Share of cinema 3D sales falls below 50% according to The Economist

Chris, I will keep my opinion to myself. Not even worth arguing about. You like the potential. I don't. I'm moving on.

I enjoyed avatar 3d for what it was. It was actually filmed in '3D' (with a lot of cameras at different depths etc), with enormous amounts of work by James Cameron, it took years from what I've read. Getting the timing right down to the single frame and whatnot, I'm glad I don't work in that industry.

Most other '3D' films are, however, filmed in 2D and then sent to Mumbai where all '3D'-esque effects are done in post.

So as most others have said, 3d wont save a bad movie, but done right it might enhance the experience for the viewer. It has done once for me at least (Watching avatar on dvd made me wonder how I could enjoy it the first time), other have been terrible (I left the theater thirty minutes into Burton/Disneys abomination Alice).

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Chris, I will keep my opinion to myself. Not even worth arguing about. You like the potential. I don't. I'm moving on.

Click to expand...

We're not arguing... I thought we were just having a spirited conversation. Please don't stop expressing your opinion Thomas, it's one of the better ones!

I'm just encouraging everyone to keep an open mind, that's all.

holmburgers said:

We're not arguing... I thought we were just having a spirited conversation.

I'm just encouraging everyone to keep an open mind, that's all.

Click to expand...

I know. I'm just tired of the discussion of something I don't even enjoy. Smile. It's all good. I just figured out that I have better things to spend my time on.

Good call.... onwards and upwards!

Diapositivo said:

This short article in the online version of The Economist shows how 3D is losing ground lately:

http://www.economist.com/node/18988914

Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

Last June 11th I made (there was a url link here which no longer exists) along the same lines. It contains a link to a different article that drew a similar conclusion. There was some disagreement in the thread, however, as to whether the new found unpopularity of 3D would have any residual upward effect on film sales.

[Edit] The updated link to that earlier article is now here.

Ken

I doubt that we ever see the day when everyone will be in agreement that 3D improved movies. After all, does everyone agree that adding color to movies improved them? What about adding sound?

Dave

Psychologic effects or mind control is easier with 3D. 10 years ago , I had been read an article on movie and central nervous system control. And there is a soviet propaganda tv ad at google from East Germany.
You can easily hypnosis , under contiousness attack people with 3D. I think biggest danger is watching CNN 3D and wake up the morning when you want to save the USA from muslims. Gringos try every trick to do this. Or Hologram Newspapers , how much background information Murdoch would put in.
I think there must be a filter , reader to show mind control effects or 50 year later , people start new revolutions like Egypt , Without a reason !

I think proper 3D (with glasses) is going to be all the rage in the game industry. Imagine playing a flight simulator such as "Red Baron" or a formula 1 simulator in "proper" 3D. The game would calculate the two different frames exactly, and the user would have a much more realistic experience. Realism, "immersion" in the scene is very important for games.

Cinema is a different beast. Films like "Tora, Tora, Tora" or "The battle of the Midway" would have certainly be much more spectacular with proper 3D effects. Imagine the final "triello" in Il brutto, il buono, il cattivo. More spectacular but, overall, the film would remain the same. I don't know if I would pay more to see the shovel appear "near".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaBz9QKKgr0

Landscape would certainly gain. All the western films having in the landscape an important part of the attraction would certainly be much more pleasant.

But, ultimately, a film is good or bad for other qualities than "realism". We still enjoy B&W films of the past. Just like Fellini 8½ wouldn't really gain anything from colour, it would not really gain anything from 3D.

I don't think "glassless 3D" to ever become realistic. It's either two different images for the two different eyes (taken from two different points of view, an inter-pupillar distance apart) or it's not 3D.

Glassless 3D is a very real possibility. We currently have, and have had since the 60's-70's, the ability to do this using fly's eye arrays placed over TV screens. It all goes back to Gabriel Lippmann's integral imaging concept. We could have a glasses-free television set today if the manufacturers and broadcasters saw fit to do so.

Umut, you raise a very interesting point! TV already has an opiate like effect, and one can only imagine when it is even more lifelike. It's like the soma & "light boxes" of A Brave New World. That's why I think the future is gonna be such a wild place to be... my grandkids might be amazed that grandpa used to watch 2D television! (and that Church and state used to be separated... )

The Problem isn't Hollywood or 3D alone

but certain countries that promote digital Cinemas like Norway (all 420 screens in Norway are digital http://www.screendaily.com/news/dig...-digital-with-all-cinemas/5030136.article)and Germany (Cinemas that Change to digital receive a lot of founding). The EU actively promotes the digitalisation of cinema as well. The BBC, National Geographic and NHK no longer accept documentaries shot with Film as it interferes with their Broadcast compression Format (worst quality but cheapest). Indie Filmmaker have discovered the Red or Canon DSLRs a lot cheaper than a pro 35mm Camera (Red around $18 000 new vs Aaton Penelope $ 120 000 new or a decent used sync sound camera e.g. Arri 35bl4 $ 18 000 used ). 90% of the movies made in Hollywood and in Europe use Digital Intermediates instead of classic IP Films. Quiet a few Blockbusters use the Red for FX Shots the classic territory of the VISTAVISION 8 Perf or Mitchell 4 Perf cameras. Another point in digitals favour is the lack of grain and High Speed of the Cameras (the current Hollywood DP Bigwigs favourite Digi Cam. Arri Alexa ASA 800) meaning smaller lightning package. Distribution cost are still lower when using Film, a DI is quiet expensive (around $ 30 000 Film and a 2K DI averages around 60 000 to a 100 000 $) But let's not forget that most movies will never be shown in a cinema but are straight to TV or DVD productions. It's still possible to make a cheap movie using Film ($10 000 Budget shot in 35mm Anamorphic with Russian Cameras and lenses) but they usually lack advertisment dollars and the public will never hear about them. Politicians want to appear modern and Film isn't a sexy new technology that's the reason why Digital screens receive fundings and non digital screens are closing down

