8mm Forum: 3D TV the end

This is topic 3D TV the end 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=002463

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on February 18, 2013, 02:01 AM:

Oh well that was that...again. I see a good account of 3D TV was on BBC news as 3D continues to fall off with the manufacturers of the TV's complaing of very low uptake and consumer confusion over glasses and many TV's not even coming with glasses. The USA has only 1500 people [Eek!]

watching it at any one time so its looking like this round of 3D is drawing to a close. The cinema side of things is not doing to sell either with regard to 3D with low foot fall figures.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 18, 2013, 03:40 AM:

History repeats itself Lee, all those facts that are recorded of past
events, things that worked and things that didn't, but no one
seems to learn. The sooner 3D ends the better.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on February 18, 2013, 05:47 AM:

Yes, 3D is always something that media seems to fall back on when the industry has a struggle going on if it’s a recession, poor cinema attendances, low digital camera sales or even camcorder sales bringing on 3D camcorders to try and boost a closed market.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 18, 2013, 08:30 AM:

True, true, but don't you just relish the idea of sitting back to watch Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" in full colour HD 3D, or "Creature From the Black Lagoon" in proper B&W 3D, on a big screen plasma??

Probably with the best 3D quality on offer since the 1950's?

[Smile]

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on February 18, 2013, 08:57 AM:

3d has it's place, but not in the home cinema. And even in the cinemas it has degraded. After Avatar, they all jumped on the 3d band wagon. However, the quality was just not there. They always try to find a cheaper way to produce 3d films and it just doesn't work. [Wink]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 18, 2013, 09:41 AM:

In answer to Rob's question, no.The film if it's worth watching at all
doesn't need any gimmicks.I actually find the sound systems in
cinemas distracting and like sound coming from the screen with
the picture in good ol' fashioned 2D.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on February 18, 2013, 10:22 AM:

Nothing to do with 3D, but Hugh, your mailbox is full, can't send you message. Just wanted to say thanks a whole lot and money is transferred

You are super (8) man

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on February 18, 2013, 10:33 AM:

Hugh's mailbox is often full; he gets pestered by all those Bond Girls! They can't get enough of him!
[Smile]

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 18, 2013, 10:36 AM:

Hugh, I'm actually on your side; I find current 3D too much of a "gimmick".

But, sadly, that is because it is over-used. As in the 50's, it has now become the norm for a film to be 3D, even when it really doesn't warrant it, as opposed to being something special. I actually found "Avatar" a fairly average film at best, and the 3D was often presented in a worryingly immature manner, swirling cameras, et al.

When films (or is that movies, as many are now photographed digitally) bolt on 3D as a marketing afterthough, I think it's unnacceptable. Even when it is designed and shot in 3D, you often wonder whether it is time to re-think the language of cinema if you really want it to work...or just forget it and stick to 2D.

But "Hugo" from Scorcese worked in 3D.

Interestingly though, I recently watched Scorcese's "Shutter Island" and found it offered an extraordinary 3D-like quality from the superb 2D camerawork.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, yes, I mostly find 3D a gimmick, but in the right hands, with the right treatment, it can offer that something extra and a little bit special.

After all, cinema is in itself nothing more than a "gimmick", surely?

Indeed, I think defining a "gimmick" is difficult; is Cinemascope a gimmick? Is surround sound really a gimmick? Can you really watch, say, something like "The Empire Strikes Back" in surround, then again with just mono sound, and honestly claim the experience is the same?

If gimmicks don't matter, then maybe we would all be happy watching B&W movies in Academy Ratio, possibly even in silence with subtitles (is a musical score on a movie a gimmick??)

Point is, whilst the history of cinema shows so many innovations being used and abused, there is always that exceptional piece of work that fully benefits from a particular technology, whether it be a new type of lens, camera system, picture ratio, sound system, etc.

Just my thoughts. [Smile]

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on February 18, 2013, 02:39 PM:

Me I'm waiting for "Comin' at Ya!" to be released on 3D [Razz]

Although I could be tempted with "Dial M For Murder" "House O Wax" if they still sell 3D TV's when I need a new one.

Did anyone see Jaws 3D in 3D? For me the best scenes were a crowd scene with the press interviewing people. That looked really good in 3D it was like you could walk down to the screen and step over into the scene. Pity the rest of the film was crap.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 18, 2013, 02:48 PM:

Is it really any surprise that the 3D phenomenon didn't last?

