Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 12:38:57 GMT
But audiences don't want anything from a 3D showing, they are voting with their walllets! Every few years 3D is seen as the next big thing but it never catches on & is always seen as a gimmick because that is what it is. In terms of home entertainment it has not caught on. I don't think it ever will as 3D tvs are not being made any more. I have watched a couple of films in 3D at the cinema, only because it was the only option. Terrible. It darkens the image. & after a while I forgot about the 3D. Sadly it is nothing more than a gimmick. The way to make the cinematic experience more immersive is to write better films! None of the films I loved last year for example would have been enhanced by 3D. To be honest the fact that you haven't seen Avatar in 3D which is often held up as a benchmark movie does kind of negate your point. As for Jurassic World, well I thought it was a pretty poor movie & watching it in 3D wouldn't have made me more immersed, as I have said good writing, good characters & good stories immerse me in a film You didn't see the 3D of Jurassic World. It was amazing, and felt like you were actually entering the park. People opt not to see films where the 3D doesn't serve a narrative purpose because of the extra expense, but there are statistics out there to show that if a movie's 3D is highly regarded audiences go to see it. I am sure that if every film company used 3D technology as a storytelling device, 3D would no longer be seen as a gimmick and would see the kind of sales that Avatar and Jurassic World had for their 3D showings. I don't see why you would need glasses-free 3D iPads for 3D at home to take off. That's a completely different device to a television, and the TV having 3D and the iPad not wouldn't render using an iPad whilst watching TV as a second screen useless. I know we have had this debate in another thread but I really feel you are missing the point of my argument. As I have said I do not get immersed in a film by 3D, I get immersed in a film by good story, characters, acting. Jurrasic World had none of this for me so the addition of 3D would not immerse me in the film at all. As I will repeat, 3D causes light loss to the image, & after watching a film in 3D for a while I forget about the 3D effect. Another example was Promtheus. An equally terrible film which was not helped by 3D. It is also down to the fact that I do not watch as many blockbusters as I do more arthouse cinema, which would definitely not be enhanced by 3D slapped on top. PS - please can you show me these statistics of which you speak.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 21, 2018 13:06:11 GMT
But audiences don't want anything from a 3D showing, they are voting with their walllets! Every few years 3D is seen as the next big thing but it never catches on & is always seen as a gimmick because that is what it is. In terms of home entertainment it has not caught on. I don't think it ever will as 3D tvs are not being made any more. I have watched a couple of films in 3D at the cinema, only because it was the only option. Terrible. It darkens the image. & after a while I forgot about the 3D. Sadly it is nothing more than a gimmick. The way to make the cinematic experience more immersive is to write better films! None of the films I loved last year for example would have been enhanced by 3D. To be honest the fact that you haven't seen Avatar in 3D which is often held up as a benchmark movie does kind of negate your point. As for Jurassic World, well I thought it was a pretty poor movie & watching it in 3D wouldn't have made me more immersed, as I have said good writing, good characters & good stories immerse me in a film You didn't see the 3D of Jurassic World. It was amazing, and felt like you were actually entering the park. People opt not to see films where the 3D doesn't serve a narrative purpose because of the extra expense, but there are statistics out there to show that if a movie's 3D is highly regarded audiences go to see it. I am sure that if every film company used 3D technology as a storytelling device, 3D would no longer be seen as a gimmick and would see the kind of sales that Avatar and Jurassic World had for their 3D showings. I don't see why you would need glasses-free 3D iPads for 3D at home to take off. That's a completely different device to a television, and the TV having 3D and the iPad not wouldn't render using an iPad whilst watching TV as a second screen useless. Statistics? You mean the ones that led Sky, The BBC and all the TV manufacturers to drop all their 3DTV plans and products? Or the ones that fuel your imagination?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 13:24:03 GMT
