3D How the Studios, Theatre Owners, and TV Manufacturers All But Killed 3D (1 Viewer)

[Race Bannon]

All of these ideas are essentially correct. But if the price was the same I would choose 2D. That can't be a good thing for 3 D.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

All of these ideas are essentially correct. But if the price was the same I would choose 2D. That can't be a good thing for 3 D.

I think that's just the way it is with some people and some technologies. Honestly, and it's probably heresy to admit this, I'm usually not that big on surround sound. I don't object to it in any way, but I also am usually perfectly content with just having the sound come from speakers in front of me. I remember listening once to an audio commentary with Robert Wise where he said he personally didn't like rear speakers because he felt it was distracting from what was on screen, and I kinda agreed. 9 times out of 10, I'll take my gimmicky stuff as visuals rather than audio. (There are exceptions, of course!)


(Ducking for cover..)

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Two quick comments:

- maybe one day "glasses free 3D" could be used for my example of a movie that's mostly 2D, but features some 3D moments.


- I wear glasses already, so for me, throwing on an extra pair of 3D glasses is no big deal - probably because I'm used to seeing the world through glasses anyway. But based on experiences with friends and family, I think I'm the only one who feels that way

Also pointing out that for an individual viewer you can also use the viewmaster's equivalent for 3D in the HMD. No "dim image" or "color shift" playing 2D or discrete-3D movies. My personal favorite device when alone. Pleasurable and extremely relaxing when reclining in a lounge chair after several years of manipulation and handling the technology and while also wearing prescription glasses. The view never changing when you turn your head to another position. Find it to be a personal guilty-pleasure.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Also pointing out that for an individual viewer you can also use the viewmaster's equivalent for 3D in the HMD. No "dim image" or "color shift" playing 2D or discrete-3D movies. My personal favorite device when alone. Pleasurable and extremely relaxing when reclining in a lounge chair after several years of manipulation and handling the technology and while also wearing prescription glasses. The view never changing when you turn your head to another position. Find it to be a personal guilty-pleasure.

I was very tempted by those a couple years ago, but ended up getting a projector instead -- I was worried that if I got one of those, I'd just sit on the couch and be anti-social forever. But one of these days I might give in to the dark side and get one

 

[SFMike]

So even if the cost was the same, wearing 3D glasses for a 95% 2D movie is pretty pointless and irritating, especially for those who already wear glasses. If you are going to make the audience suffer wearing those glasses, dim image, and color shift then you better make it worth the effort. 3D should not be ubiquitous but instead reserved for a few movies a year that make full use of the feature.

If 3d was nurtured and promoted more by the studios things would be different. If you wear glasses there are polarized clip-on glasses that you can't even feel then on but producing these or even telling patron about the option would mean the theater chains and studios gave a shit about audience acceptance of 3D. And don't get me started on the roll out of 3D TV. It's usually to much work for the theater management to produce a bright focused picture in 2D let alone 3D. Any extra effort means paying someone and this is America in the 21st century where profit is king and the customer is almost an annoyance.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Hey Mike, are those clip-ons linear (IMAX 3D) or circular (RealD)?


I saw a while ago that it was possible to get prescription glasses with the RealD polarization, which was immediately tempting... but then I stopped to think and realized that the vast majority of theatrical 3D that I see is IMAX, so it didn't seem worth the expense to use once a year. But clip-ons? That could work.

 

[Bob Cashill]

I'd assume it could be because the CGI animated kid flicks don't draw as well as live-action in 3D. Certainly on disc, the animated titles are always at the bottom of the sales charts while live-action movies do much better. Perhaps the kids are also less likely to stay calmly seated and keep the glasses on while they run up and down the aisles. While there may be exceptions, that's just my guess. .

My local theater here in Brooklyn only shows animated fare and kids movies at night in 3D for just those reasons. My kids tire of 3D pretty quickly--as do I, when depth and forward projection are limited, as is too often the case, Star Wars being the latest typical example. (Not the worst but I'm unlikely to watch it again in 3D. We all enjoyed the SpongeBob movie, which had a more active presentation.) That said I don't know how many adults flock to those 3D evening shows for kid movies.