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 18, 2013, 03:17 PM:

Er, didn't last?

Try and buy a decent TV without 3D capability.

David, if I recall, Jaws 3D was produced using Anaglyphic 3D and was a spate of movies in the 80's / 90's using this system.

3D in the 50's didn't use Anaglyphic, despite later re-releases.

The original versions were polarised, with 2 x 35mm projectors running polarised prints. Of course, this was prone to error, if one print was to go out of sync by a frame or two (a break that needed re-splicing, for example). - if only they had 4K digital back then! [Wink]

Those horrrid red / green versions were dished out as cheap cash-in versions during the 70's.

Hence, films such as "Dial M", or "Creature" have never really been seen in their true 3D version for decades.

Last week , I went to the theatre to see a very expensive performance, and I kept instinctively shutting one eye... to see it as it was meant to be seen. [Wink]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 18, 2013, 04:23 PM:

I am certainly impressed with the latest 3D movie I watched at the cinema "Life of Pi" [Cool]

it was visually stunning to watch. 3D effects have improved a huge amount compared with years gone by.

There are quite a few 3D Blu-ray titles out now and if I had a TV that could show them, I would surely give it a go [Smile]

Graham.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 18, 2013, 04:27 PM:

The Life Of Pi was an incredible 3D experience.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 18, 2013, 04:42 PM:

quote:
Er, didn't last?

Try and buy a decent TV without 3D capability.

I just did, Rob. No problem.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 19, 2013, 06:45 AM:

Hi Vidar & Joe, my mailbox is clear now, Vidar I've just put your
western in the pigeon post, so that's winging it's way to you.
Joe, those Bond women only like to get me stripped off for a good laugh, women can be so cruel.

Posted by Desmond Godwin (Member # 2530) on February 19, 2013, 09:04 AM:

Was a time -not that long ago when the centre piece in Currys
Tv and Video Dept. had the sittee with the latest Panasonic 3D TV,or other brand on display. In the beginning folk were queueing anxiously to get into the sittee and don the 3D glasses which were "only handed to you by sales rep." if you intended to sit in front of the set! Now when i visit Currys the sittee set-up is gone but the odd 3D set is blazing away and the glasses are free for all but no one looks intrested!
:Desmond

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on February 19, 2013, 01:42 PM:

I think Jaws 3D was filmed in proper 3D using ArrVision system. This was the polarizing glasses system. Wiki Jaws 3D
Jaws 3D Blu-Ray When I saw it in London it was full colour.

As Eddie Waring the rugby commentator used to say "up 'n' under"

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 19, 2013, 01:59 PM:

Hugh had a good point. If a bad film has 3D added, it doesn't make a bad film any better, just more insulting to the viewer.

I've got to admit, I wouldn't mind seeing Avatat in 3D.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 19, 2013, 02:53 PM:

You're right, David; unfortunately, back in the day at our local cinema in the North-East of England, we only had the anaglyphic version, which is why I remember it that way!

True, Osi, no gimmick will make a bad movie better, but I think that just because most 3D movies are bad, or don't warrant the use of 3D, we should dismiss it altogether.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 19, 2013, 04:03 PM:

I will have to re-visit the cinema to watch this one again, but in "3D" while its on, its short run cinema release this coming April...looking good. [Cool]

.... I cant wait. [Smile]

Graham.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 19, 2013, 05:04 PM:

I see the point you're making Rob,but it's become the "norm" now
that everything is in 3D, thus writing its own demise by becoming
a cheap common thing that as Des pointed out in his local high
street shop, that it was once a novelty, but now is an accepted thing, like colour TV.There's a saying that goes,"Give the public
what they want,and they no longer want it".

Posted by Jonathan Trevithick (Member # 3066) on February 20, 2013, 01:54 AM:

I'm about to sit down and watch "A Liar's Autobiography" on blu-ray. I see 3D is an option (which I don't have) but I'm sure it will be just as funny in 2 dimensions!

Posted by David M. Ballew (Member # 1818) on February 20, 2013, 03:59 AM:

I would like to respond to some of the statements here, hopefully in a spirit of friendliness and respect.

“The sooner 3-D ends, the better.”

