[Film] 3D is Inevitable

[JunkyardDwg]

I'm all for new technology, but when it comes to film I still maintain that 3D is nothing more than a niche technology. I've seen Avatar, Cloudy w/ Meatballs, Tron Legacy and Prometheus in 3D and the only movie of those that was worth it's salt in that realm was Avatar. Outside of that movie I'm just not impressed, and sure as hell would not use it in my home. I don't want a film to be as realistic as possible because I know I'm watching something that is not real in the first place.

With 3D and all the talk about moving up to 48 fps on The Hobbit (and apparently 60 fps on Avatar), I just feel that film is losing a sense of what makes it so special and authentic as a medium. I absolutely hate the "soap opera" effect caused by those high refresh rates on new tvs. And despite what Peter Jackson may say, no my eyes will not get used to it. I remember back in the day my professor said at some point screen resolution will be so high that the naked eye won't be able to distinguish any difference. I kind of feel like we're at a point with film/tv technology that it's almost starting to ruin the medium I fell in love with long ago. 3D and higher refresh rates might be good for live events, but I sure hope it doesn't become the standard across the whole medium.

Nolan is the one of the last major action directors to refuse to shoot digitally and in three dimensions, arguing that large format 2D film offers audiences a more cinematic experience. The Dark Knight Rises, the third in his Batman trilogy starring Christian Bale, expected to be the summer’s biggest blockbuster, will eschew stereoscopic techniques and instead aim to push IMAX 70mm film technology to its limits. But Michael Lewis, the founder and chief executive of RealD, which makes the 3D projection system used in most cinemas, as well as stereoscopic cameras, predicted Nolan will have a change of heart, like other big names. “I’d love to get Batman, of course,” he told The Telegraph. “It’s going to be the biggest film of the year.” “But I think it’s just a matter of time. There are very few major directors not working with it now. “Michael Bay said he’d never do 3D and then made the latest Transformers movie. Stephen Spielberg said he’s never work in 3D or even digital, but then did [in Tintin].” "So I hope to get him [Nolan] at some point too.” He pointed out that, increasingly, the technology is making its way towards the artier end of the movie business, with directors such as Baz Lurhmann and Ang Lee due to make their 3D debuts this year. Lee’s forthcoming fantasy, Life of Pi, was lavished with praise for its use of 3D in previews, and Lurhmann’s adaptation of The Great Gatsby is not a typical subject for the treatment, or at least not yet. “It’s not about spears coming out of the screen at you anymore,” said Mr Lewis. “Filmmakers are really getting to grips with using this technology to draw you into the experience.” The next technological advance for major directors, he says, will be the ability to shoot at significantly higher frame rates. Peter Jackson’s 3D films of The Hobbit will run at 48 frames per second on digital projectors, double the traditional 35mm frame rate. James Cameron is meanwhile shooting Avatar 2 at 60 frames per second. Previews of The Hobbit received a mixed reaction, however, with some viewers claiming the extra visual information spoils the cinematic experience and makes fibreglass props and sets too obvious. “It’s like a leap from standard definition to high definition,” said Mr Lewis, who co-founded RealD in 2003. “I was with Peter Jackson in New Zealand recently and the movie looked amazing.” Audiences will be able to side with Nolan or Jackson when their films are released next month and in December, respectively.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ims-RealD.html

[A00man]

Don't care about 3D, but higher frame rates in movies are long overdue. Can't wait to watch the Hobbit in 48 fps!

[SwoLy-D]

There was a study earlier last year saying that [people in the United States] will pay "whatever" for 3D... and that it didn't matter what movie it were at the time, people would watch it because of the "hip" thing that 3D is/was.

Why do we even "care" about frame rate, if film projectors are now displaying movies that can show up to 60fps with a 120hz refresh rate?

Is it just the "Big Screen" thing?

[JayZ750]

I think you're just being stubborn.

Not that I LOVE 3D either. It's ok. I haven't seen many movies in 3D. I did see Avatar in 3D and thought it was great, though. I do have a 3D capable tv at home, have used it very very infrequently. too much of a hassle for too little benefit.

