8mm Forum: The end of 3D?

This is topic The end of 3D? in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001913

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 13, 2011, 04:25 PM:

Nothing new with 3D since it has been here since 1970s. In fact there are so many people who are not enjoying 3D at all (include me).

and now:

Howell: Making the world flat again with 2-D glasses

to sum-up the article, someone invented a 2D glasses to be used in 3D screen.

The 2 D glasses can be purcahsed here:

http://www.2d-glasses.com/

Perhaps you will be asking why someone is paying more for 3D film but then making it flat again with this 2D glasses. Several people have to go to 3D cinema because of accompanying their kids or girl/boy friends.

What a funny invention!

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on August 13, 2011, 04:55 PM:

Winbert

I wish I had thought of that. And at 7.99 a real bargain. I took my grandkids to see Avatar and ended up dizzy and with a migraine. But, they had fun. Now, if I had a pair of those glasses then it would have been so much more enjoyable. Somebody is always thinking. [Confused]

Pat

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on August 14, 2011, 05:33 AM:

Just at the moment I hoped 3D was fading away again after another failed revival I see blasted great posters up and down the Cinema walls promoting a movie wonder in‘AROMA-SCOPE’ . Is it me or is it the 50’s all over again as the scratch and sniff cards come out again? Sky Kids 4 in Aroma-Scope opens on the 19th here and my guess is this will shortly mark the demise of 3D before very long, at least once we have had the electric shock leads fitted to the seats! Lets hope the film makers can soon get back to some decent scripts instead of cheap tricks for our entertainment... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 14, 2011, 06:07 PM:

It seems to me that "eyes" and "ears" are having different social type.

For ears, the clearer sound produced and the more realistic sound heard, people will appraise that.

But it is different with eyes that they are very slow to adapt new things and tend to stick with the previous things.

3D is an example and many movie goers (not kids or people who just start watching movies) are enjoying this technology, and in fact got some problems with 3D and prefer to watch flat.

The same thing also happens on film frame speed that since the modern movies was introduced in 1940s, the frame per second (fps) is stand on 24 fps until now. Whatever the new technology we have now, people prefer to watch movie on 24 fps. When Video was introduced later on and using 30 fps, celluloid film never changed.

Nowadays some movies have been using HD camera (Video) and not films, but the funny thing, instead of using its original speed of 30 fps, the HD video is "downgrading" it into 24 fps.

If we play our super 8mm film on a variable speed projector and increase the speed into almost 30 fps, then we will watch more video look. We will not comfortable with that.

Perhaps, what is now happening with 3D is similar to that.

my 2 cents,

winbert

ps: on joking side, when we were in the High School and crushed on to a girl, but one day the girl was dressing up more than usual (slut mode "on"), suddenly our feeling says "she looked better yesterday" [Razz]

. Probably that is the social type of our eyes.

Posted by David Michael Leugers (Member # 166) on August 17, 2011, 01:04 PM:

3D, digital projection... it all means the end of my going to the theater to see a "movie". Yeah, I'm getting to be an oldster, but that is not the reason. Digital projection on a large screen leaves me with dry eyes, headaches, and an uncomfortable viewing experience. 3D will only make it worse. There is another very strange effect digital projection has upon me. After viewing the film, I have a hard time recalling the movie. I can remember bits and pieces but not the way I can recall a movie that was film projected. Very strange.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on August 17, 2011, 01:09 PM:

quote:
There is another very strange effect digital projection has upon me. After viewing the film, I have a hard time recalling the movie. I can remember bits and pieces but not the way I can recall a movie that was film projected. Very strange.

Ya know that's not unique to you.
Someone else posted somewhere a link to some research into this which proves just exactly what you said. I wish I could remember where. It may even have been on this forum.
Anyone else recall seeing this?

Posted by Kurt Gardner (Member # 440) on August 17, 2011, 06:29 PM:

I predicted in my blog last year that the dark, headache-inducing upconversions to 3D from 2D would put the nail in its coffin, along with the astronomical admission prices.

http://www.weirdmovievillage.com/2010/04/3d-upconversion-backlash.html

Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on August 25, 2011, 08:51 PM:

A local theater owner tells me that the screens in the city playing 2D are doing the same volume of ticket sales as the 3D screens with the same title.