With great respect, let me say that my opinion is exactly the opposite. But then you probably could have guessed that, Hugh! [Smile]

“3D is always something that media seems to fall back on when the industry has a struggle going on.”

Very respectfully, I regard this statement as a trope, repeated by unimaginative writers and film critics over the last 60 years. (When I speak of unimaginative people, I emphatically do not mean you, Lee.)

The early 1950s was certainly a period of contraction and retrenchment for the movie industry, and 3-D was indeed regarded as a possible way to stem hemorrhaging at the box office. But in all fairness, Cinerama, anamorphic widescreen, monopack color, stereophonic sound, and 65mm/70mm were also viewed as viable audience lures during the same general period. And no one disparages any of these other items as contemptible gimmicks born of desperation. Perhaps that's because they stuck around long enough to firmly prove their aesthetic worth... something 3-D is only just now able to achieve.

I will actually go so far as to say (if you'll permit me the use of a double negative) that the motion picture industry is never not struggling. Movies are a notoriously risky investment, even in the best of times. And frankly, not every producer is an artist or a born storyteller, and we cannot necessarily blame producers if they look for special enhancements to set their products apart in the marketplace.

“They always try to find a cheaper way to produce 3d films and it just doesn't work.”

With great respect, virtually all competitive industries in a free market seek less expensive means of production, whether they are making widgets or 3-D movies.

But, Pat, I figure you may have in mind some of the lackluster conversion jobs fobbed off on audiences in recent years. Cheap indeed! I agree that there has been some shoddy 3-D conversion work, but in all fairness stereoscopic conversion is still a young art form, subject to much experimentation and refinement. Moreover, free markets have a way of naturally weeding out inferior products, giving me great faith that conscientious 3-D conversions will survive and poor ones will fall by the wayside.

“The film if it's worth watching at all doesn't need any gimmicks.”

Couldn't agree more, Hugh. Sunrise and the silent films of Harold Lloyd are special favorites of mine. They lack color, sound, and wide aspect ratios, but they’re darn fine movies all the same. My position is that color, sound, and widescreen are not gimmicks unless treated as such… and in my view, the very same goes for 3-D.

“Is it really any surprise that the 3D phenomenon didn't last?”

Interesting that you should say that, Michael. I see 24 native-shot 3-D films slated for release in 2013, as against 16 post-converted 3-D films in the same time frame. That’s forty feature-length 3-D motion pictures this year alone, compared against fifty released between the fall of 1952 and the spring of 1955.

“The Life Of Pi was an incredible 3D experience.”

I respect what you are saying, Paul, but for the record I feel that the framing story in Life of Pi was way too timid in its use of parallax. I frankly have seen deeper, rounder coins. I was bitterly disappointed with Life of Pi, but on the other hand I am glad that a critically respected 3-D film came along in time for an Oscar nomination.

Ah! So now I've gotten it all off my chest. Thanks for indulging me my little late-night rebuttal, gang. And let me underscore this: disagree with you though I may, I have profound respect and (if I may say so) brotherly affection for each of you!

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 20, 2013, 06:45 AM:

Hi Dave, and thanks for those very interesting views.I also have
a very high regard for my fellow members, it's like a small family
with all its trials and tribulations, no end of fun.When I said on
regarding 3D in cinema " the sooner it ends the better", I wasn't
meaning it in a vindictive way, but rather like sitting through a home
movie that someone has made with a new cine camera with a
10-1 zoom lens that they use like a trombone zooming in on everything in sight,until it becomes a chore to sit through.
Good film making doesn't need gimmicks, the award winning film "The Artist" uses the tools of the silent cinema as a gimmick.If all films did the same, then the effect would surely pall.The "added bonus of 3D" has been done to death, even in
it's heyday, it didn't really add a lot to the storylines,"HOUSE
OF WAX" being a prime example.Then the glasses were supplied
free to the patrons, now they are charged,unasked but paid for.
The film industry as a whole has backed itself into a corner and
is really grasping at straws,films are made for the teen audiences and quality has been forgotten.The question I always
ask myself "Would I want it on the bootlace" as a rough test
of its repeatability,including its 3D addition.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 20, 2013, 08:08 AM:

David - I read your post with great interest and I'm sure you're setting the record straight in some respects. In view of your knowledge of 3D and the industry in general, I wondered if you feel the current level of 3D production is commercially justified? I'm puzzled by it because of the evidence we hear of waning interest from the public, which include a report I saw about a year ago which indicated that in the USA, the 2D screenings of 3D films were usually doing better business than the 3D ones! The conclusion was that a major big budget film like 'Avatar' that handles the 3D well does commercially benefit from a 3D release, but that the market was overloaded with films that don't gain any benefit from being in 3D, and these could even dampen enthusiasm for it when the 3D is sub-standard. So the question is, are distributors refusing to acknowledge and respond to the facts, or are such reports highly misleading?

