3D Cinema

[robhall3192]

OT : We have a local town cinema - only 100 seats, and was about to be demolished 5 years ago untill everyone wanted it back. Luckly there are processes in british cinema, allowing them to have a high def, 3D projector on perminant hire, with access to many of the latest 3D films. So it is possible for small local cinemas to compete - especially as its cheaper prices and better screen to people ratio.

[Guest lightnix]

3D Films give me a headache, not sure about anyone else.

I hope it doesn't take over. I have a "lazy" left eye so the effect doesn't work for me...the images just look nasty.

3D isn't for everyone - just the other week a group of friends were desparately hunting for somewhere to see Alice In Wonderland in 2D. Like Bobbsy, one has a lazy eye and another, like Johnny, another gets headaches from 3D and the others didn't really care. Film makers are also going to be constrained in just how far they can exploit 3D, so long as home viewing remains in 2D - which it will do for a long time to come.

 

Bob - If you're forced to go and see a 3D Film, wear the glasses but block off the left side. or butcher 2 pairs and combine 2 similar lenses.

Great idea (no, really!) - patent it tomorrow and start licencing it out :)

 

The smaller low budget films will surely have to make way for the bells and whistles productions taking the smaller cinemas with them.

Not sure about that. Modest, lower budget films will remain necessary to the film industry, to allow new directing talent to develop and mature, before being trusted with nine-figure budgets. There's also the continuing marketing of the (massive) back catalogue to consider - can you see Disney, Warners, Sony, Universal et al withdrawing all that, just to force us into watching only 3D?

 

3D is a gimmick. It was also a gimmick in the 1950s, and the 1970s, and it's still a gimmick now...

That's not the way the studios see it now; for them, it's as much a new weapon against piracy and a way of bringing an additional realism to the cinema - something that live ents should perhaps start to bear in mind.

 

It is pretty cool, granted, and Avatar impressed me...

The visuals in Avatar were undoubtedly impressive and I found the 3D very natural and easy to watch. Moreso than Up in 3D, where I found the depth of field to be a bit extreme in places and was worried I'd develop eye fatigue from it. A shame, because Up was the better piece of storytelling IMO; although both films were, in their way (and again IMO), further reiterations of the Campbell Monomyth, with Avatar being the more blatant and failing to do justice to the situation.

 

FWIW my two faves last year - Watchmen and Moon - were both 2D, with the latter being very much a lower budget movie - not that it made any difference to the great story, which even my missus (a confirmed non-fan of sci-fi) greatly enjoyed; "The surprises were real surprises", was her verdict. I also got around to watching the excellent Coraline last night - in 2D - and don't think I'd have enjoyed it any more or less in 3D.

 

To me, 3D (a bit like the moving light) is a creative tool, which has the potential to enhance the look of some productions, while laying bare the superficiality of others and which can sometimes be an unwelcome distraction to what's actually happening on the screen. On the one hand: I thought A Christmas Carol definitely benefitted from 3D and used it very well, without going OTT; on the other: I don't think I'd have been any more or less bored by Monsters vs. Aliens, had I seen it in 2D. You can't polish turds, but I'm sure 3D will offer some film makers a bit of distracting glitter to roll them in ;) If a film is good enough, it won't matter whether it's shown in 2D or 3D. Radio survived the advent of television, as did live ents and cinema. 2D will survive 3D and remain an effective medium for imaginative storytelling.

[Bryson]

3D is a gimmick. It was also a gimmick in the 1950s, and the 1970s, and it's still a gimmick now...

That's not the way the studios see it now; for them, it's as much a new weapon against piracy and a way of bringing an additional realism to the cinema - something that live ents should perhaps start to bear in mind.

 

That's also what the studios said in the 50s and 70s. They were wrong then, too. Anything that requires your audience to wear glasses to watch isn't going to last. They need to crack 3D without glasses, then it'll take off.

[Guest lightnix]

3D is a gimmick. It was also a gimmick in the 1950s, and the 1970s, and it's still a gimmick now...

That's not the way the studios see it now; for them, it's as much a new weapon against piracy and a way of bringing an additional realism to the cinema - something that live ents should perhaps start to bear in mind.

 

That's also what the studios said in the 50s and 70s. They were wrong then, too. Anything that requires your audience to wear glasses to watch isn't going to last. They need to crack 3D without glasses, then it'll take off.

That may be true for our generation - you know: the ones who still like to pass photographs around and listen to whole albums in one sitting. TNG is another matter... all it takes is the right kind of marketing, over a long enough period of time.