Posted by David Michael Leugers (Member # 166) on August 25, 2011, 09:32 PM:

quote:
Ya know that's not unique to you.
Someone else posted somewhere a link to some research into this which proves just exactly what you said. I wish I could remember where. It may even have been on this forum.
Anyone else recall seeing this?

I didn't think I could be the only one. Good to know I haven't completely lost my marbles... Really sad to see what has transpired at the cinema. Just when film projection was really perfected, it gets shoved aside for something less.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on August 26, 2011, 12:43 PM:

Yeah, it's lost all attraction for me. We no longer get a projected image on a screen, just digital information converted into what looks similar to a projected image.
Artificial cinema. Yeeeuuuuch!!

Posted by Wayne Tuell (Member # 1689) on August 26, 2011, 04:51 PM:

My stubborn ass still has not been to a digital theater, let along a digital 3-D flick. I know the day will come where there is not more choices in what projection we see in the theaters...but until that day comes, I will take the celluloid showing theaters first.

FWIW...all of our cars are from the 20th century too [Big Grin]

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on August 26, 2011, 05:15 PM:

Wayne, I have not seen a digital 3D movie yet either. I am curious to see what it's like but I think that is all it is, a curiosity.

One thing I am curious about as well is the screen. Does it have to be a special coating on the screen to make it work? The reason I ask is I've been shooting 3D View-Master reels for a while now and you need to have a silver screen to project it in 3D. Otherwise it doesn't work. To view the View-Master reels on a screen you have to wear special polarized glasses rather than the blue and red ones. I'm not sure how the new 3D glasses work.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on August 27, 2011, 12:57 AM:

The pros here can correct my technical details if I get it wrong, but here's my take: all of the polarized systems require a special-coated silver screen and the majority of the light is lost. So either you have an insanely bright system to start with (Imax digital does well), a smaller screen, or it's just not very bright. Worse, the coated screens tend to have a hot-spot effect, so the brightness ends up being uneven. This intrusion will happen with all movies on that screen, obviously, whether 2D or 3D. So now all movies suffer on account of the 3D craze.

I saw a few minutes of Dolby 3D at Disneyland earlier this summer, and it was really impressive. Apparently it doesn't require the silver coating, and the glasses got out of the way better than anything else I've seen. (Usually I want to keep cleaning them, even new ones right out of the wrapper.) Someday I'd like to see a feature in Dolby 3D to see if it holds up under more scrutiny. I'd be curious what professionals think actually looks best.

The differences locally between cinemas are apalling. I don't go to movies much, and it's really discouraging that all the local ones are Edwards/UA houses now 100% converted to Sony 4K projectors that are terribly underlit. That's ironic considering that some of the best-looking, bright film experiences I've ever had were formerly at the same house. Last digital movie I saw was Cars in 3D, and purposely went out of my way (to AMC in this case) to try to find something brighter, and we did well by them.

But give me a matte screen with richly saturated film color and a bright crisp 35mm picture any day for something like Cars 2. I think if most people could see the difference side by side, they'd be astounded. As it is, most haven't a clue what they're missing.

For a really great technical discussion of this, including footlambert numbers for brightness (or lack thereof), read the first post in this discussion over at the "pro" side of this site. I found it quite... illuminating.

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on August 29, 2011, 11:27 AM:

The polarized glasses are similar to wearing sunglasses so I see where the brightness is an issue. As far as viewing my View-Master reels, the best image and 3D effect is with the hand-held viewer, not the projector.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 29, 2011, 01:23 PM:

3D comes and goes and the fad will no doubt be back.

The question is, where will it be seen?, just on a little monitor onn your PC, or in a straight downloadable movie from the studio on your big plasma (or otherwise) TV on the wall?

I love the "quaint-ness" of the old 50's red/green glasses 3D best. In fact, if you use those red/green glasses, the effect is, well, quite affective!

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on August 29, 2011, 04:13 PM:

Bill-The AMC in Burbank has the dimmest projector I've seen. I'm surprised the one in Santa Clarita is good. Take a trip downtown to the Imax theater and watch some thing like Deep Sea 3D or Hubble 3D, it's playing there now, and you might change your mind. At least the last time I was there it was showing the films on FILM.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on August 29, 2011, 10:05 PM:

I'd like to hear an opinion on Technicolor's 35mm 3D system, but despite it having been installed in over 500 screens, I'm yet to find anyone on a forum who has seen it.