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on February 20, 2013, 09:24 AM:

I remember as a youngster in the early fifties seeing 3D in the cinema and finding the effect sometimes varied during the showing. Years later I found the possible reason when I worked as a cinema projectionist. The old timers informed me that the films,which were shown via two machines (using carbon arcs, which were standard), and unscrupulous operators would use up carbon ends, necessitating the loss of picture from one projector while the ends were replaced.
It was dog eat dog even in those days!

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on February 20, 2013, 01:08 PM:

Even if this is the end of 3D it will be back again someday, it's happened before and it will again.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 20, 2013, 03:41 PM:

Exactly Steve,there are all those millions of unborn people who
are gonna experience first hand, the nausea,headaches and
general feeling that they've just been mugged, but done in the best possible taste.Lucky them.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on February 20, 2013, 04:02 PM:

You never know: someday they may just get it exactly right.

-remember the Holodeck on Star Trek? It was immersive and interactive.

Then again people would probably just wind up using it for porn anyway...

"Ensign! There is no smoking cigarettes on this ship!"
"Sorry Sir, I just got off the holodeck!"

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on February 20, 2013, 04:46 PM:

I always had, and always will have, a fascination for 3-D films. I hope to upgrade my video projector to a 3-D capable model soon [Big Grin]

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on February 20, 2013, 05:34 PM:

The only recent film I saw in 3-D was Tron Legacy. Now I thought they used it to great effect...in the real world the film was flat but inside the computer the film was 3-D really giving you the impression that you were somewhere different.

But generally I don't care for 3-D movies...I experience it every day with my eyes open! Also I think the post started talking about 3-D TV and it has morphed into 3-D cinema!

Bill [Smile]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 20, 2013, 06:33 PM:

Well i suppose both go hand in hand these days Bill,with the TV
trade apeing the cinema.The 3D fad will eventually fizzle out like
so many before it.

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on February 23, 2013, 04:43 AM:

I agree that 3D TV isn't such a turn-on but I can't disagree more about 3D Cinema and 3D Home Cinema (the only way to experience 3D at home IMO). I've a 1080 3D DLP PJ projecting a 12 foot wide 3D Blu Ray image and sitting 10 foot away from the 3D image is so adsorbing I can't be more pleased, in fact friends say it's far better than watching 3D at the cinema. I've a large collection of 3D Blu Ray titles too and so many have repeatability.

With the release of 3D classics such as CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and DIAL M FOR MURDER having much care and attention taken over their transfer to HD 3D BR with presentations as good as, if not better than, their original theatrical release why would any truly passionate film enthusiast talk it down? Not to mention HUGO, a fasinating story about a pioneering film maker with excellent use of 3D. To be honest I can't remember he last time I got so excited about an 8mm release.

Best,
Rick

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on February 23, 2013, 05:16 AM:

Creature From The Black Lagoon
Dial M For Murder
House Of Wax
Hondo
It Came from Outer Space
Kiss Me Kate
The Mad Magician
Revenge of the Creature
Son of Sinbad?

They are the ones I enjoyed 'flat' I would like to see them in 3D though. "Avatar" is not on my list I found it boring flat and as usual with modern films over hyped.
I would imagine that 3D works better projected than on TV?

Thinking about 3D the 3 strip Technicolor films some of them gave an almost 3D effect.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 23, 2013, 05:26 AM:

Slightly off topic, but I had to share this with you guys...tonight I'm showing Batman, The Dark Knight, to a group of friends who haven't seen our little home cinema before...and it is slightly tricky in that the screen ratio changes from 2.35:1 to 16:9 for the action scenes (as per the IMAX presentation - curse you Warner Bros.!!) so I've decided to make a much bigger screen area for the 16:9 sequences so that the image goes from scope to massive!!

