28 replies to this topic

[JohnE]

With 3D productions in steep decline the next big thing is going to be Ultra HD, so 4k in a couple of years is going to be massive.

Simon -- what leads you to this conclusion?

[Drew]

John

As we discussed before, 4k allows down rezzing to 2k/HD with "wiggle" room and is essentially "future proofing" for when 4k content becomes mainstream. With 4k online and TVs coming, it'll be about 5-7 years to hit mainstream.
As for 3D, I'm not sure it's declining. There's a big push for 3D content for the various 3D channels. I think it'll be for bigger productions and not the smaller ones, but (unfortunately) I don't see 3D going away since glassless 3D 4k monitors seem to be the next thing @ CES. I do hope they push it to 48fps though.

[DeanB]

Simon -- what leads you to this conclusion?

Yeah Simon, what leads you to this conclusion?

Dean

[SimonSpear]

3D has never been much more than a fad and it is certainly in a rather steep decline in Europe. Box office receipts are down and broadcasters are pulling the plug on dedicated 3D channels. I realise that 3D isn't going away and it is great for watching some films and some headline sports events under 2hours, but it is never going to replace 2D in its current incarnation. In a few years time UltraHD/4K will be as popular and as mainstream as HD is today, while 3D will still be a niche market.

Cheers, Simon

[DeanB]

That told us

Thank god I never went ahead with the EPIC 3D project

Dean

[Drew]

3D has never been much more than a fad and it is certainly in a rather steep decline in Europe. Box office receipts are down and broadcasters are pulling the plug on dedicated 3D channels. I realise that 3D isn't going away and it is great for watching some films and some headline sports events under 2hours, but it is never going to replace 2D in its current incarnation. In a few years time UltraHD/4K will be as popular and as mainstream as HD is today, while 3D will still be a niche market.

Cheers, Simon

Simon, 3D obviously won't be the standard because certain genres don't translate well. I don't think I'd care if "My Week With Marilyn" was in 2D or 3D. However, I felt MI4 would've had even more impact in 3D, although it would've cost another 30mil to get done in 3D.

That said, Sky 3D has done pretty well with more acquisitions for 3D production, including Flying Monsters with Sir Dave. Sport events like Wimbledon and the Olympics will be in 3D. The 3D Film Mart has a fest recently with 20 films selected out of 60. The latest TV screens are 3D enabled 4k with glassless capability. I think it'd be awesome to have a 3D camera at the goal during a penalty kick or something like that. The number of stereographic studios have jumped up in France and Germany. It's a growth industry waiting for TVs to catch up to spread the market.

I also think the state backed movie industry of many of the EU countries means budgets would be down and private financing of film in EU will have to make that push. Fortunately, Asia is coming up with big 3D productions (Hong Kong, India the 2 biggest), plus the big draw of blockbusters (except notably Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises) will keep 3D in the action and documentary loop for the future.

[DeanB]

Damn the oracle and his constant Informative replies!!! Obviously my Pike 3D 8K EPIC would have sold

Dean

[pmooney]

I don't think I'd care if "My Week With Marilyn" was in 2D or 3D.

Who's Marilyn ?

[Steve Douglas]

Hey Simon,
"If you build it, they will come", the only problem is that no film other than Avatar in 3D has been much good. Sure, I guess 3D cartoons might be cool but they haven't converted Finding Nemo or Shark Tales to 3D yet. In order for 3D to be accepted by the masses they have to film movies in 3D that are good. They haven't done this though, so you may be right in that interest has declined. As soon as they come out with a decent movie in 3D, audiences will come back. Remember that a story has to be good, characters with depth, etc first. The 3D will only enhance the experience of what would be a good 2D movie. I keep thinking of those Transformer movies which bored the hell out of me. I think they are a good example. If a movie is nothing but and about effects, you don't really have much of a movie. You still need all the qualities of good plot lines and characterizations first and then the FX enhances that. When I saw Avatar in 3D the first time it felt like I was witnessing an epiphany in history despite the simple storyline and obvious analogies to historical events. Sadly, they have not produced anything near that quality since.
Steve

[JohnE]

My $.02

* 3D has a following in cinema. The consensus appears that 3D can help tell a story, like so many other cinematic effects. Hugo / Martin Scorsese is a success story. 3D seems to be 'sticking' this time.

