It's a fact: the movies being released in dual 2-D/3-D format sell between 3 to 6 times more tickets in 3-D than 2-D. In many cases more than 50% of the total domestic box office receipts are coming from the 3-D showings, which are in less theaters. It can't all be explained away by the higher admission for 3-D showings either; the fact is that more people are choosing to see the 3-D version when they have a choice. With more and more theaters upgrading, this is only going to increase.

Case in point: in 2005, CHICKEN LITTLE opened on 85 screens in 3-D. Flash forward to 2009, and THE FINAL DESTINATION is opening on 1800 screens in 3-D. AVATAR should easily build on that number considerably. G-FORCE, now playing, has sold more tickets in 3-D than 2-D. This has been the trend with all the movies released in 2-D/3-D so far; audiences are choosing 3-D over 2-D in instances where both versions are offered.

How long will this last? Who knows? It may level off, it may become even more mainstream. But we've passed the time when 3-D features are a rarity, it seems now they will be a part of the mix. No one is expecting everything to go 3-D. I don't expect to watch "Days of our Lives" in 3-D anytime soon. But with 40 3-D features having been released in the past 5 years and dozens more to come, those who are just dismissing it need to open both eyes.

3D is gimmick...and they are playing the gimmick to get people to spend money and go to the Theaters to experience something new (even though the 3D fad has already happened twice).

And both of those 3-D fads lasted a short time. We are 5-6 years into this one, and it hasn't shown any signs of peaking yet. Well, except for the Jonas Brothers movie tanking, but who wants to see that anyway, in any dimension?

But Gizmooooooo, it's just as important as color and surround sound!! Who cares about the eye strain, annoying glasses, and extra price??? Having meatballs fly out at us is necessary to the story!

Are you trying to insult Gizmo? Do you honestly think Gizmo is a Jonas Brothers fan? Have you ever seen Gizmo with a serious avatar?

I get it. Really. I figured that out long ago. The Spencer one was great.

Gizmo seems to make it a mission to thread cap about 3-D though, as often as possible. Just trying to lighten him up a bit. You'd think he'd poke one eye out to keep himself from accidentally seeing 3-D.

I doubt there will be any peaking with prices to see 3D is usually a couple of bucks more than the standard theatrical showings - which are already high enough. I see more of a flatline to downward trajectory. Especially with such classics as the Final Destination coming our way. I don't think My Bloody Valentine did spectacular business either. Avatar will be the only sucess more than likely with the 3D format - which is not enough to justify the home video market to start pimping this.

3D in the theater and what we see are two different things. 3D movie through stuff at your randomly to say "look at me! I'm in 3D!", that doesn't happen in real life.

Flying meatballs are a 3-D gimmick. So is an axe sticking out of Jason Voorhees' head.

Stereoscopic depth as seen in reality is not.

It seems most of the public isn't bothered by eyestrain, the higher prices or the glasses. But for those of you that are, see the flat version and solve all three of your problems at once.

MY BLOODY VALENTINE did $92 million worldwide on a $15 mil budget, and it's a fact the greater percentage of tickets were sold for the 3-D version. Factor in DVD and Blu revenue, I'd say Lionsgate is pleased.

1.) Saying 3D is a gimmick is a lot off base. I've had a lot of experiences with good 3D movies and welcome a better home experience.

2.) The prices of hardware are going to be minimal at best. Optoma has the 'HD65 3D' coming out in a few months, and though it won't be compliant with the new BR specs, it will probably have very similiar technology for a few dollars more than the base unit.

I can tell you haven't seen many 3-D features, because many of them don't have a lot of gimmicky moments. Now, in the 1980's they constantly pointed sticks at the camera for 90 minutes, no doubt about it. And of course THE FINAL DESTINATION will do it, I mean, if any movie is made for flying implements of death, it's a 3-D FD sequel.

Right, I'm not worried about the player itself, I'm worried about the price of a projector. Those are going to be incredible expensive.

Does anyone know how accommodating 2D will work? A separate encode would be undesirable because it uses up space, but I wonder if just making it 3D could compromise the 2D version. It's like how you can't just turn down the color on a colorized movie; it's not the same as the original black and white. Or, like how you couldn't downmix the stereo Beatles remasters to mono and get the same thing as the actual mono mix.

I assume any 2D version created from a 3D movie would be compromised (unless it's cg animation where they render it separately), but I wonder if the player doing the conversion would be inferior to the studio doing it in the mastering (as they do for current BDs).

The 2-D version is simply either the left or right eye image. 3-D movies are actually two movies projected at once.

From everything I've read, no one wants a standard that is not full 1080p HD in both eyes.

I should add that I totally agree, those watching in 2-D should not lose any resolution. The standard has to allow for full HD 2-D/3-D compatability with no loss of res on either version.

You do realize that 35mm film is 4k? 3D has lower resolutions then film and Red......

There isn't any loss in resolution when watching a 3D film converted to 2D. Something tells me that was one of the first issues James Cameron had work out with AVATAR.

2K, 4K, 35mm, 1080p at home.. doesn't matter; 3-D can be used in with any of these.

Now the old 1980's method of stacking the left and right images in a single 35mm frame definitely lowered resolution to 16mm level. Add to that the filters and dim bulbs and that's why it looked muddy. But the 1950's dual 35mm method, pain in the you know what that it was, looked fine.

Well, my question wasn't really about resolution, but rather I was thinking they might try to derive some image in between the two.

Using either eye makes sense though, and there shouldn't be any issues. Although, it's as if they're doing two encodes. I hope bitrates don't take a dive, but it seems that often they don't use more than 30GB for the main feature as it is. And, the compression might be easier since the frames will be very similar. Nonetheless, I guess we'll see more multi-disc sets.

Are higher capacity discs ready yet?

There isn't a 3D camera that can shoot in 4k. And 3D can not be shot or displayed proporly with 35mm film.

If you hate the "gimmick," why worry about the cost of the equipment (that you'll never have to buy)?

I hate gimmiky 3D (Meatballs flying out of the screen) but if 3D is done proporly it can look great. I just don't think that it's ready to be used in the home market. The studios are trying to push it to fast.

First, that is not true. Here's a link to at least one company manufacturing 4K 3D cameras.

Second, this is really a discussion about 3d presentation at home, so 4K is irrelevant, since we're dealing with 1080p equipment.

And that may be a valid point, but I don't think we have nearly enough information yet to reach that conclusion. Why not wait and see what emerges before condemning it?

I got the impression from most of your other posts in the thread that you were opposed to 3D on any level.