Frustrating, pathetic lack of 3D software...

Which is why I'm not in any hurry to upgrade my HT gear for 3D.  Maybe, next year I'll do so if the studios give me enough software to justify the expense of doing so.

Crawdaddy

Warner Brothers, Universal, Columbia, Disney, and even Imax are asleep at the wheel insofar as releasing back-catalogue titles on 3-D. But that's nothing new.

I believe Imax has released a few of large-format documentaries on 3-D Blu-ray.

Anyone else want to chime in on the call for more software?

I will include your comments in my next pitch to the investors to fund new stereoscopic indy films.

I've suspected for some time that this latest 3D craze won't sustain itself, and this is just an indication.  It's interesting that the OP mentioned none of the current crop of 3D films.

I feel there are a few problems here...

First, 3D is basically still a new format both theatrically and

for the home market.  For that reason there hasn't been a

lot of theatrical content produced over the past two years.

However, you can see how much that is changing.  Every

movie billboard I see of upcoming holiday films is touting

the fact that it's being presented in 3D.  So theatrically, it

seems there's a crapload of stuff coming out and all of that

will translate to the home market next year.

The second problem is exclusivity.  I understand why 

hardware manufacturers are locking content.  Imagine how

many more Panasonic displays could be sold just so people

can get their hands on Avatar.  Will that scheme work? Perhaps.

The problem is, the consumers end up getting hurt in the long

run because some of the "most wanted" releases are being tied

up for the next year or more.  AVATAR probably will remain

exclusive for the next two years, I am guessing.

Yet another problem as to why the studios aren't flooding

the market with some of the titles listed in the original post

is because everyone is still at a "wait and see" period for the

format.  I am certain the studios are gauging sales to make 

sure that there are enough displays and titles being sold to

warrant the expense involved in bringing more titles to the 

market.  You don't just flood the market when there is still

a bit of uncertainty of how well the technology is going to

take off in the home.

...and I am guessing this, but I think I'm spot on here.

As far as content that is now available....

While I feel the home market is still lacking in titles, I think

there is a decent amount of software available already that

is great demo material.  Certainly, most all the IMAX films

are tremendous (do not purchase WILD OCEAN by Image).

The 3D animated films I have seen so far look great as well.

Then there are the dish and cable companies that have been

promising content, but thus far I haven't seen any on Verizon

Fios.  I believe DirecTV may have a sports channel up and 

running, but sports can be the worst thing to watch on 3D with

all its fast-cutting camera angles.  I would hope that what they

are televising is watchable.

From someone looking from the inside out, I can assure you

that 3D lives up to its hype.  I have been on a 3D binge for the

past few days.  I have contacted most every studio and asked

them to send me content, which they have done without hesitation.

Every morning after breakfast I slip in a 3D title to suddenly become 

immersed in a highly enjoyable experience.   It's so hard for me

to tell all of you how cool this technology is without you experiencing

it for yourself. 

The only downside are the glasses.  However, there are more 

lightweight eyewear becoming available though they are expensive.

In another year or two you'll be buying them at bargain prices.

My message to all of you is not to let the lack of software deter

your upgrade plans.  There is great stuff out there now and no doubt

we'll be buried in titles by the end of next year -- as long as the 

manufacturers don't keep making these exclusive deals on the most

sought out titles.

I'm totally in it for the classics.  (Though saying I'm "in it" is a bit of a stretch.)  The ONLY reason I even have 3D now is that it was time for me to buy a Panasonic plasma and the deal at Best Buy resulted in the player and the glasses/discs kit being pretty much "free".  But have I watched, even once through, my bundled copies of Ice Age and Coraline?  Heck no.  I have zero interest in the former and I only used it to make sure everything works, and someday I'll get around to watching the latter.  But the manufacturers and stores are pushing 3D like crazy, so, uh, Where's the Beef?

