I pretty much only buy or go to the cinema to watch movies if they're in 3D.
I have a 3D BD project on the books, only a freebie for a mate so it'll be interesting to see how that goes.

As for the BBC, they several years ago banned the use of 16mm as an acquisition format and now insist HD has to be acquired as 50Mbps 4:2:2. I wonder how many here are in a position to shoot that?

Bob.

My 50" TV has developed a minor fault (one pink vertical line when it should be blue, but other colours OK) and was hoping that 3D TV transmissions would be common soon to justify buying a replacement TV. Does anybody have a glass ball on the future of 3D transmissions in Oz?

According to

MPAA Statistics

there are about 600 theatrical releases each year. According to this site:

3D Release Calendar

about twenty of these (3%) are 3D.

My TV provider is AT&T Uverse, and they have zero 3D channels. DirecTV supposedly has three.

How many years has it been since modern 3D was introduced to home TV? At least four. How many years since Avatar? Three. Are the number of 3D theatrical releases per year increasing per year? No.

I'm old enough to remember almost every incarnation of 3D movies, going back to the 1950s. I don't know if they are going to completely go away as they did the last few times they were "hot," but they sure as heck aren't growing and, at 3%, are probably only slightly ahead of the number of black & white films released each year (although I couldn't find any number for B&W releases).

I read heard somewhere 8 out of the 10 highest grossing movies last year were in 3D.One of the reasons for the push for 4K and 8K is so we can have 3D without the glasses, lenticular 3D means losing half the horizontal resolution.

PeterDuke said:

[I]"Does anybody have a glass ball on the future of 3D transmissions in Oz?"[/I]

Not a word about it. I think some programs have been broadcast in 3D but heck, how much HD is broadcast. The problem we have is multiple channels using up the bandwidth that should be used for HD. Even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is probably in breach of their licence as they transmit zero HD.

Bob.

3D without the glasses is often inverted 3d & not the kind that comes out of the screen but the kind that goes into the screen. There is a big difference but no one has even noticed it.

The best 3D is IMAX HD 3D or Disney World HD 3D in a movie theater. No 50 inch screen can compete so why even try. Logistics won't allow it.

3D in the dome tent looking up is also very impressive, but seems to have disappeared.

$18/ticket for a new released 3D movie is pretty steep imho. If my entire family went it would be $108 just to SEE the movie. However, the "local" Dipson runs soon-to-be-DVD-releases in theature and those are $4 ticket for 3D.

Just look at how inconvenient it is for using at home... You need a TV. You need glasses, 1 per person. Buy one for everyone in the family. A friend comes over, you need glasses. Bummer, they're either watching a mess or someone else is.

3D as a non-"mass" viewing option seems pretty neat though. Like turning your phone in to a 3D headset. That I would be interested in. Someone could make the "helmet" to hold the phone and for videos you render them left/right 3D. It's a lot less work, on the end user, then getting the giant, expensive TV, glasses, special player and special discs. According to Nielson, ~50% of the US population has a smartphone and any smartphone can play videos. Is this really that far fetched with people already watching videos on their phones everywhere? I don't think so.

[I]"Just look at how inconvenient it is for using at home... You need a TV. You need glasses, 1 per person. Buy one for everyone in the family. A friend comes over, you need glasses."[/I]

Sure you need a TV to watch a movie at home unless it's real home movie :)
Jokes aside our 3D HDTV and BD player cost no more than a 2D one. Included were 2 sets of glasses and I bought two extra pairs for around $10 each. The biggest downside is the polarized glass do reduce screen brightness so you do need to turn the lights out.

TBH when I bought the TV and got it home I thought "hm, should have bought the next size up" but to my surprise even on a 42" HDTV 3D works quite well. Not as immersive as the mega-ultra-super screen in a cinema but it is quite passable.

The other thing that does really bug me is every 3D title I have has some 2D content in it before you get to the movie and that wastes a lot of time while the system switches between 2D and 3D and back to 3D. Then again BD disks bug me anyway with the amount of time they spend loading.