But with all that, I still welcome the technological improvements. One improvement leads to another, leads to another.

While I'll clearly never see it in my lifetime, if in the future we can "go to the movies" by literally being virtually placed in the middle of the film.. well, that would be awesome. I think I'll likely feel somewhat similar about it as I do about 3D... but that's a human nature element of getting older.

[JunkyardDwg]

See to me that's too much. I guess I'm like Nolan in a sense...I never had a problem with the grainy look of actual film. Not to say I don't enjoy digital because I do. But again I know I'm watching something that is a work of fiction, so I don't care about being in the middle of it, or it looking as real as if I'm right there watching it filmed.

You wanna immerse me, then come up with an engaging story and interesting characters played by decent actors. Why do we love the original Star Wars trilogy over the Prequels? It's not because the special effects are better and more realistic.

3D, for many films, is not worth the price. As for tvs, I'd be more willing to watch 3D w/o the glasses. I'm not gonna put on glasses to watch movies in my living room. I know the technology is heading that way, and I think there are a few tvs that can do it already if I'm not mistaken, like the 3DS. But imo, 3D is better when the focus is on depth of field and not things jumping out at you.

As for higher frame rates, maybe, just maybe my eyes will adjust. But right now I'm completely skeptical. I've tried watching a movie with the higher refresh rates and I hated it from beginning to end. First thing I do when I get a new tv is turn off the motion plus setting. And when Hobbit comes out, I'm definitely watching it in a standard theater.

But you're right...I'm guessing I'm gonna have to get used to 48-60 after almost a century of 24fps.

[KingCheetah]

I really enjoyed the 3D on Prometheus -- it provided an extra layer of depth that just meshed with the movie.

[CourtOfDreams]

I guess I am in the minority, I like 3D and want my picture to be a realistic as possible.

[professorjay]

The problem is not the technology, just how it's used. Most of the time it's tacked on like a gimmick, and it feels like just that.

But I think movies like Avatar and Prometheus used it 'properly' and shows the true potential of it.

[Bandwagoner]

3D is a new cash cow. It is a fad for consumers but with the massive numbers Avatar put up from being able to charge twice as much per ticket, it isn't going anywhere for studios.

It takes away from the movie for me because it actually hinders getting pulled into the movie. Every effect reminds me I'm watching a movie.

[JunkyardDwg]

Originally Posted by KingCheetah I really enjoyed the 3D on Prometheus -- it provided an extra layer of depth that just meshed with the movie.

See Prometheus..I only noticed it for the first ten minutes.

Shoot I'd rather more money be put into filming on Imax and utilizing the extra screen area and the sound.

[Depressio]

Originally Posted by JunkyardDwg I'm all for new technology, but when it comes to film I still maintain that 3D is nothing more than a niche technology. I've seen Avatar, Cloudy w/ Meatballs, Tron Legacy and Prometheus in 3D and the only movie of those that was worth it's salt in that realm was Avatar. Outside of that movie I'm just not impressed, and sure as hell would not use it in my home. I don't want a film to be as realistic as possible because I know I'm watching something that is not real in the first place. With 3D and all the talk about moving up to 48 fps on The Hobbit (and apparently 60 fps on Avatar), I just feel that film is losing a sense of what makes it so special and authentic as a medium. I absolutely hate the "soap opera" effect caused by those high refresh rates on new tvs. And despite what Peter Jackson may say, no my eyes will not get used to it. I remember back in the day my professor said at some point screen resolution will be so high that the naked eye won't be able to distinguish any difference. I kind of feel like we're at a point with film/tv technology that it's almost starting to ruin the medium I fell in love with long ago. 3D and higher refresh rates might be good for live events, but I sure hope it doesn't become the standard across the whole medium.

You're like a newer version of those old people who miss the days and black and white TV. "I miss the good old days when the framerate was so slow, the picture wasn't completely smooth!"

3D, I think, is a niche until someone figures out a way that works for everyone: no glasses and viewable from all angles. Even then, it might still be novelty. There are too many limitations right now for it to be completely viable... but higher resolutions and smoother framerates? Everyone can, and should, appreciate that because it simply makes it better.

