Big Featured Discussions | August 06, 2010 | 61 comments

Is 3-D filmmaking really the next evolution for cinema, or is it just another passing fad?

Illusion of Depth and Space (15/22) - Colour 3D Anaglyph of 3D Anaglyph (Red and "Green") Stereoscopic Glasses

photo by Dominic's Pics on Flickr // licensed via Creative Commons 2.0 

The invention of the television in the 1950's is commonly attributed to the mass adoption of Cinemascope -- or widescreen film exhibition. To be fair it only played a part, considering that the death of the studio system played a substantial role in the closing of movie theaters, which in turn had a considerable impact on theater attendance.

That said, the threat of declining ticket sales, dwindling exhibition houses, and the rise in popularity of the television definitely loomed large for the movie industry. The need to find a way to pull people back into theater seats was tantamount, and the introduction of Cinemascope, a lens used to film and project widescreen films, provided a real allure for would-be moviegoers. Sure, those who could afford a television could sit at home and watch a tiny boxed image, or they could go to the cinema and experience widescreen in all of its expansive glory.

Today, both the movie and television industries face a different type of battle -- a struggle to find ways to compete in a content world where media consumption is powered by the Internet.

Luckily for the movie industry, advances in 3-D filmmaking technology have offered a resurgence. The release of Avatar has re-enforced that audiences will endure a total digital experience in 3-D with a runtime on par (or exceeding) that of the average film.

And did I mention that they'll pay a premium for the experience?

This has prompted a flood of 3-D movies hitting cinemas of varying quality, and television is jumping on board with 3-D TV sets aimed at the home theater crowd. This development has created a stir, with critics like Roger Ebert decrying the sudden focus on 3-D technology. infoMania's Ben Hoffman loves 3-D, and even shared why in his latest editorial.

3-D Kicks Ass from infoMania

So here's the question, is 3-D the next evolution to keep theater attendance up, a futile attempt that will soon be undermined by 3-D television, or a passing fad akin to the gimmicks of the 1950s like smell-o-vision and the previous iteration of 3-D?

Let's discuss.

  1. groups:
    Big Featured Discussions
  2. tags:
    Movies,  Film,  Television,  TV,  6 more
  3.     
    |

61 comments // Is 3-D filmmaking really the next evolution for cinema, or is it just another passing fad?

  • Raffielo
    • 0
      Raffielo  

    • Finally a real question pertaining to film! Yes, it is thee next evolutionary technological advancement which will make the movie watching experience that much greater.

    • 1 year ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Raffielo:

      If it was "true 3D" and not just a "gimmick of Stereopsis" then it would be evolutionary. But until they develope a holographic process that actually shows it from every angle, not just a trick that fails in a certain percentage of the population then it will still be the same fad that fell out of fashion twice before.

    • 1 year ago
  • Raffielo
    • +1
      Raffielo  
    • Argon18:

      3D effects have evolved eons compared to when it was first introduced - see Inception in IMAX 3D for a stunning current example. Films are now following this lead as well as the technology being introduced through television sets sold on the market.

    • 1 year ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Raffielo:

      The current refinements to the process can in NO WAY be defined as "evolved eons" since they still use the same principles that it always has.The same stereoptic effect

      "To create the illusion of depth, the IMAX 3D process uses separate camera lenses to represent the left and right eyes. The two lenses are separated by an interocular distance of 64 mm (2.5 in), the average distance between a human's eyes. Each lens feeds a separate roll of film. By projecting the two films simultaneously, viewers experience seeing a 3D image on a 2D screen. The IMAX 3D camera weighs over 113 kg (250 lb).

      One method of creating the 3D illusion involves polarizating the light from the two images. During projection, the left and right eye images are linearly polarized as they are projected.[19] Eyeglasses with right and left lenses polarized to match the projection present each eye with just the image intended for that eye since the polarization cancels out the other eye's image.

      Alternatively the two projectors take turns displaying each frame (while one projector's image is displayed, the other is blocked) at an effective rate of 48 frames per second. The viewer dons LCD shutter glasses that contain LCD panels that block or emit light in each eye in sync with the projector, such that each eye only sees the image intended for it."

      Don't be fooled by the hype, it's still the same flash in the pan that it always was, it'll fade away again when people tire of it until they come up with something better to replace it like laser interference hologram projections.

    • 1 year ago
  • Raffielo
    • 0
      Raffielo  
    • Argon18:

      Glad you took the time to explain all of that wonderful information. Though there is no fooling me with any type of hype. I see what I see and it is the truth. See for yourself at the movie theater. The difference in cinematic crystal clear film projection is monumental, if you can't 'see' the difference in quality then you may want to go get an eye exam.

    • 1 year ago
  • Raffielo
    • +1
      Raffielo  
    • Argon18:

      3D and holographic process are two different concepts.

      3D has now evolved to a much greater extent than where it was when it first came out.

      That is a beautiful fact and film lovers should be thankful for it.

