Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › 3D Blu-ray › A few words about...™ 3D -- in Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A few words about...™ 3D -- in Blu-ray

post #1 of 109
Thread Starter 

Let me begin by saying that I am in no way anti-3D.  I lived through every 3D film in the '50s, and generally was bored with them.

 

I took a serious look at over 20 3D releases, and came away generally pleased.

 

In my research, I eliminated any discs that were not easily available to the general public -- more later.

 

The list of titles that I examined on both a 55" flat panel as well as via JVC projection encompassed about

half a dozen live action films, the same number of animated features and about ten shorts.

 

I have problems with how the films are being presented and viewed.

 

Let's go to facts.

 

Last summer I added a new Samsung to my environment in order to see and report on 3D.  Half a year later, the thousand or so dollars that I spent on optics enabling the films to be viewed will no longer function on Samsung's latest flat panels.  Not a great way to keep customers in the fold.

 

Let's discuss glasses for a moment.  The optics are generally off-color.  Those in from JVC are decidedly green, for absolutely no reason that I can find.  Assuming that they must have density, why not go for a nice neutral?

 

Green?!

 

While Xpand will be coming out with their universal X104 later this year, I've not seen them.  I'm told that they will bridge the gap between different vendors and communication mechanisms, and may be colorless.  I'll report on those once I have them in hand.

 

The one thing that I find abhorrent is the concept that one must purchase several flat panels a year, or at least enough glasses to cover an outing from your third graders' entire class.  In terms of marketing, the concept of forcing people to buy monitors or glasses in order to get the 3D product that they may wish is about as idiotic as things come.  One certain sci-fi title, which I'll not mention, as it isn't in general distribution was going for well over $100 a copy on eBay, and that's what I had to pay to see if it was any good on Blu-ray.

 

Not allowing the consumer the ability to purchase the Blu-rays that want to see, is akin to shooting the rollout of the system in one foot, while forcing consumers to view through colored optics nicely puts a hole in the other.

 

For anyone who takes the concept of home theater seriously, there is currently no way to tune a viewing surface.

 

Buy manufacturers optics, you get one color, buy a universal a few weeks later you get another, with no way to adjust color while multiple pairs are in use.  Does one throw away the first few pairs purchased?  Not a problem.  Let's burn some $500 bills.

 

Is 3D enjoyable?

 

Yes, generally, as long as you don't mind viewing a dim image and wearing glasses.

 

I still prefer a good script.

 

What I've learned from going over the various releases is that a single company stands at the fore in terms of quality.

 

Disney.

 

While Warners' animated Owl film is fun, some of their live action fare is virtually worthless.  Saw, from Lionsgate, works in 3D, while Sony's fish picture gave me a headache.

 

Disney is at the top of the heap with the animated A Christmas Carol, Alice in Wonderland and the live action Step Up.

 

The absolutely best 3D feature out there is Disney's Tron Legacy, packaged with the original Tron.  This is nice story-telling with

brilliantly used 3D.  If one were to purchase just one 3D film, Tron should be it.

 

Generally short films from IMAX are too expensive, but will come down.  They range from nicely produced, some of the undersea pieces, to a near abhorrent flying picture that's a bore like many IMAX films of yore.

 

The various animated features such as Cloudy, are fun, but the real treat is seeing a live-action film shot in 3D, not converted in post like Warner's Clash of the Titans.

 

Kenny Chesney, from Image is fun, as long as one is a Chesney fan.

 

My take on 3D is very simple.

 

It isn't ready for prime time.  

 

Between changes in glasses and synchronization systems possibly yet to come, and only now discussion underway for some sort of standard, we're back to Beta vs. VHS, and red vs. blu.

 

If you really have to have the toy now, pick up a nice panel or projector that does a great job with 2D, purchase a minimal number of pairs of glasses, checking them for any color before putting down your cash.  If they have color, don't buy them.  Then buy the Disney releases for their overall quality, and add a couple of others if you must.

 

But my advice is to generally steer clear until the manufacturers decide whether they want the steering wheel on the right, or on the left.

 

For those who already have 3D, add Tron Legacy to your library.  It 's the best out there.

 

RAH

post #2 of 109

Very well put, Mr. Harris.  I did get to help offset the purchase of my new plasma set by auction the sf title and 3D glasses you mentioned. :)

 

post #3 of 109

I couldn't agree more. If I make any purchases of 3D technology in the near future, it will be a 3D Blu-Ray player, just to future-proof myself. I'm not in any sort of rush to get a 3D display.

post #4 of 109

I am about to leave for a week's vacation so I 

won't be able to stay involved in this discussion.

