Thanks, I'll check out Despicable Me. I didn't start this thread so suggesting that I'm belly-aching is a bit much. I'm not demanding that you stop using or enjoying 3D, good luck to you. I just think that using 3D changes the nature of the movIe and in my limited experience not for the better. I wouldn't say movies are all about entertainment. Some movies have additional concerns. Reaching multiple levels is a great goal - I think 3D ones remain shallow.

As far as I know I've never notice surround sound interfering in the same way that 3D does. Cheers.

Thanks, I must have got my versions mixed up.

Rob, your last point is very well made! And helps me to carry the "idea" of 3D further forward.

Like many others, I'd fallen into the trap of Function over Form. Meaning: It's all about the glasses; it's all about the difficulty of camera work and needing that camera; it's all about the right monitor/tv; it's all about..... What I had forgotten is that it is really ALL about the experience! And what an experience it could be.

So, we are still in that transitionary time-band of not having the most convenient media manipulation and viewer experience AND the amazing outcome that 3D could bring. We are still pre-Jurrasic when we are wanting a 22nd Century outcome for the all encompassing 3D (or even Dr Who-like 4D! "the Real Time travel movies") experience. We KNOW what we want and we want it NOW.

....... . . . . . was it ever thus....?

Rob: "Tell me, (just curious), do you complain and belly-ache over surround sound too?" - I wont forget now. Just 'cos we have a dream and that dream presently isn't the way we like it being made and delivered, doesn't reduce the potential scale of that dream. We shouldn't elevate Function, how difficult it is, over Form, how good it could be.

Grazie

But it's the form that I don' like! My concern is that this form might kill off others.

Kit.

"My concern is that this form might kill off others.

Kit, yah can't knock Darwin, just 'cos what he said is unpalatable?

Grazie


ps, I really think you meant Function . . otherwise I hadn't explained myself well enough..

I think I meant form. But please explain some more. From a Darwinian point of view I think 3D is a dodo, or perhaps a red herring.

Kit

AH, the Dodo was made extinct by the systematic eradication of a stupid bird that hadn't any street-cred, least ways with the musket totting sailors of the 18th century and some....

Grazie

y'know this web "auto-cussing-SS-nazi" deemed fit to **** the use of a perfectly good word S-T-U-P-I-D . ..


Anybody remember the Blues Brother movie where Ellwood and Jake are in-front of the Nun? Feels like that this morning . . .

Here's a condensed version of a conversation from somewhere else on this topic:

[I]"I don't like 3D because it makes a movie seem like a stage play."[/I]

[I]" A stage play isn't literal. 3D works better the less literal the content is e.g. animation"[/I]

I wish I had that level of insight :(
It certainly fits my observation and is well reflected in how the audiences are taking to 3D... or not. It would also suggest that Kit has nothing to worry about, 3D is just another adjunct to the story telling. Stories will still be told in movies in 2D just as not all are told in colour or with surround sound. How pervasive 3D will become depends on audience's tastes and what motivates them to get off the couch and pay a premium to watch a movie in a cinema.

Bob.

HI Bob, I agree with the second quote but not he first. don't see how 3D makes movies seem like a stage play - more the reverse I feel.

Kit

2D won't be going away for a LONG time. There's billions of 2D devices out there, at best, millions of 3D devices. It's a no brainier which is going to sell more content. Even though current 2D devices could display some type of 3D (IE glasses, side-by-side & the like) most people won't bother doing that. Most people won't bother washing their hands after using the head/lou/can/toilet/washcloset/etc. (did I cover all the bases here?). Hence hand sanitizer to kill the germs on top of the poop!

Since 3D won't kill off 2D (maybe 1D, can't be sure on that one.... :p We didn't lose 2D sound with 3D, after all)) we can assume Darwin was wrong and both were designed to fulfill a purpose, ones purpose is more general then the other is all. :D

@thf - Khazi is British English slang for toilet

I watched a "What's new in Edius 6.5" presentation on Lynda.com last night. One of the new features was 3D editing. That was a year ago but Edius seems like less of a consumer commodity NLE than Vegas.

