2D or 3D?

[powerbomb1411]

So, all of you who oppose 3D will not see the movie in theaters even if the movie gets good reviews just because the 3D effects are annoying?

So, I take it that all would be similarly not go and see Thor, Spider-Man (in 3D.).

That is correct. Thor, Cap, Avengers among other films are up in the air. Paying for a 3D ticket is a vote of approval for 3D films. And it's more the extra money you have to spend than using technology that isn't ready. If it was the same price, then it wouldn't be a big deal.

 

[KalMart]

I will probably Netflix a regular 2D BluRay....mostly because my plasma isn't a 3D tv.

 

[matrix_ghost]

So, all of you who oppose 3D will not see the movie in theaters even if the movie gets good reviews just because the 3D effects are annoying?

So, I take it that all would be similarly not go and see Thor, Spider-Man (in 3D.).

I don't have problems with 3d. As long as something is good , be it something shot native or converted , i don't mind it. Of course if i have to pay for 3d that's bad or virtually non existant , then yes i'll be pissed.
Seriously the last airbender and even Up had scenes where i just removed my 3d glasses and could watch the movie easy.

Speaking of THor , the review sites i usually check out mention that the 3d in THor is actually quite good. It's converted but the stuff is good. So unless someone has a snobbish attitude and say "well unless it's shot in 3d , i won't watch it , , i think they could certainly opt to watch Thor in 3d and see how the converted scenes look like.

PErsonally i thought the 3d sequences in the IMAX releases of Harry Potter were on par with 3d in native shot movies.

 

[dark_b]

are they saying that Thor's 3D is good 3D in general or that its good post converted 3D?

 

[dnno1]

There's just a bunch of cheapskates who don't want to pay the extra $5 to see the film in 3D here at this thread. Studies have shown that moviegoers are willing to pay the extra money for the 3D experience and the trend has been on the rise for 3D films. Like I said before, why would I bother watching a film in 2D in theaters when I could wait a couple of weeks and see it at home on my big screen TV (for much less)?

 

[RoughNTumble]

I don't understand why I would pay more for an inferior viewing experience--dim screen, headache, and blurred vision.

 

[jmc]

Keep an eye out for how Thor does when it comes out, if it's over saturation of 3D sessions is similar to down here the box office returns could be very interesting, and it could cause a rethink on WB's part about GL.

 

[powerbomb1411]

Keep an eye out for how Thor does when it comes out, if it's over saturation of 3D sessions is similar to down here the box office returns could be very interesting, and it could cause a rethink on WB's part about GL.

And hopefully every other studio will rethink it as well. Just maybe audiences are finally putting their money where their complaint are.

 

[jmc]

Maybe they are, I'm starting to suspect it especially of the news that Fast Five is almost 40% ahead of Thor down here in Australia for this 5 day long weekend. It could be a number of factors, but I've got a gut feeling that there's the real possibility in spite of the decent reviews it's getting, the 3D factor may be turning a lot of people off it. An interesting couple of weeks awaits us.

 

[The Sage]

2D, and hopefully IMAX.

 

[dnno1]

I don't understand why I would pay more for an inferior viewing experience--dim screen, headache, and blurred vision.

Keep an eye out for how Thor does when it comes out, if it's over saturation of 3D sessions is similar to down here the box office returns could be very interesting, and it could cause a rethink on WB's part about GL.

And hopefully every other studio will rethink it as well. Just maybe audiences are finally putting their money where their complaint are.

Source: MPAA.org

I doubt it. The chart above comes from the Motion Picture Association of America. Over the past 4 years the trend has been increasing as far as demand for 3D films in theaters in both Canada and in the U.S. Even in Australia, there were not enough screens to meet demand for 3D films a year ago. As each year goes by, the technology gets better and better as well. It is innovating so fast that we may be seeing 3D films with out glasses withing a few years (that technology already exists today). I seriously doubt that it will go away as long as there is a demand for it and if a film like Thor fails, it won't be because of 3D (there more than likely will be more 2D screen releases than 3D in any case).

 

[jmc]

^ Not down here there isn't, I went to 3 theatres yesterday and only one was playing a 2D session, and it was only one session. People won't want to be bullied into paying for something, and that's what they are clearly trying to do.

 

[EditNinja]

Thor 3D was good, to the point that I forgot that I was watching the 3D at times. It's bad when you notice it for the wrong reasons - like blurry focus, or facial close-ups look like pop-up books.

3D hasn't been as good as it was with Avatar. Nothing I've seen has compared yet.

Just gimme 2D and let me enjoy the film. Having said that I wouldn't bother watching Avatar again unless it was in that same brilliant 3D!

 

[KalMart]

There's just a bunch of cheapskates who don't want to pay the extra $5 to see the film in 3D here at this thread. Studies have shown that moviegoers are willing to pay the extra money for the 3D experience and the trend has been on the rise for 3D films. Like I said before, why would I bother watching a film in 2D in theaters when I could wait a couple of weeks and see it at home on my big screen TV (for much less)?

Because movies look better in a good theater than they do on TV. Problem is that all too often, projection quality control in a lot of theaters isn't a priority.

 

[dnno1]

Because movies look better in a good theater than they do on TV. Problem is that all too often, projection quality control in a lot of theaters isn't a priority.

You can get just as good a quality picture at home on a 1080p flat screen HD TV (and with Dolby surround sound to boot). This is part of the reason why studios are now starting to produce more films in formats like 3D and IMAX. People were willing to pay more for certain types of films and they had to offer content that was a little different from what you could see at home on you big screen monitor. Even with that. Didn't you just see a few people post that they were willing to wait an watch a pirate quality picture at home?