 

I agree with Mr. Harris that 3D is not ready for 

prime-time  -- but only on the basis that, as with

most every other format, the manufacturers can't get

on the same page as far as standardizing everything.

 

However, as far as the active-shutter technology 

is concerned, I am extremely happy with it.  I think

home 3D is absolutely amazing and I personally 

would not discourage anyone from buying into it 

as long as they go with the shutter technology.

 

I would also recommend plasma over LCD/LED

as from the demos we saw, the 3D looked better

on the plasma.

 

I have an LG 3D display.  Adam Gregorich has

a Panasonic.  The both of us are both very happy

with the entertainment value we have gotten out

of our displays and the 3D titles we watched.

Perhaps Adam will jump in and elaborate further.

 

I don't really notice the dimming of the picture.

The Panasonic models supposedly compensate

for any brightness loss for pumping it up in 3D mode.

 

I really have no major arguments with Mr. Harris'

viewpoint.  This is a very subjective format where

some people are really going to benefit from it, and

others won't think as highly of it.  I hear mixed opinions

about 3D television all the time. 

 

Wish there were more better films out there to

watch in 3D, but I have enjoyed much of what

is already available.  Fortunately, there is a lot

of 3D in the theatrical pipeline that should end

up on Blu-ray.

 

 

Visit our 240DVD240BLU-RAY and 2403D REVIEW ARCHIVES

post #5 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein View Post

I am about to leave for a week's vacation so I 

won't be able to stay involved in this discussion.

 

I agree with Mr. Harris that 3D is not ready for 

prime-time  -- but only on the basis that, as with

most every other format, the manufacturers can't get

on the same page as far as standardizing everything.

 

However, as far as the active-shutter technology 

is concerned, I am extremely happy with it.  I think

home 3D is absolutely amazing and I personally 

would not discourage anyone from buying into it 

as long as they go with the shutter technology.

 

I would also recommend plasma over LCD/LED

as from the demos we saw, the 3D looked better

on the plasma.

 

I have an LG 3D display.  Adam Gregorich has

a Panasonic.  The both of us are both very happy

with the entertainment value we have gotten out

of our displays and the 3D titles we watched.

Perhaps Adam will jump in and elaborate further.

 

I don't really notice the dimming of the picture.

The Panasonic models supposedly compensate

for any brightness loss for pumping it up in 3D mode.

 

I really have no major arguments with Mr. Harris'

viewpoint.  This is a very subjective format where

some people are really going to benefit from it, and

others won't think as highly of it.  I hear mixed opinions

about 3D television all the time. 

 

Wish there were more better films out there to

watch in 3D, but I have enjoyed much of what

is already available.  Fortunately, there is a lot

of 3D in the theatrical pipeline that should end

up on Blu-ray.

 

 

Visit our 240DVD240BLU-RAY and 2403D REVIEW ARCHIVES


A solid point of view.  We agree regarding active shutter technology, as the forthcoming "glasses-free" is, as far as i understand, the latest miracle, which seems not to work terribly well, but sheds the glasses, albeit apparently at half rez and with limitations.

 

One of the more amazing attributes of shutter technology is the ability to walk right up to a projection screen with no loss of 3D imagery.

 

3D modes, whether built in or added via remote do up the brightness, but none seem to be able to get around the ND (or in most cases, the colored density) loss.

 

That said, prepping for 3D is a good idea to make oneself future proof, and here again, Ron and I agree.  I've been a huge proponent of buying Blu-ray players and discs since the end of the red/blu dispute.  I don't know how many times I've explained that there is no immediate need for the investment in an HD flat panel or projector, as a Blu-ray player, running a BD disc can be output to a  b &w 1949 TV, if desired.

 

My problems are with the lack of standards, and the inability of the public to purchase the discs they desire to own, as hardware manufacturers are herding them, branding them, and them only selling the filet if you buy the entire steer.

 

Their steer.

 

One additional point regarding standardization, is that in many cases the glasses that you purchase for your Samsung will not work with your new JVC, or whatever, and that's just ridiculous.  How many sets of 3D glasses does one need to own?

 

Right now, it seems that until the new Xpand arrives, the answer appears to be several pair with each device.

 

RAH

 

post #6 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post


Not allowing the consumer the ability to purchase the Blu-rays that want to see, is akin to shooting the rollout of the system in one foot, while forcing consumers to view through colored optics nicely puts a hole in the other.

