|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flagg
Tol Eressea
Jun 25 2011, 12:16pm
Post #26 of 43
(448 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Audience awareness will be an issue
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Casual viewers will not be aware of the distinction between post-converted 3D and native 3D, and will make judgements about the format based on the shoddy 95%. I have not looked into this, but I suspect that the financial performance of films that were shot in 3D is likely to be adversely affected by the audience's lack of awareness that some forms of 3D are better than others.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Jun 25 2011, 12:27pm
Post #27 of 43
(470 views)
Shortcut
|
a driving factor for the development of 3D was that the studios wanted to find a way to make more money, right? It seems from what I've read that it costs a lot more to film in 3D (I seem to recall that the budget for The Hobbit had to be increased when they decided on 3D). So if people don't want to pay more for something that costs more to make, where's the business advantage going to be?
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Jun 25 2011, 12:49pm
Post #28 of 43
(444 views)
Shortcut
|
Retailers and restaurants know that it only takes one bad experience to lose a customer for ever. If you go to even one 3D movie that leaves you disappointed (or worse, feeling ill), you're much less likely to want to cough up for another. And a poor 3D conversion could leave a very bad impression. One reason is that for 3D to work properly, shots have to be composed differently, with fewer rapid camera moves, to prevent audiences getting motion sick. Even Michael Bay has learned to slow down for 3D, according to an article I read recently: 'Mr. Bay, known for the fast pace of his imagery, also had to slow down a bit, using longer shots and more wide shots to maximize the effect. “If you pan too quickly it will give viewers a jittery feeling,” he said.'
If filmmakers want customers to understand that not all 3D movies are equal, they are going to have to do some serious selling. Michael Bay seems to be doing just that for his new Transformers film. I guess we'll see how it plays out.
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Jun 25 2011, 12:55pm)
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Jun 25 2011, 2:19pm
Post #29 of 43
(448 views)
Shortcut
|
of jackassery? I was really hoping that the spectre of 3D to 2D conversion (if there ever was such a thing) would be the new rallying cry of those opposed to making 3D in the first place.
Joking aside though, once you've taken pains to shoot in 3D, showing it only in 2D must be considered wasteful at best. Like for instance if you had to buy a couple dozen cameras just to shoot in 3D...
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Jun 25 2011, 2:38pm
Post #30 of 43
(444 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I was hoping this would turn into a pun thread:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...(or worse, feeling ill), you're much less likely to want to cough up for another.
Oh and thanks for the Transformers 3 link!
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Jun 25 2011, 2:39pm)
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Jun 25 2011, 3:35pm
Post #31 of 43
(451 views)
Shortcut
|
Estel78: ...some theaters are running light bulbs on lower than recommended settings to increase their lifespan, which makes the picture darker, which is especially noticeable in 3D because 3D needs a lot of light. Theaters bear part of the blame for some of 3D's negative reputation with some people. I'd love for there to be a quality standard for 3D projection that theaters would have to adhere to. Yes to all that. And add that theaters are known to show 2D movies on their 3D projectors, Sony in particular, and fail to take the time to reset the projector lens for 2D, resulting in a half-bright presentation. To detect this, look at the projection window. If there are two light beams for a digital 2D movie, it's time to complain.
See this article: http://www.geek.com/...-2d-movies-20110523/
The irony of the ignorant bulb life practice of running it at lower power is that it does not significantly extend the life of the bulb - maybe a few percent. i.e., hardly at all. So for saving a few pennies, you hurt your own business and the industry because of customer dissatisfaction.
The more money a studio loses because of ignorant theater practices, the more likely it is that standards will be imposed before a theater can get a title.
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jun 25 2011, 3:39pm)
|
|
|
Phibbus
Rohan
Jun 25 2011, 6:03pm
Post #32 of 43
(423 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not sure it's so much ignorance as being put in a difficult situation. There is nothing remotely new about 3D: Stereoptic movies have been around for 120 years (e.g., nearly as long as movies, themselves,) and still images longer than that. The difficulty has always been that proponents are unable to come up with a manageable, cost-effective way to retool projection back and forth between 3D and 2D. Until 3D can force itself to become the norm (which will require audiences to demonstrate an extended demand for the 3D experience) and theaters can afford to dedicate seats exclusively to 3D showings on a long-term basis, 3D is going to remain a recurring fad. I don't think this can happen as long as audiences are showing any interest in 2D alternative showings.
|
|
|
Faenoriel
Tol Eressea
Jun 25 2011, 6:35pm
Post #33 of 43
(416 views)
Shortcut
|
if you've planned carefully what to do and built all the equipment, even already started executing the plan, it's best to stick to it.
Plus, I think we should have buried Tolkien in a larger coffin, he probably cant turn very well in his. -Rossmonster
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Jun 25 2011, 6:52pm
Post #34 of 43
(394 views)
Shortcut
|
As far as i know, it's easy to switch from 3D to 2D and back, the exception being those Sony projectors the article someone here linked to speak of but in most cases the 3D filters can easily be turned on and off.
The difficulty has always been that proponents are unable to come up with a manageable, cost-effective way to retool projection back and forth between 3D and 2D
(This post was edited by Estel78 on Jun 25 2011, 6:52pm)
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jun 25 2011, 7:22pm
Post #35 of 43
(407 views)
Shortcut
|
I always wondered how many times you saw them in the theater, gramma.  I was way up there myself, but not nearly like you!
What will decrease my view times with The Hobbit in theaters is the birth of Blu-ray. I will go to the theater, probably 3 times for each movie, and then wait to relax and see them in my home in beautiful blu. Home video experience has improved substantially since FotR, and I'll go, as I said before, to the theater just for the purpose of seeing it initially--that must be a big screen experience, and for seeing it in 3D. Then I'll spend my entertainment budget on the Blu-ray when it arrives a little over 3-4 months later.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Jun 25 2011, 7:25pm
Post #36 of 43
(383 views)
Shortcut
|
The ignorant part is thinking you can extend bulb life by running it at low power, then thinking customer satisfaction will remain high enough to warrant the meager savings.
