My vote is for 21x9, 4k, 3D. When that hits the shelves EVERYONE will be buying it. (yes, I'm aware that for 21x9 it'll have to be something other than 4k, but I'm too lazy to do the math).

More likely the next real "craze" in video is going to be when we just plug in our heads into something, or they beam images directly onto your retina through a pair of laser projectors mounted on glasses. Of course, that may not work because it'll require glasses again...maybe a nice hate with a brim that has the projectors on them.

On second thought, maybe I'll just read a book.

21 x 9? Why not simplify it to 7 x 3?

Because bigger is always better - or so the advertisers would like us to believe :)
The salesperson asks the customer:
"Would you like to buy an old 16 x 9 TV or a brand new 21 x 9 model?"

Mike

"Still, for home movies and weddings, I hope it doesn't catch on. It seems unnecessarily complicated for something that is just a gimmick. Heck, some of the best wedding photos are B&W."

Having finally had a bit of a play around with one of the consummer 3D cameras I agree with you.
The result is not as repugnant as I thought it would be. To their credit Sony etc have made some effort to prevent the user from easily ripping eyeballs out of sockets. What the 3D from these cameras badly suffers from is the "cardboard cutout" i.e. lack of roundness, problem.

"3D may still need the 'killer app'"

Not so certain I go along with that line of reasoning. People are still creating great art using the oldest techniques while others use every peice of technology available. More options and choice in the creative world are a good thing I would have thought and one more option doesn't render the other obsolete.


Unlike some here I do see 3D as another tool that can be used creatively to enhance story telling. At least in part I found Cameron's use of it in Avatar effective. At least once he stops the story to take us into a scene to evoke an emotional response, by being immersed in the 3D world we feel what it is that is being fought to preserve, words and flat images cannot invoke that as effectively.
At other times he avoids the use of the overt sensationalism of 3D as it would distract from the story.

Bob.

Personally, I think the next logical step would be 64:27 aspect ratio (2.37:1) with 7680x3240 pixels.

After all, 16:9 was produced by multiplying 4:3 by 4 and 3 respectively, i.e., (4:3)², so the next step should be 16:9 multiplied by 4 and 3 respectively. i.e. (4:3)³, which is 64:27, and multiplying 1920x1080 by 4 and 3 respectively yields 7680x3240. And of course it should also be available in 3D.

I still think going wider is worse.

I disagree that wider is worse. It may be harder to work with, but it is more like our vision. Human vision is quite wide. We look straight ahead, where all the action is. But we also have peripheral vision. We rarely pay any attention to what is on the periphery, but we are aware of its existence on the unconscious level.

Film and video should cover the peripheral vision, possibly even slightly beyond it. If it is not covered, we are not completely immersed in what is ahead of us because we are aware (again, mostly on the unconscious level) of the action ahead of us of being inside an artificial frame, so we are just observers and are not fully immersed in the action.

If, however, our peripheral vision is covered completely, we forget it is “just a movie” and enter the world of the movie. We are not just observers, we become participants of the story unfolding in front of our eyes. Wide screen, 3D, surround sound, all combined make us forget it is not real. If done well, we are completely lost in the story. We are inside it, not watching it from the outside.

Of course, the action of the story should unfold in the inner 4:3 region of the wide screen. If it moves to the periphery, we suddenly become aware (unconsciously) that the story has a frame and we lose the illusion of being inside the story.

So wider may be “worse” in the sense it is harder on us compositing and shooting, but the result is much better for the audience.

Same holds true about 3D. It is considerably more difficult to shoot than 2D, but if done right (which it, unfortunately, not always is), the result allows the audience to become more the participants of the story than its observers.

It is not that the 3D technology is not there, because the technology is fully available. It is that shooting 3D requires a different way of looking at it than 2D. So while the 3D technology is available for just about anyone, only a few understand the art of 3D. It is as different from 2D as a statue is from a painting. And if 3D is just thrown in as an afterthought and the threediness keeps shouting, “Look how fancy I am, aren’t you soooo impressed by me,” then it would be better to shoot (and show) the whole project in 2D. A painter is not a sculptor, and a 2D cinematographer is not a 3D cinematographer. Of course, there are people who are both, painters and sculptors, but they are exceptions. Similarly, especially in this stage of the development of the art of cinema, there are cinematographers who are good at both 2D and 3D, but they, too, are exceptions.

And just as both, paintings and sculptures, are good art forms and both continue to exist, so is both 2D and 3D. It is not that we should shoot everything in 3D or everything in 2D. We can do both and treat them as two similar but different things.

The one thing we should never do is convert 2D movies to 3D and we should never show a properly done 3D movie in 2D. Because 3D is not just an afterthought that can be added or removed at any time, it is a different art form.