 



I couldn't agree more.  Of course this is the way American business works.  It makes no sense to restrict the availability of product for a new technology.  I can imagine the lost sales when a customer goes in to BB to get the new 3D Samsung and Avatar and finds he can't.

 

There are two films I'd like to own in 3D, Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon, but I can't because I have to buy the whole steer.  I've a personal policy, particularly when I can get a deal, to buy the 3D version of a film even though I don't have 3D yet.  I have Disney's Christmas Carol and 2-3 other 3D movies and I don't think I've paid more than $20.  I won't buy Dragon in 2D but I had to have Avatar.

 

Aren't these exclusive deal movies losing a bunch of sales by doing this?  Avatar will get away with it.  It will retain a high degree of desirability until it finally goes into general release.  I don't think any of the others will have that level of demand waiting for them.  They are missing out on their window of sales opportunity.

 

As for us buying into 3D, the economy needs to get better first.

post #7 of 109
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell View Post

Aren't these exclusive deal movies losing a bunch of sales by doing this?  Avatar will get away with it.  It will retain a high degree of desirability until it finally goes into general release.  I don't think any of the others will have that level of demand waiting for them.  They are missing out on their window of sales opportunity.

 

As for us buying into 3D, the economy needs to get better first.



I would presume that the hardware manufacturers are making the studios an offer they can't refuse toward exclusivity.

 

RAH

post #8 of 109

3D's never going to get bigger unless there's product to watch. I'm fairly neutral on the subject, but having glasses that are incompatible and few titles on the shelf doesn't make 3D's future look too good. Also, needing to wear glasses at all turns a lot of people off. 

 

I'm convinced the main thing driving the sales of 3D hardware right now isn't title exclusivity as the manufacturer would like to believe, but the fact that many large flat screen HDTVs cannot be bought without it. I recently purchased a 55" Samsung and there was no non-3D alternative with the other specs I wanted. The best displays are 3D-compatible. Plain and simple. Are people watching a lot of 3D content on them? Maybe the disc that came with their display and a couple of others, but that's not much for such a hyped feature.

post #9 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Quote:



I would presume that the hardware manufacturers are making the studios an offer they can't refuse toward exclusivity.

 

RAH


Yeah, I guess they boost their profits in the short term.  It seems to me they are risking the future of 3D software sales for short term profits and are not thinking about what is best for the new technology.  Not the first time American business has done this.

 

post #10 of 109

Great thread.  RAH's first post out of the starting gate was like a blast of fresh air.

 

Excuse my ignorance, but -- off-color glasses??  (My Panasonics are neutral, are they not?  Now I've got to check them out as best I can.) 

 

I think the exclusivity and the competing standards are corporate ass-holery at its finest.  Have these companies learned nothing?  All but one will have to capitulate, right?  Or worst case, they all will, and then we lose.

 

Glad to hear I'm future-proof in at least one aspect of life.  Now I want some product.  All the classics.  With apologies to RAH who's not excited by them, but those would be immediate-buy comfort food for many of us.  And I love me some contemporary comfort food as well, with apologies to Ron who's likewise unexcited about the Tron films.  I have a few free evenings coming up this week and I look forward to enjoying all, uh, three of my 3D films.

 

post #11 of 109



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell View Post


Yeah, I guess they boost their profits in the short term.  It seems to me they are risking the future of 3D software sales for short term profits and are not thinking about what is best for the new technology.  Not the first time American business has done this.

 


I will weigh in here more a bit later today.  As much as I hate title exclusivity it had a purpose, but I think it has now outlived that purpose.  There had to be some content when the displays launched and the studios weren't about to release anything on their own, so the HW companies licensed titles and paid for the 3D encoding and duplication.  While money changed hands, I don't think it was an earth shattering amount and it was a necessary evil to get some titles in the consumers hands.  From sources I have spoken to the only titles under exclusivity right now are Avatar, Megamind and the maybe the Shrek films.  I wish the studios *cough* Dreamworks *cough* would get off their collective asses and start releasing some of the films that were exclusive earlier (kudos to Universal for releasing Coraline after their agreement with Panasonic expired).

 

And if anyone knows where I can pick up Megamind 3D for under $75 let me know.
 

