There has never been a feature length film shot in 4k 3D. AVATAR was shot in 1080p, and is the first feature to be filmed in 3D.

That is true. Today. But now that 4K cameras are a reality, wouldn't you agree that that will change? Tomorrow? By your logic, we should never explore 3D, because none of the films produced before the advent of 3D were filmed in 3D.

I really don't see your point.

If there isn't a 4K camera that is 3-D ready, it's only a matter of time.

As for 35mm; simply not true. There were 50 3-D movies shot in the US in 1953-54 in dual 35mm and projected in 35mm. While cumbersome, it works fine under controlled conditions. I've been to both the 2003 and 2006 World 3-D Expos, and each time more than thirty 3-D features were projected this way, just as they were back in the day, and it looked as bright and sharp and colorful as any 2-D 35mm movie.

Huh? There have been hundreds of feature length movies shot in 3-D. The first one was THE POWER OF LOVE in 1922!

I gotta say I never thought I'd see anyone quite this passionate about 3D. Godspeed three-dimensional crusader!

Anyhoo, maybe this will be a revolutionary change for films, but I'm the type of guy who spends a lot of money on HT gear, and I have no interest in this. I suspect there are many like me. I would not expect 3D to become prominent in non-gimmick films anytime soon - just my heretical opinion.

When done to give the film a sense of depth, such as Cameron is doing in Avatar, I love 3D and I agree with Steve on all of his points. On the other hand, I already own two HDTV's and two Blu-ray players and thus it'll be a while before I pick up any new ones, but that's just an economic function, nothing to do with my opinion about 3D.

Just more open-minded I guess.

I think as long as glasses are required, it won't take over that's certain, but with dozens of 3-D movies already released and as many more to come, I think we've passed the phase of it being an ocasional novelty and entered the age where it is a part of the mix.

Actually there have already been no glasses 3-D systems, but they are not practical at this time.

Wow, no. All those 3D movies with cheap green and red glasses don't really count. Those are cheap shit 3D. I'm talking about RealD 3D. That is 3D. Not that bullshit excuses for 3D used before digital. James Cameron has even stated that the 3D used in the 50's and 80's were horrible. 3D can't be done correctly with film cameras and 35mm film projectors. If you honestly think that it looks good, you have issues that you need to bring up with your eye doctor.

Your thinking of green and red glasses 3D. Low quality 3D. Shit 3D. You can't film decent 3D on film, and you can't project it on 35mm film.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2squ9HDuBeI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2squ9HDuBeI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Blu Man, polarized 3-D (which is what RealD is) has been used in the 50's and the 80's. Red and blue 3-D is a lower quality type of 3-D, but it is not the only form of it, and was not the only form of it back then. You might want to read up on the history of 3-D before you start picking fights.

[QUOTE=Blu Man;9642039]Your thinking of green and red glasses 3D. Low quality 3D. Shit 3D. You can't film decent 3D on film, and you can't project it on 35mm film.

You've been fed some bad misinformation. It's not surprising, there is so much of it out there. This is not meant as a personal shot, but it always seems the people most vocal about hating 3-D are the ones who are least educated about it, and are usually under mistaken impressions about the history of the technology and the films that have used it. You are completely off base here.

99% of all 3-D movies ever made were shot and released on 35mm film and projected using clear, polarized glasses. Shooting in 3-D has never been a problem on 35mm at all; but the projection side has been complicated.

Still, ALL 50 of the 3-D movies released in the 1950's were shown using polarized light and clear polarized glasses using 35mm film. They were NOT anaglyph. If you've seen an anaglyph conversion, you should know those came much later and look nothing like the original 3-D versions did. Under proper conditions, dual 35mm poalrized 3-D worked then and still works, and looks as good as 2-D 35mm.

Since then, the vast majority of 3-D movies were also polarized, though, as I stated earlier, the 80s method of projection wasn't ideal. However, it was still OK and far better than anaglyph.

Only a tiny fraction of 3-D movies have gone out in anaglyph, and the majority of those were 2-D movies with short anaglyph segments (like FREDDY'S DEAD. The studios never messed around with anaglyph features (except for some limited 1970's re-issues from Universal) until 2003 when SPY KIDS 3-D came out! Seriously, the only major features ever released in anaglyph were SPY KIDS 3-D and the follow up SHARK BOY or whatever it was. And even those were not *shot* in anaglyph, but simply presented that way because ther was no other real option for wide release at the time. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 3D also went out on a few screens in horrible anaglyph also, but even that looked great when it was shown in polarized form at the 2006 Expo.

No one is arguing that anaglyph is good. That's why it's only the exception, and not the rule for 50+ years. It just sucks.

Fact is, there have been loads of 3-D features shot and released on 35mm film in polarized form, with great results. As for digital HD; there have also been several 3-D movies shot that way, such as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 3D, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, SCAR, THE FINAL DESTINATION, JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, THE DARK COUNTRY, Joe Dante's THE HOLE, and many more. AVATAR is not the first and won't be the last.

I just watch the You tube clip above. Filled with mis-information, and repeats the myth about all old 3-D being anaglyph. Amazing how few reporters ever do any research!

Check out this link for some truths; the top 10 myths about 3-D.

www.3dfilmpf.com/info-top-10-3D-myths.html

And you guys thought I was passionate!