 

[StephenDH]

I think that's just the way it is with some people and some technologies. Honestly, and it's probably heresy to admit this, I'm usually not that big on surround sound. I don't object to it in any way, but I also am usually perfectly content with just having the sound come from speakers in front of me. I remember listening once to an audio commentary with Robert Wise where he said he personally didn't like rear speakers because he felt it was distracting from what was on screen, and I kinda agreed. 9 times out of 10, I'll take my gimmicky stuff as visuals rather than audio. (There are exceptions, of course!)


(Ducking for cover..)


I agree with Robert Wise. At a showing of "The Man Who Fell to Earth" on its first release, the traffic noise in the street scenes was so distracting that it seems as though someone had left a street fire exit open.

 

[Race Bannon]

I think that's just the way it is with some people and some technologies. Honestly, and it's probably heresy to admit this, I'm usually not that big on surround sound. I don't object to it in any way, but I also am usually perfectly content with just having the sound come from speakers in front of me. I remember listening once to an audio commentary with Robert Wise where he said he personally didn't like rear speakers because he felt it was distracting from what was on screen, and I kinda agreed. 9 times out of 10, I'll take my gimmicky stuff as visuals rather than audio. (There are exceptions, of course!)


(Ducking for cover..)

Surround sound is a decent example -- 3D is not the "next big thing" and would probably never be widely adopted. It just doesn't make a difference to enough people. At least surround sound is something you can decide just by buying the sound equipment -- it's not a different format, different disk, different television. So it's a more scalable, add-on-able feature for those that want it.


But there is one flaw in the surround sound example, and that is that "surround sound" doesn't really capture what is great about home theater. For me, it's more just "good sound." If you took away the SR and the SL speakers, I'd be about 90% as happy with it -- the strong center channel separation for dialog, the great wall of sound for music (FR and FL), and the bass of the subwoofer are the main benefits to me. It saddens me when someone unacquainted with the home theater audio seems to be hung up on those two surround speakers and don't seem to grasp the sublime experience of a really good soundtrack married with a quality system (surround or not).

 

[SFMike]

Hey Mike, are those clip-ons linear (IMAX 3D) or circular (RealD)?

The clip-ons I have are circular and work great at RealD presentations. Never tried them at an IMAX showing.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Note: Reprint of my article recently published in Home Media Magazine


When CES 2014 ended, I half-expected to see an obituary for 3D from the press. While some TV manufacturers, such as Vizio, eliminated 3D as a feature on their 2014 models, others (like Panasonic) reduced the number of models with this feature. While the number of 3D movies being released to theatres hasn’t quite diminished, the number of screens and showings has, with some of the smaller exhibitors (36-screen Starlight Cinemas chain in Southern California) getting out of 3D altogether. Some say the nail in the coffin came with Disney’s decision to forego the release of a 3D Blu-ray edition of one of their most successful animated films in years, Frozen. How did we get to this point, and is 3D really dead?


3D-capable Televisions Arrived Too Late: Samsung and Panasonic debuted their 3D televisions in 2010. The problem was that close to 65% of US households had already upgraded to HDTV, and did not plan on upgrading again for at least another 5 years. It also did not help that most of the early 3D content on Blu-ray were tied up in long-term exclusive deals with TV manufacturers. Avatar, Coraline, and Ice Age 2 were available only if you purchased a Panasonic 3D TV. Dreamworks Animation signed a similar deal with Samsung, bundling Monsters vs. Aliens, How To Train Your Dragon, Megamind, and the Shrek franchise with pairs of Samsung 3D glasses.


High Cost of Active 3D Glasses With No Universal Standard: When 3D TV’s first arrived at retailers, most sets came with one pair of 3D glasses. Up until the 2013 model year, most Panasonic active 3D sets shipped without glasses. If a customer needed additional pairs, the cost was typically around $100 each. Costs have come down considerably for some manufacturers (Samsung’s glasses sell for $19.99 for battery operated, $49.99 for rechargeable), but Panasonic are still quite high at $69.99. What is worse is that many of the manufacturers, when they introduced a new and improved pair of glasses, they were not backwards compatible with prior model year TVs. Anyone who owns one of the last LG active 3D plasmas is pretty much out of luck if they need new or additional pairs, as those have all but disappeared.


