3D technology fading as film failures cause box office eyesores

18 Feb 12 21:53 by R.J. Huneke in category LCD TV, Movies

The costly 3D TVs are not selling, the 3D movie tickets are being passed up for cheaper 2D ones, and the poor quality of most 3D film conversions have led to the overused fad dropping in appeal significantly.

The introduction of television crippled the movie industry for a while, and 3D movies was one gimmick that was invented to capture the curiosity of consumers and get them back in theaters.

Once the original 3D movie novelty wore off, the 3D film disappeared until decades later when the innovative 2009 film Avatar smashed box office records and became the highest grossing movie of all time.

With the gimmick revived, TV manufacturers saw a chance to slow the introduction of OLED TVs and push LCD TVs with 3D. The best part for them was the ugly, heavy, and expensive 3D glasses that consumers had to purchase so that the whole family could watch TV with an additional dimensional perspective.

Movies themselves, standardized releasing more costly 3D versions of nearly everything that came out, and with the recent flop of George Lucas’s Star Wars I 3D conversion, the death of the 3D fad seems to be nearing again.

In a floundering economy, worldwide, consumers are growing smarter out of necessity. Research is done, and spending the extra couple of grand for 3D TV sets that require bulbous hundred-dollar-plus goggles is just not happening. These are wisely passed up for beautiful screens that do not have the extraneous feature, but lack in nothing else (except heavier price tags).

At the same time, the avid movie goer likes to see as many of the flicks on the silver screen as they can afford, and spending two-to-five bucks less on a 2D movie that does not strain the eyes, like a superfluous 3D conversion does, allows for more movies to be seen, and saves money for eight dollar boxes of popcorn.

Avatar looked and felt great in 2D and in 3D, because it was filmed in 3D; it was not post-converted. When 3D is done well it is barely noticed, except when certain scenes are added an extra depth that bolsters realism. Most movies simply fuzz up their prints and make the audience feel annoyed or strained, as the effect is too taxing.

The annoying 3D glasses & inflated pricing will cause the gimmick to fade back into memory . . . at least until it is revived again.

17 Comments on 3D technology fading as film failures cause box office eyesores

Kerry56
Posts: 14421
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 00:21
Can't happen fast enough for me. I have no need or desire for this particular technology that they are trying to shove our way.
ivid
Posts: 725
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 00:26
I love 3D. It's great for some movies and not for others. Hugo was a prime example of 3D contributing to the experience of a great film. And it wasn't the typical action movie which lends well to 3D.
Zod
Posts: 724
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 04:15
There does seem to be a big difference between movies filmed in 3d and hollywood doing post-filming conversion.

Avatar looked awesome in 3d, but pretty much everything that came out after looked rather meh.

Hollywood took a good idea and completely diluted it with rubbish. Even if someone made an awesome 3d movie now, it'll probably get lumped with all the crap.
Mirror007
Posts: 19
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 05:52
I always read "Avatar" when it comes to push 3d. If they want to push 3d, then why is this effing movie only available to panasonic customers?
Jeffrey_P
Posts: 104
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 06:50
Captain EO which used to be an attraction at Disneyland was the best 3D I have ever seen. Unfortunately nothing to this date has comes close. Even Avatar's 3D, characters were disproportionately wrong and the spinning thingies were blurry.

3D TV better look almost perfect because the general public is not willing to plunk down 3k on a 3D TV as it stands today. The ultra expensive 3D glasses also must go.

Jeff
Wombler
Posts: 9578
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 14:37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey_P View Post
The ultra expensive 3D glasses also must go.

Jeff
The glasses are only expensive for the active shutter systems.

Passive 3D systems use simple polarised glasses which are cheap and there are numerous TV models out there already that support this.


Wombler
Dartman
Posts: 1775
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 19:32
Can't see 3d anyways so I don't care if it lives or dies as it wont do me any good and cost me more money. I think most consumers feel this way about the money part as why should we have to pay extra just to see a few gee wiz moments in a film or on TV. Everything's expensive enough as it is lately and they just want to get more out of us.
ivid
Posts: 725
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 20:55
The passive glasses are cheap because they are not nearly as good as active for clarity and brightness etc..

