Discussion Why is Hollywood killing 3D?

[Denapix]

Why is hollywood killing 3D? We love 3D and even if the 3D TVs never made it, some of us still get 3D from projectors. I own a home cinema and we usually enjoy 3D blurays with friends but now days the scarcity of these blurays is getting out of hand. I read online and most sites are saying 3D is dead, etc. But why? yet it has some diehards like me and my friends. Someone might argue that the market is small but I argue that let them release these 3D blurays for that small market the same way they still release DVDs! Now they released Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten rings to Japan only. I waited for raya and the last dragon 3d bluray and it never came out, black widow we had to first shout otherwise they were not releasing it too. Why do they continue to frustrate 3D fans? The shift tends to be more towards 4K which is stupid because more pixels dont mean alot as compared to the immersion of 3D. Because depth is how we see in the real world, we dont see flat images therefore 3D is actually how movies are meant to be seen. They can make 4K 3D if they want but 4K 2D CAN NEVER justify killing 3D.
The home cinema movement is on fire with more people purchasing 3D capable projectors but 3d content is becoming scarce everyday.

 

[Colif]

they are killing 3d just so that in 30 years time they can reintroduce it as something never done right before, and sell a bunch of new TV's/whatever to people just before they stop selling it again.

next is 8k when most people don't even have 4k. Must keep the cutting edge moving. Selling new things people can't use yet.

 

[sizzling]

My understanding is a 3D film is significantly more expensive to produce in equipment and time. Producing movies can be very financially risky at the best of times so any additional cost that can be saved mitigates some risk. If I went out and asked everyone I know I would probably could not find anyone who says they prefer 3D over 2D. Most people just don’t want to be forced to wear special glasses during watching a film. Ok I don’t go to the cinema very often but the wife and I gave up on 3D soon after it was a thing, it was more detrimental to the experience than incremental and we soon decided we preferred the 2D version. At the end of the day most movies are made for profit and 3D doesn’t fit that model due to cost and niche appeal.

 

[Denapix]

My understanding is a 3D film is significantly more expensive to produce in equipment and time. Producing movies can be very financially risky at the best of times so any additional cost that can be saved mitigates some risk. If I went out and asked everyone I know I would probably could not find anyone who says they prefer 3D over 2D. Most people just don’t want to be forced to wear special glasses during watching a film. Ok I don’t go to the cinema very often but the wife and I gave up on 3D soon after it was a thing, it was more detrimental to the experience than incremental and we soon decided we preferred the 2D version. At the end of the day most movies are made for profit and 3D doesn’t fit that model due to cost and niche appeal.

More detrimental than incremental? Wow, to each their own, plus I guess you have never had a true 3D experience. In my case most people I know would choose 3D over 2D anyday, actually we dont go to the cinema to watch a movie if it's not 3D, why the hassle for 2D if we can watch it on television? I found that the only unfortunate people who complain of 3D glasses are those with prescription glasses.

 

[Denapix]

My understanding is a 3D film is significantly more expensive to produce in equipment and time. Producing movies can be very financially risky at the best of times so any additional cost that can be saved mitigates some risk. If I went out and asked everyone I know I would probably could not find anyone who says they prefer 3D over 2D. Most people just don’t want to be forced to wear special glasses during watching a film. Ok I don’t go to the cinema very often but the wife and I gave up on 3D soon after it was a thing, it was more detrimental to the experience than incremental and we soon decided we preferred the 2D version. At the end of the day most movies are made for profit and 3D doesn’t fit that model due to cost and niche appeal.

What about movies that have already been produced in 3D but not released for buying on 3D blurays? Am talking about movies like Monster Hunter 2020, it was in the cinemas in 3D but it never made it to home consumption 3D Bluray till date.