Bob.

Yeah, looking at prices now (bestbuy), a 42 inch 3D TV is ~$600, a non-3D is ~$500. I own a 32 though, it was ~$250 (maybe less, I forget). I'm one of those wierdo's who didn't want a large TV and a 32" was big enough.

I agree about BD discs loading. Some take minutes, then they have an intro screen you need to make an option on before you can start the movie. :?

> "As for the BBC, they several years ago banned the use of 16mm as an acquisition format and now insist HD has to be acquired as 50Mbps 4:2:2. I wonder how many here are in a position to shoot that?"

They can "insist" but how would they know? A friend of mine ran into this problem and he rendered his HDV footage out to 50Mbps 4:2:2 with Vegas Pro, submitted it for broadcast and got it accepted. So stations can ask for anything they want, but they will get what they measure. As long as you deliver the format they are expecting (and it doesn't look too bad of course) they can't tell how it was acquired.

The article states:

The BBC is to suspend 3D programming for an indefinite period due to a "lack of public appetite" for the technology.

I have to admit that I can't get my kids to go to a 3D move. They absolutely hate them and will always wait to find a theatre that is showing the 2D version or wait for it to come out on DVD. I can't even get my wife to watch HD! She insists on watching the SD channels on our 50" HD TV as a little postage stamp in the middle of the screen with big black bars on all sides and doesn't see anything wrong with it. In general, the "public" doesn't care about technology as long as the content is compelling.

~jr

JR said: [I]" They can "insist" but how would they know?"[/I]

Pretty easily, their people will be there when you shoot it.
From memory their technical requirements apply to 2nd tier production, you sell them the concept, you then provide the production capability but they have the completion responsibility. One local such production we were involved in had the editing switched from the production company doing the editing to the network doing the editing only a week or so before shooting started..

3rd tier is when you sell them the completed production which is a hard slog. If they decide to buy your work they don't care about it so long as their technical people are happy and you deliver it on the format they specify you're good to go.

Bob.

I can get the not going to a 3D movie... price. But not watching HD on an HD set when you have the option of SD or HD? :? If it's OTA then (on my TV at least, and the other I owned) you can manually remove the SD channel from the lineup. ;)

I bought a 3D 50" set 3 years ago and I would rather have the option to watch 3D.

There are some productions that are excellent in 3D and others that can be a off-putting. 'Avatar' was/is superb in its use of 3D (whether you like the storyline or not is another matter). 'The Hobbit' used 3D very well and ... 'Clash of the Titans' showed how not to use 3D. That one was very badly generated 3D from a 2D source and, at times, quite grotesque. My wife and I gave it up as a bad job, badly done.

Sport can be excellent, depending on the camera positioning, or just distracting. I have just watched some of the tennis at Wimbledon and the 3D was excellent, though limited by camera viewpoints. A real shame as the BBC could have shown their 3D production strengths to the full. Documentaries that I have watched in 3D have been, mostly, stunning and far more satisfying than 2D images in close-ups of wildlife.

I suspect too much content has been made or converted to 3D to try to cash-in on a new/updated technology. Like all audio or visual productions the care taken and expertise effort expended usually shows in the final product. Sadly cashing-in without those elements tends to give a bad impression of a technology puts out a high volume of disreputable content and leads to denigration of the technology across the board.

I am aware that not everyone appreciates 3D, or can even see the effect, though do hope the technology keeps going with those who are prepared to put in the required effort to deliver quality productions.

That is my two-pence worth, which is just my opinion and just as valid as the next or previous persons.

I was not sold on 3D at home initially. It seemed uneccessary and I didn't want to pay a premium for it. But like Farss said, it really isn't much more expensive these days. Now that I have a 3D projector on a 110 inch screen I have grown to enjoy it quite a bit. The quality is spectacular, very similar to what I see at the theater and at times surpasses it. I even purchased a 3D camcorder that produces quite respectable 3D for a prosumer/consumer grade camcorder.

