3D movies: why so few?

D

Dinosaur

Rational Skeptic
Valued Senior Member
I know that Second Chance was originally a 3D movie & am pretty sure that Sadi Thompson was also a 3D movie. These were released in early 1950's & were the first good movies using that medium.

When I recently did a search, I found data about these movies, but no mention of 3D.

I am surprised & sorry that there are not more 3D movies. Disney recently announced that all of its future movies would be 3D. I am looking forward to seeing them.

Some early 3D movies (circa early 1950's) were lousy stories, poorly directed, & the 3D effects were done by photographers who had no experience with the medium. They loused it up. In one movie, the left & right films were switched for about 15 minutes of a film, which can cause motion sickness in some people. I think the producers expected the 3D effects to carry bad movies & skimped on the budgets.

Those first films (one was Bwana Devil) gave 3D a bad reputation & the first good 3D movies (see above) were poorly attended. Both of these films were later released as ordinary 2D movies (only one film was used) & were successful.

I had a 3D still camera, a projector & hand viewers, but the price of 3D movies cameras was way too expensive for me. I was gung ho for 3D stills & movies.

I was an avid amateur photographer in that era & processed color film myself because the early commercial developers often used chemicals for too long & you could get some poor results. Later, development was done with chemicals which were continuously refreshed with new developer fluids to maintain quality.
 
Perhaps when "glasses free" 3D TV and movies are common place, we will have it rather common place.
I have watched a few 3D movies, but would be far more comforatble if I did not have to wear the bulky eye wear.

And I do believe there is research being undertaken already in that possibility.
 
Paddoboy: From your Post #3
Perhaps when "glasses free" 3D TV and movies are common place, we will have it rather common place.

I have watched a few 3D movies, but would be far more comforatble if I did not have to wear the bulky eye wear.

And I do believe there is research being undertaken already in that possibility.
Click to expand...
Do you have a citation or a link relating to the bolded (by me) remark?

The only research I am aware of relates to holographic images which are an interesting curiosity, but not usable for a complete movie. Perhaps there have been some advancements since the last time I saw a pertinent article.

BTW: Bulky eye wear? The eye wear I have seen are no more bulky than ordinary eye glasses & some theaters provided eye glasses with card board frames.

I consider current 3D movie technology to be excellent.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLand: From your Post #2
Maybe because there is not yet any such thing as 3D movies.
Click to expand...
How do you define 3D Movies? I have seen several movies which I consider to be 3D.

From your Post # 5
I hope I live long enough to see 3D movies & TV
Click to expand...
My LG TV has 3D capability. I have not used it to view a 3D movie. I am not sure any have been produced yet.

When a lot of TV’s are 3D capable, I expect a lot of 3D movies to be produced for TV.

Disney recently announced that all future movies will be 3D.
 
Dinosaur said:
StrangerInAStrangeLand: From your Post #2How do you define 3D Movies? I have seen several movies which I consider to be 3D.

From your Post # 5My LG TV has 3D capability. I have not used it to view a 3D movie. I am not sure any have been produced yet.

When a lot of TV’s are 3D capable, I expect a lot of 3D movies to be produced for TV.

Disney recently announced that all future movies will be 3D.
Click to expand...

3D means 3 dimensional. Width, length & height. A 3D show could be watched from front or back or left or right or top. We do not yet have this on Earth. Your TV does not have 3D capability.
 
Way to get pedantic! ;)

And just to get pedantic with you: you stated "I hope I live long enough to see 3D movies & TV", well, my TV is most certainly 3D... it has a front, a back, width, height and length.
Presumably you were speaking about TV shows / programmes, but, well... :D


Dinosaur, 3D simply hasn't caught on yet.
3D movies can command a premium in cinemas, but live-action films cost $100m or so to convert (may have come down since last I read about it), which is still cheaper than filming in 3D. I guess animated films are that much easier as they can just alter the camera-angle and re-render etc, but they still command the same premium, which is why Disney probably are willing to go that route.

I know the BBC in the UK broadcast some sporting events in 3D last year - and I saw a match from Wimbledon 2013 in 3D on my projector - but don't think they're continuing... cost-cutting etc.
And until significant television content is broadcast in 3D, thus justifying the investment in 3D-tv, I'm not sure many people see it as a priority.

So it's a catch-22 at the moment: not enough content meaning not enough people are using it, meaning not enough content is being created etc.


No-glasses 3D tech is quite a way from being affordable to the majority, and currently has limitations on viewing angles etc, especially with multiple people watching the same screen.

And then there are some people who can't watch 3D films, and some who can but get nauseous.


I love 3D, and my projector is more than capable. I tend to buy 3D blu-rays when I can (and Avatar is still the best example of 3D in film) but the price is still significantly higher in most cases than just buying the 2D, so I have to be choosey as the wallet will only stretch so far.
 
