3D Schmee-D
There’s been a whole heap of talk this year about 3D. 3D this and 3D that!
Listen, it’s never really going to happen. While I’ll admit, if a movie is in the cinema and available in 3D I’ll go to the 3D version of it, moving it from the Cinema to the home is just realistically not going to happen. I know that all the big electronic manufactures have been showing off at home 3D tv’s, but really, who’s going to buy them? I mean, how often are you actually going to watch something in 3D?
HD is only really taking off now, and they want to change it again! For gawds sake, there isn’t enough HD content out there, why does any one think there will be even 100th the amount of 3D content! PLUS, you still have to wear the silly glasses like in the cinema (granted they are not red and blue like the good old days, but still, when I go to watch TV, I don’t want the hassle of finding my 3D glasses, finding the remote is enough of a dilemma.
Supposedly James Camerons Avatar is going to be “game changing†in terms of visual and 3D. All I’ve got to say to that is – WHATEVER!! I’ve seen the trailer (and I’m sure a lot of you guys have as well), and I’m not impressed. I mean, I’m a geek, I like a good bit of Sci-Fi, but there is a line and me’s thinks that Mr. Cameron may have crossed it with this one. I think it’ll only really attract a niche audience and is in no way a mass market item. Don’t get me wrong, it’ll do very well in the box office, but being marketed as his first movie in 10 years and his first since the behemoth that was Titanic, those are some pretty big shoes to fill and shoes that I don’t think this movie will come close to filling! Also, it won’t work on a home tv after it’s left the cinema either!
I mean, I was watching Coraline in 3D in a friends the other night and you had to go old school with the red and blue glasses. Because of them you loose most of the colour information in the picture, also, while it was a big TV (40â€), it just wasn’t a cinema screen – you’re still seeing everything else in the room, so the 3D just doesn’t have that “POP†you get in the cinema (especially if you get seating right – about a third back from the screen, bang in the middle I find is about perfect for a 3D movie!)
So, back to my original rant, 3D is having it’s moment right now and will work / does work in the cinema (for certain movies), but that’s about it. It’s a fun novelty that’ll stick around.
What do you guys think? Is 3D here to stay and make it’s way into the home, or a passing phase while they are trying to perfect hologram’s and holodecks! (OH YEAH, that’s what I want to see, some bad ass hologram in action, then it’ll definitely be 3D Schmee-D!)
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?
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?
[...] on TechTV101 complained that 3D in movies is currently a waste of time. I don’t think [...]