    • 1 year ago
  • Pollo_Loco_
    • 0
      Pollo_Loco_  

    • It was a passing fad in the eighties. This is just overkill. Now the Rugrats Go Wild movie with smell-o-vision was an evolution in cinema.

    • 1 year ago
  • maryol
  • idyllchilde
    • 0
      idyllchilde  

    • Not a fad, but the way it's used now will definitely change. In contemporary film history, there are several instances of technology slowly being incorporated into mainstream use. Like you mentioned, widescreen's one. So is color and even sound! All of those used to be gimmicks to inflate ticket prices and fill theater seats. Seems like history is repeating itself, right?

      The last generation of 3D didn't take off because it wasn't at all practical. But the economics aren't the only factor. 3D will soon be just another tool in an artist's or designer's toolbox- along with color, sound, aspect ratio...

    • 1 year ago
  • willys50
    • 0
      willys50  

    • As a PC technician/Electronics fanatic I state that It's absolutely, without a doubt the future.
      It's definately not a fad and it will even be on our cell phones as soon as the technology becomes highly available just as you are starting to see 3D TV's that are affordable one day we will be watching HD 3D movies on our watches.
      Just wait and see ;]

    • 1 year ago
  • jonsha
    • +1
      jonsha  

    • Every time I watch a 3D movie all I can think of is how messy the picture is. A 2D movie with good special effects beats anything 3D in my book.

    • 1 year ago
  • versasrev
  • tylervictoria1
  • thedirtman
  • Dmerza1989
    • 0
      Dmerza1989  

    • I think its here to stay. We havent seen this much incentive to go out and spend our money at a movie theater sience the early 80's . 3D movies cant be recorded from a home video camera and played on a regular tv very well at all. Which is fine with me because i understand everyone wants to get paid for their work, but i have also seen the substance in movies degrade. 3D movies are probably here to stay because it will give us an experiences most of us couldnt find in our homes I just hope the substance in the movies can overturn the actual 3d effects. (Im talking to you james cameron! you Ferngully stealing mother f*cker!!!)

    • 1 year ago
  • Reeseismyname
  • samoanj
  • Yam_Soup
  • Malcum_Ross
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Malcum_Ross:

      Actually that would be a lot more worthwhile to do since 3D modeling is a lot more advanced than Stereopsis and super news would benefit from being animated with models instead of just drawings.

    • 1 year ago
  • knightlynight200
    • 0
      knightlynight200  

    • It's a passing fad, becasue people are starting to get annoyed by it. I don't know anyone who has acutally been interested in the new 3D tvs and some moives don't really need to be in 3D, because they won't look any differently.

    • 1 year ago
  • Sw3rv
  • Lucastronaut126
  • Lucastronaut126
  • Lucastronaut126
    • 0
      Lucastronaut126  

    • i love the 3d movies ive seen but hollywood is allways looking for more creative ways to attract attention so i think it will eventualy be a fad.

    • 1 year ago
  • maryol
  • kat480
  • ImageFx
    • 0
      ImageFx  

    • PS, there is a time and place to use 3D, just like color vs. black and white. It should not be the focal point of the film and not distract from the story. I wouldn't want to see Citizen Kane in 3D or color because it would be a distraction and the viewer would loose the true message of the film.

    • 1 year ago
  • ImageFx
    • +1
      ImageFx  

    • Evolution for cinema AND television. Developers are creating a special lens that projects a 3-D image directly at the viewer and does not require those stupid glasses.

    • 1 year ago
  • WeBelieve
  • randallr01
  • Mariased
    • 0
      Mariased  

    • I hope it's a fad, but only because it gives me motion sickness. I almost blew chunks on the hipsters in front of me during Avatar. I like seeing movies and I don't want 3D to keep me from doing so.

    • 1 year ago
  • CarlosIsDown
    • 0
      CarlosIsDown  

    • If they can use it to tell the story (i'm not sure how, if $#!@ just seems a little closer to you) then ok. Right now, it seems to be a fad though.

    • 1 year ago
  • atHunterPhillips
  • Nephwrack
  • Nephwrack
  • vvfsfan
  • Pedroptz
  • joshuaheller
  • Argon18
  • mario_a
  • twentymooseman
    • +1
      twentymooseman  

    • I hope it's a fad, I don't want to see movies that have no real reason to be in 3D show up. Examples: Schindlers list IN 3D! The God Father IN 3D! Anchorman IN 3D! The only thing 3D is good for is action movies. There's no real reason to apply it to anything else.

    • 1 year ago
  • littlwarrior
  • mario_a
    • 0
      mario_a  
    • littlwarrior:

      I agree. So far my best 3-D experiences have been Pixar's Up and Coraline. Avatar looked great, but was a stinker as far as films go. BTW -- Ebert tackles this point pretty well. Could you imagine some of the greatest films made being done so under the mandate of 3-D? Hard to imagine great dramas translating well into 3-D.

    • 1 year ago
  • derk
  • littlwarrior
    • 0
      littlwarrior  

    • Its a fad there was the one that was really cool, avatar, but it was amazing to look at in regular too. This will pass when the studios see that poor movies will flop no matter what dimension you see them in.

