple scene of someone walking down the street might use these techniques if the lighting is off, or the weather isn't quite what they wanted. Was really fascinating actually, or at least to me.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I swear I heard the same argument about CGI in movies.

That not every movie will feature CGI? Looks like they were right about that one...

And about digital film.

Generally, the industry has been quite receptive towards digital film (and most movie and t.v. audiences probably aren't even aware of it and couldn't have cared less if they had).

Actually, I remember seeing a test reel for one of the companies that does post production. I don't know if this is true for all of them, but apparently a lot of movies now a days use CGI and digital imaging techniques to clean up scenes that might surprise most people.

Some films use CGI, but not all of them do.

Like a simple scene of someone walking down the street might use these techniques if the lighting is off, or the weather isn't quite what they wanted. Was really fascinating actually, or at least to me.

One of the reasons why the industry embraced digital film.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Digital editing in post production is absolutely standard these days.

 

[BlobVanDam]

The problem with 3D now is that regardless of whether people hate it, a lot of places are pretty much forcing it, plus a lot of new TVs just happen to be 3D capable even if that's not what you specifically buy it for.

My point is that it's getting harder for someone to send the message that they don't like 3D. If you're buying a new TV, chances are it's 3D, even if you never use it for that purpose. And it's getting harder to choose between 2D and 3D at the cinema. It's becoming a case of either watching it in 3D, or not watching it at all. And I'd say most people would rather watch it in 3D even if they don't like it, rather than miss out altogether.

So it doesn't look like consumers realistically have much of a choice. Bend over and get ready to take one for the team........ IN 3D! It's here to stay.

 

[JarodRussell]

That not every movie will feature CGI? Looks like they were right about that one...

Generally, the industry has been quite receptive towards digital film (and most movie and t.v. audiences probably aren't even aware of it and couldn't have cared less if they had).

Actually, I remember seeing a test reel for one of the companies that does post production. I don't know if this is true for all of them, but apparently a lot of movies now a days use CGI and digital imaging techniques to clean up scenes that might surprise most people.

I believe you mean this:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k[/yt]
That is some serious shit.

 

[I Grok Spock]

^ I love that clip. It's amazing the amount of digital compositing and CG that is used in "regular" non-scifi/fantasy shows, much of it imperceptible.

 

[FordSVT]

The idea that people are "dumb" and "stupid" or "suckers" for liking 3D movies, as said by at least two people in this thread, is an opinion you can keep to your damned selves. It makes about as much sense as calling people who get headaches watching 3D movies a bunch of little cry baby pansies.

I don't like tacked-on 3D (Airbender, Alice...), but I thought Avatar, Tron and the animated 3D movies I've seen (How to Train... and Toy Story 3) were done very well and added to my experience. I can't wait to see PJ put The Hobbit and Smaug on screen in 3D.

It's a tool that directors will get better at using, and eventually you won't even need glasses to view it.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I don't watch 3D movies. I'm one of those pansies that gets headaches and eyestrain. Yes, I'm one of the unevolved that still thinks that vision works by having the focal plane (where the eyes focus) and plane of convergence (where the vision of both eyes meet) be one and the same. I just can't focus behind or in front of where I'm looking at. So 3D is wasted on me.

And no, I never saw a damned thing in those magic eye pictures either.

I also spent more money than I care to mention on an Internet forum on eye surgery so that I would never have to wear glasses again. That includes 3D glasses.

If I want to see 3D in a theatre, I'll watch a play!

 

[darkshadow0001]

The problem with 3D now is that regardless of whether people hate it, a lot of places are pretty much forcing it, plus a lot of new TVs just happen to be 3D capable even if that's not what you specifically buy it for.

My point is that it's getting harder for someone to send the message that they don't like 3D. If you're buying a new TV, chances are it's 3D, even if you never use it for that purpose. And it's getting harder to choose between 2D and 3D at the cinema. It's becoming a case of either watching it in 3D, or not watching it at all. And I'd say most people would rather watch it in 3D even if they don't like it, rather than miss out altogether.

So it doesn't look like consumers realistically have much of a choice. Bend over and get ready to take one for the team........ IN 3D! It's here to stay.