 

I mean... I have to put on glasses to read certain things these days - it hasn't stopped me reading them :)

 

 

 

e2a... Like it or not, 3D is here to stay this time. It may be a while before it becomes mainstream, but it isn't going away - too much money has been invested

[dbuckley]

Is it just me who still sees 3D as a gimmic?

3D has a buzz this time round that it hasn't had in the last few incarnations; in particular, now that CGI based movies are 'normal', adding a 3rd dimension to an all-CGI movie is trivial, unlike in the real world where you need stereo cameras.

 

Now that movies are shot digitally, having a two head camera is not the same pain-in-the-neck that a double 35mm (or double 70mm or double IMAX) camera was, so it makes life on set bearable.

 

Theres now more 3D output than there is cinemas to show it in, which is another massive change from the past fadettes.

 

This time around, there is at least a chance that 3D will stick.

 

 

A newer system uses polarised light, verticle polarised for one eye and horizontal for the other. To view, spectacles with polarising lenses are worn, these are more costly than than those with red and cyan filters. Special projection equipment is needed at substantial cost.

RealD (and I think the other passive glases system) uses circularly polaries light, though some older systems tried horizontal and vertical, but that has the drawback that if you tilt your head the imaging falls to pieces.

 

The most sophisticated system also uses polarised light, but in conjunction with "active" spectacles.These pick up a signal from the cinema equipment or TV set, and block or transmit the image to either, or both eyes as required.

The best of these is IMAX 3D, which doesn't polarise, just uses LCD shutters on the active glasses. If you've got LCD shutters then ther is no need to polarise.

 

At the moment, to exhibit 3D you need one of the very few 3D digital projection systems, which cost loads; I believe that RealD has an annual 20K USD licencing scheme per screen on top of equipment costs, on top of your already purchased (or hired) digital projector.

 

But, it appears Kodak have just (re)disovered "over/under" 3D polarised projection which makes decent 3D possible in 35mm houses using just one projector. I say 'rediscivered' because there were a few such schemes around a fad or two ago, and rumour has it that the old systems could be 'altered' to make them work with the forthcoming Kodak 3D film prints.

[scoutnetworker]

There one thing that has been missed and I regularly see miss here with the discussion about whether 3D cinema is hear to stay, and that it money - films take on average 33% more per screen in 3d over 2d - and that is more money for the studios, which tbh is where most of the discission are made!

[the kid]

But are those takings not higher because of the £4/5 markup at the door, which accomidates the extra hardwear and editing in production ?

[SoLiEn]

4/5 quid markup? kid where the hell are you going? we charge an extra 1.50 for a 3d film which goes straight to the distributer, and we dont charge for glasses like some local places do!

[the kid]

It cost me £12/13 to see Avitar and the same to see Alice with nothing for the glasses. Normally its about £7/8... has a look on the website...

 

Hangs head in shame, I MIGHT of paied for expensive seats by accident, twice.

[SoLiEn]

owww . we are round 9 quid for an adult to see 3d instead of 7.50 or whatever it is, no way as expensive!

[Matthew Robinson]

Isn't one of the aims of 3D to reduce piracy?

 

The worst thing about the 3D glasses is wearing them over your normal glasses, which is really uncomfortable.

 

Also, 3D doesn't make up for bad storytelling...

[paulears]

We had 3D in panto this year, and I was initially a sceptic, now a convert. The odd thing was the audience reaction - the 18-40 age group weren't that impressed, but the kids and the oldies were really convinced - so for cinema and eventually for TV I suspect it may well catch on. what I have noticed is that in the production kit side of things, there are some fairly basic 3D rigs around, but none in the proper camera style format - yet?

[the kid]

3D TV is what gets me, I DON'T want to wear glasses to watch it, and I think lenticular will be weird.

 

Blue-ray has just come, and we are getting a new gen of TV before the new gen of players ( assuming to play 3D film you need a magic box) for the home I think its overload.

[dan slv-tech]

Isn't one of the aims of 3D to reduce piracy?

 

The worst thing about the 3D glasses is wearing them over your normal glasses, which is really uncomfortable.

 

Also, 3D doesn't make up for bad storytelling...

 

 

 

3D wont stop piracy, however D cinema will drastically reduce it. Its virtually impossible to copy D cinema, certainly cannot do it at the cinema, to many KDMs, security is high.

Yes the cost of 3D will go on the price of a ticket to the cinema, alot of the smaller independant cinemas are actually cheaper than cinema chains

[SoLiEn]

in all honesty most of the copies that are out there of films come from the studio's or the "for academy award consideration only"

 

but there is a way of copying anything, from any format. the kdms just make it harder.