End of 3-D Glasses…At Home
There’s a startling declaration in Paul Bond‘s 7.27 Hollywood Reporter story about Jeffrey Katzenberg‘s home-video 3D remarks last Friday. The DreamWorks animation honcho said that 3-D TV is “so far beyond” what it was just nine months ago, and that “monitors are shipping now and will be in stores by early next year.” But that’s not the popper.
Katzenberg said consumers will have to wear special glasses when these TVs arrive but — here it is — “autostereo displays will negate that need ‘in a handful of years.’”
In other words, by 2015 or thereabouts stores will be selling quality-level 3-D TVs that you won’t have to wear glasses for. I don’t want to think about the cost of these TVs, and you know that quality issues will be bothersome for at least a couple of years. It always take a while to iron the bugs out.
Not to mention viewing angles…
Yeah, viewing angle is critical with 3-D, and I find it difficult to believe any TV will “work” from a variety of angles.
I have no idea why any self-proclaimed fan of cinema would be excited at all by all the recent 3-D hubbub. Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in 3-D. As far as I’m concerned, it does nothing to improve the moviegoing experience and if anything it’s a horrible distraction.
Hopefully it’s just a fad again like it was back in the 50s and 80s.
Don’t worry, Krazy Eyes, it is just a passing fad that’ll die out soon enough.
A good film won’t be made bad if its in 3D, and a bad film won’t be made good if its in 3D.
If this turns out to be true – and I’m by no means saying it is – then Jeffrey will turn out to be very prescient with his post on a 3D Lawrence of Arabia.
I’ll not wade into that ethical debate again. But the fact of the matter is if 3D becomes the norm for home viewing, it’s going to wreak havoc on the preservation of classic movies. I know a lot of younger people who simply won’t watch black and white movies. You may think them Philistines and I wouldn’t disagree, but it’s the reality of the situation.
What happens in a decade if most content is being produced in 3D? Non-3D content will start to fall by the wayside. TCM is about the only channel on cable now that routinely shows B&W content. I shudder to think what will happen if everything starts going 3D.
A good film won’t be made bad if its in 3D, and a bad film won’t be made good if its in 3D.
I disagree with the former. I saw Beowulf and for some reason the 3-D in that film gave me a splitting headache and constantly pulled me out of the movie. Whether Beowulf was good or not is debatable but after about 20 minutes I hated just about every second of it. It didn’t have a chance.
As with any 3D technology, this will be useless for those blind in one eye.
The only thing driving this is going to be the need of CE companies to convince people to buy a new TVs after everyone’s already upgraded to a 43″+ 1080p HDTV.
I don’t think it’s a fad. There’s way too many movies successfully released theatrically in 3-D now to let it just fall by the wayside. And just look at the percentage compared with just three years ago. I think it’s currently giving theaters a shot of adrenaline they need to stay alive in the face of big screen high-definition screens at home.
And just like every other evolution in the medium, eventually people are going to expect the same thing at home that they get in the theater, and then the theater’s presentation will have to yet again evolve in some way.
Does anyone around here still think Blu-Ray is just a niche? I laughed at those comments 6 months ago and I laugh at them even more now. 3D capability will just propel that format even more.
It’s the future – and people as a whole are not content with buying the same entertainment as the generation before them did – we’re progressive creatures. It’s coming whether you like it or not, and I think it will be a very long time before 2D films disappear completely from public usage, but they’re going to go eventually as far as serving as mass entertainment compared to simply historical preservation.
I think they will always serve as an interesting window into past art and life in the same way viewing a 17th century painting would today, for example.
However, I wouldn’t expect people in another 100 years to be watching a 2D film on a regular basis anymore than I would expect them to be reading a paper book, or taking photographs with film. If anything, the “dimensionalization” of older films, is probably the best chance they have of staying alive. It’s certainly better than nothing.
Looking long term, 3D is just the next logical stepping stone to virtual reality or whatever format for visual and mental stimulation comes next.
@ TL – screw the companies. We just endured a mystifying government-run push for nationwide digital conversion (entertainment socialism?). I can’t wait for legislation mandating 3D televisions by 2015.
I watched Coraline last night, in stunning 2-D. The 3-D version was available, but we weren’t interested. Excellent film, BTW.
I generally hate anything about a movie that makes me realize it’s a movie. Even thinking “that’s a great shot” is a little disappointing to me, because I don’t want to think of it as a “shot.”
3-D is nothing but two hours of that for me.
There’s no need for watching something in 3D, but there is demand for watching something in as clear a resolution as possible, hence the popularity of DVDs and BDs.
I never ask what’s the point of DVDs, BDs, and CDs. But to this day, I can’t stop myself from asking, What’s the point of 3D? I still can’t see it, I don’t get, and most important, it’s unnecessary.
