3D is lame. When 3d without glasses and holograms come out 3d will be passe like it is now and will be forever. The difference is everyone will know it and threads like these will stop.

3D is lame. When 3d without glasses and holograms come out 3d will be passe like it is now and will be forever. The difference is everyone will know it and threads like these will stop.

I think the key isn't if it is lame or not. The key is if there is a market out there for 3-D post production which there us currently emerging and Vegas has positioned us to grab a piece of that pie.

We just did a big 3D seminar at a local production house that was very well attended. 3D is not just for movies - the event and gaming industry is looking at it very closely.

That is what I am seeing here.

Dreamline said:

"3D is lame. When 3d without glasses and holograms come out 3d will be passe like it is now and will be forever. The difference is everyone will know it and threads like these will stop."

I agree. It's a marketing Gimmick to sell more technology. Too many shooters today rely on gimmick instead of being solid content creators.

'nuff said.

Cliff Etzel
Immersive Visual Journalist | Micro Documentary Film Maker
bluprojekt | SoloVJ Blog
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q9400 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video Source: WD Black 2x750GB RAID 0 | Video Card: nVidia GeForce GT 220 1GB

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Win7 x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: Seagate 500GB 7200RPM

I like to bring up.... how come we have 3D & not 7.1 sound? More people have 7.1 sound support vs 3D, yet it's not supported in Vegas.

I basically agree with John .. This time around, 3D is here to stay and it will evolve from here. How fast, I cannot say. We live in a 3D world -- why would we want to continue forever to view images in 2D?

So John --I've been shopping for an LED .. I've seen the Samsung 3D .. looked very good. What model 3D television do you have?

I don't have a 3D TV yet, but...

I think 3D TV will be interesting and fun. I believe 3D is here to stay, because the technology to support it is now in place, and has filtered down to the masses. 3D is no longer restricted to those who can afford expensive gear.

That said, from a creative side, I think 3D will settle into a comfortable niche where it can be used to enhance the story being told. It will be just another tool in the cinematographers toolbox, like lighting, color, point of view, depth of field, and so on. 3D can't help a badly filmed production, and may not be appropriate or effective for certain subjects.

I think some people see 3D as a novelty, and some are probably put off by some of the (over) hyping of the technology - but like everything, this will pass.

3D is garbage and a waste of time. If if plows the way for UHD/4K bandwith this time before it dies off again, at least there will have been some purpose served.

Comparing HD and 3D is a total apples and oranges comparison.

For the event video I produce, I get almost no take rate on the Blu-Ray versions, and Blu-Ray is essentially no additional cost. That would seem to mean that to "sell" 3D, it would have to be essentially no extra cost either. But as far as I can tell, there will be at least the 3D camera costs on the acquision side of the equation. And no one would ever take just the 3D version of a production without a SD and/or HD version. Will 3D acquision also capture a HD 2D version? Or would you have to double camera every event?

The whole 3D thing is just silly IMO.

"Film as Art" = oxymoron.

The book was written by a Gestalt psychologist, enough said I think.

Bob.

"Film as Art" = oxymoron.

Spoken like a true engineer. Anyone who says film is not art does not know anything about either.

"Will 3D acquision also capture a HD 2D version?"

Of course it will. In fact, it captures two 2D versions.

It's kinda like asking, "if i record this concert in stereo will i be able to make a mono version?"

Scratch that. It's not kinda like; it's exactly like.

"Film as Art" = oxymoron.

well, to throw a little fat on the fire;

there's certainly an art to film making, but very little art in film.

"Spoken like a true engineer. Anyone who says film is not art does not know anything about either."

Personally I would argue the opposite, that film is art, however as an engineer who knows little about the creative process I defer to the one true creative person I know. She very strongly agues that cinema is not art. She is also vehemently opposed to the idea that art and creativity can be learned or taught. One of the great things about working in this business is you sure get to meet some 'interesting' people :)

Leaving that esoteric discourse aside what I found interesting is Arnheim's argument that " Every step that brings film closer to real life creates a sensation. Each new sensation means full houses."

What he seems to be arguing here is that sensory effect is irrelevant to art. If we cannot feel, see, hear or smell art then one has to wonder in what realm it has any relevance. Perhaps he means that only the symbols and their relationships are relevant. If so this ties in with his Gestalt view, the adornments of colour, light and texture are just dross, the Mona Lisa is nothing more than a middle aged women with a wry smile that any child could have drawn.
I guess you're right, I know nothing about art. If I did then the works of the great masters would not have such a profound effect on me. They were just hucksters using cheap tricks to create some new sensation and I let myself get suckered in by them.

Bob.

"No one loves 3D more than me. I still have my glasses that I got for the televised Rolling Stones concert in the early 90's. Unfortunately, 3D has been the "wave of the future" for 50 years that I can remember. "

My post a year ago is just as valid as it has been every since I saw my first 3D movie.

I'm not going to engage in the film as art discussion because I don't know enough about film, or art.

