James Cameron Is Still Very Bullish on 3D

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
3D has remained a fad, but that isn’t stopping James Cameron from salvaging what was supposed to be a revolutionary cinema experience. The director spearheaded the idea with Avatar back in 2009 and hopes to do it again with his (four) sequels, but he has recently admitted that the technology needs to go much further, alluding to the necessity for a glasses-free experience in the future.

For the sequels to Avatar — the most successful movie ever made — the filmmaker, tech innovator and explorer said, “I'm going to push. Not only for better tools, workflow, high dynamic range and high frame rates — the things we are working toward. I’m still very bullish on 3D, but we need brighter projection, and ultimately I think it can happen — with no glasses. We’ll get there.” Cameron told the estimated 500 guests that movie “magic has to amaze … and that involves constant creation of new tools and techniques. The audience’s eyes adjust to what we did, and so we need to up our work.”
 
Has 3D flopped in theaters? Seems like there are still plenty of theatrical movies being shown in 3D. IMO, they're all a vastly better experience than any home setup I've ever encountered, too.
 
3D didn't really flop, it just reminded us that it's a technology that can really only be fun when done properly on a ginormous IMAX screen. 3D needs a huge screen for you to crane your neck around, so effects pop out in front of you as well as deeper into the screen...you can't get that pop-out effect if the screen is small, even my own projector screen (110") felt constrained in 3D, which is why I never use the feature, but there is no denying 3D on huge screens do work. I figure movie theaters will start to add some kind of motion-seats to the 3D experience, and you'll have that separation between "going to the movies" and watching at home, where the "movies" will be more motion-ride/shared experience.

I haven't been to a movie theater in quite some time, but my last experiences there can be summed up as follows: Man these prints are garbage, and OMG will they turn off the @($*%ING LIGHTS ALREADY? But no...they won't. Why pay more for a substandard experience + uninvited guests to your story-absorbing experience? Get a solid 1080p projector, some 7.1 (or headphones, go for the gusto!) speakers and watch pristine prints in pitch darkness. Like movies ought to be.

Cameron is nuts if he thinks people actually went to see Avatar 200 times because they wanted to see his generic movie about oppressed leopard people......they went cuz IMAX 3D turned a remarkably crappy movie into an 'experience', but that thrill isn't really repeatable, it happens once and then every 3D movie after you go "Meh" or "cool"..but you've been there, done that.
 
The 3d glasses for movies doesn't work for me because of bad astigmatism in both eyes. It just doesn't work. Even if I put them over my glasses, I still see ghost images of everything on the screen. Not fun at all.
 
The only movie that ever impressed me in 3D was the first Avatar. Anything after that was a waste of my money.
 
I think the movie has to have 3D in mind from the very beginning and none of this post production insert 3D bullshit, it really looks bad and my eyes do not like it one bit.
 
I'm a fan of 3D. Wife and I will still watch them in theaters and we have a 3D TV at home, where we watch 3D movies every now and then. Some video games I'll even turn on psuedo-3D and it works out really well.
 
scojer said:
I'm a fan of 3D. Wife and I will still watch them in theaters and we have a 3D TV at home, where we watch 3D movies every now and then. Some video games I'll even turn on psuedo-3D and it works out really well.
Click to expand...

3D gaming overall was a huge disappointment for me. But for movies, I love it.
 
cyclone3d said:
The 3d glasses for movies doesn't work for me because of bad astigmatism in both eyes. It just doesn't work. Even if I put them over my glasses, I still see ghost images of everything on the screen. Not fun at all.
Click to expand...
Oh wow. I have this problem sometimes but never watching 3D movies with my contacts on at home or at theater. I do have trouble focusing sometimes when playing VR games and that is never good. I have unequal astigmatism. One eye is really bad while the other is mild. Astigmatism sucks.
 
Megalith said:
3D has remained a fad....
Click to expand...

Has it really though? All the movie theaters near my house ram 3D down your throat on pretty much everything so they can charge a premium. Ticket prices start at $16.50 or so for a so dark you can barely make out what's going on 3D movie.

The only half way decent 3D movie I've seen in the last five years was the Junglebook.
 
snowcrash said:
Oh wow. I have this problem sometimes but never watching 3D movies with my contacts on at home or at theater. I do have trouble focusing sometimes when playing VR games and that is never good. I have unequal astigmatism. One eye is really bad while the other is mild. Astigmatism sucks.
Click to expand...

Mine is unequal as well. I'm guessing if I had a special pair of the 3d glasses that weren't crap like most of them are, it would be fine especially if I wore contacts.

If I don't wear glasses or contacts, under certain lighting conditions, I see doubles and triples of stuff if it is a certain distance away. So much fun.
 
We really just need to take a step back and throw on a pair of the old school blue and orange cardboard glasses that made me nauseous and watch away. :)
 
I have tried 3D so many times and in all different venues (Theater, IMAX, Home, etc.) and always hate the experience. I'm sticking with 2D movies for the foreseeable future.

If the new Avatar happens to be 3D and not require glasses, I will try again, but not expecting much.
 