    • 1 year ago
  • jdubsy
    • +2
      jdubsy  

    • Passing fad. I don't want to have to put on 3D glasses every time I want to watch tv.

      I don't even like watching 3D films in the cinema.

    • 1 year ago
  • LowShred
    • 0
      LowShred  

    • There was a surge of 3D in the 80's. This is nothing more than another passing fad. If Hollywood is truly concerned about ticket sales; the simple solution is to make films that people would love to see because of the story, not the gimmick attached to it.

    • 1 year ago
  • Idoknow19
    • 0
      Idoknow19  

    • Neither? I think it's just another push to sell television sets. It IS an advance in technology, but hardly one based on necessity, and it's not a fad because the industry is the one pushing it.

      TVs hit 1080p, the suggestion of higher resolution sets seemed silly, and a few months later the 3D push hit. Go figure.

    • 1 year ago
  • Future_America
    • +1
      Future_America  

    • 3D movies first came out in the 1950s, then it went away, and now it's back. Unless there is something new and better about 3D movies today, then it will go away again.

    • 1 year ago
  • Still_Falling
    • 0
      Still_Falling  

    • No thank you, I rather watch it in IMAX or regular 2D.
      I took my niece to see, Alice In Wonderland in 3D. It was the worst thing I have every experienced. I felt as if I had just consumed copious amounts of magic mushrooms and hash brownies.
      Stuff was flying at my head, the script was nonsensical and to top it all off it made me sleepy.

      My niece on the other hand loved it and swore it was the greatest thing this side of the Milky Way. She is 6 years old so this reaction is to be expected.
      Too bad for filmmakers everyone in the audience is not under the age of 10.
      So they better invest in great script writing and knockoff all this 3D nonsense.

      Next time I better take her to the zoo. I am sure to have a better experience watching monkeys throw feces at the glass.

    • 1 year ago
  • WMS10
    • 0
      WMS10  

    • I don't think its a passing fad but i do think it is stepping stone to the next best thing. But I'm all for it. Some movies are either in 3D for no reason or they don't add much but whenever i hear about a movie in 3D I think 'why not?'

    • 1 year ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • WMS10:

      As long as they keep the same technique they've used that has had a rise and fall in popularity in past decades it will only be a fad.

      It might be a "stepping stone" to something better, but it's not there yet until they get rid of the glasses.

      If it is motivation to develope a more sophisticated system like laser holography then it would qualify as an "evolution"

    • 1 year ago
  • mario_a
    • 0
      mario_a  
    • WMS10:

      The industry jumped on this trend, but with a flood of post-process 3-D movies a la Clash of the Titans. Bad.

      Even Alice and Wonderland was predominately post-process 3-D, with only a handful of scenes shot with 3-D in mind. My personal opinion is that Avatar was a terrible film, but it was a good proof of concept -- if shot 100% using 3-D technology the result can be stunning.

      That said, every studio choosing to jump on the trend is not backing full-fledged 3-D filmmaking tech. The worry is that the more post-process 3-D that is released, the higher chance audiences will see it as a gimmick and the well will dry up.

    • 1 year ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  

    • Another passing fad because the same trick has been used since 1931 and it doesn't work for everyone.

      Anatomically, there are 3 levels of binocular vision required to view stereo images:

      1 Simultaneous perception
      2 Fusion (binocular 'single' vision)
      3 Stereopsis

      These functions develop in early childhood. Some people who have strabismus disrupt the development of stereopsis, however orthoptics treatment can be used to improve binocular vision. A person's stereoacuity determines the minimum image disparity they can perceive as depth.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • mik661:

      No problem, anything I can do to help since I suffer from a lack of fusion that prevents depth perception, the stereoptic effect that has been used in such a process called "3D" doesn't work with me and a certain percentage of the population.

      That's one of the reasons it has fallen out of popularity before since "the gimmick" isn't universally accepted and it hasn't been integrated with the story in the majority of cases.

    • 1 year ago
  • cclark_productions
    • +2
      cclark_productions  

    • i feel like a lot of people think that just because they make something 3D its going to automatically make the movie suck less.... and that is not the case most of the time. if the 3D works and enhances it sure, but if its just some cheap attempt to do the whole "omg look its all in my face and shit!" then it gets to the point where we're murdering the movie industry.

    • 1 year ago
  • ScottyT
  • IAmATVJunkie
    • 0
      IAmATVJunkie  

    • Here's a novel idea ... write better scripts and screw the 3D.

      I saw Avatar, at home, no 3D, and frankly it sucked. And I can't imagine the 3D made it amazing, just a little more annoying.

    • 1 year ago
  • CalgarC
    • 0
      CalgarC  

    • we have had 3d for a while... it never really took of until recently... its all marketing, in a year people will be pirating 3d movies and using generic 3d glasses and something new will be the in thing...

    • 1 year ago
mario_a
more from Big Featured Discussions:
from the community

top videos