The lazy part is not taking the time to switch your lenses. It is ironic that showing a 2D film can hurt 3D sales when people become aware that 3D tooling issues can dimish your 2D enjoyment. And in a way, it is also ignorant, once again, to believe you can save money by not hiring qualified projectionists familiar with these issues, then thinking customer satisfaction will remain high enough to warrant the meager savings.
Additional effort and attention up front is the only way to propel yourself to mass acceptance and greater economies of scale where success paves the way for improved and more automated technology. That's why, like politicians, Hollywood is preaching wishful thinking and hype by saying it is a fact 3D is hot when it is really very tenuous and they merely hope it will become hot just by saying it is hot.
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jun 25 2011, 7:32pm)
|
|
|
Phibbus
Rohan
Jun 25 2011, 8:00pm
Post #37 of 43
(399 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not as simple as flipping a filter on and off. 3D rigs, in general, require more maintenance and expertise to keep running... which means the theater has to spend more on more highly trained personnel to keep one in place. A lot depends on what screen you're using... if it's a silver screen to compensate for the stop cut caused by 3D (itself another expense,) then you have to do yet more finagling to get your 2D not to burn out in the middle. Plus, there's the cost associated with glasses distribution, collection, and recycling. If there's little promise of sufficient 3D content coming through your venue (or if audiences aren't flocking to it,) there's also little incentive to keep all of that apparatus in place. And all of that is compounded by having to keep a second theater booked for simultaneous screening of the same movie in 2D for the audience that doesn't want the additional costs passed on to them—or just don't like 3D in the first place—which hampers the consolidating of empty seats per show.
Proponents of 3D/high-fps/large-format have always been up against these hurdles, and so far they haven't overcome them, at least not in general cinema. The general cinema seems to require a normal standard to remain profitable and doesn't deal well with format variety (which is why specialty theaters like I-Max evolved.) For 3D to break through, it sort of has to become that normal standard.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jun 26 2011, 11:17pm
Post #38 of 43
(348 views)
Shortcut
|
The initial cost is a bit more, but once the projectors are bought(theatres) or cameras are bought(studios), they really isn't much change in overall cost, and future projects/movies will be around the same as a 2D film to make.
I think with the Hobbit, they are betting that the 3D is better than most, along with the increased 48fps image quality, and will offer moviegoers a much better experience overall, thus setting it apart from other movies and paying for the initial cost of the new Red 3D cameras.
sphdle1
"You shall not pass!"
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jun 26 2011, 11:22pm
Post #39 of 43
(344 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The technology is almost to market
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've read about some new 3D TV technology that offer 3D without the glasses. Not sure if the technology is refined enough yet, and I think it required higher refresh rates, and thus more expense bleeding edge electronics. I'm sure the first ones will be quite expensive, but eventually the prices will come down and similar technologies will be brought to the theatre projectors not long after. I'm sure there will be a novelty period for the first year or so, but eventually it will become commonplace...i think we'll see this with the next 5-10 years.
sphdle1
"You shall not pass!"
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Jun 27 2011, 1:38am
Post #40 of 43
(372 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbit is being filmed with 30 Red Epic Cameras mounted in pairs.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
These can be used individually to film 2-D images and prices start at $28,000 each.
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
terrymerry
Rivendell
Jun 27 2011, 11:54am
Post #41 of 43
(325 views)
Shortcut
|
I can`t wait, it`s going to be fantastic in 3D...
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jun 27 2011, 12:45pm
Post #42 of 43
(351 views)
Shortcut
|
the doubling of the number of cameras needed from a regular 2D shoot, as well as the special mounts/connectors/etc., needed for doing 3D. Normally they would have used 15 cameras instead of 30. So it looks like they likely spent around 1/2 million extra to shoot 3D.
They could actually dismantle these cameras off the special mounts and use them for regular 2D movies in the future on multiple movies at the same time, so in the long run how much extra have they really spent for 3D? It might be a bit of a grey area to figure that out...would be interesting to know what bucket they used to pay for these new cameras..? Is is it the Hobbit movie budget, or is it PJ and crew that bought them through their production company, or Warner Bros. that bought them outside of the movie budget...?
sphdle1
"You shall not pass!"
|
|
|
silneldor
Half-elven
Jun 28 2011, 2:49pm
Post #43 of 43
(1226 views)
Shortcut
|
 I need room on this soapbox too.
Not only do we have the Hobbit in a relaxed 2 movie venue, (not that it will be exactly relaxing most of the time) we have an ultra-sensory experience of 3D to get completely ''sucked in'' =immersed. There is no more 'outside'. There is all the danger and beauty truly at hand. I think part of the comical effect besides the movie (if one can pull away) would be to watch those in the audience writhe , duck and outright hide .
''Sam put his ragged orc-cloak under his master's head, and covered them both with the grey robe of Lorien; and as he did so his thoughts went out to that fair land, and to the Elves, and he hoped that the cloth woven by their hands might have some virtue to keep them hidden beyond all hope in this wilderness of fear...But their luck held, and for the rest of that day they met no living or moving thing; and when night fell they vanished into the darkess of Mordor.'' - - -rotk, chapter III
May the grace of Manwë let us soar with eagle's wings!
In the air, among the clouds in the sky
Here is where the birds of Manwe fly
Looking at the land, and the water that flows
The true beauty of earth shows
With the stars of Varda lighting my way
In all the realms this is where I stay
In the realm of Manwë Súlimo
|
|
|
|
|