 

post #12 of 109

While I did buy a 3D Blu-ray player, I haven't yet purchased a display. I'm only interested in seeing actual natively-filmed 3D movies--none of this converted-to-3D crap. Mr. Lucas and Mr. Cameron, we don't really need Star Wars and Titanic in 3D, but I'm sure they will make you piles more money, so have away. I can just see the studios going hog wild and start converting classics like The Wizard of Oz and Casablanca to 3D. And then you have these displays that will automatically convert everything to 3D! How useless is that? It can't be very accurate. When I finally purchase a 3D display, it will be to watch movies that were filmed in and designed for 3D--movies like Kiss Me Kate, Dial 'M' for Murder and Hondo.

post #13 of 109

Loved Tron Legacy in 3D. I have a Panny set and the bundle included the plasma, 3D Blu-ray player and that Sci-Fi Movie That Shall Not Be Named (SFMTSNBN).

 

The director of SFMTSNBN has a setting that one can use to optimize 3D viewing when a 3D disc is popped into the player.  Any other Blu-ray can default to a THX mode, which is quite nice as far as settings are concerned.  Panasonic, I think, have made the complicated easier.  Of course we can debate why this is complicated to begin with, but I digress...

 

I saw SFMTSNBN with my son, and it was quite an experience to find ourselves peering *into* the scenes. The detail is just astounding.

 

But yeah, Tron Legacy rules too ;)  The lightbike sequence was all eye candy, and the light trails from the bikes looked like hard candy that's been melted down and stretched out.  Yummy.

 

As far as the future...can you imagine something like this, where the disc contains the extrusion data and the player or monitor plots the 3D extrusion effect using an embedded camera to determine head positions...? 

 

I agree, we're not there yet, but I'm enjoying what we have right now (true 3d, no conversion stuff).

post #14 of 109

From what I read a few months ago, the sales of 3D hardware was regarded by the manufactures as disappointing at best. Some were calling it a disaster. I can’t find the stories I was reading now, but several commentators who report on consumer electronics were calling 3D at home all but dead. Also 3D in the theater isn’t drawing the ticket sales that it was a year ago. I think the novelty is wearing off. It’s a shame they couldn’t make some quality films in 3D like Avatar or Tron Legacy. Most of it has been pretty forgettable shlock.

 

Doug

 

By the way, why is it I now have to turn off the editing tools at the top of the reply box by hitting the source button, just to be able to type. It is getting more and more difficult just to be able to use this forum!

post #15 of 109

I was on the sideline for 3d as  well. I did get a awesome price on a panasonic HDTV set. I must say that its a great tv. and it also plays some 3d as well. image that. I do agree that there is not much content out there. I have bought a few titles that I would probably not buy if it was not in 3d. I did enjoy cameron's movie in 3d. I enjoyed more on the tv then in the theatre. the one question that I get often asked. people seem to think that it does 3d only and they dont think that it will play 2d as well. I have to explain more about that then anything else. my panasonic glasses dont have any color problems. I read that samsung is lowering the price on the glasses. I hope that panasonic does the same. I found that the panasonic did have the best picture for 3d. I also use thx for 2d and then the cameron settings for 3d. they work great. its the first tv set that I didnt have to fess with the many settings. there are suppose to be some movies in 3d later this year some are converted and some are filmed in 3d. like thor, captain america, etc. there is a program on direct tv called in the que. it talks about the trailers, music videos and other 3d related stuff. its an hour long. it just premired last week on channel 107. I would highly recommend that show if anyone else has direct tv.

 

Jacob

post #16 of 109
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce View Post

From what I read a few months ago, the sales of 3D hardware was regarded by the manufactures as disappointing at best. Some were calling it a disaster. I can’t find the stories I was reading now, but several commentators who report on consumer electronics were calling 3D at home all but dead. Also 3D in the theater isn’t drawing the ticket sales that it was a year ago. I think the novelty is wearing off. It’s a shame they couldn’t make some quality films in 3D like Avatar or Tron Legacy. Most of it has been pretty forgettable shlock.

 

Doug

 

The 3D craze of the early '50s lasted precisely 2 years, 3 months, beginning in November 1952 with Bwana Devil, and ending in February 1955 with Revenge of the Creature.

 

We may be on schedule.

 

RAH
 

 

post #17 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Quote:

 

The 3D craze of the early '50s lasted precisely 2 years, 3 months, beginning in November 1952 with Bwana Devil, and ending in February 1955 with Revenge of the Creature.

 

We may be on schedule.

 

RAH
 

 



That is exactly what crossed my mind when I heard that the numbers were down.

 

Doug

post #18 of 109

I'm pretty certain the industry killed off 3D in the fifties.  Would have been easy enough to roll out one or two decent 3D movies throughout the fifties, but no.  Doug Trumbull has been quoted that the industry killed off 70mm (too!) 

