You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

3D movies are "in"

Everybody talks about 3D technology. And Hollywood has invested millions of dollars in 3D cinemas. 3D films are well established in cinemas nowadays. In 2009, 3D movies had a 10 percent market share. And home theater manufacturers like Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and others will also be launching 3D TV sets in the US sometime mid-2010. The Blu-ray Disc Association has adopted the Blu-ray 3D specs. "A Christmas Carol" is to be the first three-dimensional film. Twenty 3D films will be released on Blu-ray this year. According to an opinion poll, around 80% of movie goers who have seen a 3D film on the big screen want to watch the movie in 3D at home, too. Threedimensional films are a great opportunity for an unforgettable home cinema experience. The most successful film of all times is Avatar which was filmed in 3D.

James Cameron:
"Stereoscopic 3-D is the most exciting evolution in cinema presentation since color and widescreen. The question for film-makers is not 'why 3 D?,' since the reasons are obvious, at least to audiences, and the negatives have all been removed. The question should be 'how do I make 3D a part of my art?'"

3D movies generated over $1 billion at theatrical box offices worldwide this year, and when a movie is projected in both versions, the 3D showings typically bring in more than double the revenue of the regular screenings.

Ron Epstein from the Home Theater Forum.

“We’ve seen Mitsubishi’s 3D, Panasonic’s. Nothing comes close to what [Panasonic has],” he said. “Blu-ray players have reached their zenith. 3D is the technology to beat.”
mOrpheuS wrote:
Quote tags added. Please use quote tags around text that you haven't written yourself.
Good post. Probably 3D movies are still in their beginning and we should epect more of them in the future. However, I have watched some few movies in 3D including UP, and clash of the titans, and was not that impressed (especially with the clash of the titans, where the film settings is more than excellent to be rendered in 3D). Maybe Avatar was better but I haven't seen it. What is also very interesting is what they call the 4D movies, I have watched a couple of movies like that (children movies for spongebob and dora) but these were quite impressive, because the 3D effects were very well done, and in addition to that there were other "environment effects" so you can feel the splashes of water, or the vibration of engine, or you can even smell the pickles, quite interesting huh, but these would require greater capabilities than the ones typically available in movie theatres.
I never really thought 3D was going to get that big. It was brought out before but never really made it, this time, now that we have the technology, it's like main stream now.
What exactly is 3D supposed to add to the movie? Lower video quality? Hooray! Motion sickness? Fantastic! Higher production costs? Great! More expensive playback technology? Amazing! Having to wear those stupid glasses, which is inconvenient, especially if you already wear glasses? Just what I've always wanted! Now I can wear 3D-glasses on top of my regular glasses, for maximum inconvenience! Technology!

James Cameron's an idiot. The question is not 'how do I make 3D a part of my art?'. Art should never be compromised. The question is the one he refuses to answer in the beginning "Why 3D?". Does my art fit for 3D? What does my art gain from 3D? Does it gain anything at all?

I fail to see any use of 3D at all that could possibly, in my wildest imagination, add any artistic value to a film.
I haven't actually SEEN a 3D movie (I am not a fan of movie theaters) so I can't really comment on that, but what I feel I can add to this discussion is that I am fully tired of reading/hearing the phrase "... eye-popping 3D!".

LISTEN. If I can go through years of day to day in a GLORIOUS, FULL HIGH DEFINITION EYE-POPPING 360 MILLION GAZILLION COLOURS IMMERSIVE SURROUND SOUND SENSORY EXPLOSION *EXPERIENCE*, I think I can make it through your two hour long movie without being catastrophically overwhelmed.
The difference being that the real world is 3D. "3D" in cinema is 2D, which means it looks layered, rather than actual 3D. If it would've been actual 3D, i might've gotten the point of it (not for movies really, but interactive sculptures and art). But it's not. It's a cheap trick on the eyes.
I fully agree that 3D is a technology that is here to stay, but like all technologies in its infancy, still has far to go. Of course it must be recognized that 3D has evolved enormously compared to his real initiation. But for a deployment of 3D TVs in homes and means of 3D display, besides the movie, you need a standardized formats and "types" of 3D. So within a while and then will be really handy but the 3D "will dominate the world."
By now 3D technology uses a device to cheat your eye perspective looks like you are viewing in 3D space.
Related topics
What do you want to work with when you are adult?
CGI Revelution
Do you believe celebrities should make big bucks?
The Last Movie You Saw?
The Game creation topic! - Share experience - Find resources
3D Modeling
My signature...
does anyone go to movie theaters anymore?
3D Art and animation
Kung Fu Panda
Alice in Wonderland in 3D IMAX
New Clash of the Titans
Resident Evil Aferlife 3D
3D Glasses for Gaming
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Sports and Entertainment -> Movies and Television

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.