PDA

View Full Version : Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.



Sekhar
01-24-2011, 12:28 PM
This letter by Walter Murch (the film editor) is making waves, thought you guys would be interested. One key point was that with 3D on screen with glasses, we focus on the screen but our eyes merge at a different spot - unlike in real life. And this is a problem.

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html)

cresshead
01-24-2011, 12:46 PM
well it's getting people into cinemas and they are paying 'extra' to see this...and there's a lot of 3d sports arriving for TV this year so the fat lady hasn't sung on the end of the subject.

the nintendo 3ds has a USER definable '3d' slider to tune his/her eyes to it.

personally i'm not sold on the idea but consumers seem to be rather eager to get into it,

pooby
01-24-2011, 12:51 PM
I had never thought about the actual eye focus length before. It totally accounts for that layer of unconvincingness that separates 3d cinema and stereoscopic imaging in general from looking at reality.

VonBon
01-24-2011, 12:54 PM
I think 3D movies/content presented by using techniques like in Avatar
is a bad idea period. It will affect people in the long run
esspecially when they try and make it the norm.

RebelHill
01-24-2011, 12:54 PM
Hardly new news... the problem is called "convergence error".

And really, its not necessarily a "showstopper" as is often claimed, as the human eye reaches infinity focus at just a few feet. So if you're in a cinema a few meters away from the screen, as is normal, something appearing just infront of the screen, at screen level, or way off inside the box behind the screen will cause your eyes to focus no differently.

So the problem, as any good stereographer can tell you, isn't 3D as a whole, its simply how far out the screen towards the viewer you can bring objects, and how often/for how long you can keep them there.

cresshead
01-24-2011, 01:06 PM
Hardly new news... the problem is called "convergence error".

And really, its not necessarily a "showstopper" as is often claimed, as the human eye reaches infinity focus at just a few feet. So if you're in a cinema a few meters away from the screen, as is normal, something appearing just infront of the screen, at screen level, or way off inside the box behind the screen will cause your eyes to focus no differently.

So the problem, as any good stereographer can tell you, isn't 3D as a whole, its simply how far out the screen towards the viewer you can bring objects, and how often/for how long you can keep them there.

exactly...as seen on in the many clips for the making of Avatar where he added a bit of depth to the scene and didn't go all out 'pointy sticks' in the viewers face like other films..that's where it doesn't work:foreheads

SBowie
01-24-2011, 01:13 PM
Personally, until we get affordable and very convincing home holographic 'stages' (or some equally unobtrusive technology that works without annoying me), 3D displays are a novelty I might endure once a year for an Avatar class debut, but not something I would bother with apart from that. The second time I saw Avatar (which I'll credit for having done 3D in a nice, balanced manner) I'd have been just as happy to see it in 2D. I'm glad I saw it in 3D that once, but it would have been fine with me if that was an experience reserved for an occasional trip to a full size IMAX theatre - say once or twice a decade.

Perhaps I'm not the typical viewer, or maybe it's my long conditioning, or creeping curmudgeonliness, but "I Just Don't Care" on a fairly massive scale. It seems to me that what we're experiencing is merely the resurgence of the fad, not the true dawn of 3D as a practical long term reality. Frankly, I hope I'm right. I can't afford a holodeck yet, and everything less seems more trouble than it's worth.

Dexter2999
01-24-2011, 01:24 PM
Personally, until we get affordable and very convincing home holographic 'stages' (or some equally unobtrusive technology that works without annoying me), 3D displays are a novelty I might endure once a year for an Avatar class debut, but not something I would bother with apart from that. The second time I saw Avatar (which I'll credit for having done 3D in a nice, balanced manner) I'd have been just as happy to see it in 2D. I'm glad I saw it in 3D that once, but it would have been fine with me if that was an experience reserved for an occasional trip to a full size IMAX theatre - say once or twice a decade.

Perhaps I'm not the typical viewer, or maybe it's my long conditioning, or creeping curmudgeonliness, but "I Just Don't Care" on a fairly massive scale. It seems to me that what we're experiencing is the merely resurgence of the fad, not the true dawn of 3D as a practical long term reality. Frankly, I hope I'm right. I can't afford a holodeck yet, and everything less seems more trouble than it's worth.

"Amen to that, Statler!" -Waldorf

pooby
01-24-2011, 01:33 PM
Hardly new news... the problem is called "convergence error".

And really, its not necessarily a "showstopper" as is often claimed, as the human eye reaches infinity focus at just a few feet. So if you're in a cinema a few meters away from the screen, as is normal, something appearing just infront of the screen, at screen level, or way off inside the box behind the screen will cause your eyes to focus no differently.

So the problem, as any good stereographer can tell you, isn't 3D as a whole, its simply how far out the screen towards the viewer you can bring objects, and how often/for how long you can keep them there.

Convergence error is quite a different issue. And the fact that your eyes are focussed at infinity still causes brain processing issues if your are presented with a close up of a face but your eyes tell you you are looking into the distance.

http://www.rmm3d.com/3d.encyclopedia/keystone/keystone.html

shrox
01-24-2011, 01:45 PM
I am afraid to see a 3D movie. I fear I will end up with a week long headache or something.

stiff paper
01-24-2011, 01:53 PM
Some 3D that really works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uef17zOCDb8

SBowie
01-24-2011, 01:54 PM
Some 3D that really worksYeah, saw that - funny stuff.

VonBon
01-24-2011, 02:05 PM
Some 3D that really works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uef17zOCDb8

:lol: that is retarded

did yall see the special about them reusing the glasses?
they wern't cleaning them.

wrench
01-24-2011, 02:26 PM
It's the same thing every thirty years or so - the first big 3D wave was in the fifties, then the eighties with Space Hunter and Jaws 3, etc. and now 2010. It will go the same way as before is my prediction, only there will have been a lot more money spent on it this time...

B

shrox
01-24-2011, 02:29 PM
It's the same thing every thirty years or so - the first big 3D wave was in the fifties, then the eighties with Space Hunter and Jaws 3, etc. and now 2010. It will go the same way as before is my prediction, only there will have been a lot more money spent on it this time...

B

Yes, I saw "Coming at Ya!", a terribly lame 3D western.

