3-D struggles at box office

[Smokey]

It was a very good weekend for the domestic box office, but a very bad one for 3-D. Cracks are showing again in the rose-tinted glasses as stateside moviegoers largely passed on the opportunity to see "World War Z" and "Monsters University" in extra dimensions.

The 3-D box-office breakdown for Pixar's "Monster University" was the lowest percentage for any animated title in modern history, while Paramount's "World War Z" represented the weakest 3-D showing for an action film, according to a report by B. Riley analyst Eric Wold.

Only 31 percent of the $82 million "Monsters University" debut came from 3-D screenings, while roughly 34 percent of the "World War Z" $66 million bow came from the format.

In contrast, the previous lowest-grossing 3-D action movie, "Captain America: The First Avenger," took 40 percent of its opening grosses from screenings in that format, while Pixar's last animated film, "Brave," earned 34 percent of its domestic opening from 3-D.

That's bad news for Hollywood, which is enamored of the surcharge that comes with 3-D tickets.

3-D equipment manufacturer RealD suggested that they may need to install more 3-D screens to reverse the trend and noted that 3-D's contribution to the domestic openings of many event films have stabilized in the 30 percent to 45 percent range.

3-D hits new low domestically with 'World War Z,' 'Monsters University' - MSN Movies News (http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=814875)

[markw]

3-D equipment manufacturer RealD suggested that they may need to install more 3-D screens to reverse the trend and noted that 3-D's contribution to the domestic openings of many event films have stabilized in the 30 percent to 45 percent range.Of course, they need MORE 3D theatres.

The additional price forced upon the users when it's only available in an Imax theater (effectively doubling the price of a ticket) has absolutly nothing at all to do with this. :skep:

[Feanor]

I'm less keen for 3D than I was immediatel after Avatar. Last one I saw in 3D as the most recent Star Trek flick, (what was it's name?): I had a headache for the first 40 minutes or so though I was OK after that. I'll go with the family if they want 3D but personally I wouldn't spring the extra dough for 40 minutes of headache.

[Smokey]

Of course, they need MORE 3D theatres.

The additional price forced upon the users when it's only available in an Imax theater (effectively doubling the price of a ticket) has absolutly nothing at all to do with this. :skep:

And also throw in the fact that majority of 3-D films are just converted 2-D as oppose to being real 3-D, might be another reason why 3-D is struggling at the theaters.


Last one I saw in 3D as the most recent Star Trek flick, (what was it's name?): I had a headache for the first 40 minutes or so though I was OK after that.

Most people usually get the headache after watching 3-D for an hour or so. But your reaction to 3-D seem to be opposite of that.

[Feanor]

And also throw in the fact that majority of 3-D films are just converted 2-D as oppose to being real 3-D, might be another reason why 3-D is struggling at the theaters.

After Avatar, the next 3D I saw was Conan the Barbarian (2011). Overall this flick was pure crap in general and the 3D aspect was the same: 2D objects floating around on a stage background. This really gives 3D a bad name; nobody wants to watch that.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ1NDUyODk5NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODk0MjIwNg@@._ V1_SX214_.jpg

[harley .guy07]

Yeah I can understand the headache thing. My wife suffers from migraines and even a couple of minutes on 3d puts her into an instant headache and I remember one day I was at the area BB Magnolia and looking at a higher end Elite panel that was 3d and after around 8 minutes or so of watching it even I had a headache. I just like a clean high def picture and really don't care about the 3d thing. To me it was a gimmick in the 80's and it is a gimmick now.

[Smokey]

Yeah I can understand the headache thing. My wife suffers from migraines and even a couple of minutes on 3d puts her into an instant headache and I remember one day I was at the area BB Magnolia and looking at a higher end Elite panel that was 3d and after around 8 minutes or so of watching it even I had a headache.

This is not a scientific conclusion, but I believe we get headache when looking at 3-D because what the eyes are seeing is not natural and we are trying fool the brain.

Headache is just one way of brain saying that it does not like what it is seeing.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And also throw in the fact that majority of 3-D films are just converted 2-D as oppose to being real 3-D, might be another reason why 3-D is struggling at the theaters.

Smokey, this is no longer a factor since post 3D has gotten so good, nobody can tell the difference between shot in 3D, and 3D done in post. It is no longer a factor as long as the studio budget enough money to do it right.


Most people usually get the headache after watching 3-D for an hour or so. But your reaction to 3-D seem to be opposite of that.

Most people don't get a headache at all. The few that do - you are right, it happens after people have been watching it for a while.

[Feanor]

Most people don't get a headache at all. The few that do - you are right, it happens after people have been watching it for a while.
I guess I'm not a person because I got the headache almost right away and it when away after I got used to it. My eyesight is no longer good, though, and I frequently suffer eye strain.

[TheHills44060]

Saw my first contemporary 3D movie (Superman) last weekend and frankly i found it annoying. Prior to that the last 3D flicks i saw in the theaters was Friday the 13th part 3 and Jaws 3 in the early 80's and I enjoyed that tech better.