It is not important whatever small norway do. Look at China or India. Half of the world lives there and they have bigger film industries than hollywood. Do they switch to digital screens also ? I dont think so.

@holmburgers, when I said glassless 3d is IMO not realistic I didn't mean it is infeasible (unrealistic as an industrial product), I meant that is the effect that is not "realistic", there being no good separation between the information reaching the two eyes, the "tridimensionality" is likely to be defective in any glassless technology.

India is going digital as well.
http://www.londonindianfilmfestival.co.uk/cgi-bin/template.pl?t=npd&ID=75

Alan ,

Your link is writing about dvd sales , not theaters. I cant think that %90 of chinese or indian people can pay the digital screen expenses. But India and China Engineers can serve to its people with 1/100 or less cost, its common.
My only aware can be , not able to find film for my Leica but these days are far from today. If problem is the future of Kodak , I dont care for a american company as they dont care about an Turkish company.
I bought Kodak film for last 30 years and still buying. If its not enough , Goodbye KOdak.

So far, I haven't seen any 3D projection that didn't give me a headache and turn my stomach.

Mustafa,

It looks like Hollywood technology is moving to India:

http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/Bollywood-Rhythm%26Hues-Technicolor-PostLogic-Nvidia

China was one of the first countries to adopt digital

cinema projection and the number of purely digital cinemas in China is rising (http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjour...an-update/e3i6eec7fec77eb723a708959c9c5246252 and http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118038651?refcatid=13&printerfriendly=true)
India isn't immune to the digital Virus either and has more than 5000 Digital Cinemas (http://www.filmbiz.asia/news/indian-cinema-goes-digital-in-its-own-way)
The Iran believe it or not is one of the strongholds of classic Moviemaking using Film. I wonder if they use Fuji or Kodak Film

Alan Johnson said:

Mustafa,

It looks like Hollywood technology is moving to India:

http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/Bollywood-Rhythm%26Hues-Technicolor-PostLogic-Nvidia

Click to expand...

From what I gather from this article, it is the special-effect-post-processing-animation industry which is gaining ground in Bollywood, the Hollywood-style production side of the industry. No mention of the projection side, the cinema theatres, converting to digital India - and I hope they remain analogue forever.

Steve Smith said:

As most Hollywood produced films seem to require multiple car chases and explosions, 3D seems ideal. For movies made outside of Hollywood which rely on actual stories, I don't see any benefit.

I think 3D for movies is the equivalent of quadrophonic sound for hi-fi.


Steve.

Click to expand...

What he said!
The films I've enjoyed the most I have done so because of the story, not effects, 3D, surround sound or even colour!

Steve

i feel the worst for the projectionists than anything else ..
it used to be you went to a movie and there was someone
who knew what they were doing to get the movie on the screen
so you could see it ... now like everything else ... it is high-tech
and less human intervention.
the coffee industry is the same way ... it used to be when you ordered
a drink at a specialty coffee shop a person would make it
now they just push a button and deliver it.

i've seen some of the 3D movies in the past year ..
it didn't give me a headache or nausea ... it was just subtle DOF
which really didn't make the film ( IMHO ) worth the extra $
to produce or view.

I would be interested to see a movie in 3D that isn't explosions and car chases and the like.

Something that is interesting in itself - plot, characters, imagery.

Something like "The King's Speech", which I found interesting and interesting to look at.

Just to see whether I would notice the 3D, and whether it might add some subtle benefits that wouldn't obviously occur to me ahead of time.

railwayman3 said:

Movie enthusiasts will still be enjoying some of the classic B&W productions long after most 3D films are forgotten.

Just because technology exists to do something new, doesn't always mean it's necessarily "better". I think we APUG people know this already.

Click to expand...

Young Frankenstein, just to mention a masterpiece.

It would be nice to hear from someone who has just been to see a 3D movie describing the story rather than commenting on how good (or bad) the special effects are. It's a bit like HDR images. If you can tell it's HDR, it has been overdone.


Steve.

Steve Smith said:

It would be nice to hear from someone who has just been to see a 3D movie describing the story rather than commenting on how good (or bad) the special effects are. It's a bit like HDR images. If you can tell it's HDR, it has been overdone.


Steve.

Click to expand...

Mi niece, who is 19 yrs old, has seen Harry Potter in 3D. I asked her what was the film like. She told me very little about the story. On the contrary spent a lot of time describing how poor was image quality and how "unconfortable" is 3D in general.