SBowie
01-24-2011, 03:21 PM
I really wonder what desperate hopes make the supporters think they'll "change the way we see" this time.I think they really hope that - now that competition has kicked the price of large HD TV screens to sun $1k - they can convince you that it's obsolete before next Xmas.

digitaldoc
01-24-2011, 03:32 PM
talkies and color in film will never catch on either

SBowie
01-24-2011, 03:59 PM
Never is a long time. I expect 3D will arrive in some actually practical and enjoyable form sooner or later that will make it's introduction into the home an attractive proposition. I don't see any sign of that yet, though.

pooby
01-24-2011, 04:42 PM
Yeah. Talkies and colour are my favourites! I reckon they are here to stay for sure.

Lightwolf
01-24-2011, 04:48 PM
talkies and color in film will never catch on either
I see what you're getting at... but both of these work fairly well for our perceptual system (fairly since even in that old tech there's at least technical issues when it comes to viewing that cause stress).
Stereo as displayed now doesn't work to well for anything beyond watching a movie every now and then.

In that sense I fully agree with the article. I certainly don't see anybody in front of a tv (with or without glasses doesn't matter) for hours watching stereo content as one might watch tv on a Sunday afternoon.

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
01-24-2011, 05:25 PM
i want smellies!..stuff ya 3d...i want to sniff my next movie!

maybe they should remake the sixth sense?

COBRASoft
01-24-2011, 05:52 PM
Most of my friends hate 3D, they get headaches and prefer to go to the 'classic' 2D in digital resolution. I don't mind 3D as is, but the extra price tag is too high. it's not worth the extra euros at all.

digitaldoc
01-24-2011, 05:56 PM
like the evolution of color and sound, 3D is a work in progress....

"won't need no stinkin' glasses"

eventually

gerry_g
01-24-2011, 06:02 PM
there is this big fat lie that any art form is some how pure and that anything that adulterates this purity diminishes it – talkies ruined the passionate over dramatic acting of the silent era, colour ruined the monochromatic tonal beauty of the black and white era, and 3D ruins everything, no it doesn't, some of the best things that ever happened to cinema were only ever introduced as gimmick, cinemascope was introduced to fight of the ubiquitous growth of TV and was trailed as such 'an experience you can't see at home on the small screen'. Honestly what is the problem here, I've seen around ten of these things, never got a headache, they do add an extra level of immersiveness, true they don't make the movie any better but who would be chump enough to think it would, progress is progress and you all sound like a bunch of old farts.

Hieron
01-24-2011, 06:07 PM
" Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed."
Bleh.. now that's a lame statement, highly regarded individual or not.

Wonder why so much discussion is about this topic... if you don't like it, don't go. if he doesn't like it, don't make another S3D movie again. For some people it works, for others it doesn't, big deal.
For the cinemas it's another extra thing to try and distance them from home cinemas and piracy (for now) and for the hardware companies after HD it's their easiest option of selling us even more TV's. Don't buy them if you don't like it...

I like S3D. For games it's awesome and slow shot movies are better due to it (imho). Thank you very much. The thing about perspective and not being immersive is blabla. Sounds like some purist to me.


ps: some people think S3D is like magic, and makes everything insanely deep and detailed. No it doesn't. Just look outside, pure S3D for ya, try seeing how much and detailed the depth is on the body of a person 2 meters away. Nothing.. cardboard huh? Now walk around and close 1 eye and keep walking. Missing something? If done well, S3D in movies can match that. Yes there are limits, so a full on action movie may not be the best and they better not constantly stick pointy things in our face. But my, I would sure love them remaking "Earth" (the big good series from BBC) in S3D, it is perfect for that.

Lightwolf
01-24-2011, 06:10 PM
"won't need no stinkin' glasses"

Those aren't the problem though. Projecting on/from a plane is.

Cheers,
Mike

Hieron
01-24-2011, 06:22 PM
Is it?

Take any modern action movie. Now imagine you are experiencing it from a perfect holodeck, so no projection issues. I wonder if people would appreciate that....
600 million years of evolution didn't prepare us for being teleported all over the place with 1 second shots and zooms and cuts without any warning. Perhaps S3D just makes that more obvious.. and perfect projection would suffer the same.


Games often work great, even at high speed since RTS and FPS keep the camera at 1 point. You turn the camera yourself... never had any issues there.
My friend who had a big headache at Avatar, was happily playing Left for Dead in S3D on my dual projector S3D cinema..... it may have less to do with S3D itself, than the fact of quick cuts and motion..

probiner
01-24-2011, 06:27 PM
As far as immersion goes, i think something not so confortable like 3D, where your brain says all the time: "There's something wrong going on here", your nose has weight and there are flickers... It won't be totally awsome.
It's like CG in movies... "Thats CG!..." And it takes you away from the action, the story, etc.

One can have much more imersion in a FPS game for example, with and powerfull headset where your audtion is sweeped away, and with your face in the screen where you have your vision sweeped away, you really get there, by the movement (yes because Games can look very rude when we stop to look and are not taken by the action)... Still you will be focusing only on the surface of the screen and any DOF will be strange...
Yes gamming immersion is also due to interactivity and brain wiring, but it really isolates an individual and take him there with minimum phisical desconfort (or effort).

Anyway as long as they don't make the theaters smell like the movie "smells" they can shake me and make go blind :)

It's not just a phisiological thing. Being alone in a living room with something stuck to you, can be way immersive.

probiner
01-24-2011, 06:29 PM
Double Post

Lightwolf
01-24-2011, 06:33 PM
Is it?
It is the problem for the optical system.


Take any modern action movie. Now imagine you are experiencing it from a perfect holodeck, so no projection issues. I wonder if people would appreciate that....
That's a completely different issue though. Now we're entering the territory of how to tell a story properly for a specific medium - and that goes way beyond the technical (but may need to cater for technical aspects, stereo being a good example of it).
Obviously the interesting part would be a stereo movie that actually tells a story better using the technology as opposed to just glitzing it up.


My friend who had a big headache at Avatar, was happily playing Left for Dead in S3D on my dual projector S3D cinema..... it may have less to do with S3D itself, than the fact of quick cuts and motion..
Probably also the fact that there's no DoF to confuse the eyes even more, coupled with fast paced action that probably makes focussing in depth less of an issue.

Mind you, scientific research on how stereo viewing (using any of the current devices) messes with our brains has just begun.

Cheers,
Mike

Hieron
01-24-2011, 06:38 PM
Ow but I don't think S3D helps in the story at all... like color probably doesn't help too much either... admittedly, that was easier to "get" for a brain. Glitzing... heh :)
Ah, yes. DoF makes matters alot more problematic. Also, even in Avatar there were some wrong shots (huge seperations in the far distance, eyes don't like to turn outside)

Lightwolf
01-24-2011, 06:43 PM
Ow but I don't think S3D helps in the story at all... like color probably doesn't help too much either...
Colour adds emotion (an old rule from cartoons).
And a good example of recent story telling using colour (even though it's subtle, it took me a while to catch but, but I think that's a good sign): A Single Man.

