Analyst Sees Drop in 3D Attendance

[missdupont]

Because of high ticket prices, 3D attendance is declining. Has the hype of 3D peaked like it did in the 1950s?

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/analyst ... et-prices/

[dr.giraud]

Also, a lot of the new 3D films feature underwhelming 3D. I thought it worked really well in AVATAR and parts of TANGLED and DRIVE ANGRY (of all things), but there's a lot of "meh" out there.

[Jack Theakston]

In my opinion, the peak of the arc was AVATAR, simply because of all of the money it made. With diminishing returns, there's less faith put into the system. Once all the major chains finish their digital conversion, you'll see 3D peter off.

[Mike Gebert]

I for one am actively trying to avoid it for most things. The exception is when there's something that's supposed to be artful about how it's handled-- such as Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. But I tried to go to a 2-D show of Thor and instead the 3-D version was playing; I was disappointed, and not just because of the extra few bucks I had to kiss goodbye. (That said, at least the 3-D conversion of Thor was far better done than some earlier ones like Clash of the Titans were supposed to be; I didn't know for sure if it had been shot 3-D or altered after the fact until I read it.)

[All Darc]

What about the theater offering 3D. How many use film projectors and how many use digital projectors ?

[Jack Theakston]

From the numbers I've seen, Technicolor (who is the only 3D film system out there right now) has a little over 500 installations vs. about 22,000 D-3D screens.

I for one am actively trying to avoid it for most things. The exception is when there's something that's supposed to be artful about how it's handled-- such as Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams.

Well, right off the bat, you have an issue in that these films that are conversions. If you want your film to have a truly dimensional quality and not look like cardboard cutouts, shoot the darn thing in 3D! The ones that truly shock me are the animated films that have had conversions done—what does it take to render two camera angles??

But overall, the biggest problem with this wave of 3D is the same thing as the 1980s wave—the quality of the films being made are overall poor. At least in the 1950s, what you got from the 50 films that were produced during that period were a true cross-section of filmmaking at that time. The films using 3D today are garbage.

[Frederica]

Well, the problem from the start are these films that are conversions. If you want your film to have a truly dimensional quality and not look like cardboard cutouts, shoot the darn thing in 3D!

I have a problem seeing 3D, I think because I wear monovision contacts. I saw Thor in 3D, but I'd like to see it again in 2D to compare. (And to look at Chris Emsworth's biceps, but never mind about that.) Or maybe it's the conversion thing, maybe something shot in 3D wouldn't have the same effect. Dunno.

[Jack Theakston]

Well, that's certainly another aspect to the 3D equation—not everyone has the same depth perception. Quite often I wonder when 3D's fiercest critics write on about the lack of dramatic impact 3D brings... part of that is true (the lack of vision in general), but I would love to sit someone vocal like Ebert down and test his depth perception.

[boblipton]

I see very few movies twice in the theater, but I did see DESPICABLE ME twice, once in 3D and once in mono. It was my feeling that the 3D did not add anything to the story or characters; it was simply a gimmick, so far as I am concerned.

Of course, people of our age are trained to see flat screen movies as just fine, so it might not have the impact on us -- after all we watch black and white and silents and are aware of the different techniques that are appropriate for those differing media.

I am very interested in seeing if the increased clarity that is being reported for Jackson's THE HOBBIT at its faster frame rate will be visually rewarding.

Bob

[All Darc]

The best 3D conversion technology it's very good. In some presentation tests people could not tell what was original shot in 3D and what was converted.
It's from Legend 3D, the Legend Films company as it was called when they just colorize films.

I have some few doubts about 3D conversion... How would convert to 3D a FX scene shot in forced pespective ? if they add the true 3D pespective peoplke will see the miniature is not in the position the FX was originally made to make people believe.

Also some tricks shots, like a guy in front a poster, and the scene looking like he is somewhere, a true place, and for a fe instant he came out and we see it was just a large outdoor, large photo on wall. Ex: In Lost World (Jurasic Part sequel) there is a scene where the scientist is on subway, in front of a anounce of a beach, but the camera makes we believe for a second that he is trully on the beach.
A 3D conversion would spoil such brief trick, cause they can't add a 3D of a true beach and change to the flat depth of a poster, after the camera move to show it was just a small trick.

