Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 23, 2017, 02:12:40 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.  (Read 19433 times)
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2011, 06:33:04 PM »

Except we're still at the point of arguing over whether it is a hammer, or just a widget. You can always do something useful with a hammer; but a widget, who knows?

When we look back at the history of technical progress in the cinema, certain milestones stand out. The advent of sound allowed filmmakers to tell more complex stories. Color, especially Technicolor, brought in the possibility of informing those stories with a painterly aesthetic. Widescreen afforded audiences with a field of vision closer to what they were used to in daily life, hence providing greater verisimilitude. Now 3D promises to . . . to what, exactly? I don't say it can't enhance the storytelling process, but at this point I have no idea how. Maybe someone will arrive and show us the way. But if the point of 3D is just to give us 3D, then it's not going to endure (at least, for feature motion pictures).

Jenkins, when you're right, you're right. Be right more often please.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2935



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2011, 02:01:43 AM »

But sound, color and widescreen was in the first years when it entered cinema aesthetically a major step back, and was criticised then with nearly the same arguments as 3d now.
But when the technic advanced and filmmakers began to use it in a better way, it all became an accepted part of cinema. And displaced what was before. No director is forced not to use b/w or a 1,37:1 aspect ratio, but b/w is seldom and 1,37:1 is not even for TV movies used anymore. And a new silent films is an absolut rarity.

I think we can't be sure if 3D will not some day become a normality for all. That one day it is so accepted that directors and producers can't afford it not to shoot in 3d.

But at the moment I hope it will disappear as fast as it came back.




« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 02:06:59 AM by stanton » Logged

dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2011, 08:08:37 AM »

I think we can't be sure if 3D will not some day become a normality for all. That one day it is so accepted that directors and producers can't afford it not to shoot in 3d.
Right, we can't. But by the same token, we can't say that it's acceptance is inevitable. There are plenty of technologies that were deadends. Anyone remember "sonic holography" from the 80s?

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2011, 08:46:28 AM »

But sound, color and widescreen was in the first years when it entered cinema aesthetically a major step back, and was criticised then with nearly the same arguments as 3d now.

Why do all the 3D defenders engage in this fallacy? 3D isn't "new," it's been around for going on sixty years! Ergo this argument is moot.

I might add, parenthetically, that the same arguments were also levelled against SenSurround and Smell-O-Vision. Being criticized doesn't mean it will catch on, and as Jinkies eloquently pointed out, 3D doesn't add anything the way color/sound does.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5056


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2011, 08:50:31 AM »

Sure, but this time, we're attacked everywhere for an affordable cost:

End consumers:

- 3D theater
- 3D TVs
- 3D cameras and videocameras
- 80% of the videogames can be displayed in 3D, without any modifications of the softwares

Producers:

- Cameras are becoming so cheap that many make 3D by using 2 cheap cameras (you could basically shoot 3D for a feature film with some ergonomy problems for less than $4.000... it was over $25.000 five years ago, and it was over $100.000 fifteen years ago)
- 3D lenses for DSLRs (that make great video) are out there => you could shoot pretty good quality 3D for $1.500. I have to read the test though (I was actually waiting to see that for myself from the work of an English DP but the guy lost his DSLR and his 3D lens in Syndney's harbour while doing his first tests 4 days ago)
- The first "officially broadcast ready proper video camera" is out there and costs something between $10.000 and $12.000.

=> theater-ready content is now easily done by "prosumers"



Concerning sport, I've talked with the guys in charge of the tests for the french national TV: 3D doesn't work because of the way they shoot it right now: cameras are always to far from the action for you to get any 3D effect. The only shots that really work are the ones with players coming very close to the borders of the field (hence, from the cameras) and those with foregrounds+moving cameras.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 08:57:31 AM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2011, 09:03:58 AM »

I guess it depends how you define "affordable."

Plus I haven't met that many people who go "OMG 3D!!!" when the subject's brought up. Not quite indifferent at best.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5056


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2011, 11:08:30 AM »

When it comes to producers, believe me, it's not affordable, it's incredibly cheap.
Concerning consumer cameras, they're not really more expensive than regular ones. Same price range. I have to confess  I'm pretty sure they're more marketing tests and a way to say "hey, I'm on this market" for the camera brands since I don't think people are buying them right now (i mean... who has a 3D tv?).
3D tvs are expensive, YES. The price difference is however far lower than the one between, say, a SD TV and a HD TV. But no one is in the "OMG it's so much better" mood, you're right.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 11:14:48 AM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2935



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2011, 01:24:18 PM »

Why do all the 3D defenders engage in this fallacy? 3D isn't "new," it's been around for going on sixty years! Ergo this argument is moot.