Public Perception of Limited Content: When I tell people I have a 3D-capable TV, they often ask why I bothered, since there is little to no content. If you look, you will find it. Most people are unaware that Netflix has many movies available in 3D on their streaming service, and that is largely due to the fact that Netflix quietly began offering 3D content, and still offers it rather quietly. As of this writing, Netflix was offering The Croods, Beowulf, Joe Dante’s The Hole, etc. There are over a hundred titles available on 3D Blu-ray (but very few places to rent them). Wal-Mart’s streaming service, VUDU, has several titles available in 3D, as does PlayStation Network. Many cable and satellite services offer pay-per-view movies in 3D. None of this is very well publicized, hence the public perception. One thing that did get a lot of public attention, though, was the announcement of ESPN 3D going off the air, with most 3D naysayers proclaiming it was the public’s rejection of 3D. My opinion is that most people didn’t want to watch that same 2-3 year old football game or boxing match over and over again.


High Cost of Content: It is understandable that 3D Blu-ray titles, when the format first launched, were around $50. It is nearly 4 years later, and most 3D Blu-rays have remained with an MSRP of $49.99. Granted, most retailers rarely sell a movie at full sticker price, especially during pre-sales and the first week of release. After that, prices typically soar to prices that the public feels a bit out of reach, and that is likely tied to what little margin the retailer gets from the studio. Disney appears to be the largest offender (and not just with 3D titles). Iron Man 3 currently sells on Amazon for $35.99 (it was as low as $31.99 during its debut). The Lion King is $44.99 on Amazon, $29.99 its first week back in October 2011. But, then, there is Disney’s mis-step with the 3D-only Oz the Great and Powerful, which contained no bonus materials whatsoever, yet the 2d version was loaded with bonus material. And, quite recently, Disney has done it again with Frozen, by skipping a 3D Blu-ray release and offering the 3d version on VUDU and PSN only (at a cost of $34.99, again, with no bonus features unless you purchase the 2D/3D bundle for just a dollar more). If you check out Frozen’s Facebook page, and read the comments made by fans, you will see there is quite a high demand for a 3D Blu-ray release, but Disney is keeping quiet on this controversy.


3D Surcharge at the Local Cineplex: I still do not understand the reason for this, although I used to think it was to pay for the glasses. What is even more confusing is the variance in this surcharge. Most Regal Cinemas locations charge $4.00, as do AMC and Cinemark. But the smaller chains charge a lot less, some as low as $2.00. This surcharge often brings ticket prices in excess of $19.00.


Finally, Too Many Bad 3D Conversions: I’ve seen some really good 3D conversions of films originally shot in 2D. Nightmare Before Christmas, one of the first films to be converted and released theatrically in the Digital3D format, still stands as one of the best conversions I’ve seen. Star Trek: Into Darkness, Toy Story, and Gravity are in the same category. But then there was the rushed Clash of the Titans, poorly converted to 3D at the 23rd hour by Warner Bros as an attempt to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the box office. Other bad conversions include Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace, Man of Steel, John Carter, The Last Airbender, Gulliver’s Travels, and Hoodwinked Too. These films, and many others, soured the 3D experience for many moviegoers, causing fewer screens and showtimes being devoted to 3D and eventually the perception by the studios that the public is now rejecting 3D. What the studios do not understand is that the public is rejecting BAD 3D, since Star Trek: Into Darkness, The Hobbit, Gravity, and (quite ironically) Frozen were embraced by true fans of 3D.


So, is 3D dead? It is definitely in a state of decline, but not out for the count. I prefer to say that 3D is going into hibernation, waiting for James Cameron’s much anticipated Avatar sequels to help give 3D its much deserved comeback. Until then, expect 3D to be on life support, and fans like myself will just have to wait out the storm.

I think bad 3D conversions are the biggest reason. Why pay extra for something that adds virtually nothing to a film.

 

[RolandL]

This is the closest theatre to my home. They charge between $7.50 and $9.50 for 3D titles.

 

[revgen]

You're lucky Roland. I can pay less than $10 for 3-D tickets, but only on discount days.

 

[SFMike]

I can't think of anything right now that shows the abandonment of 3D by the electronics manufacturers than the introduction of the new 4K discs with the release of many originally 3D titles without a 3D option. They act as if 3D never existed as a home viewing option hoping, I guess, for consumers to have short memories. Also, CES didn't do much to bolster the 3D is alive banner. It really stinks.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There are so many 2K titles being put out on UHD with a 4K label, or hybrids like Amazing Spider-Man 2 where every effects shot is 2K, that I wouldn't shocked if we have a version of this thread in a couple years that just swaps out "3D" for "UHD BD" in the title.