You didn't see the 3D of Jurassic World. It was amazing, and felt like you were actually entering the park. People opt not to see films where the 3D doesn't serve a narrative purpose because of the extra expense, but there are statistics out there to show that if a movie's 3D is highly regarded audiences go to see it. I am sure that if every film company used 3D technology as a storytelling device, 3D would no longer be seen as a gimmick and would see the kind of sales that Avatar and Jurassic World had for their 3D showings. I don't see why you would need glasses-free 3D iPads for 3D at home to take off. That's a completely different device to a television, and the TV having 3D and the iPad not wouldn't render using an iPad whilst watching TV as a second screen useless. Statistics? You mean the ones that led Sky, The BBC and all the TV manufacturers to drop all their 3DTV plans and products? Or the ones that fuel your imagination? The statistics for films like Avatar and Jurassic World that prove audiences don't hate 3D, they are just picky because of the additional cost. I can't find one for this country but here's one for America that specifically mentions 3D films: www.statista.com/statistics/348870/highest-grossing-3d-movies/Avatar is beaten only by a Star Wars movie, and Jurassic World is third in the highest grossing 3D films. There's one obvious common thread in that the top three are science fiction films, and sci-fi is a genre all about 'going to another world' (which is what the best 3D provides). I think that has a lot to do with it, but also the critical acclaim for the use of 3D to further the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jan 21, 2018 13:24:16 GMT
4K? *shrugs* Not sold on it looking different enough to justify spending money on it. Mind you I only relatively recently came round to HD.
As for 3D, I'm still yet to see a movie in 3D which I felt couldn't have been fine in 2D. Sometimes it adds something, but usually not. (For the record, I have not seen Avatar or Jurassic World in 3D)
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 13:33:35 GMT
4K? *shrugs* Not sold on it looking different enough to justify spending money on it. Mind you I only relatively recently came round to HD. As for 3D, I'm still yet to see a movie in 3D which I felt couldn't have been fine in 2D. Sometimes it adds something, but usually not. (For the record, I have not seen Avatar or Jurassic World in 3D) Jurassic World in 3D is amazing. Other 3D films I'd recommend are the 2016 Ghostbusters and 2008's Journey To The Center Of The Earth. As for 4K, if you get a 4K television and a 4K Blu-ray player, and opt for a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray filmed in true 4K you can really tell the difference. My parents put Blue Planet II on yesterday, which looks stunning in 4K. The vivid colours really come to life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 13:44:52 GMT
As for 4K, if you get a 4K television and a 4K Blu-ray player, and opt for a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray filmed in true 4K you can really tell the difference. But if the BBC doesn't broadcast in 4K then you won't get it filmed in 4K unless it's for a Blu-ray release. Due to the complexity of Doctor Who (regarding special effects, multiple takes, etc) getting it released in 4K is an absolute pipe dream. You might be able to get it upscaled, though. I just don't think many people care enough about going further than HD. Or the funds. I can't even afford normal Blu-rays most of the time, let alone 4K Ultra HD.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 13:51:43 GMT
As for 4K, if you get a 4K television and a 4K Blu-ray player, and opt for a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray filmed in true 4K you can really tell the difference. But if the BBC doesn't broadcast in 4K then you won't get it filmed in 4K unless it's for a Blu-ray release. Due to the complexity of Doctor Who (regarding special effects, multiple takes, etc) getting it released in 4K is an absolute pipe dream. You might be able to get it upscaled, though. I just don't think many people care enough about going further than HD. Or the funds. I can't even afford normal Blu-rays most of the time, let alone 4K Ultra HD. I think 4K is probably the next thing after HD, and then maybe Glasses-Free 3D shortly after that if film companies start to use it creatively and more TV companies come on-board. I certainly disagree that people don't care about going beyond HD. I think watching television or film is all about getting the best PQ and experience as possible. If we don't evolve past HD television, then where do we go next in terms of TV viewing? It would be like if we never moved on from standard television and people were still able to watch things on fuzzy analogue channels. Doctor Who might not get 4K for a long time, but I would be shocked if we're not watching, say, Coronation Street in 4K in twenty years' time.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 21, 2018 13:54:50 GMT
