Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Sep 15, 2011 - 2:51 AM   
 By:   Marlene   (Member)

I´ve seen only two movies in 3D: "Ice Age 3" and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II"

The latter was a 3D-converted movie - and I was surprised how good it looked. However, I didn´t really enjoy it in 3D, I could have done without it. I´m all for digital projection though: this is a pristine and flawless picture, you can even see the film noise stable and perfect (if it was done with real film). Wonderful and completely without any artifacts.

I don´t think that 3D will be en vogue in five years from now. It will only be adapted completely if they enable it to be used with easy convenience. Extra glasses for home use or cinema are not too convenient for me, I´m already wearing glasses and the extra pair on top of them gets uncomfortable.

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 10:29 AM   
 By:   DavidinBerkeley   (Member)

I enjoyed GRAVITY in 3-D, the first modern movie I've enjoyed in 3-D. I think it was because there was so little in the backgrounds of the scenes generally, my eyes didn't feel overloaded. It also probably helped that I enjoyed the movie generally (another first).

I'm disinclined, though, to fork over an extra three clams for ANY movie that decides to put out a 3-D version, so I doubt I'll find another movie I'll do this for again.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 10:54 AM   
 By:   John B. Archibald   (Member)

Same problem happened back in the mid-50's.

I mean, how many chairs thrown over someone can you dodge?

After a while, the effects become predictable, and look so obvious, even in the 2-D version.

3-D works best when the depth it provides creates a more dramatic environment. Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER is kind of stagey in 2-D (It was based on a stage play, after all.) But, in 3-D, it's a revelation, adding suspense elements of its own to the story.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 11:22 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

3d has not turned out to be the money cow Hollywood hoped for. The % of ticket sales has dropped pretty consistently every years since it was pushed out again a few years ago. The audience does not have a great deal of interest in it, or passion for it.

The better 3d I have seen were in Star Trek ID, except for the over-use in dialogue scenes, which I did not need and the last Amazing Spiderman. They both had some good use of depth of field.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 1:01 PM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

Same problem happened back in the mid-50's.

I mean, how many chairs thrown over someone can you dodge?

After a while, the effects become predictable, and look so obvious, even in the 2-D version.

3-D works best when the depth it provides creates a more dramatic environment. Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER is kind of stagey in 2-D (It was based on a stage play, after all.) But, in 3-D, it's a revelation, adding suspense elements of its own to the story.


While I do agree audience burnout likely not only is a factor now but probably was back in the '50s, I think a much bigger issue is that 3d then was much, much likelier to have serious problems in exhibition back in the day, and the time/money/effort required in getting it right just couldn't be justified for the returns. Consider the need to have two copies of the film running in perfect frame-by-frame synchronization. If either projector had its copy of the movie running just a couple frames ahead of the other, ruinous problems with the image resulted. If the print for one eye was damaged and needed splicing, with the loss of a few frames, the print for the other eye would also have to be spliced, with the corresponding frames (and no more or less) removed, as well. There were all kinds of problems then that simply aren't issues now with digital projection (there can of course be entirely different problems with that, of course, but nothing so difficult to overcome as the issues of early '50s 3d). And even putting aside those issues that ideally wouldn't come up, 3d projection still required two separate prints of a movie, which of course was expensive.

Nowadays, 3d enjoys so many advantages that it didn't back in the day. That's still no guarantee that viewers won't get tired of it and ditch it, of course, but I do think there's much, much more reason to think it'll endure now than there was then. Just the fact alone that honest-to-goodness 3d TVs are here and readily available to average folks is such a huge change from the 1950s, or even just a decade ago, and there are now numerous 3d movies available for viewing in the home, let alone every week at the multiplex. It's completely different from 1953.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 1:05 PM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

3d has not turned out to be the money cow Hollywood hoped for. The % of ticket sales has dropped pretty consistently every years since it was pushed out again a few years ago. The audience does not have a great deal of interest in it, or passion for it.

The better 3d I have seen were in Star Trek ID, except for the over-use in dialogue scenes, which I did not need and the last Amazing Spiderman. They both had some good use of depth of field.


That's kind of noteworthy, actually, since Star Trek Into Darkness was another post-conversion, not natively shot 3d. But I do agree it was some remarkably well-done and effective 3d (although unfortunately, I still didn't enjoy the movie very much, though I did at least like it more than its 2009 predecessor).

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 1:38 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Yes, post conversion can work pretty well, depending on who does it I think. Imax 3d version of ID was pretty visually impressive, putting aside your like or dislike of the movie itself.

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 1:51 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Yes, post conversion can work pretty well, depending on who does it I think. Imax 3d version of ID was pretty visually impressive, putting aside your like or dislike of the movie itself.

Depending who does it and when it's decided to do it. For instance, both Pacific Rim and Gravity were post conversions, but it was decided early that that was the route they were taking, and the films were shot with that in mind by directors with an excellent eye for visuals. Both ended up looking fantastic. My rule of thumb used to be not to see "fake 3D" but now it's more along the lines of -- I'll see a movie in 3D if it's by a director I trust and if it's what the director wanted rather than a just a studio mandate enacted as an afterthought.

