Is 3D Already Dying?
07-22-2010, 12:41 AM
#1
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Is 3D Already Dying?
http://gizmodo.com/5592956/is-3d-already-dying
Earlier today I reported on the unlikelihood that the next Batman movie will be in 3D. But is that a fluke or part of a trend? If box office numbers are any indication, it's definitely the latter.
Since the high-water mark of Avatar, where 71% of the revenue came from 3D screenings, numbers for big-budget 3D movies have plummeted to less than 50%.
Obviously Avatar was a unique case in that it was basically sold as a 3D "experience," so if you saw it in 2D you were missing out. But then three months later the animated How to Train Your Dragon pulled in 68% of its revenue from 3D screens, hardly a significant drop-off.
Fast forward a mere four months and you have Despicable Me, another 3D animated kids movie, pulling in 45% of its revenue from 3D screens. As you can see by The Wrap's chart below, it's a pretty clear trend.
Is 3D Already Dying?What's this mean? It means that now that people have had a chance to experience 3D in theaters, they're opting to spend $10 on a 2D screening rather than $15 on a 3D screening when given the option.
It's not great news for Hollywood studios that have sunk boatloads of money into 3D cameras and tech, but it's much, much worse news for consumer electronics companies such as Sony and Panasonic who are betting the farm on people wanting to upgrade two-year-old HDTVs to 3D HDTVs. But if Hollywood finds that making 3D movies isn't as profitable as they thought, they'll stop doing it. And without that content, no one will have any reason to buy a 3D TV.
Sucks for them, but it's good news for consumers who are voting with their wallets. No more inflated ticket prices and no need to buy a new TV for a feature no one ever really wanted? Sounds good to me.
Earlier today I reported on the unlikelihood that the next Batman movie will be in 3D. But is that a fluke or part of a trend? If box office numbers are any indication, it's definitely the latter.
Since the high-water mark of Avatar, where 71% of the revenue came from 3D screenings, numbers for big-budget 3D movies have plummeted to less than 50%.
Obviously Avatar was a unique case in that it was basically sold as a 3D "experience," so if you saw it in 2D you were missing out. But then three months later the animated How to Train Your Dragon pulled in 68% of its revenue from 3D screens, hardly a significant drop-off.
Fast forward a mere four months and you have Despicable Me, another 3D animated kids movie, pulling in 45% of its revenue from 3D screens. As you can see by The Wrap's chart below, it's a pretty clear trend.
Is 3D Already Dying?What's this mean? It means that now that people have had a chance to experience 3D in theaters, they're opting to spend $10 on a 2D screening rather than $15 on a 3D screening when given the option.
It's not great news for Hollywood studios that have sunk boatloads of money into 3D cameras and tech, but it's much, much worse news for consumer electronics companies such as Sony and Panasonic who are betting the farm on people wanting to upgrade two-year-old HDTVs to 3D HDTVs. But if Hollywood finds that making 3D movies isn't as profitable as they thought, they'll stop doing it. And without that content, no one will have any reason to buy a 3D TV.
Sucks for them, but it's good news for consumers who are voting with their wallets. No more inflated ticket prices and no need to buy a new TV for a feature no one ever really wanted? Sounds good to me.
07-22-2010, 12:51 AM
#2
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
IS 3D dying because Chris Nolan isn't going to shoot?
No.
Is 3D going to see a slow down. Most likely. Its a gimmick that should reserved for specific movies. And the theaters trying to capitalize on the cost of 3D isn't going to help that fact.
But until then...There is a slew of 3D movies coming, and even more being shot.
My guild has been offering training seminars with Sony on shooting 3D all summer, and I was lucky enough get into one of them as they have been booked solid since they began.
So, what was the point of posting this? because all its nothing but a copy and paste? Cant come up with with your own thoughts?
No.
Is 3D going to see a slow down. Most likely. Its a gimmick that should reserved for specific movies. And the theaters trying to capitalize on the cost of 3D isn't going to help that fact.
But until then...There is a slew of 3D movies coming, and even more being shot.
