Comments on: 3D Schmee-D http://www.techtv101.com/?p=1612 Irelands Newest Gaming, Gadget and Gizmos website Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:05:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: WillKnott.ie » Blog Archive » A future roadmap for 3D http://www.techtv101.com/?p=1612&cpage=1#comment-652 WillKnott.ie » Blog Archive » A future roadmap for 3D Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:00:41 +0000 http://www.techtv101.com/?p=1612#comment-652 [...] on TechTV101 complained that 3D in movies is currently a waste of time. I don’t think [...] [...] on TechTV101 complained that 3D in movies is currently a waste of time. I don’t think [...]

]]> By: Nicola-T http://www.techtv101.com/?p=1612&cpage=1#comment-651 Nicola-T Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:35:38 +0000 http://www.techtv101.com/?p=1612#comment-651 Personally, I'm all on for 3D... but I've learnt the hard way that 3D does not make a film good. Anyone out there see <a href="http://averagefilmreviews.blogspot.com/2008/11/scar-3d-2008.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Scar 3D</i></a>? Personally, I’m all on for 3D… but I’ve learnt the hard way that 3D does not make a film good. Anyone out there see Scar 3D?

]]> By: Will Knott http://www.techtv101.com/?p=1612&cpage=1#comment-648 Will Knott Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:55:14 +0000 http://www.techtv101.com/?p=1612#comment-648 Lets get the cynical bit out of the way first. Studios and cinemas love 3D as its impossible to do the "camera in the theatre" pirating trick with them. Just try watching a movie without the polarising glasses and you'll see what I mean. At the moment there are no movies that are greatly improved by the use of 3D. Just as the Jazz Singer was a gimmick where there was only 5 minutes of sound tacked in to a silent movie in 1927. Try to imagine a modern movie done as a silent now? How much dialogue could be removed to work with those cards with the few lines? Exposition would need to be simpler in order to cope... etc. Sound, widescreen and colour were all gimmicks once. The entire production in photography would have to change in order to make the most of 3d. Since all movies have to be capable of being displayed on a 2d screen (Dvd sales, Sales for tv broadcast etc) there isn't going to be much use made of 3d, just as there isn't much use made of IMAX. So keeping that part of the market in mind, what is needed for 3d to take off? The first big leap will be 3d home displays. Then 3d still digital photography displayed on these home screens. The still experiments will be what teaches the photographic and lighting requirements to the DPs (remember that lighting a black and white movie is a completely different technique to lighting a colour one. Something taken for granted today, but hard learned when it came in). Then, live action 3D comes to play... (at the moment it is limited to CG and stop motion animation). Suddenly 3d editing becomes a desirable (and probably new found skill). Set budgets will soar (as the limited field of view is killed, as will be digital matt painting, unless they go 3d too. Expect "AR" style commentaries on home released by that time too. At the moment there are competing standards for home 3d, just as there were competing standards for sound in the 30s. And technicolor fought with de luxe for years. Give it time, and remember that the technical best does not always beat the good enough. Your HD argument is flawed by the way because of good enough. Few broadcasters use it, and its coming out at a time when the low definition YouTube channel is the most successful one at the moment. In other words its not being used. It may look great, but its not being used. However, would one second of 3d and one second of HD have the same bandwidth/spectrum cost? Lets get the cynical bit out of the way first. Studios and cinemas love 3D as its impossible to do the “camera in the theatre” pirating trick with them. Just try watching a movie without the polarising glasses and you’ll see what I mean.

At the moment there are no movies that are greatly improved by the use of 3D. Just as the Jazz Singer was a gimmick where there was only 5 minutes of sound tacked in to a silent movie in 1927.

Try to imagine a modern movie done as a silent now? How much dialogue could be removed to work with those cards with the few lines? Exposition would need to be simpler in order to cope… etc.
Sound, widescreen and colour were all gimmicks once.

The entire production in photography would have to change in order to make the most of 3d. Since all movies have to be capable of being displayed on a 2d screen (Dvd sales, Sales for tv broadcast etc) there isn’t going to be much use made of 3d, just as there isn’t much use made of IMAX.

So keeping that part of the market in mind, what is needed for 3d to take off?

The first big leap will be 3d home displays. Then 3d still digital photography displayed on these home screens.
The still experiments will be what teaches the photographic and lighting requirements to the DPs (remember that lighting a black and white movie is a completely different technique to lighting a colour one. Something taken for granted today, but hard learned when it came in).
Then, live action 3D comes to play… (at the moment it is limited to CG and stop motion animation).

Suddenly 3d editing becomes a desirable (and probably new found skill). Set budgets will soar (as the limited field of view is killed, as will be digital matt painting, unless they go 3d too.

Expect “AR” style commentaries on home released by that time too.

At the moment there are competing standards for home 3d, just as there were competing standards for sound in the 30s. And technicolor fought with de luxe for years. Give it time, and remember that the technical best does not always beat the good enough.

Your HD argument is flawed by the way because of good enough. Few broadcasters use it, and its coming out at a time when the low definition YouTube channel is the most successful one at the moment. In other words its not being used. It may look great, but its not being used. However, would one second of 3d and one second of HD have the same bandwidth/spectrum cost?

]]>