You have to remember that the majority of people connect 3D with anaglyph 3D because of the famous, and crappy, colored glasses. I really didn't know much about 3D technology until they released Nightmare before Christmas 3D. That's when I read up on it a little more.

In any event, Sony believes broadcast 3D is possible in two years time as well. A lot of people in the film industry believe the key to the future of 3D is in improving image depth / Point of View. Only time will tell if it catches on.

Does anyone remember this Wii video from 2007? Tell me the gaming industry is not thinking about 3D also.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jd3-eiid-Uw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jd3-eiid-Uw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

www.3dfilmpf.com/info.html

Here's another one concerning the myths regarding HONDO.

That video still blows me away. Amazing what our technology can do.

[QUOTE=DthRdrX;9642110]You have to remember that the majority of people connect 3D with anaglyph 3D because of the famous, and crappy, colored glasses.

That's always perplexed me since very few people ever watched a 3-D movie in a cinema wearing them! I think people remember the 3-D comics which were a fad at the time (which used anaglyph) and or the poor quality anaglyph conversions of some of the movies which were created for 1970's re-issues and/or shown on TV in the 1980's. A good example is CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON: the original polarized version looks great but the red/green conversion is not so hot. It still gets shown at midnight screenings and lots of people think the crappy 3-D they see if what is always looked like, which in fact it is a poor representation of the original.

[QUOTE=Steve Phillips;9642093][QUOTE=Steve Phillips;9642139]True. But I remember seeing Spy Kids 3D on 35mm film, and it had colored glasses.

First off i have to say thank god, the mods let me i switch my screen name shortly i signed up here and people mistook me for you since the screen name was so close. cause i definately do not want to be confused with you after reading your totally misinformed posts on the history of 3D and 35 mm film.
I remember how disapointed i was when Sharkboy and Lava girl was released after it was announced to being shot in HD3D back in 2005. since i was in driving distance of the first theatre equiped with RealD But seeing as how there was only one theatre in the entire us equiped with realD equipment at that point, its understandable why they had to go with the anaglyph release. hopefully one day we will get to see both shark boy and lava girl and spykids 3D Bluray.

I was just about to ask that. So it's good I haven't jumped on the new Oppo. I figure they'll have an equally awesome player out once 3DTV/3DBD gets standardized.

All I wanna know is WHEN can I buy it, and how much will it COST? My current TV is woefully out of date and is going to be replaced as soon as I can afford it, so the answer to the question probably won't come until AFTER I've done that and bought something that's already obsolete again.

I have a 52" 1080p LCD. It may only be 60Hz, doesn't accept 24p, and doesn't do any of that fancy interpolation but it looks good and has only been with me a few years. I'm in no hurry to upgrade any time soon. I can wait for them to iron out the kinks and bring it down to a price range I'll be able to afford.

I just hope that the newer BD players will have two HDMI outputs. That way I can plug a cable straight to my new 3DTV and one ot my excisiting receiver (assuming I haven't upgraded at that point).

Count me in as someone who wants a high quality 3D technology at home. If and when I upgrade my equipment to support it, I will be happy that there will be titles that I can purchase and enjoy at home. I've been very disappointed with the current dual color glasses, so it would be fantastic if they can dramatically improve the experience at home. Why people here want to deny others access to this technology because they aren't ready to upgrade makes no sense to me?

Right. As I stated in an earlier post, SPY KIDS was one of the rare exceptions where color anaglyph was used for a theatrical release. Robert Rodriguez's second 3-D movie was also shown in theaters the same way, though both of them were shot digitally and could have been shown in polarized form had the projection systems been in place at the time.

There are actually authorized, full color field sequential versions of both movies on DVD which look much better than the anaglyph vesions available too. I'd expect both of these to be available in the new Blu standard at some point early on as they are fairly recent.

Still, the anaglyphs of these movies was a rare exception, and it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of 3-D movies before that were released on 35mm using polarized light and clear glasses. Those that were anaglyph were either low budget porn (such as HARD CANDY, etc) or 2-D movies that had short 3-D segments spliced in; and theaters weren't going to install the silver screens, projection lenses and polarizing filters for a one time thing like that. However, even some of the low budget porn and a whole bunch of sexploitations movies like PRISON GIRLS, THE STEWARDESSES, LOVE in 3-D, etc all made the rounds in polarized form regionally throughout the 70s.

I don't think anyone has to think of them phasing in a 3-D *option* as making their existing equipment obsolote. It's simply an option being added as new models come out, and even if it became a standard feature, it doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it.

I mean, I have a room that has an HD set with a Blu-ray player hooked up to the TV with just stereo sound, no multi channel connected, but I'm not upset that movies are encoded with multi channel sound that I can't hear there. I just listen in stereo for now and know when and if I upgrade that particular room's set up I can. I don't start saying that 7.1 sound is unnecessary and can't possibly add to the experience.

I just don't understand how those who will be completely unaffected by this seem to be so concerned that it is happening- if you don't want 3-D, don't get a new TV, don't upgrade your player, and don't buy the glasses. If down the line, you get a new set and player that is capable, you still don't have to buy the glasses! Simply watch the flattened out versions of the 3-D movies! You're good! You will save money on aspirin, right!

Thank you. Thank you very much. This is a discussion about 3D, not 35mm film. We haven't discussed the history of 35mm film outside of 3D. And don't thank God, thank the mods. Do have an issue with capitalizing the first letter in a sentence? You are doing that with your posts and your user name was "blu man".