My guild has been offering training seminars with Sony on shooting 3D all summer, and I was lucky enough get into one of them as they have been booked solid since they began.
So, what was the point of posting this? because all its nothing but a copy and paste? Cant come up with with your own thoughts?
07-22-2010, 12:52 AM
#3
Needs more Lemon Pledge
This thread just got real, yo.
07-22-2010, 12:54 AM
#4
Needs more Lemon Pledge
I have not seen a 3D movie since I saw the Michael Jackson movie at Epcot when I was 6.
I also have never been to an Imax, so I hope the movies released in 3D are also released in 2D. I like my movie viewing to be simple and old fashioned. I will tolerate color...
I also have never been to an Imax, so I hope the movies released in 3D are also released in 2D. I like my movie viewing to be simple and old fashioned. I will tolerate color...
07-22-2010, 01:21 AM
#7
Registered but harmless
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 59
Posts: 14,857
Received 1,149 Likes
on
775 Posts
I paid to see Up, Avatar and a couple of films in 3D, but not Despicable Me or other films. Conversions and most movies aren't better in 3D-- Up in regular 2D would have been just as good, but 3D was great for Avatar. 
I should check the AZ movie threads first to decide if a movie should be seen in 3D. 
I should check the AZ movie threads first to decide if a movie should be seen in 3D.
Trending Topics
07-22-2010, 01:22 AM
#8
Moderator Alumnus
Nothing wrong with posting an article, especially if it agrees with your opinion.
I also got burned by a couple of 3D movies, and have since sworn off 3D conversions.
I assumed UP would be well done, since you would think you could rerender the movie in 3D, but I found the 3D in it to be really dissapointing.
Avatar was the exception, since it was actually shot in 3D. Once that happens more often, then perhaps the tide will swing the other way.
As far as 3D HDTVs - have a nice wait. I suspect 3D games will push 3D TVs better than movies will.
- Frank
I also got burned by a couple of 3D movies, and have since sworn off 3D conversions.
I assumed UP would be well done, since you would think you could rerender the movie in 3D, but I found the 3D in it to be really dissapointing.
Avatar was the exception, since it was actually shot in 3D. Once that happens more often, then perhaps the tide will swing the other way.
As far as 3D HDTVs - have a nice wait. I suspect 3D games will push 3D TVs better than movies will.
- Frank
07-22-2010, 01:26 AM
#9
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
I paid to see Up, Avatar and a couple of films in 3D, but not Despicable Me or other films. Conversions and most movies aren't better in 3D-- Up in regular 2D would have been just as good, but 3D was great for Avatar.
I should check the AZ movie threads first to decide if a movie should be seen in 3D.
I should check the AZ movie threads first to decide if a movie should be seen in 3D. 3D conversion can be decent if the time and money is put into it....Clash of the Titans was a cheap and dirty conversion done by a studio at the last minute that doesnt even support the 3D format. Or didnt at the time.
07-22-2010, 01:34 AM
#10
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
Nothing wrong with posting an article, especially if it agrees with your opinion.
I also got burned by a couple of 3D movies, and have since sworn off 3D conversions.
I assumed UP would be well done, since you would think you could rerender the movie in 3D, but I found the 3D in it to be really dissapointing.
Avatar was the exception, since it was actually shot in 3D. Once that happens more often, then perhaps the tide will swing the other way.
As far as 3D HDTVs - have a nice wait. I suspect 3D games will push 3D TVs better than movies will.
- Frank
I also got burned by a couple of 3D movies, and have since sworn off 3D conversions.
I assumed UP would be well done, since you would think you could rerender the movie in 3D, but I found the 3D in it to be really dissapointing.
Avatar was the exception, since it was actually shot in 3D. Once that happens more often, then perhaps the tide will swing the other way.
As far as 3D HDTVs - have a nice wait. I suspect 3D games will push 3D TVs better than movies will.
- Frank
And what 3D conversions were you burned by? A CG movie is not a conversion when it was originally conceived and rendered out in 3D.
