I'm not sure how much of the market is driven by porn, today, but here is an example of the relationship of 3D and porn as far back as 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stewardesses

Notice how long this movie held the title of the most profitable 3D movie.

3D is already dying. That was quick.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/11/01/next-batman-movies-lack-of-3d-espn-3d-doubt-signs-of-a-struggling-technology/

So, somebody that doesn't like 3D publishes an article on some web site saying the next Batman movie isn't going to be shot in 3D and this means that 3D is dying? The article's author, Nicholas Deleon, is more about opinion than fact.

Not everything is going to be or should be shot in 3D. It is an artistic and money choice. I hope that 3D will become specialized for stories and environments that it adds something to. Some pictures are better as paintings than photographs.

If 3D really matures, there will be content for 3D and 2D.

That spurred a weird thought.

For years color was the hot new technology who's usefulness was debated. Is it necessary? Does it add anything to the movie/tv show? Is it worth the expense? Who will buy color TVs without color programming? Who will put out color programming if no viewers have color TVs? Now of course color is so far past mainstream that It's not even thought about. The occasional show or movie is produced in B&W to bring about some artistic, retro, or sentimental effect.

So, some years from now, there may be a studio that brings out the occasional 2D movie for artistic, retro, or sentimental effect, and some will applaud the art of it while others will ponder why it wasn't done in 3D like everything else.

3D has been mature for over 50 years. The theory was well understood before most of us were born. With digital acquisition the hard costs of shooting 3D over 2D dropped dramatically. The soft costs in artist terms haven't changed.

What really drove the push for 3D cinema was the distributors and cinema owners needed something to put bums back onto the seats instead of them just waiting at home for the movie to come out on BD.
There's always been a niche market for 3D in installations. The first 3D project I was involved in was shot on 2x PD150s for a piece to be shown in a museum, that was a long time ago, 3D is not something "new".

My own view is that 3D in the cinema is brilliant. Used with appropriate content it has put the bums back into the cinemas and that's a good thing for anyone truly interested in the artform. The ascetics who deride 3D simply fail to understand that it is and always has been the movie business. No bums on seats means no business means goodbye cinemas. Those big spaces are valuable real estate that at best barely stay out of the red.

I do have reservations about 3D in the home. Of course home 3D will always be the poor cousin to what you get in the cinema but like what happened with HD it's kind of hard to convince the unwashed masses that they really should shell out a couple of dollars to see the real deal as the creators intended it to be seen.

In the midst of the discussion I think a more pressing question is what is the fate of HD. Most of us are shooting it but so far I've only had one half hearted request to deliver HD and the quantity and quality of HD delivered to the home seems to be in decline. Our national broadcaster has no interest in HD, they'll review their position in 2012. One local indie production I was on the sideline of shot their pilot in HD but was forced to switch to SD when they got the green light.

Bob.

Since everyone else has spoken up with their opinions, here is mine.

3D photography (as in stills) has been around a LONG time. It greatly enhances any photograph, can be done relatively inexpensively and works in black and white or color, but how many of you have family photos in 3D?

I am guessing not many if any at all.

As long as 3D is being simulated in a 2D medium, it will be a novelty that some will want and use to great advantage, but it won't be in mainstream use.

I personally cannot watch any of the current 3D technologies. It makes me dizzy with some nausea. At home I watch TV most of the time laying on a couch at an angle to the TV. Current 3D will not be effective as I understand from that position.

But time will tell. I hope someone is saving this thread so we can relate back to it ina couple of years.

Dave T2

I've read this thread with interest and the overall theme I get from Keith and Bob, I think, is a valid one. We must differentiate what we like (care for) as a consumer and what our clients' like (care for). If one doesn't like 3D personally it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered for your clients. The reverse is also true:I love HD but the work I do in Vegas is still SD.
Chris

>>>Our national broadcaster has no interest in HD, they'll review their position in 2012<<<

Is that true? For sure they have given their HD channel over to 24 hours news/current affairs, which they said was for distribution reasons. This raised objections from people who watched their main entertainment channel. But I hadn't caught up with "let's forget HD".

Bob (farss) said: In the midst of the discussion I think a more pressing question is what is the fate of HD. Most of us are shooting it but so far I've only had one half hearted request to deliver HD and the quantity and quality of HD delivered to the home seems to be in decline. Our national broadcaster has no interest in HD, they'll review their position in 2012. One local indie production I was on the sideline of shot their pilot in HD but was forced to switch to SD when they got the green light.I see the same things here in the USA.

The rollout of HD is very instructive in predicting the rate of penetration of 3D. If you go back to the discussions in this forum when the two HD disc formats were first shipped in the spring of '06, you'll find similar predictions as you find in this thread about 3D, namely that the new technology is inevitable, and will be embraced both widely and quickly.

As someone who predicts and forecasts technology for a living, I took issue with these predictions:

Blu-ray & HD-DVD players coming

In that thread, many were saying that HD would take over in a year or two, as would one of the HD disc formats. By contrast, I said it would be at least five years. That exact time has now elapsed and, like Bob, I still have not had one request for delivery on Blu-Ray, although I do regularly upload HD content.

I see even more impediments for adoption of 3D in the home and -- even more so -- in business than I saw back then for the adoption of HD. Since the home and business market -- NOT the theater market -- are the ones served by Vegas users, I don't see 3D as something that significant numbers of us will ever actually use and edit, even five years from now. I would bet a lot of money on this but, having said that, Sony obviously bet a lot more than I'd be willing to put up, so maybe they know something that I don't.