* But not yet in broadcast. However I saw the future of 3D broadcast at CES. Toshiba has a wall of 4K panels that display both 4K 2D and HD 3D. The 2D was stunning. 3D was glasses-less. Last year NAB this technology was poor. A mere 8 months later, the improvement is noticeable. If the glasses-less technology keeps advancing at this rate, watching 3D will be comfortable and easy. That's when I predict 3D will be embraced at the broadcast level.

J-

[CheungyDiver]

This is just my opinion...I don't think 3D is declining rapidly, it just slowed down to a better pace I reckon. It is surely gaining momentum in the big screens in Asia.

China (yes china) 3D market is expanding and as far as I know it is not a fad....181 IMAX Cinemas planned by 2015. Someone somewhere must be doing some 3D content for this audience. Korean broadcast 3D programs to TVs and even started an university courses for 3D stereography. It seems they do not see it as a negative thing. Again this is just my observation. The 3D movies in Asia are mainly shot in the field as production like this is cheaper than 3D "conversion" which is horrible at best and used just too often by hollywood studios in movies, thinking that converted 3D movies will earn more consumer dollars.
I am based in Singapore but for the past two years I was lucky enough to meet and know some producers and film makers in Asia to know that this time the 3D technology is going (unlike in the past) to stay. Some aspect of the movie industry will never change like a good storyline for instance. The same goes for broadcast as well. IMHO the only barrier is the dreaded 3D glasses. Once 4K (or more res) display screen becomes available and with better lenticular of pallalllex barrier 3D technology then maybe the third dimension is easier to gain market acceptance. Cost would be a factor too. HD was expensive when it first introduced and look at it now - its even used in mobile phones.
Anything to enable a more immersive experience is good and I agree that just using it to enhance a poor script is just a gimmick.

Cheers

David

[SimonSpear]

Wow looks like I stirred up quite a hornets nest!! LOL

Ok here's my thoughts and my personal opinion. Please be advised that I don't proclaim to predict the future .....

3D has been around a long, long time so it is nothing new. Yes Hugo is probably the second film after Avatar that 3D is genuinely considered to have enhanced - that's two films out of how many? With all the 100's of millions thrown at marketing and 3D products, receipts in mature markets appear to be on the decline - people are choosing 2D over 3D. Canal+ closed its 3D channel after 18 months because it could only attract 20,000 subscribers. Sky offer their 3D service for free, so subscriber sign ups while at the low end of expectations (0.5% of its subscriber base) are still within their initial estimates. However viewing figures for Sky3D are utterly dire. Most people don't appear to be able to watch 3D for more than a few hours without a headache and young children are advised not to watch it at all.

3D is a great for a small number of films that it genuinely enhances and certain sports events that seem to work well in 3D, however 10 years from now Ultra HD will be as mainstream as HD is today while 3D will still be a niche market. That was the point I was trying to get across.

If we are all still around in 10 years we can see who is right. Oh and don't shoot the messenger!!!

Cheers, Simon

[DeanB]

Just a query ... A friend of mine who doesn't want to be named asked me if anyone is making 3D porn yet???

Dean

[Drew]

Who's Marilyn ?

Norma Jean Baker aka Ms Monroe. A bit after your time, Pete! Good movie!

Wow looks like I stirred up quite a hornets nest!! LOL

Ok here's my thoughts and my personal opinion. Please be advised that I don't proclaim to predict the future .....

3D has been around a long, long time so it is nothing new. Yes Hugo is probably the second film after Avatar that 3D is genuinely considered to have enhanced - that's two films out of how many? With all the 100's of millions thrown at marketing and 3D products, receipts in mature markets appear to be on the decline - people are choosing 2D over 3D. Canal+ closed its 3D channel after 18 months because it could only attract 20,000 subscribers. Sky offer their 3D service for free, so subscriber sign ups while at the low end of expectations (0.5% of its subscriber base) are still within their initial estimates. However viewing figures for Sky3D are utterly dire. Most people don't appear to be able to watch 3D for more than a few hours without a headache and young children are advised not to watch it at all.

