There will be 3D theatrical films for a few years anyway. It won't be as big as some expected, however I believe there is a huge future market for 3D in the Medical and Corporate arenas. Certainly in Medical for training purposes. This will be a huge market. I also think corporations will use 3D for large presentations.
KEN
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Johnson" <ijohnson2@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, I wouldn't be fine with the absence of 2D. The difference is of
> course the glasses, and some people's inability to process it. We don't
> need LR Stereo Audio Only theaters because surround is a seamless addition
> to the experience. If a viewer went to a movie without it, they would
> definitely notice that it didn't sound as good, or big as it should have,
> even if they don't know why.
>
>
>
> If 3D could work the same way without glasses, headaches, and the other
> drawbacks, and no premium ticket, then I wouldn't mind it always being
> there. As it is, I seek out the 2D shows because I don't want to pay extra.
> If it is a free 3D screening (which happens sometimes thanks to being a
> Disney employee) and I remembered to wear contacts, then I don't have a
> problem watching 3D. Even a 3D conversion is fine, so long as I didn't pay
> more for it.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Jay Mahavier
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 3:25 PM
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh! For you it's all about the $4. So if they didn't charge any extra at the
> theater for the 3D then you would be totally fine with it? Because I thought
> you were making an argument based on the merits or lack of merits of 3D
> itself. Now I understand. You are perfectly fine with 3D as long as you
> don't have to pay any extra for it. So then if they just got rid of all 2D
> screens and only showed 3D and charged just one single price for all movies
> you would be cool with that. Very interesting.
>
> Jay
>
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Ian Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> If you notice the editing then you are not inside the story. And if
> you're
> > not noticing the editing, then what's the point?...
> >
> >
> >
> > Of paying an extra $4 because it was cut on Avid?
> >
> >
> >
> >> If you notice the cinematography then you are not inside the story. And
> if
> > you're not noticing the cinematography, then what's the point?...
> >
> >
> >
> > Of paying $4 for something shot on RED?
> >
> >
> >
> > If you notice the sound design then you are not inside the story. And if
> > you're not noticing the sound design, then what's the point?..
> >
> >
> >
> > Of paying $4 for SDDS?
> >
> >
> >
> > The thinking is that if you are paying a premium for the movie, then there
> > needs to be a perceived added value. Once your are immersed in the movie
> > you tend not to notice that thing you paid extra for. If I have to become
> > less engaged to notice the 3D I paid a premium for, then it doesn't seem
> > worth it. If the 3D is used in such a way that the 2D version suffers for
> > its lack, then it is worth the premium. I think it is fair to say that no
> > 3D conversion qualifies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf Of
> > Jay Mahavier
> > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 12:41 PM
> > To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > and just how does that make sense? Let's replace 3D with something else.
> >
> > If you notice the editing then you are not inside the story. And if you're
> > not noticing the editing, then what's the point?
> >
> > If you notice the cinematography then you are not inside the story. And if
> > you're not noticing the cinematography, then what's the point?
> >
> > If you notice the sound design then you are not inside the story. And if
> > you're not noticing the sound design, then what's the point?
> >
> > If you notice the writing then you are not inside the story. And if you're
> > not noticing the writing, then what's the point?
> >
> > How far do you want to go with that? I'm not trying to defend 3D, but I
> just
> > want to know how that thinking makes sense.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:35 PM, David Dodson wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree about AVATAR. If you've had the chance to watch it on Blu ray
> > in 2D, it's even more spectacular and more immersive. The world seems
> > somehow bigger, probably because you're making the imaginative translation
> > into the story world, with all its artifice, rather than the stereo world,
> > what with its "real" objects are now much smaller than real life. In other
> > words the "literal" nature of stereo presentations makes the physical
> > objects smaller than life, which is no good at all.
> >>
> >> And agreeing with Ian, if you notice the 3D then you're not inside the
> > story. And if you're not noticing the 3D, then what's the point? It's that
> > inherent paradox that makes 3D pointless except for theme parks.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:25 PM, Andi Meek wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If it's done well, by filmmakers who understand how to use it, it can be
> > amazing. Avatar worked considerably better in 3D than in 2D because of the
> > immersive world Cameron built and the way he used that space. Scorsese is
> > doing it with Hugo. Just watch the trailer, you can see how it will work
> in
> > 3D and i reckon it will look great. Unfortunately these films seem to be
> > pretty few and far between, I agree though, 3D doesn't have a wide enough
> > range of instances when it will significantly improve the story, like Ian
> > says, limited to spectacle. Check out the trailer for Hugo;
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQNkETGfA6k
> >>>
> >>> Andi
> >>>
> >>> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> From: ijohnson2@... <mailto:ijohnson2%40earthlink.net>
> <mailto:ijohnson2%40earthlink.net>
> >>> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:45:36 -0700
> >>> Subject: RE: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I avoid 3D whenever I can (unless it's a free screening) but I am
> looking
> >>>
> >>> forward to A Harold and Kumar Christmas in 3D BECAUSE of the stupid 3D
> >>>
> >>> gimmicks. They have an excuse to use it for comedy and mockery of 3D.
> For
> >>>
> >>> most movies it needs to avoid calling attention to itself so as not to
> >>>
> >>> distract from the story. If I am engrossed in the story, I'm not
> noticing
> >>>
> >>> the 3D so there doesn't seem to be much point. If I admire the quality
> of
> >>>
> >>> the 3D and what it adds to the image, I am only looking at the movie
> > rather
> >>>
> >>> than experiencing it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It would be ok to notice 3D if it is used in a way that helps tell the
> >>>
> >>> story, like the way camera movement, focus, composition, etc. are used
> as
> >>>
> >>> storytelling tools. Or in the case of Harold and Kumar, as gags. If it
> is
> >>>
> >>> only an overlay to subtly enhance the realism of the experience, then it
> > is
> >>>
> >>> more in the category of surround sound, and I don't remember ever paying
> >>>
> >>> extra for a movie because it was shown with DTS.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think 3D as a premium is better suited to documentary subjects of the
> > sort
> >>>
> >>> where the selling point is spectacle rather than story.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > Behalf Of
> >>>
> >>> Mark Myers
> >>>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:50 AM
> >>>
> >>> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Good.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe filmmakers will have to actually create good stories instead of
> >>>
> >>> relying on stupid 3D gimmicks to put butts in the seats.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can we borrow Bill Clinton's sign and amend it to say "It's the STORY
> >>>
> >>> stupid!"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh what am I saying. I want a pony too.... or maybe a Porsche.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Owner, Director
> >>>
> >>> SR Film & Video Productions
> >>>
> >>> 195 W Broad St
> >>>
> >>> Salunga PA 17538
> >>>
> >>> 717-393-5333 ex 142
> >>>
> >>> www.SR-Pro.com <http://www.sr-pro.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Follow us on Facebook
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Salunga-PA/SR-Film-Video-Productions/13200182
> >>>
> >>> 0445>
> >>>
> >>> Linked In <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-myers/8/488/746>
> >>>
> >>> Twitter <http://twitter.com/SRProductions>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/17/11 10:00 AM, Terence Curren wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2011/09/3d-is-fcked-basically
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> >>>
> >>> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through
> > your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be
> > on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> David Dodson
> >> davidadodson@... <mailto:davidadodson%40sbcglobal.net>
> <mailto:davidadodson%40sbcglobal.net>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> >>
> >> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through
> > your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be
> > on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> >
> > If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through
> your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be
> on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment