Pretty much dead-on. A lot of big technological advances at the movies were originally introduced for the “wow” factor. When color came out, all the big prestige movies were still made in B&W, because color was considered flashy and gimmicky. Only the big blockbuster type movies applied. When widescreen aspect ratios came out, those prestige movies clung to the 1.33:1 ratio for quite some time. So you’ve got the idea.
When those advances stuck around long enough for more and more movies to embrace them, they eventually became the industry standard. Superbad doesn’t NEED color, and doesn’t even necessarily benefit from it. But most movies are in color, and that’s why Superbad is in color.
The difference with 3D, from where I’m sitting, is that none of those other things placed any additional requirements upon the viewer. You were still paying for the same ticket, still sitting in the same seats, still arriving and experiencing the movie as you always would. 3D is a little different in terms of that experience. You’re shelling out an extra fee for the 3D version of the movie, and you’re having to wear a set of greasy plastic goggles. Those fundamental differences might have an effect on whether or not 3D is ultimately here to stay.
Quoting myself - http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/25524/?a=f
So yeah, like I’ve said here and in multiple places, you can’t REALLY do 3D without glasses for multiple people. You either have to sit in designated ‘zones’ to get the 3D effect, or the system has to track your movement/location (so yeah…Natal) in order to proerply adjust the overlay of images. The best out right now is the listed M$ project - which can suit - according to the article - 2 people with 3D. Thats it.
So if you want 3D, your going ot have glasses/contacts/something to filter it for your eyes…or your going to watch it by yourself…
I tried one out last week it was ok but it gave me a headache. I couldnt watch it for more than 5 mins… the tv was over £1000 and the glasses are £100-150!!..i guess ill wait till the technology is refined and prices come down.
3d still looks really fucking blurry to me.
Yes, I’ve seen quite a few 3d movies in theaters (avatar included) and all of them have looked better, crisper & cleaner on my bluray/lcd combo at home without 3d gimmicks.
Some movies are just planned to be 3d shitfests too, which annoys the crap out of me. I was hyped for the new clash of the titans cause I absolutely loved the original…stayed away from the 3d version in theaters cause I heard it was terrible. Well, regular movie was terrible as well…complete disaster of a story focused around stuff flying around on the screen.
I feel like 3d is becoming the wii of the movie industry…no fucking depth or substance, yet every kid will drag their parents to go see the next 3d movie. I don’t think 3d is going away anytime soon, but at least, for now, we have options of avoiding it.
On topic, 3D is just a gimmick right now, I wouldn’t say just accept it. I’m sure it will be refined in due time, when filmmakers can have 3D and a good story too. And that will be when I get on the boat.
It’s hard to talk about inmersion when most films are not represented at 1:1 scale (they all have giant closeups taking the whole screen and whatnot), but it’s nice when 3D is used correctly. It’s also horrible when blur (as in far or close objects are not focused) is used in 3D, so film makers would need to avoid that useful tool.
But, got to say, some things look interesting in 3D
Almost every movie advertised is coming in 3D. It used to be a rarity, but now it is becoming rare to see a non 3D version of a movie. I remember when Imax was extremely rare, but even now it is becoming more common.
You know what we need? More violent R rated action flicks. Thank god Stallone made Rambo 4 and the upcoming Expendables, plus Predators is coming. I like to eat steak and potatos with a side of shrimp while watching these films.
You guys are confusing films shot in 3D and films shot in 2D and converted to 3D in post (which looks awful). The 3D conversion is just the worst thing a director can choose to do. Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, they both gave me a grinding headache because of how distorted the “3D” image was. Either shoot 3D, or leave it alone. I personally think that 3D adds absolutely nothing to the merit of a film. It’s a gimmick to raise ticket prices and make the studios more $$$. It actually detracts from the overall aesthetic for me, personally (but like I said, that’s a personal preference).
Yeah, you’re talking about the Cinematographer, the technical eye for the director. Which i am studying to be. I’m unsure if they will retrofit the current library, but most likely the focus on Cinematography will play a huge role in the film industry in the years to come. I am so psyched to be part of it.
Sound was a gimmick at one point. COLOR was a gimmick at another. You don’t see it now because the technology is in its infacy, but you will.
Well good luck, its a field that the big moview need bette people for…especially these 3D ones. People who tyr to stress 3D ultimatly suck at it…the worst moment graphically in Avatar is the beginining…why? Because they forced it to make ap oint, once your out of space though, its ‘whatever’