[Mike Gebert]

I am very interested in seeing if the increased clarity that is being reported for Jackson's THE HOBBIT at its faster frame rate will be visually rewarding.

Me too. That seems potentially a more exciting experience than 3-D, which to me seems to make the image smaller in perception (what they call the "fishtank" effect).

[All Darc]

I don't think new technology will really get it, if it do not became cheaper or at least the same price.

A 48 frame rate means double the amount of film footage, and increase the final ticket price.
3D can double the amount of footage, if do not compress two frames in one, but if it compress you lose image definiotion.

That's where digital came to help, as a digital projector solve most of these problems.
It's a matter of time until high quality digital projectors, good enough to match film projectors, get a fine price.

TV will became 3D zoom, and this is a incentive to films keep being converted or shot in 3D.

3D was just a temporay fashion in 50's due price, poor quality (glasses and prints), very due be difficult to shot.
But today digital technology can chage that. If can get fine price...

[SFBOB]

I have been interested in 3D for a good deal of my life. I don't mind wearing 3D glasses and do not get headaches from watching 3D films. I considered myself an unabashed 3D enthusiast until the last few years when my enthusiasm has been somewhat tempered by the limitations of the process.

Last week I saw Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams in the format. The film has sections that made clear both why 3D can be an important component of and why it can be detrimental to a film making and film viewing experiences.

Viewing the clearest images of the paintings on the uneven cave walls (as well as the other contents of the cave) in 3D was riveting, especially because at least some of the artwork seemed to be designed specifically for the surfaces. I was intrigued by the way that the character of the artwork was affected by how the lighting often changed during these scenes. I thought that my viewing experience and my appreciation for these phenomenally lifelike images was much enhanced by the process.

On the other hand, the sections of the film that were recorded with lower quality equipment (video?), sections with closeups of people's faces, unsteady handheld shots, sections where the camera panned and other sections with inexplicable (to me) 3D distortions I found to be distracting, to the point where I missed a number of points that various participants were making. In addition, the 24 fps rate became an issue when one of the talking heads started to gesticulate rather quickly with his hands which resulted in flickering. Other sections where the camera was moving over a landscape or (worse!) panning were distorted, at times to the point were the image was unwatchable.

As much as I like it, I can see where the process in its current state has serious limitations and flaws. Telephoto shots and close ups don't look right, camera angles are apparently limited (or at least take special planning) and camera movement and panning are likely to cause distortion. Watching Cave of Forgotten Dreams I was reminded of the experience I've had watching colorized films. Certain scenes look considerably more plausable than others and just this inconsistency itself (not to mention the myriad other flaws of colorization) is distracting and a detriment.

In spite of all this, I was grateful for the opportunity to view the film in 3D. Very few people will be privileged to see Chauvet cave in person and the process lent a presence to the artwork that I don't think could be achieved by a flat process or still 3D photographs.

Of course 3D will have to continue to be commercially viable if it is to survive as a mainstream process. I'd be sorry to see it discontinued again; basically the more information we record, the better. What is distracting or difficult to view now will most likely be better and more easily viewed in the future.

[Nick_M]

A lot of the 3D in Cave... was fake, especially the low-res shakey-cam video, which included a lot of video from within the cave. Most of the conversion was so distracting that I just blocked the sensor of the shutter glasses. 17 bucks to see that cave in 3D, and I barely got even that. I almost wish I saw it flat instead (as if I had a choice...).

[Richard P. May]

A few months ago at the eye doctor's, the subject of 3D came up in conversation. He told me he gets a number of people complaining they can't see a 3D image. Often the reason is that many people have a "dominant" eye from birth, which never is a problem in normal life. When looking at something that requires equal vision from both eyes, the fact that one eye is weaker ruins the effect.

[mndean]

I am very interested in seeing if the increased clarity that is being reported for Jackson's THE HOBBIT at its faster frame rate will be visually rewarding.