UP happened to be very well done as a 3D film. Not everything in a 3D movie has to or is supposed to be coming off at the screen in your face the entire time. Perhaps you werent sitting a good spot....the downside to 3D is there is a VERY optimal place to sit...and if you are out of that range...the effect is skewed.
I am by no means a proponent of 3D...actually in the realm of live action I'm pretty against it. But I have been educated on it so I know how to argue for or against it.
07-22-2010, 01:42 AM
#11
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,641
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all the 3D movies I've seen I started feeling pretty sick after 1 hour. I think it might have something to do with my astigmatism, but it makes 3D unwatchable for me. Really sucks because I could not experience Avatar properly.
07-22-2010, 02:34 AM
#12
Suzuka Master
Haven't seen a 3D movie since the last Freddy Couger film. What was that late 80's? Don't care to spend that much on a movie at all. It's like $22 or some shit around here, ridiculous.
07-22-2010, 02:35 AM
#13
Suzuka Master
Since the OP is usually a tool, I was just curious if he had anything in his own words to post.
And what 3D conversions were you burned by? A CG movie is not a conversion when it was originally conceived and rendered out in 3D.
UP happened to be very well done as a 3D film. Not everything in a 3D movie has to or is supposed to be coming off at the screen in your face the entire time. Perhaps you werent sitting a good spot....the downside to 3D is there is a VERY optimal place to sit...and if you are out of that range...the effect is skewed.
I am by no means a proponent of 3D...actually in the realm of live action I'm pretty against it. But I have been educated on it so I know how to argue for or against it.
And what 3D conversions were you burned by? A CG movie is not a conversion when it was originally conceived and rendered out in 3D.
UP happened to be very well done as a 3D film. Not everything in a 3D movie has to or is supposed to be coming off at the screen in your face the entire time. Perhaps you werent sitting a good spot....the downside to 3D is there is a VERY optimal place to sit...and if you are out of that range...the effect is skewed.
I am by no means a proponent of 3D...actually in the realm of live action I'm pretty against it. But I have been educated on it so I know how to argue for or against it.
I saw alice and wonderland in 3D, thats the last one I saw in 3D. Paid like 15 bucks and fell asleep within 15 min of the movie. Wasted that money
07-22-2010, 02:42 AM
#14
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
That said...without looking up the actual math....center/center...Anything off axis will actually distort the 3D effect.
07-22-2010, 02:49 AM
#15
Moderator
3D is just popular because it's something new. Just like the Wii. It was something totally different and there was a craze, thus lead to shortages of Wii's.
3D will probably die down, but at this point a lot of studios are taking advantage of it while it's still fresh. It's all about the money.
3D will probably die down, but at this point a lot of studios are taking advantage of it while it's still fresh. It's all about the money.
07-22-2010, 03:10 AM
#16
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
3D is just popular because it's something new. Just like the Wii. It was something totally different and there was a craze, thus lead to shortages of Wii's.
3D will probably die down, but at this point a lot of studios are taking advantage of it while it's still fresh. It's all about the money.
3D will probably die down, but at this point a lot of studios are taking advantage of it while it's still fresh. It's all about the money.
It's a trend that made a resurgence...but this time its more than likely here to stay in some capacity.
07-22-2010, 03:18 AM
#17
Moderator
Well, you're right. I said it wrong as hell. I meant to say that it finally made it to the public's interest. And this was all thanks to Avatar.
07-22-2010, 05:47 AM
#18
Rev High; Drive Happy
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Scarborough, Ontario
Age: 34
Posts: 4,076
Received 398 Likes
on
332 Posts
Before and just shortly of it's upcoming release... no one, in the few communities I live in/visit, really knew or cared for it.
Then after Avatar's release... that was the ONLY thing to talk about. I hated it. Theaters were ALWAYS PACKED throughout the entire week... even Sunday! I didn't even want to watch Avatar but had to wait 30 minutes in line to buy a ticket for another movie. (Granted I'm a patient person but it just so irked me that practically everyone in line went to ONLY see Avatar. Heck, even the electronic-ticket-booth was packed!)