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 3:06 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

Seem to have written a lot here about 3D recently....still looking forward to seeing Gravity with my sunglasses on....big 3D fan here, but there's good 3D (Man of Steel, Star Trek into Darkness, Transformers 3 and a few others - not judging the quality of the film, just the 3D)....and bad (Thor).

Post-processing into 3D has come a long way...the Jurassic Park conversion for example I felt was excellent...

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 4:24 PM   
 By:   John McMasters   (Member)

From CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-sales/index.html

From Digital Trends:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/3d-tv-autopsy-did-it-finally-die-or-was-it-never-alive-to-begin-with/

From Cracked:

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/

From a UK Site:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/John-Lewis-3DTV-Consumer-Demand-Sales-hdtv,22965.html

BUT...:

http://advanced-television.com/2013/03/18/global-3d-tv-sales-up-72/

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 5:13 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

From CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-sales/index.html

From Digital Trends:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/3d-tv-autopsy-did-it-finally-die-or-was-it-never-alive-to-begin-with/

From Cracked:

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/

From a UK Site:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/John-Lewis-3DTV-Consumer-Demand-Sales-hdtv,22965.html

BUT...:

http://advanced-television.com/2013/03/18/global-3d-tv-sales-up-72/



Yeah, TV makers were pretty happy for the few years when it seemed we were all replacing our CRT tv's now that is pretty much over. The next push is 4k, which you can find enough people to agree with me, it is not a lot of an improvement over a 1080p image on an average screen at an average distance. But the industry is very dependent on convincing you that what you have is not good enough, basically a lie really.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 5:58 PM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

I always found it fun to take someone to a 3d film who never in their lives saw a 3d film. young or old they get a kick out of it. if I had a choice it would be HOUSE OF WAX- Timeless.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 4:56 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

Now, I'm not the world's biggest Peter Jackson fan (I hated his 27 hour remake of King Kong and The Lovely Bones was just awful) but I have high hopes for his two Hobbit movies because he is not just shooting in 3D but also at a higher frame rate (48FPS rather than the industry norm of 24FPS) and I am convinced this will be a turning point for 3D films. To quote Jackson, the higher frame rate will produce a 3D image which has "hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness". Those people - including a large number of 3D naysayers - who saw James Cameron's test footage of a swordfight at CinemaCon in April '11 were apparently unanimous in their praise (albeit this was shot at an even higher frame rate of 60FPS), so that is clearly the way to go.

We saw The Hobbit in 3D/HFR and I was rather underwhelmed, both with the film and with the style. Fancy going to all that trouble, and then having the old Doctor Who flying through the forest in such poor CGI! But then we got the bluray (against my better judgment, by the way) and I enjoyed it significantly more. What does that tell you? No, really, what? Because I'm still trying to work it out.

TG

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 8:11 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Now, I'm not the world's biggest Peter Jackson fan (I hated his 27 hour remake of King Kong and The Lovely Bones was just awful) but I have high hopes for his two Hobbit movies because he is not just shooting in 3D but also at a higher frame rate (48FPS rather than the industry norm of 24FPS) and I am convinced this will be a turning point for 3D films. To quote Jackson, the higher frame rate will produce a 3D image which has "hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness". Those people - including a large number of 3D naysayers - who saw James Cameron's test footage of a swordfight at CinemaCon in April '11 were apparently unanimous in their praise (albeit this was shot at an even higher frame rate of 60FPS), so that is clearly the way to go.

We saw The Hobbit in 3D/HFR and I was rather underwhelmed, both with the film and with the style. Fancy going to all that trouble, and then having the old Doctor Who flying through the forest in such poor CGI! But then we got the bluray (against my better judgment, by the way) and I enjoyed it significantly more. What does that tell you? No, really, what? Because I'm still trying to work it out.

TG


There was a pretty large recoil against the soap opera look of 48 frames. They put out a lot more prints of 24 FPS then they originally planned because there were a lot of people saying the 'realness' of 48 FPS looked fake like a soap opera. I think that his experiment went kerplunk. And yes often your home blu ray is going to look much much better than the what you watch in the cinema.

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 8:16 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

The trouble with 3-D filmmaking is that they never know when enough is enough.

I recently saw "The Wizard of Oz". For those who refuse to see it and poo--pooh the notion that no 2-D film can be properly processed for 3-D, think again....and then again.

"Wizard of Oz" was wonderful, because they were selective about what to highlight in 3-D in each frame. It was never overwhelming, but always just right.

I also saw a preview for "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug". While the 3-D was stunning, there was way too much information on the screen to process in one sitting. Possibly too much to process in several sittings.

I anticipate a simple story done to perfection in 3-D. If that can be achieved, maybe there will be more to the process for the future.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 25, 2013 - 8:38 AM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

I finally caught Gravity, and I've got to say this one really benefits from 3d (and IMAX too).

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 25, 2013 - 10:43 AM   
 By:   betenoir   (Member)

I finally caught Gravity, and I've got to say this one really benefits from 3d (and IMAX too).

Absolutely. I rarely find 3D much of a benefit rather than a gimmick, but for Gravity, it was definitely worthwhile.

 
 Posted:   Oct 25, 2013 - 4:46 PM   
 By:   DavidinBerkeley   (Member)

As much as I hate traveling miles and miles to pay extra bux even for an "event" film, I think GRAVITY might have been worth it in 3-D plus IMAX.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.