Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Movies Graphics Entertainment

Has 3D Film-Making Had Its Day? 436

dryriver sends this hopeful note from the BBC: "'It's three years since audiences around the world swarmed into cinemas to see James Cameron's Avatar. It rapidly became the biggest grossing film of all time, in part because of its ground-breaking digital 3D technology. But, in retrospect, Avatar now seems the high-point of 3D movie-making, with little since 2009 to challenge its achievement. Three years on, has the appeal of 3D gone flat? Nic Knowland has been a respected director of photography in Britain for 30 years. He's seen cinema trends and fads come and go, but never one for which he's had so little enthusiasm as 3D. 'From the cinematographer's perspective it may offer production value and scale to certain kinds of film. But for many movies it offers only distraction and some fairly uncomfortable viewing experiences for the audience. I haven't yet encountered a director of photography who's genuinely enthusiastic about it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Has 3D Film-Making Had Its Day?

Comments Filter:
  • Re:It's not true 3D (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sussurros ( 2457406 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @05:42AM (#42393237)
    Now that's the grain of truth at the heart of every comment about 3D. If it's not a hologram it's not good enough. Since the 1950s there has been 3D after 3D after 3D but all anyone wants is the hologram of Princess Leia from the movie.
  • by FaxeTheCat ( 1394763 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @06:13AM (#42393303)
    Just saw "Rise of the Guardians" in 3D with the entire family. Visually fantastic, and without doubt the best 3D film I have seen. So the clear answer to the OP question is simply "No".
    It may just be that the filmmakers need to learn how to best use 3D, the same way they had to learn using color.
  • Re:It's not true 3D (Score:5, Informative)

    by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @09:11AM (#42393911) Journal

    You kinda had it then missed the mark. Its not popular because not only does it not look good it rarely enhances the story and instead what you get is "Dr Tongue's 3D House Of Pancakes". Man I wish Candy were alive, he'd have had a field day with this.

    But the dirty little secret that they are ignoring or downplaying, which is also why the 3D TVs aren't selling worth a shit, is a LARGE section of the population gets blinding headaches from the crap! I have 4 customers that have bought 3D TVs so far, how many actually use the 3D? NONE, none of them show 3D content on their 3D TV, why? Because at least one person in their family gets a blinding headache from watching 3D which ruins the entire point of having a home theater, the family gathering around and enjoying it together.

    In my little shop I get people from all walks of life and all ages and when Avatar and all the 3D hype started i start asking folks about what they thought of it and I found the headaches are a BIG problem, in fact I hadn't met anybody yet who didn't complain about it giving at least one person in their family a sick headache. In my own family while I can watch it okay, although I do feel kinda fatigued afterward, both of my parents and my oldest simply can't watch anything 3D, more than an hour and they are walking out the theater with a blinding skull thumper.

    So you have a product that 1.-Costs more, 2.-Rarely enhances the story, 3.-Often is only used for cheap effects, 4.-Gives a large portion of the population a negative experience when using it, and they wonder why its bombing? Maybe when they come up with holograms or at least 3D without glasses then i could see it maybe taking off, but this current tech sucks just as bad as the tech used back in the 50s, it just sucks in a different way. I know myself and several friends have gone out to see a movie and ended up changing our minds because we couldn't find a theater showing it in 2D and from the sounds of it more folks are doing the same, its not worth the bullshit.

  • by plover ( 150551 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @11:14AM (#42394621) Homepage Journal

    See also the new HFR High Frame Rate stuff in Hobbit. Not a damned thing seemed odd about that, but then I've been watching TV recently. Who wants artificially-forced degradation?

    I do, surprisingly often.

    One big problem is that TV and movie sets are just that - sets. They're cardboard and gaffer tape and spray foam and quick drying paint. They are good enough for the medium they're produced for, but nothing better.

    Look at any television show from the 1960s that has been recently re-released on digital media - Star Trek, Hogan's Heroes, Mission: Impossible, or whatever. These shows were shot on high resolution film that captured the sets in all their hokey glory: cardboard; tape; foam; runny paint; a vast array of visual sins are painfully visible. The directors relied on their being broadcast in NTSC's System M with its 483 lines of video for TV. The technology of the day hid these flaws because the video was so degraded during delivery. Converting them to digital has revealed just how bad the original sets were, which I personally find very distracting.

    I see a couple of choices: I can watch the films in high definition 1080p and be bothered by bad sets, or I can watch them in NTSC and assume the faults I see are of the technology and not of the filmmakers.

  • Re:HR3D (Score:4, Informative)

    by cowtamer ( 311087 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @01:39PM (#42396045) Journal

    It's actually better than that. There are quite a few technologies which will interpolate the "in between" views from several cameras (google "Novel View Synthesis" []). Don't forget that lightfield capture technologies like the Lytro Camera [] also exist.

    I've seen projection based glasses free 3D systems that are also quite impressive, such as Holografika [].

    I really do wish this 3D Hate would end...

  • by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @03:48PM (#42397245)

    Government studies on stereoscopic viewing shows that viewing artificially created 3D can lead to a loss of depth perception. I built 2 different 3D CAVE/powerwall systems at the DOD. Engineers were limited to 5 hours per week which was considered the safe exposure rate. Viewing generated 3D can be used in some cases to treat strabismus, but normal eyes it's known to cause strabismus (more easily termed, permanent lazy eye).

    Of course Hollywood would never tell you about such dangers since it would hurt their bottom line. Here [] is a link of note, which is important to note " 1 + 2 = if you use stereo 3D routinely and intensively, you will develop strabismus, period. Government studies showed that damage is not always from "routine" and "intensive" viewing. 8 hours a week had a very high rate of eye damage which is why we limited Engineers to 5 hours.

As of next Tuesday, C will be flushed in favor of COBOL. Please update your programs.