 

I took my 3D kit to a friend last week.  Put projector, ps3, 3d conversion box and 2 pairs of DLP Link flicker glasses into two bags and quickly set up at a different location.  Used a spare wall - nice big image.. very impressed friend.  So far I seem to have made a good compromise, though the conversion box has only been available in UK since mid-Feb.  I have no plans to get a 3D tv - not even sure if the tech has come of age yet, to be honest..

 

My only real bugbear is 2D to 3D conversions..  Seems like a huge waste of CGI money to me, for often disappointing results.  I've no idea how the economics add up that such movies are cheaper to film in 2D..  There are a host of cheapie 3D flicks in the old days that seemed to cope okay with the cameras they had.  Perhaps the expense is in the renting of the right video camera to shoot with?  Is anyone filming 3D on film any more?

 

Had a very grim night out at the cinema last wednesday sampling the latest 3D conversion.  What a waste of my damn money to watch a flat muddy sort of image with no joy of being in 3D!  If anything is capable of killing modern 3D in its tracks it is such overpriced failures of depth conversion. 

 

How is an audience to know in advance the quality of the latest 3D experience at the multiplex?  It only takes a few bad presentations to leave a grubby aftertaste, and for 3D to recede as an artform in the public imagination.  Please!  a decent historical movie, or a drama, or a musical.. something worthy.

post #19 of 109

3D died in the 50's because the numbers fell off, its that simple. Believe me if 3D had been a hit the studios would have jumped all over it. They were grasping at straws. Anything to get butts back in the seats. Unfortunately 70mm was pretty much the same situation. Not enough return for the expense of shooting in it. Its also partly why almost no one shoots with scope lenses anymore, everything is Super 35 now or digital.

 

The situation in the 50's is really quite a bit like it is now for the studios. Sales of DVDs (their meal ticket) are dropping like a rock and they have no idea why. I think like the music industry, the studios really didn't see the internet coming. You know when they trot out 3D, they are desperate.

 

Doug

post #20 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce View Post

3D died in the 50's because the numbers fell off, its that simple. Believe me if 3D had been a hit the studios would have jumped all over it. They were grasping at straws. Anything to get butts back in the seats. Unfortunately 70mm was pretty much the same situation. Not enough return for the expense of shooting in it. Its also partly why almost no one shoots with scope lenses anymore, everything is Super 35 now or digital.

 

The situation in the 50's is really quite a bit like it is now for the studios. Sales of DVDs (their meal ticket) are dropping like a rock and they have no idea why. I think like the music industry, the studios really didn't see the internet coming. You know when they trot out 3D, they are desperate.

 

Doug



I disagree.

 

It's not that Hollywood didn't see it coming,  it's that there wasn't much they could do.

 

First,  storage space for any kind of distribution network wasn't viable.  Which actually ties strongly into...

 

Second,  there wasn't,  and really still isn't,  any viable strategy for digital distribution.  Internet bandwidth is finite,  once the internet backbones saturate,  there's no alternative.  Put hundreds of millions of people,  or billions of people on the internet accessing all of their TV & Movies in HD,  and it'll very likely come to a screaming halt.  The backbones,  the local nodes,  they're not setup for that kind of usage,  they'll cave quickly.  Storage might alleviate the problem,  by using local copies and distributing areas seperately without crushing the backbones,  but that causes a whole host of other issues.

 

Key among them is that it sacrifices control,  it puts copies in a large number of hands,  most of whom are likely just button-pushers.  It wouldn't take long before hard drives start getting imaged and passed around. 

 

The third issue is that most users didn't,  and probably still don't,  have the bandwidth to participate in digital distribution on a satisfactory scale.  D/ling an HD movie is no small task.  Weighing the pro's of digital distribution against the cost to reach a possibly small audience probably didn't yield good results.

 

Finally,  the ISPs are a massive roadblock.  A great many of them have bandwidth caps,  like Comcast's 250gig/month limit,  that's 5 movies a month.  Hollywood can't make this happen if some ISP's are going to impose transfer limits,  and it's *very* likely the ISP's are doing this to retain their Cable network dominance and leverage.  Which IMO is stifling progress intentionally.  This is why I'm on Fios,  so I don't have to deal with it.