I have DirectTV and only occasionally watch 3D on it. The quality isn't as good as Blu ray 3D (obviously) and really is just barely watchable to me. I haven't purchased any PPV movies so I don't know how they look. But ESPN 3D and 3dNet are just passable. I would not want to watch a whole evening of 3D programming on either channel. Mabey its better on smaller sets.

I'm not sure if 3D will ever catch on and become the norm. As long as movies are still released on Blu ray 3D I think I'll be satisfied.

interesting range of views...

however, my main intention was not to debate 3d in the cinema or even for that matter home release on 3d tv's but rather to point out that the incorporation of 3d into vegas (along with the time, energy, money, etc., scs must have put in) seems to have been more a pr bling job with no serious research into 'our' needs rather than a required, useful 'professional' tool...

i do realize there are a number of 3d users out there, but they are a very very small minority, (who could probably work just as well in the studio version of vegas) whereas the great majority of users would, i'm pretty sure, have appreciated the time and effort to have been spent sorting out the numerous problems still plaguing what is, after all, supposed to be a 'professional' nle.

i am working with 12, happily so, so far, but, and it is a huge but, i am still in the dark as to what cards / drivers guarantee ram / render efficiency / reliability, and why some combinations work on one pc and apparently not another. these things should have been made perfectly clear by scs, as should have been their implementation.

like most of the old fa*ts hereabouts, i miss the vegas of old, its stability, reliability, it's no nonsense approach to hardware, etc.,

i would have happily forgone 3d, gpu acceleration / rendering just to have had a solid, reliable nle that could make me money day in day out - as did the vegas of old...

Is anyone actually using Vegas for Avatar-budget 3D features? My understanding is that Vegas can't do that. It's 3D is a consumer version, and consumers seem to be voting loud and clear on the issue of 3D home movies (as well as 3D television). 3D in theaters seems like it has a chance to persist, at least until something comes along that is glasses-free. 3D for TV and YouTube--not so much.

I really don't think that putting 3D into Vegas took that much programming time or resources. It was probably fairly easy to do.

I don't think it took much effort either. It's handling two video events at the same time. You could of done it in Vegas 2 with two tracks, a custom project size. Like stereo audio, but two mono video files vs one stereo one.

I seriously considered not getting Vegas 12 when I heard about 3d. I loathe it in every way. I hate the way the need to throw in 3D effects sabotages narrative, direction and editing. If there ever comes a time when only 3D TVs are available and my TV packs up I will quit watching TV. And while I am ranting I will say that I dislike bullet-time and all that slick crud. I once saw the first five minutes of the Matrix on a large department store display and was so near to physically vomiting that I had to stop watching. I preferred films where the effects aren't in your face and trying to ram themselves down your throat. Yes, my disdain is visceral.

Kit

" I hate the way the need to throw in 3D effects sabotages narrative, direction and editing"

Oh come on man. You can't possibly be serious?

Personally I think you're being a bit extreme and if you can't see a 3d effect for what it is (just another tool in the box) then you have no business calling yourself an editor.

Hi Rob, I'm not an editor and have never claimed to be. Oh, and did I mention I was ranting?: ) But 3D isn't just another tool in the box, it changes the whole box - it's 3D after all. 3D effects tend to distort the film around themselves. But tell me of a subtle 3D effect that adds to the quality of a movie and I'll consider looking up that movie. I can't think if a 3d effect that I've seen that hasn't had me groaning on the inside.

Kit

Wasn't 3D introduced in 10, or 9? Not wanting 12 because of it's 3D support is like not wanting a new MacBookPro because they don't have firewire... A little late to the party, no? :)

3D mostly just changed the filming and rendering on the Vegas end. It doesn't change a whole lot on the editing end, it's still in/out points, color grading, etc.

You may be right that 3D came with an earlier Vegas version. I seem to remember more was made of it with Version 12. As long as it is avoidable I guess I can live with it. As for Mac - I don't like the design nor interface...

Kit