Oh, and just as a random thought: can you imagine inviting a dozen people over to watch the Super Bowl in 3D, and then realize that you need to purchase 3D glasses for twelve people at $150 each? Yikes!

Oh, and on Bob's point about broadcasters and HD: in our hometown here in California, the local broadcast channels still alternate, during every single nightly newscast, between HD and SD AND between 16:9 and 4:3. Not only that, but they constantly get the fields reversed and end up broadcasting horrible juddery video. If, after almost a decade of dealing with this stuff, they can't even get something like that right and, apparently, not notice the problem -- or care enough to correct it -- I think that the crossover where over 50% of all content is broadcast and viewed in HD rather than SD is still a long ways off.

I also see uneven adoption and execution of HD in the central valley. What I find most distressing is when "major" advertisers deliver commercials in 4:3 (presumably in SD) and the text is unreadable. I suspect they would like me to read the text. The nightly news programs from the studios are all HD but the remotes are not. To add insult to injury, they just add to the burn-in when the sides of plasma screen are not iluminated. The HD transistion period will likely cause me to replace the TV sooner than I would have if all content was 16x9.
I'm not insensitive to the down economy and the pressure on broadcast channels from declining ad revenue.

for an event I create some content , my opposition creates some content in 3D and uses the glasses as part of the whole spin, all the mc’s in red and green, red and green drinks etc. I wonder who will get the nod?

I personally cannot watch any of the current 3D technologies. It makes me dizzy with some nausea. At home I watch TV most of the time laying on a couch at an angle to the TV. Current 3D will not be effective as I understand from that position.

Maybe in Vegas 69.r, there will be holodeck support and if you feel nauseated one of the characters will bring you some pepto.

:)

Dave T2

Of course it need! So long long headway and far behind from other, but now it again trying to keep pace with the times! Of course, this is a very small step, but it inspires hope in the fact that the program can once again become the main video editing tool for all occasions!

Well, that does it.

This was the first time I read the entire thread and up to this time I had the highest regard for John Cline and Keith Kolbo, but now I read:

"That is the reality! Hell Porn drove the HDV development. Hmmm 3D porn, now there is an interesting market."

If we can't have a good discussion without bringing Porn into it, I have had it. I'm no pro but have the greatest respect for this forum and the professionals who participate and I am so disappointed in such comments.

TomG

That comment was made by me and me alone. It in no way should discredit or reflect on John who is a well respected professional. While the comment was not meant to offend, the responsibility is totally mine and I would ask you to not be so narrow as to convict John solely because he is associated with me by his agreement that 3D is a market that will be with us and should be acknowledged.

To John:
Please accept my apology if this has slung mud on you.

why surprised tomg?

it's a well known fact that porn has driven a great many innovations; from vhs to secure online payment systems.

whether one approves of porn is another matter, but it's for sure going to be a driving force behind 3d.

both john and keith are professionals with a good deal of experience to back up their observations, and nowhere have i read either of them endorsing porn...

personally i think 3d is another gimmick to sell everything from hardware, software through to finished program material, which of course will have porn as it's vanguard....

personally i think 3d is another gimmick to sell everything from hardware, software through to finished program material

It is without a doubt. I am in the business of selling content and such. That is why I can not ignore it. People are spending good money to get the consumers to see 3D as something they want. I would be a foul to not take advantage of that by becoming proficient in its delivery. It may not be my preferred art form, but there is art and business. I tech students that if they want to understand TV, follow the money.

I do not think it was the fact that porn partly drove the development of HDV that offended TomG. I believe it was my of handed comment about 3D porn being an interesting market to think about. Many internet developments were driving by funding from that industry whether we support it or not.

"People [developers, retailers, etc.] are spending good money to get the consumers to see 3D as something they want."

And this is what frosts my socks. Here, Keith is making another observation. Although his observation is true and accurate, I cannot agree with it philosophically.

Generally speaking, I take umbrage at anyone, especially marketers, telling me what they think I want or need. Common though it may be, this approach has, in part, helped create the problem we have today of people being unable to separate their wants from the needs.

"Common though it may be, this approach has, in part, helped create the problem we have today of people being unable to separate their wants from the needs."

Sad but very true. Unfortunately, this collective consumption hypnosis is what has been driving our whole economy since the 50s, at an immeasurable ecological price.

If you don´t know it already , check this simple but brilliant analysis in "the story of stuff"


It´s frighteningly eye-opening.

"... this collective consumption hypnosis is what has been driving our whole economy since the 50s..."

Yes. How many of us growing up in the 50s heard, "Be the first kid on your block to __________!" Fill in the blank.

Unfortunately, advertisers have taken it further. Today, "if you do not own or use product X you are a loser" is message being propagated now.

Before we got rid of our satellite, there was an adverstisement running for some credit card (I've forgotten who it was) whose tag line was "I want it, and I want it now." Never mind if you could afford it. Never mind if your truly need it. Never mind how you're going to pay for it when the bills comes due.

Another credit card had an ad campaign that talked about how "You deserve it!"

The problem is evidenced by the current entitlement mentality generation, and we are all suffering as a result of it.

I really like the term "collective consumption hypnosis". It's very discriptive of what's going and the umpteenth push for 3D is the most recent example.