Statistics? You mean the ones that led Sky, The BBC and all the TV manufacturers to drop all their 3DTV plans and products? Or the ones that fuel your imagination? The statistics for films like Avatar and Jurassic World that prove audiences don't hate 3D, they are just picky because of the additional cost. I can't find one for this country but here's one for America that specifically mentions 3D films: www.statista.com/statistics/348870/highest-grossing-3d-movies/Avatar is beaten only by a Star Wars movie, and Jurassic World is third in the highest grossing 3D films. There's one obvious common thread in that the top three are science fiction films, and sci-fi is a genre all about 'going to another world' (which is what the best 3D provides). I think that has a lot to do with it, but also the critical acclaim for the use of 3D to further the narrative. OK but those stats are only about 3D cinema, which is problematic. 1) They do not help you to see if 3D attracts more audience than would 2D versions of the film 2) Those stats have no bearing on TV Given that film makers are not themselves flocking to 3D goes to anecdotally prove that 3D cinema is, at least for the majority of films, not worth it, the extra investment will not be returned. If 3D made films more profitable, the industry would be flocking on mass to make 3D films and they are not, they remain a somewhat niche feature. But as for TV, it's a failure, A LOT of money was invested into 3DTV, from the BBC and Sky (we had 3D tennis, 3D Olympics and 3D football as well as drama productions and more) through to TV production companies. All of those companies have withdrawn from the market, ALL of those companies have concluded that the public does not want 3DTV. Sales of 3DTV never took off, despite the price point being similar to normal TV's. It doesn't matter how much people say they like 3D, if that apparent like cannot be turned into profit for film maker or into audience numbers for TV makers then it won't ever be a big thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 13:56:00 GMT
But if the BBC doesn't broadcast in 4K then you won't get it filmed in 4K unless it's for a Blu-ray release. Due to the complexity of Doctor Who (regarding special effects, multiple takes, etc) getting it released in 4K is an absolute pipe dream. You might be able to get it upscaled, though. I just don't think many people care enough about going further than HD. Or the funds. I can't even afford normal Blu-rays most of the time, let alone 4K Ultra HD. I think 4K is probably the next thing after HD, and then maybe Glasses-Free 3D shortly after that if film companies start to use it creatively and more TV companies come on-board. I certainly disagree that people don't care about going beyond HD. I think watching television or film is all about getting the best PQ and experience as possible. If we don't evolve past HD television, then where do we go next in terms of TV viewing? It would be like if we never moved on from standard television and people were still able to watch things on fuzzy analogue channels. Doctor Who might not get 4K for a long time, but I would be shocked if we're not watching, say, Coronation Street in 4K in twenty years' time. Well people were able to watch on fuzzy analogue channels until about 2011, with BBC HD only launching roughly a decade ago, so I think 4K for the mass market is probably a long way off. Also, Coronation Street? I thought with the economy of soaps that it would be one of the last things to change, given that they need to make episodes quickly and as cheap as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 14:57:02 GMT
Statistics? You mean the ones that led Sky, The BBC and all the TV manufacturers to drop all their 3DTV plans and products? Or the ones that fuel your imagination? The statistics for films like Avatar and Jurassic World that prove audiences don't hate 3D, they are just picky because of the additional cost. I can't find one for this country but here's one for America that specifically mentions 3D films: www.statista.com/statistics/348870/highest-grossing-3d-movies/Avatar is beaten only by a Star Wars movie, and Jurassic World is third in the highest grossing 3D films. There's one obvious common thread in that the top three are science fiction films, and sci-fi is a genre all about 'going to another world' (which is what the best 3D provides). I think that has a lot to do with it, but also the critical acclaim for the use of 3D to further the narrative. These stats just show what the highest grossing 3D films are. It doesn't compare the figures between the specific films box office in 3D compared to 2D version which would support a pro-3D argument if it showed more people watched in 3D than 2D. It also doesn't show the availbility of both formats, for example were there equal screenings of the films in 3D & 2D so audiences could make a choice or were there more 3D screenings so those that don't like the format were not able to see it any way & basically had no choice but to see it in 3D? (something which I think hampered the box