Cheers,
Mike

Hieron
01-24-2011, 06:53 PM
At some point in time, depth will be perceived in a similar way. Perhaps some hurdles must be taken to be applicable in more situations and for more people, but still. Sadly, it can't co exist with premade dof though...

Ah well, I don't care too much either way, just am amazed at the "omg this sucks and will never work" attitude. What I absolutely hated though was the sheer utter crap that was the storyline of Avatar :)

Lightwolf
01-24-2011, 06:59 PM
At some point in time, depth will be perceived in a similar way. Perhaps some hurdles must be taken to be applicable in more situations and for more people, but still.
Well, it'll be interesting to see if a movie does come out in the next year that will use stereo as a supporting feature.
A movie where you will certainly miss a great deal if you see it in mono only.

So far though... nope.

And the hurdles are just there as long as you use existing display technology - I've no idea on how that should be solved in the medium term.

And yes, I do actually have an auto-stereoscopic display here for testing purposes (multi-view though, for point of sale applications).

Cheers,
Mike

SBowie
01-24-2011, 07:10 PM
I've never even spoken to anyone who got a headache from it, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of headaches of other sorts associated with it.

HD was vigorously hyped as 'here' for about a decade before it really was. I expect about the same in this case, except that it might easily take longer, with at least as many false starts. If some as yet unseen tech offering comfortable long term use, affordability and high visual quality for the home appears tomorrow, I'll be very pleased to be wrong - but I'll be even more surprised. Apart form that, it would take another Avatar - not the same one again - to get me to bother putting the specs on once more.

Lightwolf
01-24-2011, 07:12 PM
I've never even spoken to anyone who got a headache from it, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of headaches of other sorts associated with it.
I've sat next to somebody in Avatar. Mind you, after the first half she not only walked out because of the headache but also because she was bored... ;)

HD was vigorously hyped as 'here' for about a decade before it really was.
And, oddly enough, nobody seems to mind watching content on mobile devices with tiny screens either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

G-Man
01-24-2011, 07:14 PM
"...but our eyes merge at a different spot - unlike in real life. And this is a problem."

Whoever said 3D was ever supposed to mimic real life? It's a novelty, it's another effect, it's hyper-reality. If we all want a film closer to real life, then they would shoot and project at 60 or 120 frames per second, but we all seem to feel that 24fps gives the perfect frame rate for storytelling. See Stu Maschwitz talk about this http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/index.cfm?articleId=3213230

jasonwestmas
01-24-2011, 07:33 PM
Hmm, I never suspected that 3D flatscreen stuff was trying to mimic real life just create a different "eye popping" experience.

Sekhar
01-24-2011, 07:41 PM
Honestly what is the problem here, I've seen around ten of these things, never got a headache...

Problem is many do (see report (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110120/D9KS1FDO1.html) that claims issues in up to 25% of the people). The contribution of the Murch letter IMO is that it spurs more research into what's going on to hopefully help in overcoming the issues. I wouldn't just dismiss it as a non-issue.

RebelHill
01-24-2011, 08:23 PM
I've never even spoken to anyone who got a headache from it,

I get a headache watching this 3d stuff... Takes about an hour to set in, thats in the cinema. Havent sat infront of one of the TVs that long so far (not that Im keen to)... but a few minutes on the 3dtvs definately stimulates an "unusual" feeling.

Dexter2999
01-24-2011, 10:00 PM
And, oddly enough, nobody seems to mind watching content on mobile devices with tiny screens either ;)
Well...there's this guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0


"There is wrong going on here."
That isn't how my brain says it. But I think it will be from now on!

probiner
01-24-2011, 11:12 PM
That isn't how my brain says it. But I think it will be from now on!

ahaha. fixed =)

DMarkwick
01-25-2011, 09:12 AM
Perhaps we should stop thinking of 3D cinema as the next ubiquitous step in cinema's evolution, and instead treat it as an optional gimmick. Where 3D works well, it works very well, where it doesn't, it doesn't. Natural selection will do the rest :)

The letter in the OP goes on about 3D as though it's the only single thing about cinemas that is artificial, the whole thing is artificial. I might make the counterclaim that watching a large 2D image at 80 feet is also not intuitive to our suspension of disbelief - but over the decades we've learned it.

3D can be eye-straining, but only in extended scenes of objects filmed to be closer than 10 feet say. It's simply a technique, and it's up to the makers to use the technique effectively in sympathy with the limitations.

SBowie
01-25-2011, 09:29 AM
At the end of the day, I think that (unlike, for example, the VHS-Beta wars) the consumer is going to be the decision maker in this one. I don't think the home market wants this in any significant numbers, esp. so close on the heels of the shift to HD, and I in general, don't think the added income for a 3D production in the cinema market alone can sustain it.

For the foreseeable future, I for one am far from ready to consider an in-home 3D solution. As far as movies go, it'll depend on the movie, but my feeling is that for movies available in 3D, I'll view the very best of them in 3D once - at most ... and even that curiosity may wane, apart from rare special exceptions. I don't hate it, I don't get headaches, I'm not a luddite (I hope), I just honestly don't think the end justifies the means, given the current implementation.

Dexter2999
01-25-2011, 10:03 AM
At the end of the day, I think that (unlike, for example, the VHS-Beta wars) the consumer is going to be the decision maker in this one.

I thought consumers decided that one as well? Beta won in Japan because it was a higher quality format. But VHS was "good enough" for everyone else at a lower pricepoint.

Lightwolf
01-25-2011, 10:05 AM
I thought consumers decided that one as well?

Nope, that was the porn industry ;)

Cheers,
Mike

erikals
01-25-2011, 10:53 AM
what about glasses-free 3D...?

does that give headache?

Titus
01-25-2011, 11:54 AM
what about glasses-free 3D...?

does that give headache?

What gives headache is the misuse of stereo. Changing the focus in every scene, objects going out of frame, etc.

Lightwolf
01-25-2011, 04:44 PM
what about glasses-free 3D...?

does that give headache?
As mentioned a few times in this thread... the core issue is exactly the same.

The point your eyes are tricked into seeing in 3D space (i.e. in front or behind the projection plane) is not the one where it is actually shown (which is always the projection plane). So your eyes try to focus on something (and as we know, that involves muscles movement) that isn't actually in that place.

