James Cameron Is Still Very Bullish on 3D

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    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.”
     
  2. Bandalo

    Bandalo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    3D is a gimmick on a flat screen, glasses or no. It's flopped every time it's come out, for videos or games.

    VR is the more likely future.
     
    viscountalpha and Armenius like this.
  3. necrosis

    necrosis Gawd

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    I ohh so loved having to drive 15+ min to find a theater that had a movie I wanted to see NOT in 3D because I kind of don't like puking. Yeah, I have VERY bad motion sickness issues.
     
    Vader1975, viscountalpha and Armenius like this.
  4. Domingo

    Domingo [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    17,210
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    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.
     
    Rahh and Vercinaigh like this.
  5. nutzo

    nutzo [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,380
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    I'd rather have a clear hi res image than 3D.
    The motion on 3D movies always looks blurred to me.
     
    Youn, Vader1975, che and 2 others like this.
  6. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    3D for movies I'm very much still into. I've given up 3D gaming but still I still watch a lot 3D BDs.
     
  7. Grimham

    Grimham [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,429
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    I won't go see a 3D movie period. They always look like shit. Blurry and dark with little to no actual cool 3D effects.
     
    Youn, Vader1975, Burticus and 2 others like this.
  8. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    I tend to agree. I think 3D BD works better with 3D Vision than passive glasses.
     
    Rahh and Armenius like this.
  9. Galvin

    Galvin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,695
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    The theater I go will show 2D movies 2x a day on the RPX screen, so if you want a good movie experience in 2D you're really limited.
    Thanks James Cameron for starting this mess
     
    Vader1975, viscountalpha and Armenius like this.
  10. HeadRusch

    HeadRusch [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    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.
     
    kekewons likes this.
  11. LightsOut41

    LightsOut41 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    445
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    I can't stand 3D movies. I always choose the 2D showing.
     
    Vader1975 likes this.
  12. cyclone3d

    cyclone3d [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,063
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    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.
     
    Vader1975 and Armenius like this.
  13. snowcrash

    snowcrash Gawd

    Messages:
    711
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Love 3D. I quite enjoy it at home but have a great time watching it on giant screen IMAX 3D at my local theater. Been doing that since Lord of Rings came out.
     
    Rahh, Dunnlang and heatlesssun like this.
  14. Kinsaras

    Kinsaras 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,568
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    The only movie that ever impressed me in 3D was the first Avatar. Anything after that was a waste of my money.
     
  15. Viper16

    Viper16 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,627
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    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.
     
    Rahh, Dunnlang and RogueTadhg like this.
  16. scojer

    scojer 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,050
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    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.
     
    Rahh and heatlesssun like this.
  17. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    3D gaming overall was a huge disappointment for me. But for movies, I love it.
     
  18. Dekoth-E-

    Dekoth-E- [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,599
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Avatar was amazing in 2D, 3D added nothing for me. 3D is dead, give it up.
     
    Vader1975 likes this.
  19. snowcrash

    snowcrash Gawd

    Messages:
    711
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    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.
     
  20. NeoNemesis

    NeoNemesis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,385
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    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.
     
    Vader1975 likes this.
  21. cyclone3d

    cyclone3d [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,063
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    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.
     
  22. RealBeast

    RealBeast Gawd

    Messages:
    648
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    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. :)
     
  23. Lender

    Lender Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    183
    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    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.
     
    Vader1975 and Viper16 like this.
  24. Spaceninja

    Spaceninja [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,718
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    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.
     
    Vader1975 likes this.
  25. Stiler

    Stiler [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,538
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    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.
     
    Xinmosni likes this.
  26. Burticus

    Burticus 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,023
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Nope. But I really don't give a shit about these Avatar movies anyway.
     
  27. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,348
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    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.
     
    Vader1975 likes this.
  28. Kalabalana

    Kalabalana [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,295
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    3D will continue to be a gimmick until there are no peripherals required.
     
    Vader1975 likes this.
  29. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,820
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Cameron hasn't made a really good movie since Aliens. Now, when I hear his name all I think of is...

     
  30. Stiler

    Stiler [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,538
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Err, Terminator 2? The Abyss? True Lies? Strange Days? He made plenty of good movies since then.
     
    Trimlock, M76, haste. and 1 other person like this.
  31. kekewons

    kekewons n00b

    Messages:
    42
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    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]
     
  32. Krenum

    Krenum [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    15,555
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
  33. Blakestr

    Blakestr [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,756
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    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.
     
  34. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,820
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Meh... T2 was pretty good. The rest in your list sucked.
     
  35. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    While I disagree along with the box office results, Aliens is the best sci-fi horror movie of all time.
     
  36. Krenum

    Krenum [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    15,555
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    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: Jun 29, 2017
    scojer likes this.
  37. Mchart

    Mchart 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,405
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Avatar at 3D IMAX was incredible. It was a shit film, by my god did it look good.
     
  38. Krenum

    Krenum [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    15,555
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    If you have any doubt that James Cameron isn't a masterful director or artist, watch this please. It is outstanding!

     
  39. CharonPDX

    CharonPDX Gawd

    Messages:
    716
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    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.
     
  40. nutzo

    nutzo [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,380
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    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.