I don't think SCS had the option of skipping 3D, but I also think that if they were taking care of core features and stability then we wouldn't be squawking about 3D.

The problem as I see it is that every new feature adds to the load of maintaining them for future releases. You're better off refining existing features. For example, I've been looking at various color correction tutorials and it's seeming pretty obvious that Vegas could improve a lot on their interface. For one thing, the color corrector uses way too much screen real estate, especially on a laptop. In comparison, the Colorista color wheels get a lot more functionality right onto the wheels so they don't need a lot of space.

Rob

I've seen 2 real 3D movies (Avatar, Up), and 2 conversions (Titantic, Jurassic Park). All have been pretty good experiences, but not really enough to turn me into a fanboy.

Watching 3D on TV at the Best Buy store of a soccer game, the effect is another thing totally. Because of the smaller size of the monitors, the 3D comes off looking like the tilt-shift effect, making the subjects seem like miniatures.

So I'll never really care about whether 3D stays or goes. I did see a 4K TV at Best Buy, and that does interest me more. Not the price, but that will come down just as HD did.

BBC are canning it on broadcast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23195479

geoff

That's the exact link posted at the beginning of the thread.

Whether it's the BBC or ESPN, they are just not getting the number of viewers that they expected.

When 3D programming can provide a standard and repeatable viewing experience that's not detracted by the paraphenalia that accompanies it, it will catch on. It is evolving, although I'm not a big fan of the current state - especially on TVs. A program well-made and viewed from the right spot can be very enjoyable, but that combination has been rare in my experience.

I was lucky to have seen Avatar in an IMAX theater from a center seat, and I actually forgot I was wearing glasses for the first time ever. No sticks jumping out of the screen to poke my eye out, just a wonderful realistic depth that didn't "wow" me out of engagement with the story. To me, that's the way the experience should be.

I saw Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel in 3D and to tell you the truth I really didn't notice that they were 3D. I like animation in 3D a lot better.

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.

That is not specifically 3Ds problem. The problem is HOW IT'S USED in most films. Directors and cinematographers (or whoever is in charge of it) need to learn how to use it. It's just another tool ... like COLOR or STEREO sound. You can use both of those things badly in films ... but most have learned to do these two things "properly"

When stereo sound first came out I would think that there was a bunch of "ping pong" effects to "show off" the new toy.

We see (most of us anyway) in 3D every day, just like we see in color, and hear in stereo sound.

Another film that used 3D nicely was Disney"s 2009 film UP

"The Hobbit" has been the only enjoyable 3D experience for me so far. The effect was REAL, rather than contrived. I could sit and watch it very naturally and comfortably. Every other 3D film i've been to i've ended up closing one eye or the other for most of it to avoid seeing the doubled images.

On the other hand, i went to see "The Hobbit" again the next day, in 2D. It didn't really look much different to me than the 3D version. Perhaps it's because i had already seen the 3D and my mind filled in the missing depth detail. Perhaps i would have noticed the difference a lot more if i had seen the 2D first. Or perhaps it's just that the 3D was done so properly and subtly that there really wasn't much difference at all. As with stereo sound, you shouldn't ever notice that there is stereo sound just because it's stereo. It should enhance the audio, rather than it merely being stereo as THE reason that stereo is used. Stereo vision should be the same way, something to bring more naturalness to the image rather than exaggerating it.

3D allows you to separate the subject from a confusing or distracting background, but unlike the use of shallow depth of field, you are able to study the background if you wish.

I hate the overuse of shallow depth of field, particularly when the camera's focus is manually transferred from say one person in the foreground to another person (or thing) in the background. I am then forced to transfer my attention, when I might have wished to linger longer on the first person and his/her body language, and the blurred foreground person then becomes a distraction (detraction?).

Surely shallow depth of field, if avoidable, is an anathema to 3D ? Certainly would make things look exceeding false, whereas in 2D can indeed be needed to isolate a foreground object.

geoff

I was suggesting that 3D need not be a waste of time.