 

Happily,  Microsoft is paving the way commendably.  The Live service provides a large library of both TV and Movies with an extremely effective distribution network.  Interestingly,  Microsoft appears to be quietly working with studios in testing a revolution to the way we get movies.  I've noted a couple times that movies were available on Live before they were even in theaters at a premium ($20 for the rental in HD if anyone's wondering),  it looks to me like the Studios are experimenting in possible day&date digital distribution with theater releases,  which says to me that Hollywood actually has a plan and they're testing the waters with bypassing traditional distribution models.  Which probably is the best decision they've made in years,  because one of the driving factors of Piracy is the ability to view in the comfort of home,  without the drive,  as soon as the movie comes out.  It's very likely that Hollywood will generate more revenue than they receive now,  especially as they can also bypass "Word of mouth".

 

One of the major upsides for them is that currently,  people see a trailer and decide they want to see a movie,  but usually don't go the day it releases,  planning to go see it at some point,  then hear a review or a friend's impression,  and decide they'll wait.  Digital lets them capitalize,  people don't have to schedule a drive and plan around the theater's schedule,  they can just watch it that night.  So even a bad movie will likely receive more income than it does now,  like it did in the theater's golden age.

 

As far as why they're trotting out 3D,  they do it once every couple generations.  They did it in the 50's,  there was a fuss about it in the late 70's/early 80's,  now they're doing it again because there's 2 generations that haven't seen it before.  It's a marketing gimmick right now,  guaranteed to give a short term revenue spike. 

post #21 of 109


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan-G View Post





I disagree.

 

It's not that Hollywood didn't see it coming,  it's that there wasn't much they could do.

 

First,  storage space for any kind of distribution network wasn't viable.  Which actually ties strongly into...

 

Second,  there wasn't,  and really still isn't,  any viable strategy for digital distribution.  Internet bandwidth is finite,  once the internet backbones saturate,  there's no alternative.  Put hundreds of millions of people,  or billions of people on the internet accessing all of their TV & Movies in HD,  and it'll very likely come to a screaming halt.  The backbones,  the local nodes,  they're not setup for that kind of usage,  they'll cave quickly.  Storage might alleviate the problem,  by using local copies and distributing areas seperately without crushing the backbones,  but that causes a whole host of other issues.

 

 

 

5 or 6 years ago when Netflix introduced its feature film streaming service, there were many arguments on this forum about how it couldn't work. People said the buffering would take hours before the movie would start. Of course it wasn't true. The movies started often in less time than it takes to put a DVD in and skip through the FBI warnings.

 

When that worked, the argument was, well sure you can stream SD, but they will never be able to do HD. Of course they were able to do that and the quality is strikingly good.

 

Then they said well sure but there isn't enough bandwidth to do multi channel audio, it will always be just stereo. Well 4 months ago they introduced 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus, and again it worked just fine.

 

There is always some argument as to why it won't work, and they keep making it work. The internet isn't at a stand still. The ISPs are quite aware of what is going on and they are upgrading their systems to accommodate the traffic. Already the usage of Neflix is way beyond what most people thought it could be just 5 years ago. There is a thread on this forum that was started because of statistics that shows that Neflix is the number 2 subscription on demand service right behind Comcast. Well the internet hasn't screeched to a halt yet, and I have my doubts that it will.

 

Doug

post #22 of 109
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce View Post

3D died in the 50's because the numbers fell off, its that simple. Believe me if 3D had been a hit the studios would have jumped all over it. They were grasping at straws. Anything to get butts back in the seats. Unfortunately 70mm was pretty much the same situation. Not enough return for the expense of shooting in it. Its also partly why almost no one shoots with scope lenses anymore, everything is Super 35 now or digital.

 

Doug


For the demise of 70mm, one must look to Dolby.

 

RAH

 

post #23 of 109


 

 

Quote:
There is always some argument as to why it won't work, and they keep making it work. The internet isn't at a stand still. The ISPs are quite aware of what is going on and they are upgrading their systems to accommodate the traffic.

 



Yet they are imposing limits to how much you can stream each month.  AT&T is starting that process this month and limits you to ten movies a month in HD.  Anything over, you have to pay $10 for every 50 GB.  IMO, that's going to hurt the streaming companies like Netflix and even DirecTV for that matter.

 

post #24 of 109


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan-G View Post





I disagree.

 

It's not that Hollywood didn't see it coming,  it's that there wasn't much they could do.

 

First,  storage space for any kind of distribution network wasn't viable.  Which actually ties strongly into...