 

[Dark Knight]

Maybe they are, I'm starting to suspect it especially of the news that Fast Five is almost 40% ahead of Thor down here in Australia for this 5 day long weekend. It could be a number of factors, but I've got a gut feeling that there's the real possibility in spite of the decent reviews it's getting, the 3D factor may be turning a lot of people off it. An interesting couple of weeks awaits us.

Fast Five is going to beat Thor at the Box Office overall.

That's my prediction.

 

[Dark Knight]

I want to watch it in 3D, but I want to see and hear how the post conversion turns out.

 

[dnno1]

Maybe they are, I'm starting to suspect it especially of the news that Fast Five is almost 40% ahead of Thor down here in Australia for this 5 day long weekend. It could be a number of factors, but I've got a gut feeling that there's the real possibility in spite of the decent reviews it's getting, the 3D factor may be turning a lot of people off it. An interesting couple of weeks awaits us.

I wouldn't use he 3D as a scape goat. The film was offered in 2D as well so people could have seen it in that format. Let's just face the facts here. People in Australia might not want to see "Thor" and would rather go see "Fast Five" this weekend.

 

[Dark Knight]

I wouldn't use he 3D as a scape goat. The film was offered in 2D as well so people could have seen it in that format. Let's just face the facts here. People in Australia might not want to see "Thor" and would rather go see "Fast Five" this weekend.

dnno and proto,

Have you heard anything about the 3D post conversion for GL and how it is going?

 

[jmc]

I wouldn't use he 3D as a scape goat. The film was offered in 2D as well so people could have seen it in that format. Let's just face the facts here. People in Australia might not want to see ''Thor'' and would rather go see ''Fast Five'' this weekend.

I'm sorry, do you live here in Australia? The film is hardly being shown in 2D. You know how many of the 5 theatres around me are showing it in 2D at a regular cinema? One, and they are showing only 2 sessions per day.

 

[KalMart]

You can get just as good a quality picture at home on a 1080p flat screen HD TV (and with Dolby surround sound to boot).

Yeah, I got those. Still...a high-quality print with a calibrated projection is the way to go. It's how most of these movies are referenced and mastered in the first place. There's a certain warmth and texture that projection gives it that's a bit sterilized when seen 'only' at 1080p on a monitor.

This is part of the reason why studios are now starting to produce more films in formats like 3D and IMAX. People were willing to pay more for certain types of films and they had to offer content that was a little different from what you could see at home on you big screen monitor. Even with that. Didn't you just see a few people post that they were willing to wait an watch a pirate quality picture at home?

People are also more willing to settle for MP3s through little earbuds for their music, rather than an audiophile system in a treated room.

 

[dnno1]

...Still...a high-quality print with a calibrated projection is the way to go. It's how most of these movies are referenced and mastered in the first place. There's a certain warmth and texture that projection gives it that's a bit sterilized when seen 'only' at 1080p on a monitor...QUOTE]

Well, all I can say is that six years ago an AP-AOL survey said that 73 percent of folks prefered to watch their films at home. Only 22 percent prefered the cinema. Even today, with the advent of streaming media on hand held devices, you can find polls indicating that more people prefer these other mediums over the cinema (with watching at home beeing the most prefered). This so call preference to watching movies projected on a screen might be over hyped.

 

[KalMart]

Well, all I can say is that six years ago an AP-AOL survey said that 73 percent of folks prefered to watch their films at home. Only 22 percent prefered the cinema. Even today, with the advent of streaming media on hand held devices, you can find polls indicating that more people prefer these other mediums over the cinema (with watching at home beeing the most prefered). This so call preference to watching movies projected on a screen might be over hyped.

Again...what people 'prefer' out of convenience/cost and accessibility isn't necessarily a gauge of 'quality' when comparing the two formats. It's certainly a jump from DVDs and VHS/Broadcast...but the compression required to fit it on one BluRay disc and play on a variety of home systems takes its toll on image quality when compared to theatrical release formats. You could just as easily say that people bought/downloaded more MP3's for their iPod than buying vinyl records...but the latter is still a better quality audio reproduction format.

BluRay isn't as good as a quality-maintained film print or Digital DCP, but it's a 'good enough' substitute for the costs and convenience. And with something like Netflix, it makes it even more convenient and cost-effective. But trust me, if you took even the best home-theater 1080p projector and projected it on the same large screen as a 35mm or 2k-4k digital DCP, it'd be pretty noticeable how BluRay fall short. Similarly, if you took a 50" 4K monitor that could reproduced an uncompressed or DCP-quality digital projection version and compared that to a 50" plasma playing a BluRay, you'd also be able to tell the difference. But to be fair, BluRay is more than good enough for most people who just want to watch a movie, and don't really care about the experience of watching it in a good theater like it was intended.

 

[chesslover]

I'm seeing it in 2.5D

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

There's just a bunch of cheapskates who don't want to pay the extra $5 to see the film in 3D here at this thread. Studies have shown that moviegoers are willing to pay the extra money for the 3D experience and the trend has been on the rise for 3D films. Like I said before, why would I bother watching a film in 2D in theaters when I could wait a couple of weeks and see it at home on my big screen TV (for much less)?

You know it's not very polite to call people cheap just because they don't want to spend "an extra $5.00." Many people can barely afford to go to the movies period. 3-D is a luxury on top of a luxury, and it's not something every one can do.