‘Avatar 2’ Renews Push for 3D Format in Movie Theaters (1 Viewer)

[Kent K H]

I'll stop for now, but the main thing is theaters need far better quality control for 3D (they need it for other things too, but for the sake of this discussion we'll just concentrate on 3D), and studios simply need to stop doing bad 3D conversions especially if they want to continue to charge extra for it. I'd argue that every movie should have at least one huge "WOW!" moment if they are going to charge extra, if a movie is only using 3D to give a subtle sense of depth with no real effects (which could be considered tasteful by some) then audiences shouldn't be expected to pay extra for it.

It basically took the existing problems with poor presentations in digital theaters run by undertrained teens (poor focus, underpowered bulbs, bad framing) and magnified them.

 

[Sam Posten]

Discarding floppy disc technology did not prohibit the use of that data in any way...

And removing 3D from new panels does not stop you from watching top quality 3D BluRays on 2018 vintage sets.

 

[RolandL]

And removing 3D from new panels does not stop you from watching top quality 3D BluRays on 2018 vintage sets.

2016

 

[smithbrad]

Generally speaking, if there is enough of a consumer base to support it, and money to be made providing it, then someone will likely try to take advantage of it in some way. There has to be a reason all the flat panel manufacturers moved on from 3D, whether it be a cost or ROI issue with flat panel displays supporting it, or a lack of continued content. There has to be a reason it was never completely adopted in commercial theaters or by the studios.

Most, if not all, projectors still support it, so in that realm providing it doesn't appear to be an issue. I also recall reading about VR like headsets being made to support 3D. So, there are still other options available for those that really want it.

There was the golden era of 3D and several mini revival periods since. Possibly, the new Avatar movies will bring along another, at least for the playback technologies that still exist. All this tells me that there just isn't the right mix of technology and demand to keep it afloat. Maybe, some day in the future that will all change, but it doesn't seem likely any time soon.

 

[Johnny Angell]

And removing 3D from new panels does not stop you from watching top quality 3D BluRays on 2018 vintage sets.

When my 3D LG LED needed replacing I went with a current OLED and lost 3D. Removing the panels meant upgrading cost me 3D.

 

[John Dirk]

Most, if not all, projectors still support it, so in that realm providing it doesn't appear to be an issue. I also recall reading about VR like headsets being made to support 3D. So, there are still other options available for those that really want it.

I think "many" would be more accurate these days and the trend is not good. We are starting to see 3D support dwindle in the low to mid-tier projector offerings. It's a fact that might end up costing me a huge premium to work around.

 

[DFurr]

Truly impressive 3D requires a light-controlled [preferably dedicated] room and a large screen, not to mention a capable playback device and appropriate source material. The investment can be substantial.

You hit the nail on the head. You need a dark room, a good projector and a large high gain screen to really see 3D at it's best.

 

[Edwin-S]

You hit the nail on the head. You need a dark room, a good projector and a large high gain screen to really see 3D at it's best.

I'll only agree as far as a dark room goes. LGs 4K sets had some of the best 3D that I have seen in a home environment with their passive glasses. Lumens is what is needed for good 3D.

 

[DFurr]

I'll only agree as far as a dark room goes. LGs 4K sets had some of the best 3D that I have seen in a home environment with their passive glasses. Lumens is what is needed for good 3D.

I agree that light is a key factor in good 3D but I've not yet seen a 4k
TV that would work with my seating 20 feet away. There's a huge difference between a large TV and my 11 foot wide 1.6 gain screen.

 

[Edwin-S]

I agree that light is a key factor in good 3D but I've not yet seen a 4k
TV that would work with my seating 20 feet away. There's a huge difference between a large TV and my 11 foot wide 1.6 gain screen.

I'll concede that room size and seating distance has an impact. I live in an average house with no room that allows a 20 foot viewing distance to the screen. The furthest I can sit from a screen is 10 to 11 feet and that is only in my living room.