(EDIT:  Ron's post slipped in while I was - slowly - typing this while sipping my second cup of coffee.)

 you should watch caroline. its a good movie

New formats take a long time to go mainstream. Look at HD-DVD and Blu-ray, one never made it and the other is just recently getting into the average consumer's household. I cannot see 3D TVs going anywhere, more likely the way of HD-DVD. As long as it takes the average consumer to adopt a new format, which they are just starting to do with Blu-ray, no way are they going to jump into another this soon.

I made the mistake of being an early adopter of HD-DVD, and I learned my lesson the expensive way. Never again. I will not jump into a new format until it is somewhat soild. There are no benefits of being an early adopter in this hobby. 

Ron,

I feel this is different than your experience with HD-DVD.

That was a format war with two different technologies

battling it out for supremacy.

However, I do understand your concern about where 3D

may be a year from now.  Personally, I don't see there

any chance of failure.  What is going to happen is that

3D capability is going to become more standard in lower

priced displays.  This means that consumers who were

going to buy a new display anyway will have the capability

of 3D thrown into the mix.

Right now, the price of 3D plasmas, LED and LCDs are

plummeting.  It doesn’t really cost much more to move up

to a 3D display.

But the advantages of waiting will mean better pricing and

a better amount of available software once you make that entry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron-P 

New formats take a long time to go mainstream. Look at HD-DVD and Blu-ray, one never made it and the other is just recently getting into the average consumer's household. I cannot see 3D TVs going anywhere, more likely the way of HD-DVD. As long as it takes the average consumer to adopt a new format, which they are just starting to do with Blu-ray, no way are they going to jump into another this soon.

 

I made the mistake of being an early adopter of HD-DVD, and I learned my lesson the expensive way. Never again. I will not jump into a new format until it is somewhat soild. There are no benefits of being an early adopter in this hobby. 

...and sometimes a technology completely fails due to a lack of consumer interest. High resolution music (SACD and DVD-Audio) is probably the best recent example. It ended up being a product that consumers just didn't care about, even though the formats were being integrated with new DVD and CD players. I think 3D will end up being the same thing in the home market.

i will probably purchase 3-D before Christmas...and i am hoping the "classics" make it out soon as well...but i realize that it is not an over 55 purchaser that is buying into the format...sporting events and gamers will probably drive the sales of the technology.  So when something is released it's going to be something recent for younger audience.  It would be so great to have Vincent's HOUSE OF WAX, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, DIAL M, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON....but it ain't gonna happen soon (darn). i will stick with it....purchase interesting titles as they come along....and continue to complain about the lack of titles...for a long time.....oh!!....the exclusive thing of titles and manufactures....will not stop me from purchasing the SET UP that i want....ugh....bad idea on their part.....

It would certainly raise my interest in 3D is these 5 were available.  Of course it would lower my interest is they cost $35.  Right now, BB wants $35 for the new Clash of the Titans, Cats and Dogs, Polar Express, Disney's a Christmas Carol, Imax (Space Station, Deep Sea, Under the Sea).  They want $30 for Cloudy with Meatballs, Monster House, Open Season, The Last Airbender.

All these prices decrease my interest.  I won't be buying them at those prices.  I did however, use the the DR coupon to get the 3D blu of Disney's Christmas Carol.  I can watch the 2D for now.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Nelson 

HOUSE OF WAX

CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON

REVENGE OF THE CREATURE

IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE

DIAL M FOR MURDER

Wow.  Not one of those current titles interests me in the least, and those prices are ridiculous.  Are these selling?

It’s true that the studios are trying to eke as much revenue as they can out of 3D, but I see evidence that interest is declining.  I quote from a PC Magazine article on the subject of 3D movies:

So interest is fading, and there’s a surfeit of schlock with 3D.  I see TV manufacturers trying to “force” 3D purchases by including all their top features (Internet apps, improved black levels, etc.) on only the 3D models as a way to mask the fact that interest in 3D isn't that great.  I'd be willing to bet that if all the top features were offered on 2D TVs along with the associated price drop, the bottom would fall out of 3D sales.