That's it in a simple nutshell.

Cheers,
Mike

erikals
01-25-2011, 04:56 PM
actually saw a glasses-free 3D screen just 45min ago (at Oslo S)... (heh, weird! )... :]

in many areas it looked much better than the ones with glasses, which steals all the light,
i also could move my head slightly to the sides and the picture would "follow"
which made a great realistic effect.

3 minus though
-low resolution
-overdone 3d effects made me noxious after 5min,
it was way over the top "look what we can do!"
-when moving the head too much to the sides the image became blurry.

but all-in-all, a totally awesome effect, give this 4 years more, and we'll see some really neat stuff! :]

  

Richard Hebert
01-25-2011, 05:50 PM
This post is frickin hilarious, some of you are asserting that 3d (stereo) shouldn't be made the norm because it's not 'technically accurate' like real objects in real space but yet you're creating CG content out of nothing but pixels... anyone else see the disconnect here? Just really curious... Oh well...

Richard

pooby
01-25-2011, 06:20 PM
This post is frickin hilarious, some of you are asserting that 3d (stereo) shouldn't be made the norm because it's not 'technically accurate' like real objects in real space but yet you're creating CG content out of nothing but pixels... anyone else see the disconnect here? Just really curious... Oh well...

Richard
It's not about the fact it's not technically accurate. It's just not adding anything interesting to most people beyond a novelty effect, but it does add things like having to wear glasses and, for many, getting eye strain, plus its only effective when you are conscious of the effect, which is counterproductive for people who's primary interest in film is not in simply in the visuals.
Personally, again beyond novelty, I would not be particularly fascinated in looking at illustrated books in 3d, or paintings, and film is no different. Its not like I hate it, I just get less out of it than warrants the extra money and wearing of glasses.

Aquarian
01-25-2011, 07:53 PM
It seems like whenever an "expert" says something like "why this won't work and never will..." they always end up dead wrong. It's kinda like saying "why humans don't fly and never will - well you see we don't have feathers on our arms see and 900 million years of evolution hasn't provided us with any...so it just can't happen and never will! - case closed!"

Bah - if humans want something bad enough they'll make it happen that's for sure. I'm personally not too terribly thrilled with the 3D idea...I guess it could evolve into something cool...just another layer on the cake. It'll just take someone to come along with a snazzy little invention to make it work properly.

jasonwestmas
01-25-2011, 08:08 PM
It's not about the fact it's not technically accurate. It's just not adding anything interesting to most people beyond a novelty effect, but it does add things like having to wear glasses and, for many, getting eye strain, plus its only effective when you are conscious of the effect, which is counterproductive for people who's primary interest in film is not in simply in the visuals.
Personally, again beyond novelty, I would not be particularly fascinated in looking at illustrated books in 3d, or paintings, and film is no different. Its not like I hate it, I just get less out of it than warrants the extra money and wearing of glasses.

Here too, I don't appreciate a good film if it is some how 'more' dimensional to my depth perception than it actually is without this stereo effect. I'm not saying that dimensions and depth perception are not needed, but some how this stereo tech seems to make the visuals distract the audience from identifying powerful storytelling. That is to say Visual Story Telling, not just dialogue and narration.

erikals
01-25-2011, 10:36 PM
"It's just not adding anything interesting to most people beyond a novelty effect"

for a "popcorn movie" i think it adds a fun dimension, as long as they fix the pitfalls.

pooby
01-26-2011, 01:59 AM
"It's just not adding anything interesting to most people beyond a novelty effect"

for a "popcorn movie" i think it adds a fun dimension, as long as they fix the pitfalls.
Fun dimension. Novelty effect. Call it what you like.
I can understand the fascination. I remember being very excited about seeing jaws3d in the eighties, but i put that down to a theme park-esque curiosity to experience something visually new.
It's akin to the fascination of looking at a new optical illusion for me. I do realise that others value it more and there is no point me arguing against a subjective view. Time will tell if it grabs the general publics imagination long term.

SBowie
01-26-2011, 05:12 AM
Time will tell if it grabs the general publics imagination long term.I think the real test is, will the market bear it beyond the duration of a typical fad. There are, at the moment, only a couple of revenue streams. The cinema-goer and the home viewer are not identical, but do overlap. Cinema-goers show some readiness to part with the bucks, but I doubt cinema income alone can justify the added costs of 3D production.

As much as I'm sure that the home display device manufacturers would like everyone to replace the 60" screens they bought last Xmas with displays designed for one or another form of 3D, I don't foresee it happening. Maybe the bleeding-edge home theatre crowd is ready to present their VISA cards, but I don't think Joe Lunchbox is even close to doing so. I also don't think the broadcast industry, which is still lurching into HD, wants to sign on. So I think that, apart from special cases, this just isn't happening yet - not at these prices, not with this technology.

DMarkwick
01-26-2011, 06:12 AM
I think the real test is, will the market bear it beyond the duration of a typical fad. There are, at the moment, only a couple of revenue streams. The cinema-goer and the home viewer are not identical, but do overlap. Cinema-goers show some readiness to part with the bucks, but I doubt cinema income alone can justify the added costs of 3D production.

As much as I'm sure that the home display device manufacturers would like everyone to replace the 60" screens they bought last Xmas with displays designed for one or another form of 3D, I don't foresee it happening. Maybe the bleeding-edge home theatre crowd is ready to present their VISA cards, but I don't think Joe Lunchbox is even close to doing so. I also don't think the broadcast industry, which is still lurching into HD, wants to sign on. So I think that, apart from special cases, this just isn't happening yet - not at these prices, not with this technology.

While all this is true, it actually all goes into 3D's favour. Remember, the studios are looking for ways to encourage viewers to see their film in the Cinema first, and if it's the only way to see 3D effectively then it might become a viable technology for some films. Not all certainly, but for my money Avatar was really worth seeing in cinematic 3D.

SBowie
01-26-2011, 06:25 AM
While all this is true, it actually all goes into 3D's favour. Remember, the studios are looking for ways to encourage viewers to see their film in the Cinema first, and if it's the only way to see 3D effectively then it might become a viable technology for some films. Not all certainly, but for my money Avatar was really worth seeing in cinematic 3D.And Avatar is exactly the sort of special case I had in mind. Yes, there is a constant looking for ways to make the cinema experience superior - but to some degree this seems to smack more of desperation than a great and profitable business strategy. In recent years I have more than once sat in a theatre showing a recent-issue blockbuster film with only a dozen or so people in attendance. I don't think 3D is going to solve that, especially since as many have suggested here, a significant group finds the technology itself annoying to some degree, not really worth the bother much less any extra cost, or even distracting from the film itself.

