The 3D Technology

I'm glad that I've missed the boat with all this 3D enthusiasm. If I want a "3D experience" then I'll look out the window. For me, I see no need for that extra dimension when I watch a film. If a film-maker does his job properly then I'll be transported into the film-maker's world regardless of how many dimensions it has.

I'm going to save a shed-load of money in the future by not feeling compelled to buy new TVs, etc. I'll even pass on 3D contact lenses that I'm sure will come.

Maybe it's an age thing, or a wearer-of-glasses thing...bah, humbug!

This topic seems better in the Off-Topic part - unless we're also going to be getting 3D music as well.

Isn't that the same numbness people initially confront new technologies with? Back when i was little with my dual cassette player, if anyone would told me i'd pay hundreds of euros to fill my living room with 5 speakers and a subwoofer, a giant monitor, computers and peripherals just to enjoy a mini cinematic experience at home, i'd call him crazy.

I don't see it that way. I can see how there's a progression in the listening experience with improved sonics. And I can see how film can be improved with the improvements in the cinema and at home for watching films but the jump from 2D to 3D is somehow different. Is it still a film-watching experience or is it bordering on the realms of virtual reality where it's a personal experience within the world rather than just being entertained?

Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the cinema? Once we have 3D films, then there'll be all the technology currently associated with 3D/virtual reality brought into the cinema and before you know it, the cinema will just be a gridded box (ala Star Trek's holodeck) with everyone standing about in our ping-pong balled VR lycra body suit.

I can see there being a backlash way in the future where people will want to watch a 2D film in a plush theatre that will be reminiscent of the picture houses back when the cinema was popular.

BTW, thanks for moving the discussion off-topic.

Just ignore all that I've said before. Bring it on!!

Well, 3D technology as used on film is old as dirt, of course. Actually, it's almost as old as the film medium itself. Throughout history, it's veered in and out of popularity, but never really caught on beyond gimmickry that comes and goes - like the yo-yo. You could argue that no previous 3D film has been the watershed success of AVATAR, and that it consequently may have a greater staying power, but that's too early to say. The 3D frenzy now may still die out in a few years, like it has done before.

Otherwise, I agree with Steven for the most part. I adore film for its 2D canvas possibilities and wouldn't want to see ALL films presented that way. For spectacle stuff like AVATAR it's OK, but hardly for art films or films that prioritize OTHER things.

Well, it's the first time 3d monitor screens, 3d glasses and 3d cameras appear in the market in logical prices.

Like horny Yoda, you sound.

I hope it dies quickly. At least some films give you the option to still see them at the regular price in 2D e.g. Toy Story 3.

'The problem with 3-D films is not just the high price of admission to see them. The technology process can make films noticeably darker and washed out'.

Couldn't agree more. I want 3D to die as soon as possible. If I want to go to an amusement park.....I go to an amusement park. Cinema is another thing.

Not to talk about the abusive, shameful, almost pornographic price of the ticket for a 3D film

They had a demo 3D TV at work but I really wasn't that impressed. It was even playing the Panasonic specifically-filmed-to-show-it-off DVD. No thanks!

Not a fan of 3D either. As long as the film is made for the form, like Avatar, it could enhance an immersive experience, but the way studios keep converting 2D shot films into 3D wannabe's just to raise the ticket price, is ridiculous. Alice in Wonderland would never have reached the recordbreaking grosses like this if it hadn't been in 3D: fact. It's more a political issue than many might think, since it's also a way to prevent pirate copies of films (it's impossible to rip off a bootleg from a 3D film).

It also hurts the artistic process; all of a sudden films need certain shots for the 3D medium unrelated to the scene, it needs to be filmed digitally (and I'm a big fan of real film) and filmed on 1.85 perspective instead of 2.35.1 (since Cameron said he preferred it, and since it's often shown in IMAX theatres).

Then there's the TV thing: not only do you need to buy a new t.v. and a new BluRay player, your whole system needs to be 3D ready (including cables and such). And you need to buy expensive glasses for this specific type of 3D for every member of the family... and guests. Needless to say, only those who love 3D and are rich will get this. But this niche market will never be big enough (not in the next 10 years at least) to really warrant a lot of content. And if there will, it'll only be in America for the first several years. By then, the audience will lose interest again (just like in the 60's, and the 80's and the 90's).

Let's just hope this hype dies down soon, and will be reserved for just a few films that really warrant it and are being developed as a 3D film from the get-go. Just so it will remain something special.

Well, that's the problem; of the countless films that have been released in 3D, Avatar is the only film that really warranted the medium so far.

Well, I guess we could specify to say that it creates a world in which the narrative may unfold, but done in such a way as not to draw attention to itself. Done that way, it can extend our sensory apparatus even more than regular 2D film, so that we're more prone to delve INTO the story. Done the "wrong" way, though, it becomes a gimmick and - in fact - DETRACTS from the story.

I think that's absolutely true - but it's just such a richer, more rewarding experience in 3D.

As long as the thing is designed and shot in 3D (and not one of the horrible conversion jobs, which undermine the whole thing) then I can imagine a lot of films could benefit from it. I don't think there's anything specific to Avatar which makes it more suitable for it than any other films which exist in such visually-resplendent universes. There are some directors (let's start with Terrence Malick) whose work could go to a whole new level with it.

I'm not sure it's going to catch on, but I for one hope it does.