Me too. That seems potentially a more exciting experience than 3-D, which to me seems to make the image smaller in perception (what they call the "fishtank" effect).

Every time I saw 3D recently, the fishtank effect was what put me off, and, like Frederica, a couple of years back I was wearing monovision contacts and (if ticket cost weren't enough), the 3D was so useless I passed on it from then on. With the cost of home 3D televisions being what they are, I see no need for buying one. It's a cute effect, but I don't see it enhancing my viewing, in fact it detracts from it by detaching me from what's happening on the screen when it does work. The newest films I've watched lately are from the '40s, and most are earlier than that, so I'll give 3D a miss for now.

[rollot24]

A few months ago at the eye doctor's, the subject of 3D came up in conversation. He told me he gets a number of people complaining they can't see a 3D image. Often the reason is that many people have a "dominant" eye from birth, which never is a problem in normal life. When looking at something that requires equal vision from both eyes, the fact that one eye is weaker ruins the effect.

That would be me. My left eye is totally useless so 3D is out of the question. I would like to see "Cave" but I'll be darned if I can find a 2D showing.

[Frederica]

A few months ago at the eye doctor's, the subject of 3D came up in conversation. He told me he gets a number of people complaining they can't see a 3D image. Often the reason is that many people have a "dominant" eye from birth, which never is a problem in normal life. When looking at something that requires equal vision from both eyes, the fact that one eye is weaker ruins the effect.

That would explain the monovision issue, then. I also have problems with those strange drawings where you're supposed to be able to pick out an object from a pattern. Nothing there, as far as I'm concerned.

[missdupont]

The 3D in Herzog's film was not low rez and fake. I heard him speak about it two weeks ago on the Public Radio Program Fresh Air. He had to receive special permission from the country of France and their antiquities department to even film in the cave. Only a 3 man crew could go in the cave on set paths already laid out, they could not step over those boundaries. Many times Herzog himself is handling the camera, and because the space is so small, people sometimes could not get out of frame as he shot. They shot everything in 3D.

[Christopher Jacobs]

The use of 3-D in movies has always been a gimmick, and I'm surprised the latest fad is taking as long as it is to lose steam. I, too, have one dominant eye, but the other is still strong enough to produce 3-D vision, and I love stereoptican cards, Viewmasters, and certain 3-D movies that know how to use the exaggerated effect aesthetically and entertainingly.

The problem with most of the current crop of 3-D movies is that the filmmakers continue to edit them like normal 2-D movies, and the rapid changing of camera angles too often makes the film difficult to follow as people try to "lock-in" to the 3-D before the scene shifts and don't really have time to notice what is in the shot before it's replaced by another one. AVATAR is a great demo for digital 3-D (and not much else), so it's really pointless to watch it without the 3-D. The remake of JOURNEY TO THE CENTER TO THE EARTH was greatly enhanced by its 3-D photography and the sense of fun it took with the process. The 3rd "Narnia" movie had some nice 3-D, but in that case it was a distraction from the plot much of the time, mainly due to the editing. On the other hand, I did decide to see PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 4 in 3-D, and was surprised by how well the 3-D worked most of the time despite the fast editing, and even though it wasn't particularly necessary to tell the story it did add something to the experience. Perhaps the lens convergence was better designed to be resolved quicker and the faster editing didn't matter so much. This is the kind of story that 3-D helps make even more fun, an old-time Saturday matinee at the movies. Most movies have no real need for 3-D and tend to use it as a compensation for lack of plot or as merely a marketing gimmick.

--Christopher Jacobs
http://hpr1.com/film
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Old ... BluRay.htm

[Mike Gebert]

Here are a couple of pictures of what Herzog was shooting with:

http://wearemoviegeeks.com/2011/05/cave ... he-review/

http://www.ramascreen.com/2nd-trailer-f ... ten-dreams

http://www.ramascreen.com/werner-herzog ... ture-of-3d

At the same time, you can see crew members on screen with smaller handheld digital camcorders. And you can see when the film goes lower-res in places.