Whether or not people flock to the cinemas, I continue to feel that less and less will care to endure the current tech apart from those special cases - which are VERY few and far between, and which on their own cannot imho justify ($$-wise) mass conversion to 3D of the sort we're talking about here. Without a broad revenue stream to cover the expense, I just don't see it.

Lamont
01-26-2011, 07:07 AM
This letter by Walter Murch (the film editor) is making waves, thought you guys would be interested. One key point was that with 3D on screen with glasses, we focus on the screen but our eyes merge at a different spot - unlike in real life. And this is a problem.

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html)So why case closed? Why not solve the problem? For someone in an industry that is constantly evolving (tech-wise) to say "case closed" is odd.

I like watching nature films in 3D. Really cool. I remember watching The Last Buffalo when I was a kid.. that was awesome.

SBowie
01-26-2011, 07:13 AM
So why case closed? Why not solve the problem?I can't say I agree with the 'case closed' and 'never' proclamations, but I think they refer to what are more or less of immutable laws of physics and biology. That said, it would be a mistake, I think, to suggest humans can't or won't accept compromises when the returns are commensurate, or even adapt to a different expectation over time.

erikals
01-26-2011, 02:39 PM
well, i guess some time back people said,... color TV?... why would i want a color TV?... http://hosthideout.com/images/smilies/simpson_grandpa.gif

 

erikals
01-26-2011, 04:33 PM
well... we see 3D...

i don't know... guess we'll see if we get tired of it...

pooby
01-26-2011, 05:07 PM
We do see 3d, but we don't see 3d like a film.

On the moments when I don't totally ignore it, it simply makes me aware that I'm looking at a close upon a face that's about 12 feet tall instead of simply being told a story.
It's not like we all go around in real life getting excited about depth. We do about colour though.

You don't stand looking at a sunrise and go "ooh.. That sun appears to be much further away than these trees" you go " wow. Look at the colour of those clouds. Its spectacular"

jwiede
01-26-2011, 05:43 PM
After watching the first three films in 3D at the cinema I got sick of the lame parallax cardboard cutout "3D" effect, muted colours and the crappy glasses and now I completely avoid it. I watched Pixar's Up (which was great), Avatar (which sucked apart from teh oooh-pretties) and... hah... I honestly can't remember what the third one was, but apparently it didn't leave a lasting impression.

There is something pure about classic cinematography and that old going to the movies feelin'. For me the whole 3D thing adds nothing of value and only degrades image quality, colours and everything else I love about movies on the visual level.

I hope it dies out. But in the meanwhile I'll just go and enjoy classic cinema. 3D is simply too fugly to endure. If 3D ever becomes the standard I'll just skip going to the movies and save my space-bucks for other things.
:agree:

Okay, I admit I'm a bit biased as I don't have normal depth perception (strabismus as a kid, though fixed later my brain never learned to fuse views). I just don't value anything less than full holographic imaging as more than a novelty. Regular IMAX adds far more enjoyment from my perspective than any 3D method used so far (incl. IMAX3D which I find significantly less enjoyable than regular IMAX).

Meanwhile, the quality of cinematography in "3D films" seems to be dropping, probably because directors are now focusing on "interesting and affordable 3D". As they try to avoid problems for 3D, they limit themselves and avoid "edge of the envelope" camerawork, which lessens my potential enjoyment factor overall. I can see current 3D approaches actually harming cinematography right now, and that worries me a bit.

I'd much rather see stunning 2D camerawork than lame 3D compromises any day. I suspect a lot of folks see 3D as a novelty now, but will get tired of it precisely because of the compromises currently required.

jwiede
01-26-2011, 05:54 PM
We do see 3d, but we don't see 3d like a film.

On the moments when I don't totally ignore it, it simply makes me aware that I'm looking at a close upon a face that's about 12 feet tall instead of simply being told a story.
It's not like we all go around in real life getting excited about depth. We do about colour though.

You don't stand looking at a sunrise and go "ooh.. That sun appears to be much further away than these trees" you go " wow. Look at the colour of those clouds. Its spectacular"

That kind of hits the nail on the head. Color TV actually presents a pretty close emulation of what our eyes see, color-wise (not perfect, Sharp's new displays do help, though, as does HDTV gamut). Movies can replicate amazingly realistic color views compared against "real life". They're so close, we can viably suspend disbelief.

In contrast, 3D methods we have today (other than good head-mount displays) aren't even remotely close to replicating the sensory input we receive in real life. Trying to suspend disbelief when presented with 3D movies, etc. is just asking too much right now.

COBRASoft
01-26-2011, 06:06 PM
Well, I just saw the Green Hornet in 3D... Nice popcorn movie, 3D was totally not needed. I did however see the trailer for the new Pirates in 3D. Now there it looked a lot better already :).

jasonwestmas
01-26-2011, 06:09 PM
That's a good way to put it. . .Suspending Disbelief. To me this means getting lost in the film. This stereo optics effect kinda interferes with that within myself.

Titus
01-26-2011, 06:09 PM
We do see 3d, but we don't see 3d like a film.

Remember the first decades of colors in cinema and TV, not very similar to the colors we perceive, and even now we teak movies to something we don't have in reality. Stereo is more like coloring B/W movies, they look bad.

I like 3D films when the stereo job is done properly, never had a headache or any other problem. My only limitation is with my kids, they are to young and their vision is very immature so I need to avoid stereo if we plan to go to cinema together.

IMO the problem of stereo will come with TV, they don't have a way to follow the stereo rules like films studios, impossible in live shows.

Now, where's my flying car?

v1u1ant
01-27-2011, 04:25 AM
I think a german company has invented a camera with only one lense rather than the traditional two lenses in 3D that apparently will make live 3d possible.

So i read anyway...although i cant remember where.

I dont like 3D as it currently is at the moment, like others here im waiting for the holodeck and anything short of that is pants. 3D just seems another attempt by film companies to find some gimmick to sell more, like with extras on DVD, i never got that either really. A good film is a good film and i want to walk away feeling that ive been entertained. I dont really want to see the outtakes, kinda ruins the experience ive just absorbed being entertained by the film alone.

3D makes me remember things like shakey camera techniques that are sometimes used on 'cutting edge' youth TV or something.

Its all good, that we try new stuff, and if some people like it then fair play to them, who am i to deny the right to watch 3D.