 

[kerberos_20]

3D was killed long time ago, HDR is more trendy now($$$)
VR is replacement for 3D

 

[JohnBonhamsGhost]

i still have a 24" 3D 1080p monitor
and a 40.5" 3D 1080p TV that are awesome for their niche.

i have a small collection of 3D DVDs/Blu-Rays & a collection of 3D Game Profiles through TriDef that work great.

there was a bit of time where games came with 3D profiles built-in but that was some time ago.

 

[kerberos_20]

my phone has 3D as well, nothing to do about it, you can watch what's available

 

[Denapix]

i still have a 24" 3D 1080p monitor
and a 40.5" 3D 1080p TV that are awesome for their niche.

i have a small collection of 3D DVDs/Blu-Rays & a collection of 3D Game Profiles through TriDef that work great.

there was a bit of time where games came with 3D profiles built-in but that was some time ago.

I have a 100" 3D projector setup and the difference that 3rd dimension adds to movies is night and day. I find it dumb that they are now talking about the 8K scam when they dont want to revive 3D. more pixels are just a scam, no one ever goes wow, I enjoyed this movie more because it was displayed on a 6 or 8 or 10K bs screen, but utimately 3D is immersive and entertaining, being that hdr is just a color format, they should actually apply hdr to 3d, that would be great.

 

[Denapix]

3D was killed long time ago, HDR is more trendy now($$$)
VR is replacement for 3D

Yeah and thats dumb because 3D is not a competitor to HDR, they can both be implemented in one system. 3d is just another dimension that can be expressed in resolutions higher than 1080p and color spaces higher than SDR or to mean HDR.

 

[kerberos_20]

Yeah and thats dumb because 3D is not a competitor to HDR, they can both be implemented in one system. 3d is just another dimension that can be expressed in resolutions higher than 1080p and color spaces higher than SDR or to mean HDR.

with VR they can shoot movies with multiple cameras creating 360degree view

 

[sizzling]

More detrimental than incremental? Wow, to each their own, plus I guess you have never had a true 3D experience. In my case most people I know would choose 3D over 2D anyday, actually we dont go to the cinema to watch a movie if it's not 3D, why the hassle for 2D if we can watch it on television? I found that the only unfortunate people who complain of 3D glasses are those with prescription glasses.

Don’t know what you mean by true 3D experience, I live next to a large multi screen cinema that also supports imax. I’d hope they know what they are doing.

What about movies that have already been produced in 3D but not released for buying on 3D blurays? Am talking about movies like Monster Hunter 2020, it was in the cinemas in 3D but it never made it to home consumption 3D Bluray till date.

Seeing how DVD/Blu-Ray sales have tanked in an age of streaming I’d guess not sell 3D Bly-Ray is to do with low demand and not wanting to be left with unsold stock.

As you say each to their own. I can understand those who have no interest in 3D and I am pretty sure no one I know has a 3D setup.

 

[Denapix]

Don’t know what you mean by true 3D experience, I live next to a large multi screen cinema that also supports imax. I’d hope they know what they are doing.





Seeing how DVD/Blu-Ray sales have tanked in an age of streaming I’d guess not sell 3D Bly-Ray is to do with low demand and not wanting to be left with unsold stock.

As you say each to their own. I can understand those who have no interest in 3D and I am pretty sure no one I know has a 3D setup.

This makes sense.

 

[Dean0919]

I personally don't care about 3d and it doesn't impress me. To be honest, I don't even like it. I think it's meh (and yes, I've been in cinema for 3d movies several times). 2d (normal) format looks better in my opinion.

I also don't have anyone around me who has 3d setup or goes crazy about it. Most people don't care about it. That's why it's dying & probably that's how people in Holywood feel about it too .

And definitely more pixels aren't scam. That's a dumb statement. 4K is much more important and makes picture better looking than 3d. Big screen, more pixels, HDR are more impressive than 3d.