Then as Avatar, in theaters, started to die out... all I saw everywhere I went was an onslaught of 3D this and 3D that. I understand it is the 'in' thing... but people are/were going nuts for this 3D stuff as it it was just created.
Here... 3D is double the price for a 2D film. I've watched 2D practically all my life and can live without 3D. More so, I'd rather spend that extra 10 bucks on something else.
/rant
Last edited by o4Komodo; 07-22-2010 at 05:49 AM.
07-22-2010, 06:47 AM
#20
Trolling Canuckistan
When you say you will "tolerate color" you rise up above the rest of your state who are rather intolerant. FWIW I don't think that's the PC term anymore.
07-22-2010, 07:09 AM
#21
3D is a trend and will be for sometime.. Majority of the movies due to come out are available in 3fuckingD.. Shit is ridiculous. Besides, I have seen several movies in 3D where there was nothing that came out at you as it should. And the audacity to ask us to recycle the glasses, HAH.. fuck that.. I paid upwards of $16 for this film, these glasses come home with me.. I have a stack of these things laying around somewhere..
Anything to make a buck..
Anything to make a buck..
07-22-2010, 07:09 AM
#22
3D is a trend and will be for sometime.. Majority of the movies due to come out are available in 3fuckingD.. Shit is ridiculous. Besides, I have seen several movies in 3D where there was nothing that came out at you as it should. And the audacity to ask us to recycle the glasses, HAH.. fuck that.. I paid upwards of $16 for this film, these glasses come home with me.. I have a stack of these things laying around somewhere..
Anything to make a buck..
Anything to make a buck..
BTW - Avatar dies... JK
07-22-2010, 08:15 AM
#23
Nom Nom Nom Nom
Anyways, I have seen a few of the newer movies in 3d. Some good, some not so good. I thought Cloudy with a chance of meatballs was a pretty good flick to see in 3d.
I really cannot justify spending the extra money. I know it is only a few bucks more, but when you are already spending 50 bucks to go see a movie.....
07-22-2010, 08:35 AM
#25
ding dong the wicked witch is dead... 
at those who have bought 3D for the home.
at those who have bought 3D for the home.
07-22-2010, 08:44 AM
#26
Team Owner
Where is the content for 3D TVs? Are there special Blu-Ray discs, stuff on TV?
07-22-2010, 09:05 AM
#27
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Age: 49
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
I work for a company that now does 2D to 3D conversion and 3D Native. Going to Sturgis, SD for bike week and will be involved in a ton of more 3D projects some of which I can't even talk about yet.
3D is here to stay folks, it's being driven by the hardware manufacturers so the $$ is there.
3D is here to stay folks, it's being driven by the hardware manufacturers so the $$ is there.
07-22-2010, 09:25 AM
#29
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Age: 49
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
This thread requires more Sarlacc and apparently more me.
Avatar was simply a movie that proved that with an unlimited budget you can make a 3D movie. Cameron pretty much decided that he wanted to make this movie and had the necessary funds to accomplish it. If every director had $500M to toss at a movie we could replicate that possibly with a better story lol.
If your impression of 3D is constantly being barraged with crap flying out at the screen you'll quickly learn that gimmicks like that actually hurt the 3D market. 3D allows for DEPTH therefore when used properly you can make a phenomenal 3D experience with very little negative parralex (out of the screen). For long term viewing you must maintain more depth and positive parralex (things that appear deeper into the screen) because there is less eye rip (that sensation when you feel like your eyes are struggling to focus on more than one thing). Moments where things come out of the screen should be under 10% of the total production so that the viewer can focus on the story and not the technical elements of the film. It's really a complicated and disputed matter.
Let's not confuse 3D movies with live 3D events. Movies are created whereas live events are witnessed, recorded and displayed with mere seconds of delay. If you liked the world cup in 3D (i personally was about 50/50 on it) then you should know it was a mix of real 3D rigs and conversion appliances. Blended together the effect worked very well. Since directors are new to working in the 3D space you are going to see alot of careful shots and a limited number of cameras since 3D is very expensive to deploy in a live event.