I guess the freedom of choice doesn't apply anymore in America

It seems like it's always been about money.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There seem to be plenty of HDTVs still sold that are not in 3D. I also refuse to buy into 3D until it goes glasses-free (however long that takes is up to them, and is their problem), but until then, there's plenty of 2D options left.

 

[Kaziarl]

That not every movie will feature CGI? Looks like they were right about that one...

Generally, the industry has been quite receptive towards digital film (and most movie and t.v. audiences probably aren't even aware of it and couldn't have cared less if they had).

Actually, I remember seeing a test reel for one of the companies that does post production. I don't know if this is true for all of them, but apparently a lot of movies now a days use CGI and digital imaging techniques to clean up scenes that might surprise most people.

I believe you mean this:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k[/yt]
That is some serious shit.

Yup, thats exactly the one I was referring too.

And out of curiosity, what exactly does "3D capable TV" really mean?

I remember years ago as a child they had a 3D movie on TV. They sent those paper cutout glasses with the one red and one blue lens in everyone's TV guide so they could watch it. There was nothing fancy about our TV.

 

[darkshadow0001]

There seem to be plenty of HDTVs still sold that are not in 3D. I also refuse to buy into 3D until it goes glasses-free (however long that takes is up to them, and is their problem), but until then, there's plenty of 2D options left.

Isn't there already one that doesn't need glasses? I think it was a small screen though...

 

[BlobVanDam]

And out of curiosity, what exactly does "3D capable TV" really mean?

I remember years ago as a child they had a 3D movie on TV. They sent those paper cutout glasses with the one red and one blue lens in everyone's TV guide so they could watch it. There was nothing fancy about our TV.

Current 3D TV technology works by quickly alternating between the left and right eye images, then the glasses quickly alternate between blocking off each eye so that the left eye only sees the frame intended for the left eye, and then the right eye only sees each alternating frame, intended for the right eye.

Basically the main defining feature of "3D capable" is a fast refresh rate to alternate between the images fast enough.

 

[Holdfast]

And out of curiosity, what exactly does "3D capable TV" really mean?

As Blob suggests, 3D capable TVs can display images suitable for viewing with modern 3D glasses. Beware though, "3D capable" or "3D ready" doesn't necessarily mean you can just put on the glasses and there you go. "3D built-in" or a similar phrase means that. Otherwise you also have to plug in a 3D transmitter to sync up the glasses with the TV perfectly (which costs extra, but not much). For a neater solution, get a TV with the transmitter built in.

Far more TVs are 3D-capable/3D-ready than actually have a transmitter for the glasses in them.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I guess the freedom of choice doesn't apply anymore[sic] in America

It never has, in the sense you're invoking it.

 

[darkshadow0001]

The idea that people are "dumb" and "stupid" or "suckers" for liking 3D movies, as said by at least two people in this thread, is an opinion you can keep to your damned selves. It makes about as much sense as calling people who get headaches watching 3D movies a bunch of little cry baby pansies.

I don't like tacked-on 3D (Airbender, Alice...), but I thought Avatar, Tron and the animated 3D movies I've seen (How to Train... and Toy Story 3) were done very well and added to my experience. I can't wait to see PJ put The Hobbit and Smaug on screen in 3D.

It's a tool that directors will get better at using, and eventually you won't even need glasses to view it.

I agree with you. When it's done right, and not done just to make money, then 3D is okay. I only made this thread because I only had enough money to see a 2-D version of Tron, and all the other movies weren't scheduled to watch so I didn't see a movie that day. I too think Tron and Avatar were good for 3D, but to make everything in 3D just because "someone else" is doing it, makes no sense.

 

[gblews]

I think 3D is eventually going to simply be the way movies are made.

Not all movies. Perhaps all the big budget special effects-laden/CGI movies will be in 3D, but smaller movies in which there aren't any explosions and things flying towards the camera will likely continue to be made in 2D, IMO.

I disagree. I think since real life is in 3D, then any movie shot in in 3D would work. At some point, people won't even trip on the fact that a movie is in 3D, any more than we "trip" on the fact that a movie is shot in color.

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^^
Seeing it in color doesn't cause me headaches.
Having forced perspective via 3-D causes me headaches.
I'll continue to 'trip' on it and avoid it 98% of the time.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Is all this 3-D stuff a phase? I'm thinking of an Asia song [God, help me]:

... Only time will tell ...