Any, I must be a bit worried about it all, because last night I had a nightmare where I was attempting to show a 3D polarised film with 2 x Elmo ST1200's!!

I had to start them off manually in sync and hope they kept in sync for each reel. [Eek!]

Woke up in a cold sweat!! [Eek!]

Posted by Jeroen van Ooijen (Member # 1104) on February 23, 2013, 05:42 AM:

My experience is very good with 3d,last i buy a 3d projector the Optoma HD300X,and it's amazing to see movies as Madagascar and Tintin on a hugh screen at home,and it's really better then in Cinemas where i normally has the feeling that i see double.Advise use shutterglasses then i'm sure you people are not dissapointed [Big Grin]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 23, 2013, 06:02 AM:

Someday the public will wisen up to the fact that the 3D in cinemas is a rip off,they are in effect being charged twice for admission with the glasses.Never give a sucker an even break.

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on February 23, 2013, 07:28 AM:

...of course it's all commercially driven but if it keeps people going to and thinking about cinema that's a good thing isn't it?

Isn't this why we have colour, surround sound, CinemaScope, 3D, and not to mention the likes of smell-o-rama, sensurround, Cinerama, Imax, etc. etc. etc. We'd still be watching B/W Silent movies if it wasn't all about the money.

Charging double to see a movie in 3D isn't unfair, after all you're seeing 2x movies at the same time! [Big Grin]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 23, 2013, 07:33 AM:

That's why the patrons are leaving with headaches!

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on February 23, 2013, 07:48 AM:

Well I'm very pleased to say that isn't my and many others experience.

Having two eyes with both open at the same time is NOT adequate equipment for 3D viewing. Indeed 'those' patrons are likely to have a visual imparement they are unaware of, many don't even see true 3D depth in the real world let alone a cinema. Commonly those comments come from older generations who base their remarks on previous experiences and have never watched a flawless digital 3D presentation... unlike ERII [Cool]

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on February 23, 2013, 08:24 AM:

We have a friend who becomes nauseous watching 3D and she is in her early 40s. She is a pretty adventurous person normally, but there's just something there that disagrees with her. We had to see Toy Story 3 in 2D with her. I didn’t think it diminished the movie at all.

I've really enjoyed some of the 3D movies I've seen, other times it struck me that it was kind of hokey because everything on screen looked like a flat object floating in 3 dimensional space. It can be done better or worse.

We saw Hugo in 3D and it was great. We see it 2D at home and it's still great. In cases like that the story is the thing and the 3D is take it or leave it. In an action movie the effect could be more important.

In a sense all movies are 3D and always have been, it's just that most of the time our brains work with perspective and fill in the missing depth. Because of this 3D makes a lot less difference than color or sound. Our brains can't fill in those details when they aren't there.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 23, 2013, 09:04 AM:

All those examples you gave Ricky of innnovation in presentation
have not added to good story telling, as the film "The Artist"
proved.A good story in a beautiful leather bound tome, is just as
good when read in paperback.

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on February 23, 2013, 09:37 AM:

I seem to have misunderstood; I thought this thread was with regards to the technology.

However, I will say that watching natural history films and documentaries shot in 3D is a wondrous experience especially when viewed with kids, definitely adding an added dimension to the story telling and allowing you to be transported into lifelike situations you’ll most likely never be privileged to experience in life.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 23, 2013, 09:52 AM:

No , this thread kicked off on the future of 3D TVs, and has included 3d cinema as well.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 23, 2013, 12:47 PM:

Ricky

Good point regarding the use of 3D in natural histoy. Although I dont have a 3D TV, looking at some of the blu-ray titles already avaliable and if I had 3D, it would certainly add another exciting dimension to viewing such movies.

Movies like "Hugo" and in particular "The Life of Pi" really need to be watched in 3D. Although the stories of both movies are both good, the 3D takes the viewing experience to a higher level than 2D.

I feel 3D and in particular with digital projection in cinemas, its here to stay, however it needs to settle down a bit.

I agree not everyone can watch 3D, my wife is one, and thats a pity because if she could, she surely would have enjoyed "The Life of Pi".