[dmc89]

Originally Posted by JunkyardDwg See Prometheus..I only noticed it for the first ten minutes. Shoot I'd rather more money be put into filming on Imax and utilizing the extra screen area and the sound.

Same. Everyone kept raving about the 3D in Prometheus so then I watched it in both RealD and IMAX 3D. With the exception of Avatar and Hugo, all 3D becomes a distraction or forgotten because the novelty wears out soon.

I recently watch Baraka and Contagion on Blu Ray, two movies with great cinematography and presentation. The former was filmed using 65mm stock and the latter using a Red One camera. I want more movies filmed like them rather than gimmicky 3D.

However, in the future movies will become a virtual reality experience so this clinging to 24fps and 2D is just human desire on my part to resist change.

[Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by dmc89 However, in the future movies will become a virtual reality experience so this clinging to 24fps and 2D is just human desire on my part to resist change.

No it isn't. These fads keep you from being pulled into the story. Books are the best at melting away and just leaving the story and they have the least glitz of every medium.

[JunkyardDwg]

Originally Posted by TSchmal but higher resolutions and smoother framerates? Everyone can, and should, appreciate that because it simply makes it better.

So you're telling me watching something on a tv that has a high refresh rate doesn't bother you at all?

To me, you get to a point where something looks so real it looks fake... i.e. soap opera effect. If I can get used to that, then sure I'm all for it. But I'm not convinced I will. It's just way too noticeable for me. But again, I'm having to break something that I've grown used to all my life.

New technology is great...but at the end of the day, a great film is created by the dedication and commitment put into the craft, not the technology alone.

[Cowboy_Bebop]

Originally Posted by JunkyardDwg See Prometheus..I only noticed it for the first ten minutes. Shoot I'd rather more money be put into filming on Imax and utilizing the extra screen area and the sound.

Don't really give a rat ass about IMAX because I'm not getting it on my HDTV at home when I purchase the Blu-ray. IMAX is a rip off anyway because good luck finding the 70mm 1570 format theater(s). The one I saw Prometheus was no bigger than a regular screen and the only thing that make it bigger because you sit so damn close to it. I have no problem with 3D only if it's done right and for certain movies only. 48fps would totally help push the 3D even further but I totally hate the look of it.

[tehG l i d e]

I thought Prometheus looked cool in 3D but I probably won't ever watch a 3D again. It was pretty distracting at points.

[JunkyardDwg]

Originally Posted by Cowboy_Bebop Don't really give a rat ass about IMAX because I'm not getting it on my HDTV at home when I purchase the Blu-ray. IMAX is a rip off anyway because good luck finding the 70mm 1570 format theater(s). The one I saw Prometheus was no bigger than a regular screen and the only thing that make it bigger because you sit so damn close to it. I have no problem with 3D only if it's done right and for certain movies only. 48fps would totally help push the 3D even further but I totally hate the look of it.

And 3D on your home tv is better? I can understand being in a theater and feeling a part of the movie...but unless you got a projection screen that fills the whole wall, I don't see how the same effect will be as engaging at home.

But I agree, IF done right, 3D has a place. A film shot in 2D converted to 3D is pointless, as are the many films that use it as a gimmick.

[Ziggy]

Originally Posted by SwoLy-D There was a study earlier last year saying that [people in the United States] will pay "whatever" for 3D... and that it didn't matter what movie it were at the time, people would watch it because of the "hip" thing that 3D is/was. Why do we even "care" about frame rate, if film projectors are now displaying movies that can show up to 60fps with a 120hz refresh rate? Is it just the "Big Screen" thing?

I've watched 3D on purpose only once (Prometheus). Actually... never. Prometheus IMAX is what I wanted but had to couple it with 3D. The other times it was by accident or the only available showing (Avengers). So yeah, I paid whatever for 3D, but sure as hell didn't want to.

I'm with Nolan on this. 2D is where it's at. Just like I'm anti-"torch mode" and extra framerate modes on HDTV sets. Give me true colors and speed.

I think kids are driving the 3D rage. Kids and old people. In other words, dumb people.