I really want 3D to succeed.  I'd love to have some of those old movies (and new) in 3D.  I'm just not going to mortgage the farm for it.  I don't think a 3D blu-ray should cost more than $5 more than a standard blu.  Is that economically viable for the studios?  I don't know.  I just know that's what works for me.  Without the DR coupon, I would not have bought Christmas Carol.

I am frustrated by the pricing model on 3D as well.  For

something the studios are trying to push they certainly

aren't giving potential customers any incentives.

The Warner Imax titles are about $45 MSRP and $35 

discounted for programming under 45 minutes.  That's

totally inane.  I also feel Disney selling A Christmas 

Carol at such a huge premium isn't helping either.

I suppose the studios feel that there will always be

hungry-starved early adopters willing to lay down that

kind of money and if and once the 3D market becomes

more dominant the prices will fall.   I am not defending

the practice but it has been kind of the norm with every

new format that has come along.

I think this just shows how limited 3D is.  You are only really going to get visual documentaries, animated and some action films.  To me is is a useless format.  Just give me a good film with yop notch writing, acting and direction.  There was a time when films stood on thier own and did not relay on a gimick.  

I see this again as much of a content failure as lack of consumer interest.  I eagerly bought into both formats, but there was just nothing to play on them once you got them home.

Same with 3D.  If you don't make the software attractive, nobody needs/wants the hardware.

I find the home version of 3d (at least those displayed in stores), to be very difficult to watch. I find my eyes shifting back and forth, and in just a short time feeling serious eye strain.

Frankly I suspect that 3D will fade out just as it did the last 2 times Hollywood tried to use it to boost dropping box office. Perhaps they should try making some good movies instead.

As for the titles listed in the original post, I would love to have them in 3D also, but we are talking about classic 1950's and 80's sci-fi films, on blu-ray, in 3D. A niche of a niche of a niche. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Doug

I was thinking about something the other day, and wondered if anyone else is even aware of just how difficult true 3D is for most movies.

"Most" meaning Live-Action, big-budget, SFX laden tent poles. That's Hollywood's specialty, and the majority of popular releases would fall into that category. If you'll think about it we haven't seen a single filmed 3D release of that kind yet, the closest probably being the last Resident Evil movie, which is still a pretty conservative release.

The difficulty, time, and ultimate costs of staging and executing 3D for the complex SFX you'd see in an Iron Man, Transformers, or Star Trek are just too much. It's easy to click the '3D' button on a computer rendered feature (including Avatar), and it's pretty easy to just film actors in front of nothing but a bluescreen (like SpyKids or Journey...Earth). But for a 'real' movie, studios would rather spend 20-30 million a picture converting it.

Meanwhile critics and audiences have made their opinions pretty clear, they don't like 3D conversions.

List of 2011 Live Action 'Blockbusters';

The Green Hornet... in (converted) 3D

Sucker Punch!... in (converted) 3D

Thor... in (converted) 3D

Pirates 4... in (converted) 3D

The Green Lantern... in (converted) 3D

Harry Potter 7 2... in (converted) 3D

Captain America... in (converted) 3D

As always it's new content that drives hardware adoption, which drives catalog releases. And there would seem to be a problem here. Perhaps in a few years we'll all think "those damn conversions killed 3D... again!"

Doug,

Your assessment of home 3D is correct.

From my experiences over the past week

I have noticed focusing problems when there

is just too much going on within the frame or

eye strain when the content is not properly

encoded.   

However, when it's good -- and there is good

stuff out there -- it's a real pleasure to watch.

I've been truly surprised by the big push for home 3-D; I never would have guessed such a development. While Disney theatrical 3-D has been a huge step forward, so far as quality of effect, the concept of 3-D has always seemed gimmicky in nature and very limited in appeal and application...and I'm not one of those old-school guys. I'm ready to embrace anything that represents true and significant advancement in home theater, but to my way of thinking, 3-D just isn't an all the time, across the board feature. To top it off, the public will no doubt get swamped with existing titles, poorly converted to 3-D, or simply poor 3-D candidates...which probably describes 90% of existing titles. Would 3-D actually enhance the viewing experience of 'Winter's Bone'? How about 'Up in the Air', or even 'The Hurt Locker'? Aside from sophisticated animation and action films, it seems to me an application looking for a purpose.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. 3D is ultimately a fail until you can do it without the glasses.