Graham.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on February 23, 2013, 12:52 PM:

Hi guys, having read all of your opinions with great respect I thought I should add my own. I believe many are steering clear of 3D TV because of a. The recession. (It has to be remembered that for the past 3 years in the U.K. we have all had to change from analogue to digital, just prior to the introduction of 3D TV which not only affected TV sets but also video recording equipment tuners. B. To be really effective it requires a whopping great flat screen and most u.k. houses have quite small rooms. As for the movies, how many are really enhanced by being in 3D? There is another aspect that affects those of us who do not have perfect eyesight. Wearing glasses over glasses is a no no. It may be just the way my brain works, but when I watch a movie in 2D where scenes are shot in short focus they look 3 dimensional anyway, and don't give me a headache!!!
I think 3D movies cause eyestrain as we are trying to focus on both foreground and background at the same time, which we do not do in real life. Ken Finch.

Posted by David M. Ballew (Member # 1818) on February 25, 2013, 07:07 PM:

Very respectfully, let me point out that this thread has always been about 3-D in general, the title of the thread notwithstanding. Consider the very first posting:

…its looking like this round of 3D is drawing to a close. The cinema side of things is not doing to sell either with regard to 3D with low foot fall figures.

Even so, many good conversations have a way of winding their way over all sorts of topical terrain, just as this one has. I do not think we are always expected to be slavishly attentive to the title of a given topic.

Now, Adrian, in response to your post of February 20:

I generally feel the current level of 3-D production is commercially justified. Yes, Hollywood is sometimes outrageously profligate in its spending, and in ways that have no positive impact on the bottom line. (Think of the inflated salaries sometimes paid for stars with few recent hits, to cite just one example.) But I am convinced that the bean counters in the executive towers would not abide the expense of 3-D filming (or even 3-D post-conversion) if it did not have some positive impact on grosses or did not add value to a title as a future library property.

All that being said, I am sympathetic to those who experience physical discomfort, fatigue, and even nausea from stereoscopic movies. I am a huge 3-D fan, and I am glad that 3-D is making its presence felt, but like many of you, I am all in favor that 2-D screenings should be made readily available for those who simply cannot enjoy 3-D.

Three-D does require a generally healthy and robust pair of eyes, eyes that can work as a team. The muscles of the eyes are doing things in any stereoscopic presentation that they do not necessarily do in other ordinary leisure activities, like seeing 2-D movies, watching 2-D television, reading, et cetera.

I do feel (as stereoscopic pioneer Julian Gunzburg did) that stereoscopic movies can make patrons aware of hitherto undiagnosed eyesight issues, and that stereoscopic movies can provide an amusing way to exercise the eyes and train them to work as a pair.

But if this latter idea be true, then perhaps 3-D movies are akin to, say, a Stairmaster at the gym. I like Stairmasters; I lost a lot of weight a few years ago by climbing on one every day. I really dig the way I feel climbing on one, and the way I feel when I climb down off it. But I notice a lot of folks at my gym really shy away from the Stairmaster. Climbing on one is just too much work, or too much fatigue, or too much whatever. So even though I like the Stairmaster—and even though I want to “stick up” for the Stairmaster as a useful thing, not to be dismissed or discarded—I don’t want to force people to use the Stairmaster if it’s just not their thing. And the same goes for 3-D movies.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on February 26, 2013, 04:46 AM:

quote:
that stereoscopic movies can make patrons aware of hitherto undiagnosed eyesight issues

Slightly off main topic. Teletext here in the UK made me aware to eyesight problem, it was getting blurred. I needed glasses for distance.

Must say when I watched the 3 3D films in the 80's I had no problem with headaches or anything else.

Unable to really comment on 3D TV only seen demo's in Curry's PC World. For some reason they seem wrong. Now to me a demo should look fantastically real, but they don't to me. Too much in 'your face stuff' puts me off them. One was even showing a 2D programme (tennis) in, for want of a better word 2.5D boy was that crap.

Like I said in my earlier post there are some films I would like to see in 3D, but to watch all the time no way.

Don't think you see 2x the movies in 3D, don't they half the resolution for each eye? So you should be paying less.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 26, 2013, 12:07 PM:

Ken hit on a good point there ,when he said about focusing on
foregound & background images simultaneously,the whole ethos
of cine is persistance of vision that kids the brain into thinking
that the image on screen is in continuous movement, so to take
it a stage further as Ken suggested,could confuse the brain and cause upsets etc for some when viewing 3D.