At the 2010 All Star Game in Anaheim and the Yankees / Mariners 3D game in Seattle the 3D looked amazing. Even with limited cameras the director pulled off a great game and Pace (the company that did the cameras) did a good job with where they had their rigs.
3D live is amazing, i've watched it for the past year in the broadcast trucks and have been involved in everything from NASCAR to commercials. I've been involved on the conversion side and the native side trust me when I say the industry is moving forward into 3D it's just evolving slowly much like HD did. In the future the manufacturers will move to polarized 3d (my opinion) right now it's just cheaper for them to do active.
Avatar was simply a movie that proved that with an unlimited budget you can make a 3D movie. Cameron pretty much decided that he wanted to make this movie and had the necessary funds to accomplish it. If every director had $500M to toss at a movie we could replicate that possibly with a better story lol.
If your impression of 3D is constantly being barraged with crap flying out at the screen you'll quickly learn that gimmicks like that actually hurt the 3D market. 3D allows for DEPTH therefore when used properly you can make a phenomenal 3D experience with very little negative parralex (out of the screen). For long term viewing you must maintain more depth and positive parralex (things that appear deeper into the screen) because there is less eye rip (that sensation when you feel like your eyes are struggling to focus on more than one thing). Moments where things come out of the screen should be under 10% of the total production so that the viewer can focus on the story and not the technical elements of the film. It's really a complicated and disputed matter.
Let's not confuse 3D movies with live 3D events. Movies are created whereas live events are witnessed, recorded and displayed with mere seconds of delay. If you liked the world cup in 3D (i personally was about 50/50 on it) then you should know it was a mix of real 3D rigs and conversion appliances. Blended together the effect worked very well. Since directors are new to working in the 3D space you are going to see alot of careful shots and a limited number of cameras since 3D is very expensive to deploy in a live event.
At the 2010 All Star Game in Anaheim and the Yankees / Mariners 3D game in Seattle the 3D looked amazing. Even with limited cameras the director pulled off a great game and Pace (the company that did the cameras) did a good job with where they had their rigs.
3D live is amazing, i've watched it for the past year in the broadcast trucks and have been involved in everything from NASCAR to commercials. I've been involved on the conversion side and the native side trust me when I say the industry is moving forward into 3D it's just evolving slowly much like HD did. In the future the manufacturers will move to polarized 3d (my opinion) right now it's just cheaper for them to do active.
07-22-2010, 09:50 AM
#32
Senior Moderator
1. Until they can make 3D movies on televisions without the glasses, this will never fly.
2. I saw Up and Avatar in 3D and didn't like it. The biggest reason is that 3D still gives a blur look to the screen, which diminish the HD quality.
2. I saw Up and Avatar in 3D and didn't like it. The biggest reason is that 3D still gives a blur look to the screen, which diminish the HD quality.
07-22-2010, 09:56 AM
#33
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
This thread requires more Sarlacc and apparently more me.
Avatar was simply a movie that proved that with an unlimited budget you can make a 3D movie. Cameron pretty much decided that he wanted to make this movie and had the necessary funds to accomplish it. If every director had $500M to toss at a movie we could replicate that possibly with a better story lol.
If your impression of 3D is constantly being barraged with crap flying out at the screen you'll quickly learn that gimmicks like that actually hurt the 3D market. 3D allows for DEPTH therefore when used properly you can make a phenomenal 3D experience with very little negative parralex (out of the screen). For long term viewing you must maintain more depth and positive parralex (things that appear deeper into the screen) because there is less eye rip (that sensation when you feel like your eyes are struggling to focus on more than one thing). Moments where things come out of the screen should be under 10% of the total production so that the viewer can focus on the story and not the technical elements of the film. It's really a complicated and disputed matter.
Let's not confuse 3D movies with live 3D events. Movies are created whereas live events are witnessed, recorded and displayed with mere seconds of delay. If you liked the world cup in 3D (i personally was about 50/50 on it) then you should know it was a mix of real 3D rigs and conversion appliances. Blended together the effect worked very well. Since directors are new to working in the 3D space you are going to see alot of careful shots and a limited number of cameras since 3D is very expensive to deploy in a live event.