Wanna know a fact about avatar ? a large portion of it was not filmed in 3D and was converted in post. However all the scenes were composed in 3D and that is the big difference maker. Post conversion can be amazing if done right. Unfortunateley it's often done wrong. Very wrong.
There has been plenty of good 3D. Transformers 3D was great for the 3D. amazing actually. Ice age 3D was a blast and very well done. As I mentioned above Hugo surprised the hell out of me with how amazing 3D can be effective in a "non action flick". Although it was very visual / fantasy. It was a great 3D experience.

IMO the Hobbit will be the next big 3D success, with the new 144 fps frame rate technology it should be the best 3D to date. Can't wait until December !
ivid
Posts: 725
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 21:03
Was trying to remember the most recent 3D flick which I thought was great. It was Tin Tin and again the 3D was really well done.

Unfortunately I missed the BIG 3D masterpiece from last year, Harold and Kumar 3 !
debro
Posts: 13338
Posted on: 19 Feb 12 21:25
So 3D works well for animated, our heavily animated films
Not so much live action films.

So long as the movie industry targets children for 3D, they'll be fine.
LouV68
Posts: 106
Posted on: 20 Feb 12 02:37
3D is awesome, but it has to be on a big screen. I don't own a 3d TV, but watched parts of a movie on a 55" TV and it was cool and all, but I was not 'immersed' in the picture. Gotta go big screen for this technology to survive, which I hope it does.
MJPollard
Posts: 51
Posted on: 20 Feb 12 18:59
The movie industry pushes 3D every 30 years or so. It first cropped up in the 1950s, but the fad soon died. It next appeared in the 1980s, but again, the fad soon died. Now it's back in the 2010s, but... well, you get the point. I doubt that Big Media will learn its lesson this time around, either. Maybe the 2040s will be different... of course, I'll be in my 70s then and will care less about 3D than I do now (and I don't care at all about it now).
Blu-rayFreak
Posts: 954
Posted on: 20 Feb 12 19:46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirror007 View Post
I always read "Avatar" when it comes to push 3d. If they want to push 3d, then why is this effing movie only available to panasonic customers?
Yes, it's ridiculous, they're killing 3D themselves! I made the point in this piece: http://www.myce.com/news/3d-blu-ray-...bundles-30170/
DukeNukem
Posts: 1606
Posted on: 21 Feb 12 18:36
I was looking at 60" LCD and plasma sets over the weekend for my basement home theatre. My wife and put on some passive 3D glasses and watched 30 seconds of The Polar Express, right when the train is going up and down the tracks like a rollercoaster. Almost made us puke. Our 5 year old son has recently seen The Adventures of Tintin and Star Wars: Ep. 1 in 3D and liked them, but I know he would have liked them just as much had he seen them in 2D. I also worry about long term vision effects of watching 3D, especially on a child. Prices have come down, only about a 20% premium over 2D, but it's just not something I'm interested in... at any price. My next television/projector will be 2D and I'll be glad I didn't spend the extra money for headaches or eye strain. When 3D goes glasses-free, then I'll have another look.
ivid
Posts: 725
Posted on: 22 Feb 12 00:00
MJPollard, there is a difference between the 3D they pushed over the decades and the technology now. The modern 3D camera technology and the higher frame rates (see Hobbit in December) make the 3D far more realistic and effective. Its sure not perfect though.

Duke I agree I wonder how bad it will be on you eyes (and brain!) long term. My nephew has a 3DS and I'm concerned it's not good for his eyes too.

I too was looking at plasma recently. Turns out the best Panny plasma for 2D quality is the 3D model! So if you want the best you need to get the 3D model. They will probably all be 3D soon anyhow.