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on March 04, 2013, 11:44 AM:

Enough. 3D isn't going anywhere. In fact, it never really has.

Stereoscopy photography dates back to pre-cinema days. When moving pictures were invented, 3D wasn't far behind. Alas, most, if not all stereoscopy silent movies are probably gone forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_pre-2005#Pre-1952_films

3D continuted into the the talking era (1930's to 1940's) and gained in popularity with the 1952 release of Bwana Devil.

Since 1952, 3D has been in near constant use. The popularity of it has gone through ups and downs but filmmakers continued to use stereoscopy regardless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_pre-2005

Not to mention that stereoscopy has been in use in the medical field for decades.

The current advances in stereoscopy technology has ensured that 3D is here to stay. Permanently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films

Many 3D movies are in production. Both converted and native. Conversions are getting surprisngly good.

TV's are on track to making 3D a permanent option (announced a couple of years ago). Which is all it ever was/is. An OPTION. No 3D capable TV is 3D "all the time" as many think. Poor selling/marketing.

No, 3D isn't as popluar as it was just a few years ago. That's normal and to be expected. The bloom of the new 3D tech has worn off. But that happens with EVERY new tech. Does not mean 3D is done for. 3D is alive and well and not going anywhere.

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on March 04, 2013, 06:45 PM:

Thomas

I like your drawings!

PatD

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on March 05, 2013, 12:07 AM:

Thanks, Pat!

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on March 07, 2013, 03:32 AM:

I think this is one of those threads that will be great to re-visit in 5 years or so and see who was right and who was wrong! [Smile]

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on March 19, 2013, 10:13 AM:

Interestingly 3D TV's accounted for one third of all TV sales in the UK in 2012...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21828961

...and the Dr WHO 50th Anniversary Special, due to begin filming in April, will be broadcast in 3D around the show's birthday in November 2013. [Cool]

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on March 20, 2013, 09:45 AM:

Yup they are having another go at a 3D Doctor Who the first being shown on TV in 1993 'Dimensions in Time'.. Things never change. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 20, 2013, 11:53 AM:

I remember that Dr Who. Didn't the 3D effect only work on right camera movement?

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on March 20, 2013, 12:13 PM:

"Dimensions In Time" used the Pulfrich method of 3D.

Pulfrich involves filming using constant horizontal movement either with the camera or objects within the frame (ie; the floating heads of the DOctor's in the Rani's TARDIS).

The glasses for Pulfrich use one clear lens and one dark. This causes a delay in light reaching one eye. When combined with the horizontal movement of a filmed image, a pretty good amount of depth can be achived.

Very few productions used Pulfrich due to the fact that the horizontal movement need for the effect to work cannot be maintained for very long. Also, the effect can fall apart after several minutes.

The Saturday morning cartoon "Yo! Yogi" used Pulfrich for the chase scenes that climaxed each episode. A VHS tape containing the series pilot and all the Pulfrich scenes was a cereal giveaway. I still have mine. [Smile]

The new Doctor WHO special will be filmed using the newest 3D tech. This has been confirmed by the producers. Hopefully a Blu-Ray release will follow.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 20, 2013, 01:50 PM:

Dr Who was proberly ahead of its time [Big Grin]

None stop camera movements most films seem like that now. Channel Four has had 2 attempts at 3D on standard TV. I think they transmitted "Fort Ti" in a kind of 3D.

I think its like most things, some do look good in 3D. The odd in your face is not too much, all the time boring.

Posted by Oscar Iniesta (Member # 1731) on March 20, 2013, 04:41 PM:

I am going to tell you my point of view from Spain. Movies use to be the same again and again, so quality is low. Prices are high and we have to survive to this big crack. With 3D they have stolen expensive prices for not real 3D films, as you has said. People is not stupid, or not so stupid after a time.
I usually compare this years of CGI and 3D with the era of westerns, when they produced hundreds of cheap ones, with the 50´s Sci-Fi fashion, when they produced hundreds of bad films, and with the 70´s xplotation movies. Better times will come.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on March 21, 2013, 08:16 AM:

Right on all counts David. The camera had to be moving and used the semi dark/clear lenses. Looked OK but I got dizzy after 5 minutes of the camera whizzing around good old Jon Pertwee. Fort Ti was transmitted in Philips sort of anaglyph and still got my VHS.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 21, 2013, 08:30 AM:

Oscar has put it in a nutshell, cinema comes in phases.

