Originally Posted by Diapositivo
Last June 11th I made this post along the same lines. It contains a link to a different article that drew a similar conclusion. There was some disagreement in the thread, however, as to whether the new found unpopularity of 3D would have any residual upward effect on film sales.
[Edit] The updated link to that earlier article is now here.
Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 07-27-2011 at 02:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Added [Edit] with updated link...
"They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back theyll still be there looking at you."
Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs
I doubt that we ever see the day when everyone will be in agreement that 3D improved movies. After all, does everyone agree that adding color to movies improved them? What about adding sound?
Psychologic effects or mind control is easier with 3D. 10 years ago , I had been read an article on movie and central nervous system control. And there is a soviet propaganda tv ad at google from East Germany.
You can easily hypnosis , under contiousness attack people with 3D. I think biggest danger is watching CNN 3D and wake up the morning when you want to save the USA from muslims. Gringos try every trick to do this. Or Hologram Newspapers , how much background information Murdoch would put in.
I think there must be a filter , reader to show mind control effects or 50 year later , people start new revolutions like Egypt , Without a reason !
I think proper 3D (with glasses) is going to be all the rage in the game industry. Imagine playing a flight simulator such as "Red Baron" or a formula 1 simulator in "proper" 3D. The game would calculate the two different frames exactly, and the user would have a much more realistic experience. Realism, "immersion" in the scene is very important for games.
Cinema is a different beast. Films like "Tora, Tora, Tora" or "The battle of the Midway" would have certainly be much more spectacular with proper 3D effects. Imagine the final "triello" in Il brutto, il buono, il cattivo. More spectacular but, overall, the film would remain the same. I don't know if I would pay more to see the shovel appear "near".
Landscape would certainly gain. All the western films having in the landscape an important part of the attraction would certainly be much more pleasant.
But, ultimately, a film is good or bad for other qualities than "realism". We still enjoy B&W films of the past. Just like Fellini 8½ wouldn't really gain anything from colour, it would not really gain anything from 3D.
I don't think "glassless 3D" to ever become realistic. It's either two different images for the two different eyes (taken from two different points of view, an inter-pupillar distance apart) or it's not 3D.
Glassless 3D is a very real possibility. We currently have, and have had since the 60's-70's, the ability to do this using fly's eye arrays placed over TV screens. It all goes back to Gabriel Lippmann's integral imaging concept. We could have a glasses-free television set today if the manufacturers and broadcasters saw fit to do so.
Umut, you raise a very interesting point! TV already has an opiate like effect, and one can only imagine when it is even more lifelike. It's like the soma & "light boxes" of A Brave New World. That's why I think the future is gonna be such a wild place to be... my grandkids might be amazed that grandpa used to watch 2D television! (and that Church and state used to be separated... )
If you are the big tree, we are the small axe
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The Problem isn't Hollywood or 3D alone
but certain countries that promote digital Cinemas like Norway (all 420 screens in Norway are digital http://www.screendaily.com/news/digi...36.article)and Germany (Cinemas that Change to digital receive a lot of founding). The EU actively promotes the digitalisation of cinema as well. The BBC, National Geographic and NHK no longer accept documentaries shot with Film as it interferes with their Broadcast compression Format (worst quality but cheapest). Indie Filmmaker have discovered the Red or Canon DSLRs a lot cheaper than a pro 35mm Camera (Red around $18 000 new vs Aaton Penelope $ 120 000 new or a decent used sync sound camera e.g. Arri 35bl4 $ 18 000 used ). 90% of the movies made in Hollywood and in Europe use Digital Intermediates instead of classic IP Films. Quiet a few Blockbusters use the Red for FX Shots the classic territory of the VISTAVISION 8 Perf or Mitchell 4 Perf cameras. Another point in digitals favour is the lack of grain and High Speed of the Cameras (the current Hollywood DP Bigwigs favourite Digi Cam. Arri Alexa ASA 800) meaning smaller lightning package. Distribution cost are still lower when using Film, a DI is quiet expensive (around $ 30 000 Film and a 2K DI averages around 60 000 to a 100 000 $) But let's not forget that most movies will never be shown in a cinema but are straight to TV or DVD productions. It's still possible to make a cheap movie using Film ($10 000 Budget shot in 35mm Anamorphic with Russian Cameras and lenses) but they usually lack advertisment dollars and the public will never hear about them. Politicians want to appear modern and Film isn't a sexy new technology that's the reason why Digital screens receive fundings and non digital screens are closing down
It is not important whatever small norway do. Look at China or India. Half of the world lives there and they have bigger film industries than hollywood. Do they switch to digital screens also ? I dont think so.
@holmburgers, when I said glassless 3d is IMO not realistic I didn't mean it is infeasible (unrealistic as an industrial product), I meant that is the effect that is not "realistic", there being no good separation between the information reaching the two eyes, the "tridimensionality" is likely to be defective in any glassless technology.
Your link is writing about dvd sales , not theaters. I cant think that %90 of chinese or indian people can pay the digital screen expenses. But India and China Engineers can serve to its people with 1/100 or less cost, its common.
My only aware can be , not able to find film for my Leica but these days are far from today. If problem is the future of Kodak , I dont care for a american company as they dont care about an Turkish company.
I bought Kodak film for last 30 years and still buying. If its not enough , Goodbye KOdak.