 

[Towergrove]

I can't think of anything right now that shows the abandonment of 3D by the electronics manufacturers than the introduction of the new 4K discs with the release of many originally 3D titles without a 3D option. They act as if 3D never existed as a home viewing option hoping, I guess, for consumers to have short memories. Also, CES didn't do much to bolster the 3D is alive banner. It really stinks.

So true but arent we still seeing manufacturers releasing 3D in Bluray players, televisions and projectors? I believe I saw several coming from CES. Also looking at future bluray releases Im seeing several titles on the horizon that i would definitely be interested in buying and they are in fact coming on BD3D. Im not seeing the abandonment in the software arena (except Disney). Talking about TV manufacturers they seem to be including but just as a regular option thats listed not hyped any more.

 

[SFMike]

Talking about TV manufacturers they seem to be including but just as a regular option thats listed not hyped any more.

I was at Best Buy, one of the few places you can see a diverse display of TVs left, and noted that the printed price/information tags on the sets did not state if the large screen monitors were 3D capable. The sales people, of course did not know (one offered to tell me how much he didn't like 3D), and we had to look the sets stats up on the store computer to find out. This is less than hype when it is not being listed by the stores as an available option. This happens all over.

 

[Persianimmortal]

There are so many 2K titles being put out on UHD with a 4K label, or hybrids like Amazing Spider-Man 2 where every effects shot is 2K, that I wouldn't shocked if we have a version of this thread in a couple years that just swaps out "3D" for "UHD BD" in the title.

While I certainly believe that UHD BD is a dead-end format, I think HDR is the more appropriate equivalent to 3D. Furthermore, I think HDR will succeed where 3D failed.


Basically, as discussed earlier in this thread, 3D was ill-served due to the way electronics manufacturers tried to use it as a killer gimmick in order to sell new hardware. A combination of overhyping 3D, under-delivering titles that use impressive 3D, the additional cost, and a need for glasses all conspired to make mainstream consumers resent it.


HDR on the other hand provides some of the wow factor of 3D through enhanced contrast and color (images with 'pop'), without the need to wear glasses. At the moment, although a feature that's being promoted by studios and electronics manufacturers, it's not yet been overhyped - the average consumer probably hasn't even heard of HDR. So if the UHD launch (both physical and digital) manages to deliver impressive HDR, and as more and more people transition to HDR-capable TVs, unlike 3D, HDR may actually prosper.

 

[Interdimensional]

I was at Best Buy, one of the few places you can see a diverse display of TVs left, and noted that the printed price/information tags on the sets did not state if the large screen monitors were 3D capable. The sales people, of course did not know (one offered to tell me how much he didn't like 3D), and we had to look the sets stats up on the store computer to find out. This is less than hype when it is not being listed by the stores as an available option. This happens all over.

it's not being pushed as a sales pitch at the moment, just one of many features that may or may not be available. My theory is that they're deliberately letting it take a backseat to features like UHD and HDR so that when autostereoscopic 3D is ready to sell to the masses they can reintroduce 3-D yet again, like it's a new thing.


One story I heard, and I don't know how true it is, is that the expense of adding active or polarized 3-D support to modern smart tvs is so trivial that it's often literally just a case of having the right software preinstalled to enable it. So they often just leave it out altogether knowing that if it's something you care about, you'll be prepared to pay the premium for a more expensive model that's essentially the same TV. In that scenario, they have no real incentive for it to become a universal feature, since charging inflated premiums for inexpensive added extras is pure profit to them. When there's no technological reason why it couldn't be already ubiquitous in new sets.

 

[SFMike]

My theory is that they're deliberately letting it take a backseat to features like UHD and HDR so that when autostereoscopic 3D is ready to sell to the masses they can reintroduce 3-D yet again, like it's a new thing.

I'm going out on a limb here but from all I've seen and read, autostereoscopic TV is never going to make it as no one has been able to get over the hurdle of not being able to move your head from the sweet spot even when there are multiple sweet spots available. There was a new 65" screen shown at CES that was supposed to work well but the 3D effect was not as pronounced as when using glasses. This article from TNW about says it all. http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/01/05/3d-tv-the-dead-horse-ces-needs-to-stop-flogging/#gref