My conclusion is, the 3-D in COFD is imperfect at times for two reasons: one, because they did fake or enhance 3-D in a small number of shots, two, because they were shooting in confined low-light situations where, occasionally, a shot just wouldn't come out right because something blocked one image or it was too dark to register one image or whatever. That said, I'm pretty sure most of it was real 3-D shot with the camera in the first photo (which looks to be the same one in the second).

[missdupont]

Here is the Herzog interview from Fresh Air, explaining how he filmed it, and what he had to do to even be allowed to film.

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/20/135516812 ... ten-dreams

[Nick_M]

Narnia 3 was a conversion.

Two spots in Cave tipped me off to converted portions. First was when the group was walking toward the cave entrance; all the trees and shrubbery looked strangely flat. There was no separation between branches, and the light coming through them didn't sparkle and shimmer, like it would when your brain processes two distinct images. Shortly after, Herzog cuts to higher-res footage of the same (or similar) spot from another camera, which did have shimmering light and space between the branches. Similarly with the cave walls- up close, they sparkle when in real 3D, but are dull like dirt when converted.

Second was an interview, inside the cave, with a woman with big frizzy hair, a cave wall behind her in the distance. Even though there was obvious depth, the shot looked odd. Then I saw a "halo" of cave around her head that was at the same depth as her. And when her head moved, so did the halo, which brought different spots of the wall to the depth of her hair. This cannot happen when there are two distinct eyes, even from the crappiest 3D cameras. Some of the 3D had to have been faked.

Of course, seeing crew members with consumer mono-lens cameras was a dead giveaway, too...

[missdupont]

One of the major problems with filming there was that he could not use strong lights because that would damage the painting, they could only use low light. That is all explained in the Fresh Air piece, if you listen to it.

[All Darc]

"Dominant "eye...

Unless some people have problem about align eyes, or just partial view or blindness in one eye, I think it's possible to stimulate the brain to "give mopre atention" to the non-dominant eye.

Perhaps if the 3D glasses had adjust of transparency, like one or two filter to make one side darker, this could be used to make the side of the dominant eye darker, and so the brain would be stimulated to give atention to the non dominant eye.

Or maybe go through one or two days with just the dominant eye covered, and see if the 3D effect get better after remove the coverage. Training the brain to use more the non dominant eye...


Some people had different degree of myopia or hyperopia from the left to the right eye. What 3D devices allow people to keep the ophthalmic glasses ?
If the difference it's relevant, and the 3D device do not allow to keep the normal glasses, the brain will surely give more atention the the eye that provides the sharper image.



And we can't forget... some people needs time to get used with 3D.

[silentfilm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/busin ... .html?_r=2

3-D Starts to Fizzle, and Hollywood Frets

By BROOKS BARNES and MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: May 29, 2011

LOS ANGELES — Has the 3-D boom already gone bust? It’s starting to look that way — at least for American moviegoers — even as Hollywood prepares to release a glut of the gimmicky pictures.

Ripples of fear spread across Hollywood last week after “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” which cost Walt Disney Studios an estimated $400 million to make and market, did poor 3-D business in North America. While event movies have typically done 60 percent of their business in 3-D, “Stranger Tides” sold just 47 percent in 3-D. “The American consumer is rejecting 3-D,” Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, wrote of the “Stranger Tides” results.

One movie does not make a trend, but the Memorial Day weekend did not give studio chiefs much comfort in the 3-D department. “Kung Fu Panda 2,” a Paramount Pictures release of a DreamWorks Animation film, sold $53.8 million in tickets from Thursday to Sunday, a soft total, and 3-D was 45 percent of the business, according to Paramount.

Consumer rebellion over high 3-D ticket prices plays a role, and the novelty of putting on the funny glasses is wearing off, analysts say. But there is also a deeper problem: 3-D has provided an enormous boost to the strongest films, including “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland,” but has actually undercut middling movies that are trying to milk the format for extra dollars.

“Audiences are very smart,” said Greg Foster, the president of Imax Filmed Entertainment. “When they smell something aspiring to be more than it is, they catch on very quickly.”