Yes, for certain movies and cartoons, it might add something to the experience, which is why they keep saying it’s a gimmick, but it won’t replace the 2D experience.
3D tends to take me out of the movie as well but I did like it for Coraline. I don’t really see the point when no adult masterpiece of 3D cinema will ever top MuppetVision 3D
You guys are only thinking about 3D movies at home, when the real appeal will be showing live broadcasts in 3D. Especially sports — watching NFL football in 3D is absolutely amazing. (Granted, I saw it on a theater screen — I’m sure it will lose something on a home screen)
Once 3D sets are commonplace — and a number have already been sold, you just need the adapter box and content — live broadcasts are what will really sell the public, not 30 3D movies on Blu-Ray. (And that’s not even bringing up 3D gaming, which will also be huge)
(And autostereo will be a myth for years to come, unless you’re fine with 1 or 2 people watching the screen from the exact center of the room)
Interesting that so many raise Beowulf in these discussions. I think it is important to make the distinction of whether you saw Beowulf in regular digital 3D or IMAX 3D.
I saw it in the latter. While I tend to have trouble with most 3D that lasts more than 20 minutes or so, I had no such problems with the IMAX 3D Beowulf. No headache, no blurred vision.
And, unlike most, I thought 3D was indispensable to Beowulf. Zemekis resorted to too many cheap 3D tricks, like the spear in the face, but in many scenes, such as the sea monster and dragon scenes, the 3D really did add something.
Remember, we’re not talking about adding depth to Hannah and her Sisters. We’re talking about kicking up the spectacle of Transformers or Iron Man. Under the right conditions, 3D can do that nicely.
I’ve seen Beowulf, Coraline, and Up all in theatrical 3D and enjoyed them.
I’ve since seen Beowulf and Coraline in 2D and still enjoyed them; I believe this is attributable to the fact that these were well-made films and the use of 3D is simply another technique to be artistically applied — which implies that it can also be used poorly, so I’m not really champing at the bit for a My Bloody Valentine 3D sequel.
(But Avatar I’m pretty optimistic about — I haven’t seen any of the footage, but Cameron’s treatments show an amazing attention to detail in his world building.)
And Blu-Ray? Laserdisc of the 21st century. And I’m speaking as someone who has both owned laserdiscs in the past and owns some Blu-Rays now.
The 3-D elements in The Polar Express IMAX are still the best I’ve seen to date.
The 3-D experience on both Coraline and Up added to the depth and atmosphere, but I am betting they’ll both be just as good in 2-D.
I am sort of curious to see some live action 3-D movies but overall, I’m with Bay on the recent 3-D trend — it’s a fad.
Oh yeah…Beowulf was a huge disappointment, both as a movie and as a tech experiment. Not impressed at all with that one, and I am a huuuuge Zemeckis fan.
My understanding is that theaters added 3D projection (and IMAX, or at least IMAX-lite) in order reverse the trend of people watching more movies at home on their new HDTVs. It’s an experience you can’t get at home … except, it seems, now you can. So what are theaters supposed to do now?
I never got a headache, but it did take me about 30 minutes into my first 3D feature (Coraline) before I was comfortable watching it. Every once in a while, I pull the glasses aside and note how fake and flat and boring the 2D version looks (and no, not just because it’s blurry w/o the glasses). I am going to many more movies this year, almost all of them either 3D or IMAX. Mission successful for the theater companies.
Other than a few landscape shots and the dogs “dogfighting,” I didn’t see the advantage of “Up” being in 3-D. I almost think the 3-D effect was done in post production.
“Coraline,” however, seemed designed from the outset to be in 3-D. The tunnel, the cat, those women’s scary boobs…all were made more intense by the effect.
That all being said, I found “Up” to be the better movie. And that being said, I find it odd — and a little discouraging — that these movies are at the top of my list for the year’s best.
“Does anyone around here still think Blu-Ray is just a niche? I laughed at those comments 6 months ago and I laugh at them even more now. 3D capability will just propel that format even more.”
Exactly. As much as I love this site and its posters (the large majority are both passionate and knowledgeable about film history), a lot of the people come off awfully curmudgeonly when discussing new formats and/or technologies here. I guess being a bit more resistant to change is often a part of getting older, but some of the comments here just make me laugh:
“It’s just a fad…”
“Beowulf made my eyes hurt”
“Gives me a headache”
“So gimmicky”
Now I’m not advocating that everything should be 3-D, or even that we should start going back through the backlog of great films and updating all of them to include another dimension. But it is an interesting and potentially immersive technology when used appropriately.
I thought the 3-D in Coraline was excellent, although it is a fine film without it, too.
I thought the 3-D in the remake of My Bloody Valentine was excellent, and was quite frankly about the only reason to see the movie.
I found the 3-D disappointing in Beowulf, although I thought the movie itself was pretty good.
I found the 3-D disappointing in the applicable portions of Superman Returns, and was let down by a movie on the whole (regardless of the 3-D elements).