 

[Artanis]

For those thinking Avatar was way to long ago, kids have no clue, yada-yada-yada...Consider;
Avatar: The Way of Water trailer generated 148.6 million viewers. In the first 24 hours. In other words,
that's more views in its first day online than any of Disney’s Star Wars films. It's not even June yet.

Think about this: Even if Avatar 2 only grosses half of the original, it's still enough to be in the all-time Top 10.

Make no mistake. Avatar will be ALL about, the 3D experience.

So we know Cameron (he is all-in on the future of 3D) is going to re-release the original in theaters this September, then Avatar 2 comes Dec 16th. But, there's an Avatar 3. And a 4. And a 5. Plus the other major 3D releases discussed earlier, and the ones we don't know of.

If there was to be another reassurance of 3D, I can't help to think that the stars are aligning perfectly. I bet Bob Furmanek (3D Film Archive) is drinking champagne, eating caviar, and taking bubble baths nightly.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Truth be told I never thought Avatar was a great movie, I have the 3D Blu-ray but didn’t see it in theaters. It’s nice looking for sure but overall not what I’d call a contender for highest grossing movie of all time. But I hope the sequel does well just so it’ll give 3D another big push like before, only this time I hope there WON’T be any more bad or unimpressive conversions.

If it doesn’t do well it’ll be an expensive flop and the later sequels won’t get made. I guess it’s a good sign the trailer has been viewed a lot, I normally don’t seek out trailers as they spoil the movie but I found a 3D copy on YouTube and it looks good (though not what I’d call great, 3D-wise.) I’ll have to see this one theatrically though as the current 3D Blu-ray standard doesn’t support high frame rate. The Hobbit movies and Gemini Man are among the few 3D Blu-rays I haven’t bought for that reason. Billy Lynn’s Halftime Walk includes 2D in high frame rate and 3D in 24fps, both look like they’re missing something.

 

[smithbrad]

I think "many" would be more accurate these days and the trend is not good. We are starting to see 3D support dwindle in the low to mid-tier projector offerings. It's a fact that might end up costing me a huge premium to work around.

Thanks, I did not realize about that trend. I've only had 3D capability for a year or two but managed to accumulate about 30 titles to enjoy.

 

[markonesmile]

The art of cinematography or any photography or painting for that matter has been about creating the illusion and depth in the 2D medium. I can watch 'Lawrence of Arabia' and wallow in the depth of its imagery without even thinking about it. I did have a 3D TV and saw a few films at the cinema including Avatar in IMAX but after a while it seemed anti-storytelling to me. I found it distancing rather than immersive. I concentrated on the technique rather than the story. I see no reason it shouldn't exist for those that love it but not for me. It's a fairground ride.

 

[TJPC]

Many converted movies have spectacular 3D. I thought” Life of Pi” was one of the stupidest movies I ever saw theatrically, but was blown away by the 3D and even bough the disc.

 

[Mark-P]

Many converted movies have spectacular 3D. I thought” Life of Pi” was one of the stupidest movies I ever saw theatrically, but was blown away by the 3D and even bough the disc.

Life of Pi was not a conversion. It was shot natively in 3D.

 

[RolandL]

On my 11 foot wide perforated screen, sitting 13 feet from the screen

 

[TJPC]

Life of Pi was not a conversion. It was shot natively in 3D.

Ok then how about “Titanic” or “The Wizard of Oz”?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Ok then how about “Titanic” or “The Wizard of Oz”?

TITANIC is probably the best upconverted 3D title I have seen.

However, you must take into consideration that James Cameron put a lot of work into that conversion -- a total of 60 weeks.

THE WIZARD OF OZ looks excellent. I gave it a rousing review upon its release. However, I think the real marvel comes from how many times we have watched this film in 2D and now suddenly seeing it with depth.

Both titles are excellent in 3D. PACIFIC RIM is another upconverted title that I really think looks superb.

I still contend, however, that most upconverted movies are simply offering added depth but none of the "wow" factor that natively shot 3D films offer.

 

[John Sparks]

Color me biased, but with close to 550 3Ders, I can’t wait for AVATAR 2 to rekindle 3D viewing.