Until that time, no way will I buy into it, when the glasses cost over $100 each. My wife, kids, friends and family would be out of luck on a home movie night, wouldn't they?

Avatar is the only movie I had any interest in seeing 3D at the movies. Shoot, the price just for my wife and i to get in was $25! Less than a year later here I am buying the Blu-ray (in 2D of course) for less than the movie tickets cost.

Avatar was fun, and worth the extra price to see in 3D. But Shrek, Toy Story, or anything else I can think of on the horizon. Eh, 2D is good, especially if it was not even shot with 3D in mind! Those converted fake 3D movies will kill it fast for either the home or cinema.

You guys may be on to something....

http://www.twice.com/article/460107-3D_TV_Sales_Gets_Failing_Grade_So_Far.php

I don't know that it will fail. I think if done right, it can look good. And that may just take a bit of time. Right now, I think the only place it's done right is in the theaters. But I think it's just a matter of when and NOT if.

On the other hand, I do think it's very unhealthy, even if you don't currently experience headaches, eye fatigue, or other symptoms as many people do. Some are just more sensitive, but in the long run I believe everyone is affected whether they realize it or not. Watching a 3 hour movie can cause more fatigue, etc. But this is the age of technology, and a lot of it is simply bad for people's health. But that won't stop it!

Fact: people are buying into 3-D.

The demand is greater than the supply.

There aren't enough 3-D films being made, and those that are being made are mostly computer animation.

Too much of the same thing and not enough variety.

3-D hardware sales would be a lot busier if consumers were offered more 3-D movies.

Not just classics, but new films, in all genres.

Why buy 3-D hardware if you can't buy 3-D movies to watch it with.

The studios could dust off some of the classics, and release them in theaters around Halloween. That would certainly strike up some interest in a Blu-ray release.

I seriously doubt prolonged 3D viewing with current technology is anymore unhealthy than staring at a computer monitor all day. If theaters can avoid the sloppy projection that marred the process in the old days, (which did give people headaches, myself included) the future is deep.

I understand why sets aren't selling.  Initially there was a huge premium on them. and there is still very little content.  Over the next year or two the prices of 3D sets will come down to parity with 2D sets and more software will be available.  I don't see 3D being a failure.  Its just hard to be a smashing success with less than 15 titles available and only a few are movies.  Hopefully a lot of the exclusives like Monsters v Aliens, Shrek films, How to Train Your Dragon, Avatar, Ice Age 3, Bolt and Alice in Wonderland will soon be available for purchase.  That would just about double the titles available. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradley-E 

I think this just shows how limited 3D is.  You are only really going to get visual documentaries, animated and some action films.  To me is is a useless format.  Just give me a good film with yop notch writing, acting and direction.  There was a time when films stood on thier own and did not relay on a gimick.  

Everything from talkies, to color and widescreen, even surround sound are all "gimmicks" in their own way.

Good writing, directing, acting, and photography helps, whether it's in 3-D or not.

3-D is a visual language, not a gimmick. Depth is a subtle and subliminal experience as well an overt one. It is no more a gimmick than the pan, the tilt, the dolly in or dolly out, the tracking shot, the close-up, the medium shot, the wide shot, the establishing shot, the coverage shots of singles and pairs. You have two eyes to see in depth. It is only natural that films be shot with two lenses and viewed in depth.

People who call 3-D a gimmick are as uncomprehending and nonsensical as the earliest audiences who objected to D.W. Griffith's close-ups because they paid to see the complete actor from head to toe, or the studio bosses who said in the late 1920s that sound would never catch on, and that color would be injurious to the eyes.

Audiences become acclimated through repetition.