Aside from all this I am keen to see how 3D plays out for video games. Many games are now 3D capable and I'm hearing the xbox 720 or whatever and the PS4 will have a big focus on 3D.
MJPollard
Posts: 51
Posted on: 24 Feb 12 17:18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivid View Post
MJPollard, there is a difference between the 3D they pushed over the decades and the technology now. The modern 3D camera technology and the higher frame rates (see Hobbit in December) make the 3D far more realistic and effective. Its sure not perfect though.
The improvements in technology don't overcome simulated 3D's inherent weaknesses (which killed it the first two times) or Big Media's greed in pushing it with price premiums (which is killing it now). Wake me up when we have true 3D viewing experiences, like holograms that appear right in the middle of your living room. Until then, no improvements in technology is going to make simulated 3D anything more than an over-hyped, expensive, problem-plagued gimmick.
debro
Posts: 13338
Posted on: 25 Feb 12 03:53
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJPollard View Post
The improvements in technology don't overcome simulated 3D's inherent weaknesses (which killed it the first two times) or Big Media's greed in pushing it with price premiums (which is killing it now). Wake me up when we have true 3D viewing experiences, like holograms that appear right in the middle of your living room. Until then, no improvements in technology is going to make simulated 3D anything more than an over-hyped, expensive, problem-plagued gimmick.
I disagree. Movies which have been produced/directed with intent of release on 3D, and animated movies, are generally fabulous.
Once again, greed comes to play - the market has been flooded with revamped/retro movies that were filmed in 2D and have been kludged up into a 3D version in an attempt to squeeze the last remaining drops of blood out of consumers with cruddy catalogue titles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivid View Post
MJPollard, there is a difference between the 3D they pushed over the decades and the technology now. The modern 3D camera technology and the higher frame rates (see Hobbit in December) make the 3D far more realistic and effective. Its sure not perfect though.

Duke I agree I wonder how bad it will be on you eyes (and brain!) long term. My nephew has a 3DS and I'm concerned it's not good for his eyes too.

I too was looking at plasma recently. Turns out the best Panny plasma for 2D quality is the 3D model! So if you want the best you need to get the 3D model. They will probably all be 3D soon anyhow.

Aside from all this I am keen to see how 3D plays out for video games. Many games are now 3D capable and I'm hearing the xbox 720 or whatever and the PS4 will have a big focus on 3D.
I agree - the 3D we have now is decades ahead of the original 3D ... but, I'm not so sure about the "Passive" 3D TV models which seem to have been released recently. It just seems like such a rip-off to dredge up 30yr old tech and release it next to current 3D tech models.

It just proves, once again, that the industry has it's own interests at heart, and snake-oil salesmen are still around, are paid more, and have corporate support.

As to health affects .... I don't long term problems in either eyes or brain, but the brain working overtime will make people more tired.
Of course, trot out the usual idiots that will strap on a 3D pair of glasses and sit down for a 3 month 24hr marathon of 3D movies, just to argue the case.
Being more practical than empathetic, I'd suggest it's for the good of the species. Hopefully said idiots will somehow remove themselves from the gene pool.

Darwin Awards Forever!
Tell us, what do you think about

3D technology fading as film failures cause box office eyesores

Most popular headlines

Windows Blue to allow boot to desktop and brings start menu back? (3)

  • Tue 16 Apr 16:12 by DoMiN8ToR
  • Software, Windows 8

The upcoming update of Windows 8 might allow users to boot to the desktop again.

Jobs in US entertainment industry on all-time high - piracy?! (8)

The number of jobs in the film and music industry in the United States has increased despite the claimed negative effects of illegal downloads.

The Piratebay domain moves to Greenland - circumvents blockade (3)

The PirateBay has moved to the domain thepiratebay.gl in fear that their previous domain would be ceased by Swedish authorities

Intel 9 series chipset has native SATA Express (SATA over PCIe) support (2)

A Chinese tech site has posted a picture that reveals details on Intel's 9 series chipset.

See all headlines

Active Commenters