 

Second,  there wasn't,  and really still isn't,  any viable strategy for digital distribution.  Internet bandwidth is finite,  once the internet backbones saturate,  there's no alternative.  Put hundreds of millions of people,  or billions of people on the internet accessing all of their TV & Movies in HD,  and it'll very likely come to a screaming halt.  The backbones,  the local nodes,  they're not setup for that kind of usage,  they'll cave quickly.  Storage might alleviate the problem,  by using local copies and distributing areas seperately without crushing the backbones,  but that causes a whole host of other issues.

 

Key among them is that it sacrifices control,  it puts copies in a large number of hands,  most of whom are likely just button-pushers.  It wouldn't take long before hard drives start getting imaged and passed around. 

 

The third issue is that most users didn't,  and probably still don't,  have the bandwidth to participate in digital distribution on a satisfactory scale.  D/ling an HD movie is no small task.  Weighing the pro's of digital distribution against the cost to reach a possibly small audience probably didn't yield good results.

 

Finally,  the ISPs are a massive roadblock.  A great many of them have bandwidth caps,  like Comcast's 250gig/month limit,  that's 5 movies a month.  Hollywood can't make this happen if some ISP's are going to impose transfer limits,  and it's *very* likely the ISP's are doing this to retain their Cable network dominance and leverage.  Which IMO is stifling progress intentionally.  This is why I'm on Fios,  so I don't have to deal with it.

 

Happily,  Microsoft is paving the way commendably.  The Live service provides a large library of both TV and Movies with an extremely effective distribution network.  Interestingly,  Microsoft appears to be quietly working with studios in testing a revolution to the way we get movies.  I've noted a couple times that movies were available on Live before they were even in theaters at a premium ($20 for the rental in HD if anyone's wondering),  it looks to me like the Studios are experimenting in possible day&date digital distribution with theater releases,  which says to me that Hollywood actually has a plan and they're testing the waters with bypassing traditional distribution models.  Which probably is the best decision they've made in years,  because one of the driving factors of Piracy is the ability to view in the comfort of home,  without the drive,  as soon as the movie comes out.  It's very likely that Hollywood will generate more revenue than they receive now,  especially as they can also bypass "Word of mouth".

 

One of the major upsides for them is that currently,  people see a trailer and decide they want to see a movie,  but usually don't go the day it releases,  planning to go see it at some point,  then hear a review or a friend's impression,  and decide they'll wait.  Digital lets them capitalize,  people don't have to schedule a drive and plan around the theater's schedule,  they can just watch it that night.  So even a bad movie will likely receive more income than it does now,  like it did in the theater's golden age.

 

As far as why they're trotting out 3D,  they do it once every couple generations.  They did it in the 50's,  there was a fuss about it in the late 70's/early 80's,  now they're doing it again because there's 2 generations that haven't seen it before.  It's a marketing gimmick right now,  guaranteed to give a short term revenue spike. 


You mean like this (The studios are already folding on early Day and Date): 

 

Quote:
Following another underwhelming weekend box office, studios and theater operators appear resolute on a faceoff in the coming weeks over premium video-on-demand (VOD) – a standoff some observers believe studios will back away from.

Movies Just Go With It (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment), Hall Pass (Warner Home Video) and The Adjustment Bureau (Universal Studios Home Entertainment) are reportedly set to bow later this month on DirecTV for $29.99 – just 60 days after their box office debuts.

With Sony now apparently reconsidering offering Adam Sandler’s comedy Just Go With It weeks before its June 7 retail disc date, according to Los Angeles Times’ columnist Patrick Goldstein, others say the budding release window could be stillborn as studios second-guess alienating exhibitors.

Eric Wold, director of analyst with Merriman Capital in San Francisco, said the studios have the most to lose forging ahead with premium VOD in light of the fact they have fronted much of a movie’s production and marketing costs. He believes those studios determined to roll out premium VOD (notably Warner) would concede rental splits to exhibitors.

“We believe studios have the most to lose from either reduced movie awareness (trailers, posters, etc.) or absolute boycotts of individual films [by theater owners AMC, Regal and Cinemark],” Wold wrote in a note.

The analyst said such a stance could ultimately produce improved rental margins for theater owners. Wold believes just a 1% improvement in film rental costs could generate $22 million in pre-tax earnings for Regal, $17 million for Cinemark and $4 million for Carmike. Film rental costs among the top four exhibitors represent 53% to 55% of admissions revenue, the analyst said.

We would not be surprised if premium VOD plans are curtailed (e.g., limited to non-blockbuster or independent films) or abandoned completely after all is said and done,” Wold wrote.