At the 2010 All Star Game in Anaheim and the Yankees / Mariners 3D game in Seattle the 3D looked amazing. Even with limited cameras the director pulled off a great game and Pace (the company that did the cameras) did a good job with where they had their rigs.
3D live is amazing, i've watched it for the past year in the broadcast trucks and have been involved in everything from NASCAR to commercials. I've been involved on the conversion side and the native side trust me when I say the industry is moving forward into 3D it's just evolving slowly much like HD did. In the future the manufacturers will move to polarized 3d (my opinion) right now it's just cheaper for them to do active.
Avatar was simply a movie that proved that with an unlimited budget you can make a 3D movie. Cameron pretty much decided that he wanted to make this movie and had the necessary funds to accomplish it. If every director had $500M to toss at a movie we could replicate that possibly with a better story lol.
If your impression of 3D is constantly being barraged with crap flying out at the screen you'll quickly learn that gimmicks like that actually hurt the 3D market. 3D allows for DEPTH therefore when used properly you can make a phenomenal 3D experience with very little negative parralex (out of the screen). For long term viewing you must maintain more depth and positive parralex (things that appear deeper into the screen) because there is less eye rip (that sensation when you feel like your eyes are struggling to focus on more than one thing). Moments where things come out of the screen should be under 10% of the total production so that the viewer can focus on the story and not the technical elements of the film. It's really a complicated and disputed matter.
Let's not confuse 3D movies with live 3D events. Movies are created whereas live events are witnessed, recorded and displayed with mere seconds of delay. If you liked the world cup in 3D (i personally was about 50/50 on it) then you should know it was a mix of real 3D rigs and conversion appliances. Blended together the effect worked very well. Since directors are new to working in the 3D space you are going to see alot of careful shots and a limited number of cameras since 3D is very expensive to deploy in a live event.
At the 2010 All Star Game in Anaheim and the Yankees / Mariners 3D game in Seattle the 3D looked amazing. Even with limited cameras the director pulled off a great game and Pace (the company that did the cameras) did a good job with where they had their rigs.
3D live is amazing, i've watched it for the past year in the broadcast trucks and have been involved in everything from NASCAR to commercials. I've been involved on the conversion side and the native side trust me when I say the industry is moving forward into 3D it's just evolving slowly much like HD did. In the future the manufacturers will move to polarized 3d (my opinion) right now it's just cheaper for them to do active.
Though "eye rip" is a new term to me, and I like it
Sounds much better than edge violation.
07-22-2010, 09:58 AM
#34
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Age: 49
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
2. You can actually do full resolution to each eye so this is not true as well.
07-22-2010, 09:59 AM
#35
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
And if you've heard Cameron in interviews, he is aware as well. As is Sony, who I asked this very question to when I took the workshop.
The motion blur is attached to the framerate. And in this case, shooting at 24fps in 3D enhances the motion effect.
Cameron wants to shoot 3D at a faster framerate (48FPS) in hopes to counter and smooth out this affect.
07-22-2010, 10:01 AM
#37
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
07-22-2010, 10:01 AM
#38
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Age: 49
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
This is an issue I currently have...
And if you've heard Cameron in interviews, he is aware as well. As is Sony, who I asked this very question to when I took the workshop.
The motion blur is attached to the framerate. And in this case, shooting at 24fps in 3D enhances the motion effect.
Cameron wants to shoot 3D at a faster framerate (48FPS) in hopes to counter and smooth out this affect.
And if you've heard Cameron in interviews, he is aware as well. As is Sony, who I asked this very question to when I took the workshop.
The motion blur is attached to the framerate. And in this case, shooting at 24fps in 3D enhances the motion effect.
Cameron wants to shoot 3D at a faster framerate (48FPS) in hopes to counter and smooth out this affect.
07-22-2010, 10:03 AM
#39
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,436
Received 5,098 Likes
on
2,707 Posts
I find it more tolerable in CG....and in Live action I cant fucking stand it.