Is home 3D dead ?
#101
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
Agreed.
I always get hung up on the fact that I am always aware I'm watching a movie in "3D" - between the glasses and how the image is not actually 3D, but appear to be 2D cutouts on a 3D plane, I've never understood the point.
It makes perfect sense to have grown in popularity when movies themselves were more of an event, but it makes zero sense for it to be popular now.
I always get hung up on the fact that I am always aware I'm watching a movie in "3D" - between the glasses and how the image is not actually 3D, but appear to be 2D cutouts on a 3D plane, I've never understood the point.
It makes perfect sense to have grown in popularity when movies themselves were more of an event, but it makes zero sense for it to be popular now.
#103
DVD Talk Godfather
#107
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
Target and Amazon both had it for $17.99 (target even cheaper with cartwheel and a preorder deal where you got a free $5 gift card).
#108
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
It goes without saying (although several folks have already) that 3D isn't a necessity for anyone to enjoy a good story, compelling performances or the overall craft that goes into filmmaking, but if a movie is released theatrically with that option, I also want it available to me at home in addition to the 2D version. I have zero problem with the passive glasses (active glasses do cause eye strain, almost by default) or the reduced resolution, and I honestly haven't seen any "2D cutout effect" worth grousing about in a 3D Blu-ray in ages now, and I buy most of them.
Weirdly enough, the most impressive pop-out 3D effects I've seen so far (rather than the standard depth effect of most newer movies) were in the recent 3D archive restoration of Arch Oboler's THE BUBBLE, most notably a bit where a showgirl kicks her leg at the camera and it truly pops some distance into the room while maintaining its visual integrity (no double image, etc), as well as in some of the shorts on the 3D ARCHIVES disc (which is a lot of fun). I'm eager to get my hands on the recently restored version of 1961 horror show THE MASK (which I saw at this year's TIFF and which looks phenomenal) and the upcoming COMIN' AT YA (and also TREASURE OF THE FOUR CROWNS if they ever bother to do it). Schlocky as these kinds of films may be, they're important historically and they often employed 3D to its most guiltily enjoyable effect by simply hurling things off the screen, and it'll be nice to own them in proper 3D at long last.
#109
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
#110
Banned by request
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
Well of course. And based on my extensive calculations using my fingers, toes, and an abacus, it comes out to $2 more. So yeah, an upcharge - of $2, which is nothing really when in the past they've been upcharged from $19.99 to $24.99, and in many cases $29.99 and $34.99. Those are real upcharges.
#111
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
Well of course. And based on my extensive calculations using my fingers, toes, and an abacus, it comes out to $2 more. So yeah, an upcharge - of $2, which is nothing really when in the past they've been upcharged from $19.99 to $24.99, and in many cases $29.99 and $34.99. Those are real upcharges.
#112
Banned by request
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
Right, but I was referring to 3D sets overall compared to the 2D ones. But anytime the 3D is cheaper than the 2D, that will always guarantee me buying it. But I know a lot of people on the forum will pay the additional few bucks to avoid "those useless 3D discs".
#113
DVD Talk Godfather
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
My point was that generally 3D releases are more expensive then 2D. I'm sure there are examples and deals to work around that, but I wouldn't think there would be a debate over that generalization.
I just buy whatever is cheaper myself and have a handful of 3D versions that I never use because of price.
I just buy whatever is cheaper myself and have a handful of 3D versions that I never use because of price.
#114
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
Well of course. And based on my extensive calculations using my fingers, toes, and an abacus, it comes out to $2 more. So yeah, an upcharge - of $2, which is nothing really when in the past they've been upcharged from $19.99 to $24.99, and in many cases $29.99 and $34.99. Those are real upcharges.
That would be silly. You just buy the cheaper version, and if it contains a useless 3d disc you either throw it away or sell it to some sap.
#115
DVD Talk Reviewer & TOAT Winner
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
Or wait until you actually get 3D equipment and be glad you have it then.
#116
Banned by request
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
I've seen great 3D presentations, and I own some 3D Blu-rays at home. I have two pairs of active 3D glasses for my TV and I specifically upgraded my BD player and receiver to be able to view 3D (I was reviewing discs at the time and wanted to be able to review 3D titles). I can't remember the last 3D movie I watched at home. There's not enough good content to make it really worthwhile.
By far the best 3D films I've seen have been How To Train Your Dragon, Hugo, and Dredd. Other than that, the 3D I've seen has ranged from decent to terrible. It's a terrible ratio. 3D is very difficult to pull off well, certainly more so than a surround sound mix.
And for the people who think 3D is just the same as going from silents to talkies or B&W to color, or mono/stereo to surround sound, you seem to be missing on vital fact: All of those progressions in technology were widely accepted by the movie going public. Audiences went wild for sound and color and surround sound. All of those technologies made film more immersive, more entertaining. 3D is much more contentious. Lots of people have problems viewing it, or dislike the glasses, or just dislike the end result of the 3D image.
I'll give you an example. My wife and I went to see Jurassic World. I had read on here that the 3D was really good and was worth seeing, so I suggested we see the 3D showing. My wife was adamant about seeing it in 2D, finally only acquiescing because the 3D showing was sooner than the 2D. That's the average response to 3D at this point. When Avatar did it, everyone was amazed, and overnight a glut of bad conversions killed the experience for most people. Combine that with the added cost of the ticket and it's simply not an attractive option. 3D doesn't hurt my wife's eyes or head, she simply does not enjoy it most of the time (she did end up enjoying the 3D in Jurassic World FWIW).
The only way 3D will really be successful is if they manage to create a glasses-less version that works for at least 80% of the viewing angles that 2D works on. Then they have to stop pricing the showings differently and finally directors have to understand how to compose intelligently for 3D. It's not a simple process and there's no guarantees it will become the dominant viewing format anyway.
By far the best 3D films I've seen have been How To Train Your Dragon, Hugo, and Dredd. Other than that, the 3D I've seen has ranged from decent to terrible. It's a terrible ratio. 3D is very difficult to pull off well, certainly more so than a surround sound mix.
And for the people who think 3D is just the same as going from silents to talkies or B&W to color, or mono/stereo to surround sound, you seem to be missing on vital fact: All of those progressions in technology were widely accepted by the movie going public. Audiences went wild for sound and color and surround sound. All of those technologies made film more immersive, more entertaining. 3D is much more contentious. Lots of people have problems viewing it, or dislike the glasses, or just dislike the end result of the 3D image.
I'll give you an example. My wife and I went to see Jurassic World. I had read on here that the 3D was really good and was worth seeing, so I suggested we see the 3D showing. My wife was adamant about seeing it in 2D, finally only acquiescing because the 3D showing was sooner than the 2D. That's the average response to 3D at this point. When Avatar did it, everyone was amazed, and overnight a glut of bad conversions killed the experience for most people. Combine that with the added cost of the ticket and it's simply not an attractive option. 3D doesn't hurt my wife's eyes or head, she simply does not enjoy it most of the time (she did end up enjoying the 3D in Jurassic World FWIW).
The only way 3D will really be successful is if they manage to create a glasses-less version that works for at least 80% of the viewing angles that 2D works on. Then they have to stop pricing the showings differently and finally directors have to understand how to compose intelligently for 3D. It's not a simple process and there's no guarantees it will become the dominant viewing format anyway.
#117
Banned by request
Re: Is home 3D dead ?
Oh and fuck 3D video games. 3D movies have never caused me any physical discomfort, either at home or at a theater, but I had a headache within minutes of playing a 3D video game. I assume that VR is in 3D but they use displays with very high frame rates, so I'm guessing they're a lot better.