3D is a great for a small number of films that it genuinely enhances and certain sports events that seem to work well in 3D, however 10 years from now Ultra HD will be as mainstream as HD is today while 3D will still be a niche market. That was the point I was trying to get across.

If we are all still around in 10 years we can see who is right. Oh and don't shoot the messenger!!!

Cheers, Simon

The problem with Canal+ was they offered few new programs weekly. Plus the sales of 3D TVs haven't done that well in France (AFAIK). Sorta like how HD was initially like, SD programs shown on HD channels with 4:3 box. Some programs weren't even in wide screen format.
However, programs like Flying Monsters did spectacularly well.
Active 3D TVs are limited due to the glasses. Passive glassless (glasses-less iyl) will change that. Also the premium for 3D to normal HDTV is now narrower, so there'll be that advantage soon. It's not going to replace 2D HD and 4k, but it will supplement the market in the not so far future.
The EU market is growing but it all depends on how the 3D TVs penetrate the market. We'll find out in 3 years or so, if the Mayans aren't right!

[Steve Douglas]

My $.02

* 3D has a following in cinema. The consensus appears that 3D can help tell a story, like so many other cinematic effects. Hugo / Martin Scorsese is a success story. 3D seems to be 'sticking' this time.

John, I agree with you completely. You were just more concise than I. It can HELP tell a story and enhance the experience....but, you still need a good story and not FX for FX's sake.
Haven't seen Hugo yet but I am really waiting for the Holographic room to come to pass before I am too old to enjoy it. Ah, a holographic Emily Deschanel in my future. I would bet Simon and Dean B are waiting for their own version as well.
Steve

Edited by Steve Douglas, 15 January 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[wagsy]

Just a query ... A friend of mine who doesn't want to be named asked me if anyone is making 3D porn yet???

Dean

Dean, now that would be funny, except the glasses would get steamed up all the time.:-)

I find watching one movie in 3D is enough for me as the glasses annoy me.
Suppose 3D without glasses is not too far away.

[ehanauer]

Add Werner Hertzog's cave doc to the short list of films that benefitted from 3D.

That makes three.

[Drew]

Eric
There have been quite a few underwater IMAX productions, then you have hollywood releases like Sanctum, Shark Night (ok bad example! ) etc. WHOI and Pace/Cameron, among others, would not have underwater divisions dedicated to 3D underwater cinematography if this were a dying format.
3D is here to stay this time I hope, because I've enjoyed the added depth in the picture. I just watched my first 3D martial arts flick. Not the best wushu movie but a decent start!

[hughmoore]

Eric
There have been quite a few underwater IMAX productions, then you have hollywood releases like Sanctum, Shark Night (ok bad example! ) etc. WHOI and Pace/Cameron, among others, would not have underwater divisions dedicated to 3D underwater cinematography if this were a dying format.
3D is here to stay this time I hope, because I've enjoyed the added depth in the picture. I just watched my first 3D martial arts flick. Not the best wushu movie but a decent start!

I hate 3D, went to see Sanctum and Tron in 3D and found it distracting. While not great movies, have watched the again in 2D and enjoyed them more.

I love movies, but wont go to anything in 3D.



Hugh

[Alex_Mustard]

I do feel that there is anti-3D movement out there. Partly, it seems, driven by the public who see it as a marketing gimmick to charge more for watching movies at the cinema and to make people upgrade TVs etc. I think that there is a feeling that it is all a big marketing scheme - this year it is HDTV, then blue ray, then 3D, then 4K etc to make people buy stuff each year - rather than introduce everything in one go. And people are strongly anti 3D for this reason, rather than disliking the viewing experience.

I think 3D can enhance the viewing experience but only for certain subject matter. But in most cases it is a distraction from the narrative/involvement with the story. I've watched all the movies that are available in 3D in 2D. Although would probably watch Hertzog's cave in 3D (I think he has said in interviews that he wouldn't use 3D for drama, just for documentary).

I think that UW natural history is actually an area it works well as subjects (fish) tend to move about in three dimensions more than underwater. So I feel it has more of a future in our sphere than the mainstream.

Alex