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on March 23, 2013, 05:56 AM:

FORT TI was transmitted in 'comic book' anaglyphic 3D across the UK on the ITV network by Southern TV Southampton 0n 05/12/82...

Here's a link to a few clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoNAnuloCgA

http://www.top3dtv.com/?videosga=ITV_Commercial_break_3D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQCeMIQpFBc And squint with the Right eye!

http://www.nurofen.co.uk/plus.php [Big Grin]

Pulfrich used on the Dr WHO/EASTENDERS sequences Thomas mentions ran in two parts on 26th/27th Nov 1993 in special editions for Children in Need... it's an effective phenomenon however not very practical. Anaglyphic use to present Colour films in 3D was always a mistake, it's bad enough on B/W! It's not surprising that with all of these previous inferior presentation methods used in the home (or ill equipped cinemas) attempting to emulate the quality of the original Polarised projection systems that it's little wonder the publics perception of 3D has been 'twisted'...

Thank goodness for technological advances in this field.

Best,
Rick

[ March 23, 2013, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Ricky Daniels ]

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on March 23, 2013, 09:19 AM:

Hugh. sometimes in comes in mains electric 3 phases [Eek!]

Ah good old real world programme with Michael Rodd not mention Sue Jay!

Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on March 24, 2013, 07:23 PM:

A recent survey of prospective new TV buyers in U.S.A. found less than 20% have a desire to purchase 3-D capabilty . The hottest new feature in TV is internet connectivity.

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on March 25, 2013, 03:32 AM:

IMHO 90% of all 3D-TVs are only used to watch 3D-"adult movies". Hence the owners don't care about what's shown on the advertising-infected TV-channels...

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on March 25, 2013, 04:15 AM:

The thing is, will people ditch the old 3D tv models they have recently purchased when the new ultra HD models land shortly?

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on March 25, 2013, 05:22 AM:

Not if they have any sense. As a retired TV engineer my philosophy is " a TV set is for life"..... which simply means "use it until it dies, and then buy a new one". By which time the "new" one will will have technology far in advance of the old one, even if you buy "last year's model" at a cracking reduction in price.

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on March 25, 2013, 05:00 PM:

Most people use 3D TV for sports and movies not porn. Hate it when people generalize like that.

I've said it before: 3D is going to become a permanant option on ALL TVs. This is fact. That includes the new Ultra HD sets coming. 3D is in the specs, I checked.

Ultra HD sets will cost two to three times more than standard HD sets for at least the next few years. So, no one will be replacing their TVs just yet.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 25, 2013, 05:30 PM:

Did they ever make "Chesty Morgan and Her Deadly Weapons" in 3D now that's frighting [Roll Eyes]

When my current TV dies the replacement will be 3D or whatever is about 6 to 12 months old technology.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 26, 2013, 12:43 PM:

Yer confusind 3D with "Double D" Dave, Chesty didn't need any
help in that dept.

Posted by David M. Ballew (Member # 1818) on April 01, 2013, 04:28 AM:

Those of you in Southern California may wish to know they're having one more World 3-D Film Expo in September.

Follow this link for details: http://3-dfilmexpo.com/

I had festival passes for the first two expos, but this time around I will content myself with a handful of carefully selected tickets. I am very much looking forward to seeing Dragonfly Squadron, paired with the Marciano-Walcott fight short feature from 1953. Both have been out of circulation for many years. In fact, they say this is the first time Squadron will have played in 3-D before a paying audience.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on July 23, 2013, 05:38 AM:

Well that’s the end of 3D TV then as the BBC announced it would be scheduling no new 3D programming. It had to end as 3D history has dictated before…

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on July 23, 2013, 05:57 AM:

I think some of those 3D films from the 1950s, only exist now as 2D prints. I bought one of those 3D camcorders of Ebay; complete waste of money. I found there was a free programme that could turn your HD camcorder shots into HD 3D. I tried it with a few clips and the results were better than the camcorder. It's just a novelty, and you soon tire of wearing glasses.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2