Just aint for me.:)

SBowie
01-27-2011, 05:49 AM
Its all good, that we try new stuff, and if some people like it then fair play to them, who am i to deny the right to watch 3D.By all means. On the other hand, it would be nice if the reverse holds true as well.

I'd hate to have 'the industry' force me to endure the inconvenience, visual degradation, and added expense entailed in the current implementation in a misguided attempt to 'enhance my movie-going experience' that may well be little more than a veiled attempt by hardware manufacturers to pick my pocket. I'd also hate to go shopping for a home screen a year from now and find that all of the current deals on HD displays produced by competition and economy of scale have evaporated for no valid reason other than the manufacturers knowing they'll make much more $$ by flogging new tech high margin tech - even if few really want it.

I'm perfectly content for 3D movies to be produced, and for those who want to see them in that manner to have opportunity to do so. I just don't want to have to pay for them to enjoy that privilege, to the extent I can avoid it, and will be voting with my wallet.

Hieron
01-27-2011, 09:46 AM
I dont like 3D as it currently is at the moment, like others here im waiting for the holodeck and anything short of that is pants. 3D just seems another attempt by film companies to find some gimmick to sell more, like with extras on DVD, i never got that either really.

Ofcourse they want to sell more. Besides, don't underestimate the S3D push from games, there it may work alot better too. Some do appreciate the extras on DVD's/BluRays..



I'd also hate to go shopping for a home screen a year from now and find that all of the current deals on HD displays produced by competition and economy of scale have evaporated for no valid reason other than the manufacturers knowing they'll make much more $$ by flogging new tech high margin tech - even if few really want it.

Can imagine that the market will saturate soon.. at least here many people are already owning HD screens of good quality and prices are getting quite low. At some point everyone will have a good screen... Going to even higher pixel densities has diminishing returns and increasing technical difficulties, besides bandwidth requirements..

Companies will be needing something new to keep selling us.... Current S3D implementations in TV's are quite cheap for them.

My own TV is an old 4:3 CRT btw :)



I'm perfectly content for 3D movies to be produced, and for those who want to see them in that manner to have opportunity to do so. I just don't want to have to pay for them to enjoy that privilege, to the extent I can avoid it, and will be voting with my wallet.

But you can right? I can not possibly imagine cinemas to become S3D only.. waay too many people would have issues with that..

SBowie
01-27-2011, 11:08 AM
Companies will be needing something new to keep selling us.... Current S3D implementations in TV's are quite cheap for them.
Exactly my point.


But you can right? I can not possibly imagine cinemas to become S3D only.. waay too many people would have issues with that..I believe so, which I think has been demonstrated in this thread, though it's a very small sample. If you can't convince most 3D animators it's needed, I don't see the rest of the world gulping it down either.

As long as it's an option, I'm quite happy. If it is rammed down my throat, not so happy ... you're not the only one with some 4:3 CRTs to update yet, and I don't want to see prices jump $1000 a pop in the next year for some new glitzy must have add-on tech that I neither want nor care about).

shrox
01-27-2011, 04:44 PM
I have asked this a few times but didn't get an answer. What will 3DTV without glasses look like? Little people in a box? Something like a moving diorama, basically a miniature reality?

Lightwolf
01-27-2011, 06:03 PM
I have asked this a few times but didn't get an answer. What will 3DTV without glasses look like?
The same as it does with glasses... except for the technical side effects (but currently with new ones - sometimes depending on the amount of viewers).

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
01-27-2011, 06:17 PM
The same as it does with glasses... except for the technical side effects (but currently with new ones - sometimes depending on the amount of viewers).

Cheers,
Mike

Oh yeah, duh. I forgot it is a projected image, I was thinking hologram there.

erikals
01-28-2011, 09:13 AM
i just saw it, and it does look better without glasses, (see previous page comments)

yes, a bit like people in a box actually, just that it feels bigger.... :]

rapscallion
02-03-2011, 04:13 PM
there are a few misconceptions that are commonly made by people who don't see 3D movies in theatres, don't own 3D-capable home theatre equipment, and have never worked on 3D movies.

First, for those people who are constantly claiming that 3D causes the movie to look washed out and darker in the theatre (or at home), it is 100% incorrect. Sure, if you look at the screen without the glasses, it might looked washed out and slightly less saturated, but as soon as you place the lenses in front of your eyes, that will be compensated for. The lenses are not solely purposed to allowing the 3D left/right eye split to occur, but also to accommodate for the brighter image that is being projected onto a more reflective screen. That's right, the image is actually brighter and the screen is more reflective, so the tint of the glasses brings the brightness and saturation range back to where it would be if you saw the movie in 2D. If the images are looking darker or less saturated, it is because the monitor or projector is not properly calibrated specifically for 3D - which is just about the most common mistake people installing in their home can make.

Second, for those who claim that the home-theatre equipment required for 3D at home is vastly overpriced and much more expensive than standard home-theatre equipment...well, you just aren't that good at shopping around. Sure, yes, at BEST BUY they will put their most expensive 3D TV right up front with AVATAR playing in 3D...but there are also 3D capable televisions that fall right into line with the average price point for any current HDTV. Personally, I've got a 65" 3DTV which retails for about $900. In my opinion, a spectacular bargain for an incredible quality set regardless of the 3D. As for the glasses, they range from as high as $500/pair, all the way down to about $40/pair. Yes, that is more than the $0/pair you'll pay for not buying any glasses, but if you can afford to buy any HDTV in 2D or 3D, then another $40 isn't a big deal - and we are assured to see that price drop to almost nothing as things continue to progress. And now you wonder about the 3D BluRay player? Well, I'd be willing to bet that most of you already have one and don't even realize it; every PS3 in every home around the world is fully capable of playing 3D BluRay, so the installation base is already 10's of millions strong.

And finally, with regard to the claim that creating a 3D movie costs more than a 2D movie...well...I've been working on 3D movies since 1998 or so, and I can say without a doubt that we are not spending or doing substantially more than any other movie. Ok, maybe a little more. But a very little more. Live action with dual camera set-ups does require two or three extra crew people, but on a $100 Million movie, that is a microscopic drop in the bucket. And maybe post will have a few very small extra steps - but nothing more than you would already be doing on any multi-camera shoot. And if the movie is CG Animation, then the 'additional costs' myth is just that - a myth. With a decent stereocam rig, the only extra bit of work is left for the render farm to handle.