Studio representatives were not immediately available for comment.

Regardless, Goldstein said introduction of the nascent premium VOD window would sow the seeds of uncertainty among a moviegoer already confronted with recessionary spending habits and evolving home entertainment options, such as $1 kiosk disc rentals and Netflix streaming.

“Trying to get consumers to pay more to see a film 60 days out isn’t a new window of opportunity,” Goldstein wrote. “It’s just a bad idea.”

 

 

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/vod/premium-vod-will-studios-blink-first-23624

post #25 of 109

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce View Post

The ISPs are quite aware of what is going on and they are upgrading their systems to accommodate the traffic.
 



You really think that ISPs aren't going to have to be pulled kicking and screaming to spend their money on upgrading their systems to enable people to download or stream everything they want? I think ISPs are going to be the reason that it will take years for streaming and downloading to become the norm.

post #26 of 109


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Quote:

 

The 3D craze of the early '50s lasted precisely 2 years, 3 months, beginning in November 1952 with Bwana Devil, and ending in February 1955 with Revenge of the Creature.

 

We may be on schedule.

 

RAH
 

 



The latest 3D craze began in 2003.  This is now 2011.  Hardly a fad being that it is still here so many years later. 3D films are in the planning stages (40 this year alone) as they are currently preparing even for 3D in 2017 according to wikipedia. A large percentage of the B.O. $$ is now from 3D.   Industrywide though overall ticket sales for movies both 2D and 3D are off 20 percent this year.  Note to Hollywood:  Get some better written and original movies out there and I will come back to the theater, otherwise I will keep my money, thanks.

post #27 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towergrove View Post


 

The latest 3D craze began in 2003. 



Yes but 2009's Avatar is what really kick started the current 3-D trend.

post #28 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post



Yes but 2009's Avatar is what really kick started the current 3-D trend.

 

So True, so true.  I would love to see some of the classics in 3D.  Wasn't Dial M a 3D originally?
 

 

post #29 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Quote:


For the demise of 70mm, one must look to Dolby.

 

RAH

 


I totaly agree and there are a lot of people that don't understand that.  It was all about the sound. 
 

 

post #30 of 109



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Towergrove View Post


 



The latest 3D craze began in 2003.  This is now 2011.  Hardly a fad being that it is still here so many years later. 3D films are in the planning stages (40 this year alone) as they are currently preparing even for 3D in 2017 according to wikipedia. A large percentage of the B.O. $$ is now from 3D.   Industrywide though overall ticket sales for movies both 2D and 3D are off 20 percent this year.  Note to Hollywood:  Get some better written and original movies out there and I will come back to the theater, otherwise I will keep my money, thanks.


While IMAX was doing 3D, the current craze did not start until 2005 with Disney's Chicken Little.  Not only did Disney and RealD combine forces they also installed the digital projectors in theatres so they would have the mass of 3D runs.  The 3D runs were very successful and ended up grossing more than double what the 2D prints did and the surcharge was only $1 at the time.  This is what opened their eyes.  It was not, however until 2008's Journey To The Center Of The Earth that showed what it could do with live-action.  As a theatre industry person, the three benchmarks we have had are Chicken Little (2005), Journey To The Center Of The Earth (2008) and Avatar (2009).  We do know that there are more misses than hits, but theatres are still adding 3D screens for the summer with most larger theatre complexes going to have 6 or more 3D screens by the time Thor 3D opens.  3D is not for every film and should not be.  I am not sure anyone is ready for Hangover Part II or the next American Pie in 3D, but Batman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, horror movies can all be enriched if they are done right.

 

Going back to the history of 3D there have been four major 3D eras,  The first starting in 1952, which until now was considered the golden era, The second was in 1970 which was short but eventful with Andy Warhol's films and The Stewardesses.  The third was 1981 with Coming At 'Ya and ending with The Man Who Wasn't There.  In all three cases the craze died for two reasons, the first being the product and the second being poor projection, especially in the 1980's when we had college projectionists needing to give a good presentation, when they were more interested in the concession girl.

 

This craze is here to hang around, for both distributors and exhibitors will only need two big grossing films a year to keep the fires burning.  The ones that have been turkey's so far have been the films that were converted to 3D.  The animated films that have not worked is due to the greed of the exhibitors by charging a surcharge that is too high.  $3 to $3.50 over regular ticket admission is too high and Mom is not going to buy four tickets

 


 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Blu-ray
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › 3D Blu-ray › A few words about...™ 3D -- in Blu-ray