offfice of Dredd which was very difficult to see in 2D at the cinema). Also where is this critical acclaim for the format? Most critics don't seem interested in 3D. It is being pushed on audiences in much the same was as it was done before, as a reaction against home viewing. With people increasingly watching more at home the cinema industry is trying to find a new way of attracting audiences to the big screen rather than stay at home. This as I mentioned was done many times before, 3D is not a new format. It has not taken off at all during previous attempts & I can see no reason why it would now. The lack of take up of home viewing in 3D shows that audiences do not want it! Anyway, I thought this thread was about 4K? Don't we have other threads where you have repeatedly made a case for 3D? Nothing against you if you like it but why repeat the same argument again & again without adding anything new?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 14:59:37 GMT
The statistics for films like Avatar and Jurassic World that prove audiences don't hate 3D, they are just picky because of the additional cost. I can't find one for this country but here's one for America that specifically mentions 3D films: www.statista.com/statistics/348870/highest-grossing-3d-movies/Avatar is beaten only by a Star Wars movie, and Jurassic World is third in the highest grossing 3D films. There's one obvious common thread in that the top three are science fiction films, and sci-fi is a genre all about 'going to another world' (which is what the best 3D provides). I think that has a lot to do with it, but also the critical acclaim for the use of 3D to further the narrative. OK but those stats are only about 3D cinema, which is problematic. 1) They do not help you to see if 3D attracts more audience than would 2D versions of the film 2) Those stats have no bearing on TV Given that film makers are not themselves flocking to 3D goes to anecdotally prove that 3D cinema is, at least for the majority of films, not worth it, the extra investment will not be returned. If 3D made films more profitable, the industry would be flocking on mass to make 3D films and they are not, they remain a somewhat niche feature. But as for TV, it's a failure, A LOT of money was invested into 3DTV, from the BBC and Sky (we had 3D tennis, 3D Olympics and 3D football as well as drama productions and more) through to TV production companies. All of those companies have withdrawn from the market, ALL of those companies have concluded that the public does not want 3DTV. Sales of 3DTV never took off, despite the price point being similar to normal TV's. It doesn't matter how much people say they like 3D, if that apparent like cannot be turned into profit for film maker or into audience numbers for TV makers then it won't ever be a big thing. 3D films are less profitable because film companies fail to learn from the successful 3D showings. Those statistics don't show anything in regards to 3D on TV, but they do show that 3D (which is named in the article - it specifically states these are 3D film statistics) can be successful if done right. Perhaps the failure of 3D TV is because only one show used it to its full advantage as a storytelling device (Doctor Who)? Sports events can't really benefit from 3D apart from being gimmicky.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 15:00:21 GMT
I think 4K is probably the next thing after HD, and then maybe Glasses-Free 3D shortly after that if film companies start to use it creatively and more TV companies come on-board. I certainly disagree that people don't care about going beyond HD. I think watching television or film is all about getting the best PQ and experience as possible. If we don't evolve past HD television, then where do we go next in terms of TV viewing? It would be like if we never moved on from standard television and people were still able to watch things on fuzzy analogue channels. Doctor Who might not get 4K for a long time, but I would be shocked if we're not watching, say, Coronation Street in 4K in twenty years' time. Well people were able to watch on fuzzy analogue channels until about 2011, with BBC HD only launching roughly a decade ago, so I think 4K for the mass market is probably a long way off. Also, Coronation Street? I thought with the economy of soaps that it would be one of the last things to change, given that they need to make episodes quickly and as cheap as possible. Corrie wouldn't be able to afford it right now, but who knows what may have changed in twenty years?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 15:06:43 GMT