 

[DimkaTsv]

Wow, to each their own, plus I guess you have never had a true 3D experience. In my case most people I know would choose 3D over 2D anyday

What a surprise, some people can NEVER have it. And i am not talking about people with 1 eye, but also any human being with glasses (and probably lenses)
We just don't see 3d as it is seen by you. And i don't like watching half red half blue on borders picture just to get some volume. It actually stresses eyes so hard that i may even feel some sort of pain (not sharp one... just type you get after long muscle tension) after watching 3d stuff.
So i, for example don't like and don't care about 3d too. And for my surroundings it is same too as well. Well, maybe because most of them have glasses or bad vision too

 

[Darkbreeze]

The problem is, there are like five of you, you and your four friends, who care about 3D in the way that you do. The rest of the world's majority doesn't, so studios and film makers don't either. Ok, maybe five of you in each state, plus another five in the UK. Sounds about right. Yes, I'm being facetious, but only marginally. In reality it's probably like 5% of the overall market that would care, and five percent is not enough to make it worthwhile to spend the 30-40% budget markup it would bring to do it for those who invest in these projects. Keep in mind, they don't give a damn about what you, or anybody else, likes, they care about making money and unless a much larger portion of the market wants it, enough to make it fiscally responsible, it's never going to be a technology that lasts.

And for the record, I've seen plenty of 3d films, and was never particularly impressed. Then again, it wasn't "nothing" either. But for me, and the MAJORITY of those who will spend the money that keeps these projects from becoming money pits, I would never pay more for them, never go to see them in the theater and am not hurt that they've mostly gone away, because the state of current technology makes it more of a distraction than an immersion. When the technology someday becomes more inherently immersive and loses it's ability to distract from the experience, I'm sure they'll try it again.

Plus, that aside, 3 out of 4 people in the US use some form of vision correction and it is the most widespread disability that exists. Of those who must use vision correction, 75% of them wear glasses and as mentioned 3D technology is unappealing to those people. So that basically means that AT LEAST half of the potential market for 3D, can't, and won't use it. Or even if they are willing, they are going to be a lot less enthusiastic because it's probable that the second they take off their glasses a good portion of them are instantly going to have a less than perfect experience due to simply not being able to see what they are seeing, as well as you apparently do. So, really, this whole thing is not unexpected and probably won't ever be on track for widespread acceptance until they figure out a way to do it using projected augmented reality of some kind where no funky glasses are required to see it.

So, let's say 40% of the population doesn't want it for sight reasons, and let's just say that the remaining 50% simply don't care about it. That makes for like 80% of the market saying "blow off" to it. Studios and investors aren't going to spend 30-40% more on the budget to make ~20% or less of the public happy. And that's just for movies it will actually "work" with. Many movies are just not suited for this type of thing at all, which further reduces the interest in making it "better" or keeping it around.

 

[kanewolf]

Why did NVIDIA stop supporting 3D? 3DVision isn't even part of the current drivers.

 

[JohnBonhamsGhost]

Plus, that aside, 3 out of 4 people in the US use some form of vision correction and it is the most widespread disability that exists. Of those who must use vision correction, 75% of them wear glasses and as mentioned 3D technology is unappealing to those people.

i've seen this mentioned a few times in this thread but really isn't any big deal preventing people from viewing 3D.
i've worn glasses or contacts for over 30 years and have never had a problem through the hundred or so 3D movies i've watched.

generic 3D glasses from theaters have always easily fit over my prescription glasses or I would just wear my contacts.
and my 3D monitor & TV both came with clip-on 3D lenses that attach to your prescription pair.

 

[DimkaTsv]

i've worn glasses or contacts for over 30 years and have never had a problem through the hundred or so 3D movies i've watched.

generic 3D glasses from theaters have always easily fit over my prescription glasses or I would just wear my contacts.
and my 3D monitor & TV both came with clip-on 3D lenses that attach to your prescription pair.