[Smokey]

Smokey, this is no longer a factor since post 3D has gotten so good, nobody can tell the difference between shot in 3D, and 3D done in post.I don't know Sir TT. That is just like saying that pseudo suround sound like discreet suround.

The extra money, manpower and eqiupments that shooting in real 3-d require will give more satisfying result than what can be achieved in post production 3-D. Wouldn't you agree? :)

[Feanor]

I don't know Sir TT. That is just like saying that pseudo suround sound like discreet suround.

The extra money, manpower and eqiupments that shooting in real 3-d require will give more satisfying result than what can be achieved in post production 3-D. Wouldn't you agree? :)
I think there's some analogy to multi-channel music. Done right it's great and adds significantly; done badly and it's a nuisance.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't know Sir TT. That is just like saying that pseudo suround sound like discreet suround.

Not quite Smokey. With pseudo surround the elements are not separate but decorrolated. With post 3D the elements are actually seperate first, and then combined with non 3D elements just like a actual 3D camera would do. Avatar had some scenes done with post 3D, as did the latest Transformer movie, Alice in Wonderland, The Avengers and I could go on. Could anyone really tell the camera 3D from the post 3D? The answer to that is no.


The extra money, manpower and eqiupments that shooting in real 3-d require will give more satisfying result than what can be achieved in post production 3-D. Wouldn't you agree? :)

Absolutely not, that is a myth. Even if you do 3D in post, all shots have to be planned and staged for it just like camera based 3D. 3D camera's today only require one person, not two. Set design is exactly the same for both, and the only thing really different is in camera 3D is shot live, and post 3D is created at a post production house. The cost of doing both is nearly the same(post 3D may be a little more expensive now that the price of renting a 3D camera's have dropped a bit).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I guess I'm not a person because I got the headache almost right away and it when away after I got used to it. My eyesight is no longer good, though, and I frequently suffer eye strain.

I am willing to bet it is difficult for you to focus on centrally located images, as it requires more muscles straining to focus the eyes tightly to the center of a screen.

[Smokey]

Absolutely not, that is a myth. Even if you do 3D in post, all shots have to be planned and staged for it just like camera based 3D. 3D camera's today only require one person, not two. Set design is exactly the same for both, and the only thing really different is in camera 3D is shot live, and post 3D is created at a post production house. The cost of doing both is nearly the same(post 3D may be a little more expensive now that the price of renting a 3D camera's have dropped a bit).

While searching, it seem that on average shooting in real 3-d will add 30-50% increase on a 2D budget. While conversion only cost 5-10% of 2D budget.

There also seem to be alot of pro and cons with shooting in real 3-D vs post 3-D conversion. Real 3D have much more cons than pros :)

Shooting in real 3-D:

Pros

1. Easier to capture nuances of complex 3D scenes such as crowds, rain, snow, leaves, smoke, reflections, rain, leaves, etc.

2. Preview stereo images on set and on location

3. In edit, footage can be reviewed in stereo making editing decisions easier.

Cons:

A. Cost: it’s more expensive to shoot in 3D because it requires twice as many cameras, specialised rigs and lots of specialised personnel; as an extreme example, the 2nd Unit for Pirates 3D was 200 strong on occasions. Obviously there is twice the amount of data to manage, wrangle and archive.

B. The extra equipment and personnel mean few shots can be done in a day.

C. Lens choices are restricted. For example, long zooms don’t work on a rig because the image is flattened and the 3D effect is lost, plus zooms can be tricky to align correctly

D. Depth is essentially locked-in. It cannot be changed greatly in post. The only way to change depth (as it is really a factor of the interaxial distance) in any meaningful way, is to convert one eye.

E. No guarantee that what is viewed on set will translate to the scene (see BAFTA anecdote above)

F. No option of using 35mm film (unless we go back in time to the Friday the 13th dual camera 35mm solution, or similar – and anyway, 35mm grain, flicker, natural degradation when presented multiple times and it’s inherent expense, is not really ideal!)

G. Non-parallel rigs require a convergence puller on set who determines the convergence points during filming. In edit, it is vital to have the correct convergence point and yet the scope for changing convergence in post is limited.

H. Each camera can and will see colours, lens flares differently which must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

I. Frequently the alignment will be different and this must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

J. Polarisation will mean that there are image differences when filming reflective surfaces

Post production 3D conversion:

Pros

i. Cost: it’s cheaperii. Shoot as normal but plan for 3D to maximize the effect
iii. Complete range of options. Can shoot on film (see latest Star Trek) with any film camera or use any digital camera
iv. Complete range of camera lenses
v. Complete flexibility to add depth even when using telephoto lenses
vi. In edit, complete flexibility to set the convergence
vii. In post, complete flexibility to set the depth and volume for each and every element in each and every scene.
viii. In post, complete flexibility to add or delete elements

Cons

a. Crowds, rain, snow and smoke, sparks are more difficult to convert.

Native 3D versus 2D to 3D conversion: Pros and Cons | THE 3D COMPANY (http://the3d.co/2012/02/15/native-3d-versus-2d-to-3d-conversion-pros-and-cons/)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While searching, it seem that on average shooting in real 3-d will add 30-50% increase on a 2D budget. While conversion only cost 5-10% of 2D budget.