The statistics for films like Avatar and Jurassic World that prove audiences don't hate 3D, they are just picky because of the additional cost. I can't find one for this country but here's one for America that specifically mentions 3D films: www.statista.com/statistics/348870/highest-grossing-3d-movies/Avatar is beaten only by a Star Wars movie, and Jurassic World is third in the highest grossing 3D films. There's one obvious common thread in that the top three are science fiction films, and sci-fi is a genre all about 'going to another world' (which is what the best 3D provides). I think that has a lot to do with it, but also the critical acclaim for the use of 3D to further the narrative. These stats just show what the highest grossing 3D films are. It doesn't compare the figures between the specific films box office in 3D compared to 2D version which would support a pro-3D argument if it showed more people watched in 3D than 2D. It also doesn't show the availbility of both formats, for example were there equal screenings of the films in 3D & 2D so audiences could make a choice or were there more 3D screenings so those that don't like the format were not able to see it any way & basically had no choice but to see it in 3D? (something which I think hampered the box offfice of Dredd which was very difficult to see in 2D at the cinema). Also where is this critical acclaim for the format? Most critics don't seem interested in 3D. It is being pushed on audiences in much the same was as it was done before, as a reaction against home viewing. With people increasingly watching more at home the cinema industry is trying to find a new way of attracting audiences to the big screen rather than stay at home. This as I mentioned was done many times before, 3D is not a new format. It has not taken off at all during previous attempts & I can see no reason why it would now. The lack of take up of home viewing in 3D shows that audiences do not want it! Anyway, I thought this thread was about 4K? Don't we have other threads where you have repeatedly made a case for 3D? Nothing against you if you like it but why repeat the same argument again & again without adding anything new? What about this, which specifically states a whopping 48% of Jurassic World's revenue came from 3D screenings? www.google.co.uk/amp/variety.com/2015/film/news/jurassic-world-box-office-analysis-1201519396/amp/And here's some reviews of 3D in Avatar and Jurassic World from a well-respected Blu-ray review site: m.bluray.highdefdigest.com/22373/jurassicworld3d.htmlm.bluray.highdefdigest.com/7567/avatar3d_worldwide.html
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 21, 2018 15:14:20 GMT
3D films are less profitable because film companies fail to learn from the successful 3D showings. How do you know this? Those statistics [...] show that 3D (which is named in the article - it specifically states these are 3D film statistics) can be successful if done right. No it doesn't, to know that, you would need to know what would have happened if there had been no 3D version, then you could assess whether 3D actually attracted more viewers or not. What those stats show is that making a 3D version won't in of itself cause a movie to bomb. Perhaps the failure of 3D TV is because only one show used it to its full advantage as a storytelling device (Doctor Who)? Sports events can't really benefit from 3D apart from being gimmicky. The reason for 3DTV's failure are from what I've read are apparent. People don't want to wear glasses to watch TV, nor do the want a TV that can only be viewed from certain angles. As for 3D being gimmicky when it comes to sports, I find that bizarre, when it comes to many sports (Football and Tennis come immediately to mind) being able to see where the ball is in 3D space a great addition.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 15:40:45 GMT
The success stories of Avatar and Jurassic World show this. 48% opted for a 3D showing of Jurassic World. This is massive considering we all have different views and opinions. You'd never get 70-80% opting for 3D showings over 2D showings - the world is too heavily populated with too many differing opinions for that. Well, you could use the Jurassic World statistics to say that the film would have made much less money without 3D showings. Without that 48% of audiences plus the increased ticket price for 3D, it would have been a much smaller worldwide gross. Thing is, what can you do with sports rather than the ball coming out of the screen? Depth 3D would have little benefit, and there's no controlled narrative that can utilise it for storytelling.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 21, 2018 16:09:59 GMT
The success stories of Avatar and Jurassic World show this. 48% opted for a 3D showing of Jurassic World. This is massive considering we all have different views and opinions. You'd never get 70-80% opting for 3D showings over 2D showings - the world is too heavily populated with too many differing opinions for that. Well, you could use the Jurassic World statistics to say that the film would have made much less money without 3D showings. Without that 48% of audiences plus the increased ticket price for 3D, it would have been a much smaller worldwide gross. Thing is, what can you do with sports rather than the ball coming out of the screen? Depth 3D would have little benefit, and there's no controlled narrative that can utilise it for storytelling. So you reckon that the people watched the 3D version would not have watched the 2D version? And that 3D is only good for story telling? Again your version of reality is so removed from mine I'm left struggling to find something sensible to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 16:10:09 GMT