As for a 25-year cycle, 3D has been around for several thousand years before 2D. Live theatre has always been in 3D.

Here again 3D, widescreen, etc as done on film is not how we see as humans.

in order for a film to be true 3D, it would have to have infinite focus and allow me, the observer to decide the focus of my eyes. Right now, the director and cameraman decide what is in focus. That is why I get a headache. I know this is true in 2D as well, but since 2D is not fake, my mind and eyes accept it. 3D on film is not natural, because it is a 2D medium.

Also, 3D should change based on my distance from the screen and angle, but it doesn't. It is set as if I were centered at a specfic distance from the subject, regardless of where I am physically while viewing. this again confuses the brain and eyes and causes discomfort.

Until 3D is truly holographic, it will always be a gimmick.


Dave T2

I liked the 3D films, comic books, and 35mm slide viewers in the 50's and I like them now but I won't buy a 3D set until they get rid of the glasses. I will by a 21 x 9 set however.
JJK

A very interesting analysis of why 3D is problematic can be found in a letter written by Walter Murch a couple of months ago.

It's a very thoughtful commentary.

Jack

"Until 3D is truly holographic, it will always be a gimmick."

3D is 3D, we really have a semantics problem here.
What we're discussing here is Stereo Three Dimension i.e. S3D, not 3D.
Stereo sound is not holographic either, true holographic sound can be done with only two channels but only for one subject.

Neither are a "gimmick" S3D exploits one attirubute of human vision to enhance the illusion that even 2D images are. No one has ever and probably never will, been able to create a 2D image that passes as "real".

Bob.

Bob,

I do see the difference using your wording, of course I have never seen a recent film advertised as "Stereo 3D", only 3D.

One definition of "gimmick" from Websters

"c : a trick or device used to attract business or attention <a marketing gimmick> "

This is how I see it. I didn't say anything about Stereo sound, so not sure why you are mentioning that. And I agree, no one has ever created a 2D image that passes as real, but 2D is a natural state in our vision.

Dave T2

it'd be nice if there was something worth watching in 3d...

Leslie, now you're just picking nits. ;o)

"One definition of "gimmick" from Websters

If you're talking about the people who own cinemas and distribute movies then absolutely. I think you'd concede the same applies to adding sound, color, cinerama etc. At the other end of the business there are also people having serious discussions about if a movie need sound or color and what aspect ratio the story will best be told in. Obviously a considerable number of movies are made solely with profit rather than art in mind and then whatever can be used to help put posteriors on seats will be used.
At the same time thanks to the money that does flow through the box office movies are made purely for the art, even today silent and B&W movies are still made.
I'll certainly concede that the driver for the revival of S3D was profit, in concert with newer technolgy that has lowered the costs from production to projection. That doesn't mean that it hasn't opened a door for creatives to use it as another tool to tell a story better.

Bob.

Look, 3D isn't currently ready for prime time. If you look through old posts on this forum you'll find people that were saying the same thing about HD as little as a few years ago, but now regular folks are shooting kids birthday parties in HD. Cameras with adequate HD capabilities are like $200. Can you even buy an SD television anymore?

Will there be a time in the future when 3D is common? Absolutely. Will it happen anytime in the near future? Probably not. We see in color and stereoscopic 3D. We've had the color part for quite a while, then it was HD and 3D recording is the next logical step. Holographic 3D is the step after that.

I'm traditionally an early adopter of most technology, I've been chasing that techie Holy Grail for as long as I can remember. 3D is the latest Holy Grail, I like it and I don't think it's going away but they do still have some work to do before it becomes mainstream.

Bob,
Many of these things started as gimmicks and then became the normal. Many things stayed gimmicks.

These started as gimmicks and became normal
1)Sound
2)Color
3)Surround Sound
4)Widescreen

These stayed gimmicks
1)Sensaround
2)Smellavision
3)Polyvision

I think 3D is in the second category, and in a small way, B&W and silent have become a gimmick. Something to get people to talk about your movie. Mel Brooks "Silent Movie" was exactly that. I am not saying these cannot be utilize to enhance the movie experience.

But yes, some people will use 3D to better tell a story than others. I still cannot watch in the current 3D technology. But I also cannot enjoy Imax without getting motion sickness.

Dave T2

A have a new 55" Samsung that came with the glasses and a set of Shrek discs. Aside from that and some free 3D documentaries (which the 3d sucks) there's nothing to watch. I never buy movies and one can hardly find a blue ray at RedBox let alone hope for a 3D title. If they have new 3D titles, I would rent them.

Went to the local tv shop before christmas with girlfriend and checked out the 3D tv's. I could watch it for about 3 minutes then eye strain followed by a mild headache. That did it for me, not interested in anything that makes me feel ill later.... except maybe beer lol.

Paul.