With all that said, I personally love 3D. I enjoy it at the theatres and at home. It is very doubtful that it will go away, though it will most likely continue to evolve. The next immediate step for 3D in the home will be polarized LCD screens that allow people to use the cheapo $2/pair glasses identical to the ones given out in movie theatres - and from there we might see some decent no-glasses screens, though the no-glasses screens will always be inferior due to the limited viewing axis.

Lightwolf
02-03-2011, 05:37 PM
there are a few misconceptions that are commonly made by people who don't see 3D movies in theatres, don't own 3D-capable home theatre equipment, and have never worked on 3D movies.
None of these really have anything to do with the core topic though, do they?


And maybe post will have a few very small extra steps - but nothing more than you would already be doing on any multi-camera shoot. And if the movie is CG Animation, then the 'additional costs' myth is just that - a myth. With a decent stereocam rig, the only extra bit of work is left for the render farm to handle.
There's a few exceptions here... on when doing traditional post. Not only do you need double the roto work but also has to be a lot more exact since the stereo pairs need to match (no such requirement for mono, obviously). Since most of that is cheap labour that's out-sourced it may not make much of a difference though ;)

For full CG stereo... the main problem is that a lot of the shortcuts used traditionally in animation can't be use anymore. There's no cheating (stretching limbs to create a pose, hiding parts of a character using an unnatural set-up) - even Pixar had to learn that lesson.
There's also extra limitations to cater for, which does reduce the freedom of framing shots. Which is largely a matter of learning like so many other things.

Cheers,
Mike

rapscallion
02-04-2011, 03:10 AM
None of these really have anything to do with the core topic though, do they?

I'm commenting on the comments made by others in this thread. Did you read the other 5 pages filled with off-topic opinions before my post? And, yes, my statements actually have to do with the core topic, because Murch's letter promotes certain falsities that make me wonder just how much consideration he has really given the topic. Being a great sound designer and doing some decent editing does not necessarily make someone qualified to write off an entire sector of the entertainment industry with a few unsupported statements. It is easy to nay-say something and get support on a forum such as this, or in a letter to an editor, but putting forth actual facts usually leads to people skipping over material and retorting with a quip or two.


For full CG stereo... the main problem is that a lot of the shortcuts used traditionally in animation can't be use anymore. There's no cheating (stretching limbs to create a pose, hiding parts of a character using an unnatural set-up) - even Pixar had to learn that lesson.

There's also extra limitations to cater for, which does reduce the freedom of framing shots. Which is largely a matter of learning like so many other things.

I'll agree with some of that, though with awareness of these issues and solid upfront planning, there is nothing to actually make the work any more difficult or expensive - just different. As you said, it is a matter of learning.

Lightwolf
02-04-2011, 03:22 AM
I'm commenting on the comments made by others in this thread. Did you read the other 5 pages filled with off-topic opinions before my post?
Yes, which is why I wrote the same thing few times. Basically, even if the projection tech improves beyond what we have now (which does have it's flaws) then the core problem isn't going away as long as it's just a stereo projection on a plane as opposed to a real 3D projection.


It is easy to nay-say something and get support on a forum such as this, or in a letter to an editor, but putting forth actual facts usually leads to people skipping over material and retorting with a quip or two.
You mean like "Talkies are overrated as well?" ;) - I'm just saying, it goes both ways.


I'll agree with some of that, though with awareness of these issues and solid upfront planning, there is nothing to actually make the work any more difficult or expensive - just different. As you said, it is a matter of learning.
If you hadn't left out my paragraph before that it wouldn't be true ;)

Solid planning and needing more time because of issues that you can cheat otherwise certainly has a financial impact. Percentage wise it doesn't make that much of a difference for block busters (that spend most of their budget on marketing anyhow) - there's other areas where it's used though.

OH, and one more area I forgot of course... the movies still need to be mastered for the different projection systems out there - adapted to each one of them, which increases the cost of distribution.

So, not more expensive isn't true at all. It just may not be much in the grand scheme of things - but parts of the pipeline needed to produce a movie will certainly be more if not a lot more expensive (and that has an impact on subs bidding for gigs).

Cheers,
Mike

rapscallion
02-04-2011, 10:44 AM
OH, and one more area I forgot of course... the movies still need to be mastered for the different projection systems out there - adapted to each one of them, which increases the cost of distribution.

Actually, the cost of distribution has come way down since the massive increase in digital projection equipped theatres that has spawned primarily as a way to show stereoscopic movies. Just last year alone, RealD updated more than 9,000 screening rooms to digital projection. And the great thing about that for distributors is that instead of spending thousands of dollars per film print and insane amounts of man hours on old fashion methods, they can spend hundreds of dollars per DCP delivered to theatres and a reasonably low rate for mastering compared to the tedious multi-layered processes of the old film days. Additionally, they only have to master the DCP just once for both 2D and 3D; once the projectionist loads up the DCP into the server, he can choose to project dual streams for left/right eyes, or just the control eye, which is the usually the left eye, and then choose which LUT to apply for color/brightness/contrast.

With the ever increasing array of more and more affordable softwares for managing DCP mastering, insanely cheap harddrive prices and huge numbers of screens converting to digital thanks to their desire to have 3D functionality in as many rooms as possible, distribution and the preparations are actually cheaper now than ever before.

Lightwolf
02-04-2011, 10:57 AM
Actually, the cost of distribution has come way down since the massive increase in digital projection equipped theatres that has spawned primarily as a way to show stereoscopic movies.
I don't know about you... but I've been watching digital movies in cinemas way before the stereo revival (checking: six years ago).

I'd even see it the other way around... if the digital infrastructure wasn't there then stereo wouldn't make any sense nowadays.

Again, the cost reductions due to digital distributions are not because of the rise of stereo. Back to square one... stereo is still more expensive ;)

Cheers,
Mike

rapscallion
02-04-2011, 11:14 AM
I don't know about you... but I've been watching digital movies in cinemas way before the stereo revival (checking: six years ago).

I'd even see it the other way around... if the digital infrastructure wasn't there then stereo wouldn't make any sense nowadays.

Again, the cost reductions due to digital distributions are not because of the rise of stereo. Back to square one... stereo is still more expensive ;)

The recent cost reductions in distribution are definitely due in very large part to the stereo boom. Before the stereo boom, there were a few digital theatres, and studios would still master to film and DCP - and anything 'digital' was very expensive and elite. But now with so much demand from theatre owners for 3D content and 3D projection, the costs of digital mastering tools and digital projection tools have come way down, and the number of digital projection equipped theatres has gone way up. Prior to 2009, there were roughly 3000 digital screens in the US, and approximately 5000 in all of the rest of the world, now we have roughly 12000 just here in the US - most of which were installed by REALD. So to say that 3D isn't the instigator for the recent and sudden ramp up in digital infrastructure is uninformed.