These stats just show what the highest grossing 3D films are. It doesn't compare the figures between the specific films box office in 3D compared to 2D version which would support a pro-3D argument if it showed more people watched in 3D than 2D. It also doesn't show the availbility of both formats, for example were there equal screenings of the films in 3D & 2D so audiences could make a choice or were there more 3D screenings so those that don't like the format were not able to see it any way & basically had no choice but to see it in 3D? (something which I think hampered the box offfice of Dredd which was very difficult to see in 2D at the cinema). Also where is this critical acclaim for the format? Most critics don't seem interested in 3D. It is being pushed on audiences in much the same was as it was done before, as a reaction against home viewing. With people increasingly watching more at home the cinema industry is trying to find a new way of attracting audiences to the big screen rather than stay at home. This as I mentioned was done many times before, 3D is not a new format. It has not taken off at all during previous attempts & I can see no reason why it would now. The lack of take up of home viewing in 3D shows that audiences do not want it! Anyway, I thought this thread was about 4K? Don't we have other threads where you have repeatedly made a case for 3D? Nothing against you if you like it but why repeat the same argument again & again without adding anything new? What about this, which specifically states a whopping 48% of Jurassic World's revenue came from 3D screenings? www.google.co.uk/amp/variety.com/2015/film/news/jurassic-world-box-office-analysis-1201519396/amp/And here's some reviews of 3D in Avatar and Jurassic World from a well-respected Blu-ray review site: m.bluray.highdefdigest.com/22373/jurassicworld3d.htmlm.bluray.highdefdigest.com/7567/avatar3d_worldwide.html48% is less than half, that is far from "whopping". & also it isn't specifically stating that 48% of the films revenue came from 3D screenings only "its domestic opening weekend receipts" which isn't the same thing. Those reviews are by amateur critics, & are for home release so not really relevant when discussing 3D on the big screen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 16:18:28 GMT
Comparing cinema to TV is an apples and oranges debate. If 3D and 4K aren't doing business at the cinema then they sure as hell aren't gonna make it to TV- not for a while at least.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 16:25:45 GMT
The success stories of Avatar and Jurassic World show this. 48% opted for a 3D showing of Jurassic World. This is massive considering we all have different views and opinions. You'd never get 70-80% opting for 3D showings over 2D showings - the world is too heavily populated with too many differing opinions for that. Well, you could use the Jurassic World statistics to say that the film would have made much less money without 3D showings. Without that 48% of audiences plus the increased ticket price for 3D, it would have been a much smaller worldwide gross. Thing is, what can you do with sports rather than the ball coming out of the screen? Depth 3D would have little benefit, and there's no controlled narrative that can utilise it for storytelling. So you reckon that the people watched the 3D version would not have watched the 2D version? And that 3D is only good for story telling? Again your version of reality is so removed from mine I'm left struggling to find something sensible to say. What do you mean 'only'? Storytelling is the best thing something in cinema can be used for! Advancing the narrative rather than purely for spectacle. If there had been no Jurassic World 3D screenings, 48% wouldn't have paid more money to watch the film in 3D, meaning the film would have made less overall as 2D screenings are cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 16:27:50 GMT
48% is less than half, that is far from "whopping". & also it isn't specifically stating that 48% of the films revenue came from 3D screenings only "its domestic opening weekend receipts" which isn't the same thing. Those reviews are by amateur critics, & are for home release so not really relevant when discussing 3D on the big screen. 48% is a massive number. That's nearly half of cinemagoers. Again, you're forgetting about differing views - you're never going to get 60-100% of people all deciding to do the same thing. I wouldn't call them amateurs, they are quite well-known.
|
|