Muddying the picture is a contrast between the performance of 3-D movies in North America and overseas. If results are troubling domestically, they are the exact opposite internationally, where the genre is a far newer phenomenon. Indeed, 3-D screenings powered “Stranger Tides” to about $256 million on its first weekend abroad; Disney trumpeted the figure as the biggest international debut of all time.

With results like that at a time when movies make 70 percent of their total box office income outside North America, do tastes at home even matter?

After a disappointing first half of the year, Hollywood is counting on a parade of 3-D films to dig itself out of a hole. From May to September, the typical summer season, studios will unleash 16 movies in the format, more than double the number last year. Among the most anticipated releases are “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” due from Paramount on July 1, and Part 2 of Part 7 of the “Harry Potter” series, arriving two weeks later from Warner Brothers.

The need is urgent. The box-office performance in the first six months of 2011 was soft — revenue fell about 9 percent compared with last year, while attendance was down 10 percent — and that comes amid decay in home-entertainment sales. In all formats, including paid streaming and DVDs, home entertainment revenue fell almost 10 percent, according to the Digital Entertainment Group.

The first part of the year held a near collapse in video store rentals, which fell 36 percent to about $440 million, offsetting gains from cut-price rental kiosks and subscriptions. In addition, the sale of packaged discs fell about 20 percent, to about $2.2 billion, while video-on-demand, though growing, delivered total sales of less than a quarter of that amount.

At the box office, animated films, which have recently been Hollywood’s most reliable genre, have fallen into a deep trough, as the category’s top three performers combined — “Rio,” from Fox; “Rango,” from Paramount; and “Hop,” from Universal — have had fewer ticket buyers than did “Shrek the Third,” from DreamWorks Animation, after its release in mid-May four years ago.

“Kung Fu Panda 2” appears poised to become the biggest animated hit of the year so far; but it would have to stretch well past its own predecessor to beat “Shrek Forever After,” another May release, which took in $238.7 million last year.

For the weekend, “The Hangover: Part II” sold $118 million from Thursday to Sunday, easily enough for No. 1. “Kung Fu Panda 2” was second. Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” was third with $39.3 million for a new total of $152.9 million. “Bridesmaids” (Universal Pictures) was fourth with $16.4 million for a new total of about $85 million. “Thor” (Marvel Studios) rounded out the top five with $9.4 million for a new total of $160 million.

Studio chiefs acknowledge that the industry needs to sort out its 3-D strategy. Despite the soft results for “Kung Fu Panda 2,” animated releases have continued to perform well in the format, overcoming early problems with glasses that didn’t fit little faces. But general-audience movies like “Stranger Tides” may be better off the old-fashioned way.

“With a blockbuster-filled holiday weekend skewing heavily toward 2-D, and 3-D ticket sales dramatically underperforming relative to screen allocation, major studios will hopefully begin to rethink their 3-D rollout plans for the rest of the year and 2012,” Mr. Greenfield said on Friday.

[ymmv]

Muddying the picture is a contrast between the performance of 3-D movies in North America and overseas. If results are troubling domestically, they are the exact opposite internationally, where the genre is a far newer phenomenon. Indeed, 3-D screenings powered “Stranger Tides” to about $256 million on its first weekend abroad; Disney trumpeted the figure as the biggest international debut of all time.

I wonder to what extent the overseas figure is artificial. In the Netherlands it's impossible to choose between 2D or 3D versions, since only the 3D version will be available - with a 2,5 euro surcharge. I think that if Dutch movie goers could choose a large part of the audience would go for a cheaper 2D version if given the chance.

[Gagman 66]

I could honestly care less about 3-D. I don't see that well anyway.

[silentfilm]

We took our kids to see Kung Fu Panda 2 today in 2-D, and the place was packed. The movie had plenty of 3-D effects even if it was only in two dimensions.

[Battra92]

Abel Gance thought 3D was worthless.

Whom am I to argue?

Seriously, due to vision issues I can't see 3D (well I see two side by side pictures: one red and one blue)

What's next? Magic-Eye movies?