Sarkus said:
Way to get pedantic!
Click to expand...

No. More like way to be clear. We will likely have 3D shows someday & it is nothing but stupid that we will have to make up a name for it because its name has been so misused. It should be the other way around, making up a term for pretend 3D.
 
It will be called Holo-TV or somesuch.
But calling the current system 3D is not misusing the term, as the television is creating a sense of genuine depth compared to flat 2D images. There is a sense of an additional dimension, so if not 3D then what... "Pseudo-3D"?
It may well be that when "true-3D" arrives that the current systems are relegated to something like "2.5D". I am sure that terms will be coined and used that suffice to adequately describe what everyone means, even if not up to the pedantic nature of some. ;)
 
Sarkus said:
It will be called Holo-TV or somesuch.
But calling the current system 3D is not misusing the term, as the television is creating a sense of genuine depth compared to flat 2D images. There is a sense of an additional dimension, so if not 3D then what... "Pseudo-3D"?
It may well be that when "true-3D" arrives that the current systems are relegated to something like "2.5D". I am sure that terms will be coined and used that suffice to adequately describe what everyone means, even if not up to the pedantic nature of some.
Click to expand...

Funny you think you insult me because I value clarity in language & advocate using it correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Funny you think you insult me because I value clarity in language & advocate using it correctly.
Click to expand...
There is no insult intended, just banter.

Don't get me wrong, you are entirely accurate in your criticism that it is not strict 3-dimensional images, but such movies are still referred to as 3D, known as 3D and marketed as 3D. So it is entirely correct to speak about them as such, even if the label is inaccurate, and one should not be challenged on usage of the label given to describe that which is so labelled. There is clarity in referring to it as 3D in the way used. He did use it correctly as the term is currently used and understood within the context.

Take up the issue in the linguistics thread if it really bothers you that much.
 
Sarkus said:
There is no insult intended, just banter.

Don't get me wrong, you are entirely accurate in your criticism that it is not strict 3-dimensional images, but such movies are still referred to as 3D, known as 3D and marketed as 3D. So it is entirely correct to speak about them as such, even if the label is inaccurate, and one should not be challenged on usage of the label given to describe that which is so labelled. There is clarity in referring to it as 3D in the way used. He did use it correctly as the term is currently used and understood within the context.

Take up the issue in the linguistics thread if it really bothers you that much.
Click to expand...

I did not say anyone in this thread did anything incorrectly tho it certainly is not entirely correct to misuse the term. There is not clarity in referring to something which is obviously not 3D as 3D. I simply pointed out it is a misnomer & we do not yet have 3D shows. It is not a matter of what bothers me. Evidently, it bothers you. You have made much more out of this than is necessary.
 
Stranger: Since an overwhelming majority of movie goers use the term 3D for a common current technology, there is a real risk of being misunderstood if you use some term like pseudo-3D to refer to such movies. Using the term familiar to most will result in no misunderstanding. Using a perhaps more descriptive term might lead to questions about some new technology being developed.

It can hardly be a mistake to use terminology generally accepted by a large majority.

I am reminded of a story about a Gulliver-like traveler who discovered a land of blind human beings. He tried to explain his own visual system, the wonders of colors, et cetera. The natives considered him to be insane. Their medical people examined him & concluded that his delusions were caused by the peculiar growths on both sides of his nose. They surgically removed his eyes.

I am also reminded of a neighbor's child who was told that I was a mathematician. He asked me to help him with guzintas. When I said that I did not understand what he was asking, he said something like the following
If you do not know about quzintas, you are not a mathematician & he departed.
Click to expand...

It was later explained to me that he meant goes-into’s. Id est: 5 goes into 15 three times.
 
Dinosaur said:
Stranger: Since an overwhelming majority of movie goers use the term 3D for a common current technology, there is a real risk of being misunderstood if you use some term like pseudo-3D to refer to such movies. Using the term familiar to most will result in no misunderstanding. Using a perhaps more descriptive term might lead to questions about some new technology being developed.

It can hardly be a mistake to use terminology generally accepted by a large majority.

I am reminded of a story about a Gulliver-like traveler who discovered a land of blind human beings. He tried to explain his own visual system, the wonders of colors, et cetera. The natives considered him to be insane. Their medical people examined him & concluded that his delusions were caused by the peculiar growths on both sides of his nose. They surgically removed his eyes.

I am also reminded of a neighbor's child who was told that I was a mathematician. He asked me to help him with guzintas. When I said that I did not understand what he was asking, he said something like the following

It was later explained to me that he meant goes-into’s. Id est: 5 goes into 15 three times.
Click to expand...

So you think my brain should be removed. If people start referring to an orange as a potato, eventually the word potato could be accepted to mean orange & it will be due to apathetic acceptance of intentional ignorance. Very sad that using language correctly results in misunderstanding & a couple statements about what a word actually means cannot be made without all this mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top