I haven't been to a 3D movie in a while. Most of the time my eyes zone out and I don't even notice it is in 3D anymore. I had a 3D TV at home that I think we watched all of 5 3D movies on them. When the thing finally died earlier this year I didn't bother looking for a replacement. Just upgraded to a 55in.
 
Half the things people are complaining about are the theaters fault, not the movies (IE Brightness, etc) which is something the theater controls.

Avatar in 3d was mind blowing to me, it literally felt like you were in that world because of the depth it gave to the movie. It wasn't your old school "gimmick" 3d with things just poking out of the screen every once in a while, but every single thing had depth to it.

Then after Avatar the majority of movies that were 3d were just ugh.....a return to the "gimmicks" or post-conversion jobs instead of built around 3d and the depth it can give. That is what turned many people away from the 3d revolution that Avatar started.

The only other movie outside of Avatar that really impressed me with 3d was Life of Pi, it looked amazing in 3d.

If other movies took the time to make their 3d comparable to either movie I think a lot more people would have liked seeing movies in 3d, but instead we just get mostly hack jobs and cheap 3d conversions without any real thought put into the 3d effects and how the shots are filmed for 3d in mind.

I for one am looking forward to what Cameron can do with it again, he seems to be one of a few who can actually do 3d well and understands how to not use it as just a gimmick.
 
Nope. But I really don't give a shit about these Avatar movies anyway.
 
Stiler said:
Avatar in 3d was mind blowing to me, it literally felt like you were in that world because of the depth it gave to the movie. It wasn't your old school "gimmick" 3d with things just poking out of the screen every once in a while, but every single thing had depth to it.
Click to expand...

Avatar was still full of 3D gimmicks. Arrows pointing out of the screen, or concentrating on the dirt flying off somones feet when they ran.

It is just these gimmick that made me hate 3d. They are immersion breaking for me, not immerision building. It's like a slap in the face: "See my 3d effects?".

Avatar was the first and last 3D movie I saw. Fool me once... Well that's all you get.
 
Cameron hasn't made a really good movie since Aliens. Now, when I hear his name all I think of is...

 
I'm clearly in the minority, because I love the idea of 3D, and particularly 3D gaming/simming. For me, until the arrival of VR, that meant 3D projection.

VR is 3D, but more importantly it's 3D viewed LIFESIZE. It's THE BIG PICTURE. The big, wide--FORCED big and wide because it's strapped to your face--field of view you get with VR, that makes those stereo effects "pop." When you are looking at something familar to you in real-life, and you see it lifesize in 3D in front of you, it comes into its own. At least for me. That's part of why my sim rig, even in 2D, gives me that same big, wide FOV (90 degrees or more in my case).

Of course the movies and the theater lend their own problems to 3D. Unlike the "solo experience" you get sitting in a cockpit, everyone in a given theater isn't watching the film from the same point in space, and yet the projected pair of images have to suffice for the shared viewing of all. 3D/theater will probably always be something of a compromise because of that.

It's compromised, too when the objects aren't entirely familiar, or when the scale is substantially different than we are used to.* I'm convinced Cameron knew this, so he wrote the Avatar storyline around beings that were supposedly bigger than humans are: Ten feet tall or so. That theater experience had to be understood, visually, by everyone watching,,.at least to some degree, and it waa a big financial gamble for him, but it paid off pretty well in the end.

"Wow, Mabel! Them blue people sure are big."

"They sure are, Clyde! They're...they're giants!"

---

[* on a personal note, I do not...EVER...want to see that "apartment sized" spider from the LoTR films in 3D or VR. I'd have nightmares for years, if I did.. :D]
 
My favorite James Cameron fact - he's arguably more of an explorer (oceanographic) than a director. He directed Titanic so he would get a paid trip to the bottom of the ocean and has been down for miles deep by himself. There's a great (and it's in 3D) documentary on him called Deep Sea Challenge.
 
heatlesssun said:
While I disagree along with the box office results, Aliens is the best sci-fi horror movie of all time.
Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree, Alien was better only by a hair. The only reason I say that is because the introduction of the Queen in Aliens, although cool, I much better preferred the way the Xeno used humans to morph & create the eggs rather than a Queen "bug" take in Aliens. From a horror standpoint it was much more disturbing to see Brett & Dallas being morphed into an egg than it was seeing the Queen crap them out. I wish they would have kept that footage in the original Alien rather than re-releasing it in Alien Directors Cut. Alien 10/10 Aliens 9/10 :p
 
Last edited:
Avatar at 3D IMAX was incredible. It was a shit film, by my god did it look good.
 
If you have any doubt that James Cameron isn't a masterful director or artist, watch this please. It is outstanding!

 
Mchart said:
Avatar at 3D IMAX was incredible. It was a shit film, by my god did it look good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it got me in a way I didn't expect - there was one point where I thought "that prop looks awfully cheap..." then realized the scene was 100% CG. The CG was so good, it was able to convince me I was watching a B movie with cheap props.
 
NeoNemesis said:
The only half way decent 3D movie I've seen in the last five years was the Junglebook.
Click to expand...

That's the only 3D I've seen in years (won free tickets to an early screening).
While some of the 3D look amazing when there was little motion, much of the movie was a blurry mess to me.
I won't bother seeing another 3D movie, even if I get free tickets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top