I might add, parenthetically, that the same arguments were also levelled against SenSurround and Smell-O-Vision. Being criticized doesn't mean it will catch on, and as Jinkies eloquently pointed out, 3D doesn't add anything the way color/sound does.

Because, like Noodles has said, the 3d effects are much better than in the 50s. Widescreen had also failed in the early 30s, and was pushed in the 50s to have something new in contrast to TV.

3d is pushed now for the same reasons, not because the films need it.

The only question is will it make films more successful not only for a short time, or will the audience lose interest after it isn't the newest sensation any more, and they get used to the effects.


I have never heard in a cinema such audience reactions like in Avatar. Many were overwhelmed by the pictures and images to such an extent that they sat in their chairs making ooh and aah, and looked like just winning the first price in a lottery. I had also often taken the glasses away, watching parts of the film in 2d, and partly watching the audience watching the picture.

Logged

Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2011, 02:56:04 PM »

I have never heard in a cinema such audience reactions like in Avatar. Many were overwhelmed by the pictures and images to such an extent that they sat in their chairs making ooh and aah, and looked like just winning the first price in a lottery. I had also often taken the glasses away, watching parts of the film in 2d, and partly watching the audience watching the picture.

One film that's been relentlessly hyped for years is not a trend, and the reaction to other 3D films seems more telling. Yeah, Toy Story 3 (for one example) was a big hit, but how much of that can you seriously put down to 3D?

You bring "widescreen" into the discussion. Why not mention Cinemascope or 70mm, two formats that either never really caught or fell out of favor?

« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 02:58:11 PM by Groggy » Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5056


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2011, 03:17:31 PM »

You bring "widescreen" into the discussion. Why not mention Cinemascope or 70mm, two formats that either never really caught or fell out of favor?

Cinemascope was more expensive that 3D to produce at the time (which makes it really NOT affordable) for a terrible effect (completly distorded image).
I'm not familiar with 70mm, but I've heard it was really useful for very little applications (I'm talking about screening conditions).

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2011, 05:16:32 PM »

Cinemascope was more expensive that 3D to produce at the time (which makes it really NOT affordable) for a terrible effect (completly distorded image).

The first part is fair enough but does making an image three-dimensional really enhance it in a significant way?

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
Dust Devil
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3617


Smoke Tuco, so you can't bullshit!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2011, 01:19:32 AM »

Somebody's gonna have to pay for all that 3D stuff ''going better and better''...

Logged



No matter how cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, the reflection always looks you straight in the eye.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2011, 05:59:27 AM »

Cinemascope, and its clones, was a good process that yielded impressive results. Cinerama, on the other hand, was a weird concept that had insuperable technical difficulties (for example, the seams of the 3 images never joined "correctly"). Further, the effect was best viewed from the theater's "sweet spot", which meant that not every patron enjoyed the same viewing experience (something that I suspect may be happening in modern 3D presentations). Finally, it was an updating of the approach Abel Gance used for Napoleon. Thus, it is an example of an older technology re-introduced when the technology had improved . . . that never went anywhere.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5056


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2011, 06:10:39 AM »

(something that I suspect may be happening in modern 3D presentations)

I suspect that too. My latest 3D experience was The Green Hornet.
First, the 3D looked incredibly cheap because of a terrible pop-up look. At first, I was disapointed (since many, like DJ, praise the way the use 3D in this movie), but then I remembered I also saw the 3D trailer of Tron at the screening. And 3D looked very unatural too. It seems that the only way to "enjoy" a good 3D experience (either in films or amusement parks) is "active" 3D (when the glasses have an electronic component and not just a passive filter). Which is also the most expensive way.

@Grog: I was once "OMG THIS 3D IS AMAZING", and it was with Avatar. I had very very low expectations with this movie, so don't throw the "movie that has been hyped for 10 years" argument on me. And the way 3D is used in it is the only interesting thing in the movie. It definitly upgrades the CGI and makes the whole thing much much more immersive.
But that's the only positive experience I had with 3D outside DisneyWorld. Which is a shame since Avatar sucks.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 07:06:52 AM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2011, 08:58:01 AM »

Cinemascope, and its clones, was a good process that yielded impressive results. Cinerama, on the other hand, was a weird concept that had insuperable technical difficulties (for example, the seams of the 3 images never joined "correctly"). Further, the effect was best viewed from the theater's "sweet spot", which meant that not every patron enjoyed the same viewing experience (something that I suspect may be happening in modern 3D presentations). Finally, it was an updating of the approach Abel Gance used for Napoleon. Thus, it is an example of an older technology re-introduced when the technology had improved . . . that never went anywhere.

Damn, I confused Cinemascope with Cinerama. My mistake.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.035 seconds with 19 queries.