So, I don’t really get people that say “oh I have no interest in watching a 3-D movie.” It seems like they’re scared the technology will overwhelm the movie (and in some cases, like MBV3-D, this does happen), whereas the fact of the matter is it’s just another tool — which can be used well or poorly — at a filmmaker’s disposal.
This sort of reminds me of the people who started complaining about CGI in film 15 years ago. “Oh, I’ll never watch a movie where they use computers for stunts!” Unless they changed their tune, those people would have missed quite a lot of films — good and bad — over that period. As a matter of fact, I wonder how many 2009 films have been completely untouched by computer images that end up in the final frame.
Whatever it is, I’m willing to bet that it’s a very, very small percentage.
Oh, reading bibliotechnician’s post makes me realize that I forgot about Up. I was going to use that as one of my examples.
I thought the 3-D was extremely underwhelming; agreed that it just seemed tacked-on as an afterthought.
I wasn’t really a big fan of that movie, in general, either. It wasn’t bad, per say, Pixar had just raised the craftsmanship bar so high, it was really only a matter of time before I was disappointed (I had seen everything but Cars).
Just a point — I’m in the thick of the technology industry, right at the intersection of film, videogames, and the internet — and if I have doubts about this particular technology, it’s not because I’m “resistant to change.” It’s because you could fill an encyclopedia with the rosy pronouncements of CEOs about “new, groundbreaking, upcoming products” that they have little to no or understanding of and which appears years after their optimistic projections, if they appear at all.
(Remember, most of these people barely understand the internet, much less the intricacies of 3D projection.)
These dog and pony shows are for the investors and the press; they have no bearing on the feasibility of the technology being discussed, or its actual time to market.
By far, the best use of the 3D format I’ve ever seen was the IMAX Space Station 3D
Because the IMAX screen was so big, it removed the frame of reference at the sides of the picture. As a result, the effect was totally immersive. You seemed to be floating in space with the objects in front of you. My favorite part was when the astronauts threw M&Ms at the camera and I realized the only special effect employed was micro-gravity.
I’ve never seen any of Cameron’s films in the format, but I imagine the effect would be similar for underwater scenes. This is the kind of thing it would be virtually impossible to duplicate at home, regardless of the size of your screen. I think it’s what the studios are shooting for.
Under the Sea in IMAX 3-D was crazy cool
Chris,
I’m not necessarily going to disagree with what you said — 1) because you work in the industry for a living and obviously know your shit, and 2) because I happen to agree with most of what you said.
However, just to play devil’s advocate I would say that having Cameron (spearheading this for many years), Lucas (along with his ILM gang) , Lasseter (along with his Pixar gang), Spielberg, Jackson, Disney, etc. at the forefront of the film branch of this movement, we’re no longer really talking about pencil-pushing CEOs with empty visions. These are people — and to a lesser extent, companies — with proven track records of pushing envelopes and getting things done.
Not to sound too awestruck, but these are exactly the kind of people with the kind of know-how and influence where if they say, “this is where I want 3-D technology to be 5 years from now,” I’m not really sure I’d bet against it.
CitizenKaned,
Good points, I certainly think that theatrical 3D will be a big part of the future, particularly as we move to all digital projection.
But as someone in this (or another) thread noted, the excitement in Hollywood over 3D is precisely analogous to the move from standard to widescreen aspect ratios. It’s a way to differentiate the theatrical experience from what you get at home, particularly in this age of high-def televisions. So while there will certainly be a demand for this technology in the consumer market — and eventually supply to meet that demand — my feeling is that all the groups you mentioned are much too savvy marketeers to rush it out to the home ASAP.
Likewise, there are some real technical issues at work. There’s a few academic papers on autostereo displays available on Google, but nothing that really says to me that we’ll see this on a shelf in Best Buy anytime soon.
Let me put it this way: They’re not expecting a new generation of videogame/entertainment consoles to hit the market before 2012-2013, and Katzenberg is claiming that only two years later they’ll have 3D televisions on store shelves? For any number of reasons, that seems unlikely.
Oh, right, right…Home 3-D. Almost forgot that was the original subject of this thread, I got side-tracked.
Totally agreed.
3-D is just the newest way for corporate Hollywood to fleece its customers out of more money. It starts and ends there.
two words … Wild Palms
HUGE Wild Palms fan (aside from the Jim Belushi miscasting). Ahead of its time.
Porn is what will drive this innovation, one way or another.
The porn industry is always at the forefront. It embraces advancements in technology before everyone else does.
Heh, heh, he said “embraces”…
Dare and the world always yields. lf it beats you sometimes, dare it again and again and it will succumb. Our shox shoes store online tell you one Meaningful words, I hope you can like it.By Nike Shox Qualify
Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job! Thanks))
Best regards, Natali, CEO of frostwire