And to say stereo is more expensive, though possibly true, is only temporarily true - and only by a very slight margin. Get yourself hired on as a Post Supervisor at a major studio for awhile and you'll see that 3D is making things easier and cheapier all the way around. Sure, it is important for guys like James Cameron to boast about how much money and technology went into the stereo production of AVATAR, but don't forget that boasting about the gobs of money dumped into his productions is part of his business model and has been for decades. THE FINAL DESTINATION 3D and MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D, both considered 'low budget' movies by typical Hollywood standards were released before AVATAR without all the apparent excess of expense; not good movies, mind you, but certainly not expensive relatively speaking.

Lightwolf
02-04-2011, 11:43 AM
The recent cost reductions in distribution are definitely due in very large part to the stereo boom. Before the stereo boom, there were a few digital theatres, and studios would still master to film and DCP - and anything 'digital' was very expensive and elite.
The still do though... and digital is still quite expensive for the theatres (not that it bothers the distributors though).
Stereo is certainly a reason to at least install a few systems as it's the only option to sell that content.


So to say that 3D isn't the instigator for the recent and sudden ramp up in digital infrastructure is uninformed.

Oh, it's certainly a reason for the recent boom, no doubt. But it's not the initial reason for digital cinema. After all, Star Wars I was responsible for the initial (small) installations.
Digital was the enabler for stereo, and stereo sells digital.


And to say stereo is more expensive, though possibly true, is only temporarily true - and only by a very slight margin. Get yourself hired on as a Post Supervisor at a major studio for awhile and you'll see that 3D is making things easier and cheapier all the way around.
I'm sure you can provide some details as to why a stereo movie is cheaper to produce than a "mono" movie using current technology.

Cheers,
Mike

rapscallion
02-04-2011, 12:12 PM
I'm sure you can provide some details as to why a stereo movie is cheaper to produce than a "mono" movie using current technology.

You're twisting my words. But I stand by my statement that the stereo boom has and still is bringing about changes to the post-production workflow that are cost advantageous.

The cost of release prints alone for a movie distributed on film reels would be approximately $20,000,000 if the product hit 3,500 screens at a cost of roughly $6,000 per print...and that does not include the cost of shipping and insuring the uber heavy prints to and from the theatres, nor the cost of storing those prints after the release is complete.

The cost of DCP units for a movie distributed digitally would be approximate $1,750,000 if the product hit 3,500 screens at a cost of roughly $500 per print - and that is an inflated estimate. Realistically, most theatres will only require a single DCP even if they show the movie in 3 screens; most theatres will download the DCP file onto their in-house server and network it to all the screens showing the movie. As for shipping, insurance and storage, those costs are significantly less than for film based content.

As for the cost of actual production, current 3D technology is an all digital pipe-line, which cuts out several thousand man-hours from the process, so multiply that by the hourly union wages that would be required for a film production, and you've saved millions more.

Of course, the cost factors mentioned in the three paragraphs above are equally applied to a 2D movie shot and posted entirely within a digital realm - but the reality is that the current trends toward easier to use software at more affordable prices is a direct result of the high demand for stereo content from theatre owners. Prior to the stereo boom, digital cinema was limping along and had very little support from Hollywood or from theatre owners; softwares were bloated and over priced, and hardware was proprietary and complex. So it is fair to say that the incredible reductions in cost for production and distribution, and the massive up-tick in digital projector installations are thanks to 3D and the high demand for it. Without the stereo boom, digital mastering of a movie would still be a relatively clunky and expensive endeavor fraught with problems for filmmakers and release venues.

I remember working on one of the first movies to use Digital Color-Timing, JOSIE & THE PUSSYCATS. We were spending about $10,000 per hour to be in the grading suite, and the machine never worked the way we wanted it to. Then a few years later I worked on GODS & GENERALS; we were spending about $5,000 per hour to use the grading suite and things were working much more to our liking - but still very clunky all in all. Now, ten years later, with current software and hardware technology, editorial staff can set-up and run a fully functioning digital color grading suite with DCP mastering capability right in their own offices for less than $30,000, as opposed to paying thousands per hour over a course of several hundred hours to grade and master a movie. Without the incredibly high demand for stereo content by theatre owners, there would be no motivation for programmers and developers to bring about the changes to the technology that allow this to happen so affordably and efficiently. So, clearly, 3D movies are responsible for cost reductions and workflow simplifications across the board for all digital film, whether it be 2D or 3D.

Lightwolf
02-04-2011, 04:36 PM
You're twisting my words. But I stand by my statement that the stereo boom has and still is bringing about changes to the post-production workflow that are cost advantageous.
Erm, so does every technological change. I also remember my first grading session (on a da Vinci 2K in 1999) - luckily it was a bit cheaper though ;)

I'm not twisting anything... you say that stereo makes things cheaper, I think stereo is always bound to be more expensive. Your argument sounds to me like saying that stereo photography is cheaper and easier than "mono" - by comparing a stereo DSRL rig to daguerreotype.

By 2003 - 2004 an all digital workflow was attainable even for fairly low budget productions though (especially on a US scale) - a time when nobody was really considering stereo.
To put that into perspective, the first feature film was edited on an Avid in 1992. 10 years can be a long time in this business (even though it sometimes doesn't feel like it).

What I certainly don't subscribe to is the notion that stereo is the pushing factor for all of these new technologies to appear (and it's certainly not responsible either).
For two reasons, one being that those new and time (as well as money) saving technologies were in more or less common use before that and the other being that stereo is very much seen as a saviour of cinemas to counter HD home cinemas ... and now also as a reason to push HD into the homes (which means that the initial idea to push cinemas also failed to a degree).
Or to phrase it differently, it's using (relatively) old tech and it's all about marketing.

Personally I can certainly do without... Avatar was the first try (Real3D) and recently Tron Legacy the second ( XpanD 3D / nuVision).
Been there, done that. I hope the next movie I go to see is actually a good one for a change...

Cheers,
Mike

frantbk
02-05-2011, 09:19 AM
what about Blue-rays failure to grab market shares? It seems nobody is really interested in HD on live action. So it seems natural that Hollywood would run to the next Tech solution to grab customers. Three years from now it will be something else everyone is sinking money into. Throw Technology at the customer and see what sticks.

Ever since the iPod it seems its all about what technology vendors can get you addicted too. Meth, or iPad you pick your addiction.