Who said about not being able to watch 3D?
We are able to watch it, but, it is just much more stressful for eyes and not very pleasant for most of us.
If you are different, you may be just really lucky.
But i, for example, don't really feel pleasant while watching 3D. Well... Not that my eyes not stressing out even during normal cinema, they are, but definitely less.
Not to say experience actually may differ, and your feelings aren't what everyone feels. For me it is kinda smudged picture with red and blue borders on left and right side respectively. I will prefer to watch normal cinema, just because I will see more details.

 

[JohnBonhamsGhost]

Who said about not being able to watch 3D?

75% of them wear glasses and as mentioned 3D technology is unappealing to those people. So that basically means that AT LEAST half of the potential market for 3D, can't, and won't use it.

as you can see in the quote i was responding to,
my comment has nothing to do with viewing 3D general.
just that not having 20/20 vision does not cause any additional negative affect(s).

For me it is kinda smudged picture with red and blue borders on left and right side respectively. I will prefer to watch normal cinema, just because I will see more details

and you think it is because of your wearing corrective lenses?

 

[hotaru.hino]

My take on it is aside from a lot of people either not really caring about the 3D effect or it doesn't really work for them, it pretty much boils down to:

• Post production is more expensive because it has to deal with two perspectives of the same shot. Also any effects applied to them must be done carefully because both perspectives have to look as identical as possible. If your entire movie is in 3D, you've basically doubled the post-production budget requirement.
• The logistical headache of 3D glasses, both in theaters and at home.

And as mentioned, VR has basically taken over 3D.

 

[Darkbreeze]

i've seen this mentioned a few times in this thread but really isn't any big deal preventing people from viewing 3D.
i've worn glasses or contacts for over 30 years and have never had a problem through the hundred or so 3D movies i've watched.

And of course, we know that our own experiences are representative of everybody, right? Yes, I'm being snarky, but purposefully, nothing towards you. It's just that, as always, our own sample of one simply can't be used to gauge overall assessment of a thing. The fact is, I myself know about ten other people who wear glasses AND seriously dislike the 3D experience. It's really more about the unpleasantness of the additional eye strain on people who already deal with eye strain on a daily basis because of having to wear glasses, not to mention that many who wear glasses can often take them off in the theaters, but having to then put on 3D glasses simply negates that minor relief. Certainly there are a good many other reasons as well, as many as there are people probably.

Regardless, I try to never make the mistake of saying just because this is how it felt, seemed, looked, tasted, smelled or I believed a thing to be, doesn't mean everybody else felt the same about that thing, whatever it is. Only after finding that there is a common consensus do I normally allow for the idea that perhaps it's not just my own personal opinion.

 

[Dean0919]

And of course, we know that our own experiences are representative of everybody, right? Yes, I'm being snarky, but purposefully, nothing towards you. It's just that, as always, our own sample of one simply can't be used to gauge overall assessment of a thing. The fact is, I myself know about ten other people who wear glasses AND seriously dislike the 3D experience. It's really more about the unpleasantness of the additional eye strain on people who already deal with eye strain on a daily basis because of having to wear glasses, not to mention that many who wear glasses can often take them off in the theaters, but having to then put on 3D glasses simply negates that minor relief. Certainly there are a good many other reasons as well, as many as there are people probably.

Regardless, I try to never make the mistake of saying just because this is how it felt, seemed, looked, tasted, smelled or I believed a thing to be, doesn't mean everybody else felt the same about that thing, whatever it is. Only after finding that there is a common consensus do I normally allow for the idea that perhaps it's not just my own personal opinion.

I myself wear glasses for far looking, however when I went to cinema for 3d, I put 3d glasses over my glasses and that's how I watched it. I mean glasses wasn't a problem for me with 3d. This technology itself didn't impress me and colors weren't as good as on 2d.

 

[DSzymborski]

The basic problem here is simple: not enough people like 3D content, at its current level of technological advance, to a level that provides a significant financial incentive to produce 3D content.

 

[USAFRet]

Hollywood isn't killing 3D. Rather, it was born dead, just like every other time they tried it.