USA members who would like to see the alternative to digital 3D can see a map of installations via the North America tab here:
http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/3d/35mm-3d-in-the-theatre

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on August 29, 2011, 11:00 PM:

Larry, we need to get together next time. I did Hubble 3D with my kids several weeks ago down at the Science Center! Yes, that is what Imax is supposed to be, I agree! Definitely film, and other than the hot-spot effect on the screen, the 3D is excellent. Glad to see the documentaries are still film-based, and boy, do they look amazing.

The AMC I was referring to is the former Cineplex Odeon, at the Universal Citywalk. That's where we saw Cars 2. The entire place is now digital with the exception of their Imax screen, which was showing the Harry Potter film in 3D film Imax (wouldn't that print be something like 15 miles of film?), and a staffer didn't think that would be going away any time soon because they had a clientele based on that "choice." Hmmm, go figure. Anyway, "Cars" was enjoyable enough with their presentation. Sorry to hear that Burbank is bad... I seem to have lucked out, then.

Ironically, AMC Burbank is where I first saw digital projection, all the way back with Star Wars Episode 1. There is no question that many current installations are inferior in brightness to the early DLP/standard screen combinations. That one looked decent, to my eye only bested by film at the extremes of bright or dark. Too bad some standards have slipped since then in the name of "progress."

Another irony is that the AMC Burbank at one point not all that long ago tested the Technicolor over/under film 3D system, and then decided to take all their film out anyway. Must have wanted 100% automation?

Adrian, I'd love to give your suggestion a try, but the only LA-area theaters that have it are both smaller facilities far off of my beaten path. Good for the smaller places that can do this as an alternative to spending $100,000 per screen to get rid of film -- I wonder if their shows actually look better and brighter, or if the lens/polarization systems kill it for them too.

EDIT: Missed one the first time I looked -- Regency Granada Hills has it. I'll be keeping an eye on that, might just be able to take a peek sometime.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on August 30, 2011, 12:28 AM:

Adrian, I have seen Technicolor 3D and it was very good. Good brightness and great depth; it was a small screen however.

On 3D, here is a tell-tale sign, Alvin and Chipmonks 3: Chipwrecked, was 3D, now 2D only. It will be out at Christmas.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on September 18, 2011, 12:17 AM:

Update: just saw THIS ARTICLE, in which the words "death" and "3-D" are uttered in the same headline. Thought that was a worthy update to this thread.

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on September 18, 2011, 06:23 AM:

Thanks Bill. great story.

PatD

Posted by John Davis (Member # 1184) on September 18, 2011, 06:42 AM:

Excellent spot Bill, this backs up officially what a lot of us have worked out anecdotally.
I have found the few 3D films I have seen recently visually disappointing. I enjoyed the final Harry Potter film in spite of, rather than because of, it being in 3D.
John

Posted by William Hatfield (Member # 2759) on October 08, 2011, 09:16 AM:

Actually I enjoy Viewmaster reels projected on 40x40 lenticular with trusty VM500 infinitely more than any mono 35mm slide presentation.0

Have 3 projectors Keystone 8mm movie, Nord 35mm Stereo Realist, VM 500, all in primo shape from the '50s.

On the other hand 3D video is not very appealing to me.

Most photographs in the 1800's were stereo. Only when cheap prints viewable without glasses were invented did 2D print photos really catch on...

My point: strange that movies in 3D never popular as 3D prints and slides to me or the general public, it looks like...

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on October 08, 2011, 09:21 PM:

I've just read the article mentioned by Bill above. I knew there were doubts about 3D but it's staggering to read that at least in the USA, the 2D screenings of most 3D films are doing better business. Unless the situation is very different elsewhere, surely the quantity of 3D films will rapidly decline, although there still seems to be plenty at the moment.

The unfortunate thing for film enthusiasts is that 3D has been a major factor is speeding up the rate of digital installations.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on October 09, 2011, 01:20 AM:

Yesterday we watched some 3D in a store on a LED big TV [Roll Eyes]

I must admit it did look good, however after a few minutes I got bored. I cant imagine people sitting there watching 3D all the time without going totally ga..ga.. [Eek!]

My wife tried the glasses and lasted 30 seconds or their abouts and afterwards felt a bit dizzy, one thing for sure 3D is not for everyone.

Graham.

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on November 02, 2011, 12:00 PM:

The backlash over 3D is getting pretty bad, now their going to 1D [Big Grin]

Transformers in 1D

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2