Yeah, I think 3D will fizzle out in a couple years. Not really interested in the minimal difference in the visual experience. If you have a couple shrooms before a good HD movie, the effect could be there too.

Mike

For what it worth, the 3D TV which ended up here will come as a shock for some of the people familiar with my previous statements about LCD vs Plasma. After much research, the TV that was chosen is a Panasonic TC-P50VT25, their top-of-the-line series 50" plasma. All of the previous objections to Plasma televisions have been overcome and it is a spectacular looking TV. The plasma panel itself is capable of 600 fps, LCD's slower refresh rates seem to kind of "smear" the 3D effect. It came with three pairs of glasses and a Panasonic 3D Blu-ray player for a grand total of $2,000. The Blu-ray player hasn't been unboxed since the Sony PS3 with the latest firmware is now 3D capable. I'm not much of a game player, but some of the 3D games available for the PS3 are astounding. Also, Comcast has a selection of 3D programming available via Video-on-Demand.

I am thrilled that very few of the video professionals on this forum seem to be interested in this new 3D technology. Keith, it's just you and me...

I own two plasma sets and am quite happy with the color and speed of the panels. If you can keep your wife (and grandbaby) from watching 4:3 shows all day, when you come home at night the picture is quite impressive. Burn-in is a real problem but I'm not ready to trade that problem for the slow response time of the LCD sets, yet.

Thanks John for the information on your choice of 3D panel. .. a quick look tells me that most folks reviewing this model are liking it a lot ... What some of them liked was that the 3D effect went "in" for depth, not "out" at you -- and that the 2D picture is superb ..

3D has the ability to place objects in front of or behind the screen depending on how it was shot and processed. Probably one thing you should check before buying a 3D display system.

Bob.

"I like to bring up.... how come we have 3D & not 7.1 sound? More people have 7.1 sound support vs 3D, yet it's not supported in Vegas"

I'll second that one.
DTS and DTS-HD are pretty much becoming a standard now in the commercial arena, yet there is still NOTHING out there available at the 'little guy's' price range that will author a disk with this stuff.

I was hoping for AT LEAST a dts pass-through ability in V10/DVDa. Adobe has it for dvd (although not yet for Blu Ray).... why can't we have it?? Free programs like TSmuxeR can do a blu ray disk (with no menus) with DTS and DTS-HD in both 5.1 and 7.1.

Okay.... no DTS.... how about 6 channels uncompressed? Nope.... DVDa won't do that either. You can sure export it from Vegas and it's perfectly legal for Blu Ray... so why doesn't DVDa take it???

Don't get me wrong.... I think the 3D thing was good for Vegas but I agree with Happy..... there are other areas that we could concentrate on the would be more beneficial.

Go to Best Buy and demo a 3D game on a PS3.
I did. Awesome.
Just ordered an LG 50PX950 3D plasma panel yesterday. ($1300, which included two pairs of glasses).
Gaming is going to drive 3D development.

Sports, porn and gaming tend to drive new consumer technology.

I can only speak for myself as a consumer - I have absolutely no interest in watching a movie in 3D. I just want to see a movie, a movîng photography, a picture, a painting.

Avatar was nice, but I got sick in the 3D version an much preferred the 2D because i could concentrate on the movie instead of the stuff popping out into the room.
To me, the artificial 3-dimensionality in movies is NOT at all something that makes a picture more real, as it is far from the actual depth and spacial complexity of what you perceive when you stare into a normal 3D space/room. it just adds a visual parameter that simply does not belong there.
You got the occasional object sticking out, you got objects that seemingly randomly have extreme depth, then again others that don't ...for no logical reason. I think it looks like one of these popup "3D" Christmas cards.
Now, 3D gaming or creating a 3D virtual space around you in which you can move and live through an adventure, where things have their real perspective, space and size - that is a whole different ballgame, and I'd totally up for it.
But a movie in 3D? With weird arbitrary levels of "depth" just for the sake of it?
A TV in 3D? unless I can play 3D chess with holographic monsters like in the first Star wars episode, or some kind of scientific training using 3D levels to visualize physical processes in a 3D space, I just cannot see the point.
The whole concept of a picture is that of an artificially compressed visual reality with its own laws of time, space and size - it is ( with an artistic approach) an ART form, not supposed to be the real thing. It is a highly loose reinterpretation of reality, and the brain needs to make up its own logic and functional concept to make any sense of a movie in the first place, so why try and make it "more like reality", when it's got nothing to do with it in the first place?

They'll make movies where the technology will dictate the visual content and aesthetics, so that it's more 3D. Sure it's fun from time to time, but, say, Taxi Driver or Woody Allen, or the daily news in 3D? It's just a gimmick in my books. Oh well, call me old school or conservative or whatnot...I'm a high tech geek, always have been, but this just doesn't excite me at all.
I'd even say that it's not really the consumer's needs or wants, just the industry that is brainwashing the consumer big time to hype up sales of a new technology and telling everyone it's the next mega thing they absolutely need. I also think it won't last more that 3 years...but that's just my 2c.