There also seem to be alot of pro and cons with shooting in real 3-D vs post 3-D conversion. Real 3D have much more cons than pros :)

Shooting in real 3-D:

Pros

1. Easier to capture nuances of complex 3D scenes such as crowds, rain, snow, leaves, smoke, reflections, rain, leaves, etc.

2. Preview stereo images on set and on location

3. In edit, footage can be reviewed in stereo making editing decisions easier.

Cons:

A. Cost: it’s more expensive to shoot in 3D because it requires twice as many cameras, specialised rigs and lots of specialised personnel; as an extreme example, the 2nd Unit for Pirates 3D was 200 strong on occasions. Obviously there is twice the amount of data to manage, wrangle and archive.

B. The extra equipment and personnel mean few shots can be done in a day.

C. Lens choices are restricted. For example, long zooms don’t work on a rig because the image is flattened and the 3D effect is lost, plus zooms can be tricky to align correctly

D. Depth is essentially locked-in. It cannot be changed greatly in post. The only way to change depth (as it is really a factor of the interaxial distance) in any meaningful way, is to convert one eye.

E. No guarantee that what is viewed on set will translate to the scene (see BAFTA anecdote above)

F. No option of using 35mm film (unless we go back in time to the Friday the 13th dual camera 35mm solution, or similar – and anyway, 35mm grain, flicker, natural degradation when presented multiple times and it’s inherent expense, is not really ideal!)

G. Non-parallel rigs require a convergence puller on set who determines the convergence points during filming. In edit, it is vital to have the correct convergence point and yet the scope for changing convergence in post is limited.

H. Each camera can and will see colours, lens flares differently which must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

I. Frequently the alignment will be different and this must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

J. Polarisation will mean that there are image differences when filming reflective surfaces

Post production 3D conversion:

Pros

i. Cost: it’s cheaperii. Shoot as normal but plan for 3D to maximize the effect
iii. Complete range of options. Can shoot on film (see latest Star Trek) with any film camera or use any digital camera
iv. Complete range of camera lenses
v. Complete flexibility to add depth even when using telephoto lenses
vi. In edit, complete flexibility to set the convergence
vii. In post, complete flexibility to set the depth and volume for each and every element in each and every scene.
viii. In post, complete flexibility to add or delete elements

Cons

a. Crowds, rain, snow and smoke, sparks are more difficult to convert.

Native 3D versus 2D to 3D conversion: Pros and Cons | THE 3D COMPANY (http://the3d.co/2012/02/15/native-3d-versus-2d-to-3d-conversion-pros-and-cons/)

Smokey, this information is from last year accumulated from information from the year before. It is outdated.

The pro's are largely pretty consistant, it is the con's that I have some issues with.

Live shooting of 3D.

A) The cost of shooting live has dropped pretty dramatically over the last year thanks to James Cameron. These days they do FAR more pre-production work in an effort to streamline the process and shaved the cost of live shooting. They can also shoot more shots in the course of the day thanks to all of the pre-production work done before camera's are even mounted. It is still more expensive than post, but not anywhere close to what it used to be - and especially since this was written. Pirates 3D was shot in late 2010 and early 2011. That is a long time ago, and many things have changed in two years.

C) While lens choices are still pretty limited when compared to 2D, there are a lot more choices today than there was 2.5 years ago.

D) With Cameron's newer camera's, depth can be dialed in on location. However, the article is right. After it is dialed in, it cannot easily be adjusted in post.

E) This is largely correct because they use flatpanels on location, and film screen for post.

F) This is irrelevant since 35mm film is rarely used these days. For the last three years there are an industry wide push to get rid of the film distribution system. As a matter of fact at the beginning of this year the studios sent out notices informing theaters to convert to digital or they would no longer get first run movies to show. That is basically the nail in the coffin for widespread film presentations. DP's can still shoot in 35mm, it just won't be distributed that way.

G) These days the DP has become the convergence puller as industry wide training has given them more tools and information to work with. No need for a dedicated puller any longer.

H) These days camera's and lenses are picked long before shooting begins, so this is largely a non issue.

I) This is expected, and every 3D movie has had to go through this. This is built into production costs from the very beginning.

J) This is seen on set during production and adjustments can be made to reduce reflective surfaces.

I largely agree with the pro's and con's of post 3D. However crowds, rain, snow(which is not really a problem anymore and was not a big deal since the movie Polar Express) smoke(which is hard for digital 2D camera's as well) and sparks(also difficult for 2D digital camera's) are difficult to convert, but the software for converting 3D has gotten so much better than it was when this article was published. The visual difference is not subtle either, it is very noticeable upgrade in 3D quality.

Smoke, you cannot use a nearly two year old article to describe what is happening today in the film industry. Technology in the film industry moves far too fast for that.

[Smokey]

Thanks Sir TT. That is good information. I knew the article might be dated as 3D technology is improving, but it painted good over all picture of two existing 3D and post 3D technology.