The Reign of 3D Is over in US Cinemas

Hollywoo was never really in love with 3D. The only people that where... James Cameron, and the 3D conversion companies like Legend3D.

I have hated that all the best screens at the local ciniplex have been taken up by 3D showings. For a lot of movies I really don't want to see the software 3D conversion... but seeing most big releases in 2D at the local 12 screen house means seeing it on their smallest screen that is only a small step up from the cheep seat theaters.
 
I love how since some of you think 3D is a "gimmick" or it gives you a headache that you're GLAD it's going away. Like as if 3D existing hurts you or is forced on you and those of us who do enjoy it can just fuck off.

I've never seen a theater either that DOESN'T have the latest and greatest NOT in 3D or only in the "shitty" theaters. You people act like it's forced on you and shoved down your throat.

Christ, the hate on this stuff here is so cringeworthy. People being happy that an option is being taken away...
 
I don't think James Cameron is to blame for the last 3D fad. Avatar was at least actually shot in 3D. Like others have already pointed out, a lot of the bad 3D films were actually shot in 2D and converted to 3D as a money grab.
 
Megalith said:
instead, the brand will focus on 2D films like Dunkirk, which was shot on 65mm to take advantage of IMAX’s large screen size...
Click to expand...

Dunkirk was shot on 70mm IMAX

3D is not going away in theaters anytime soon...not with the 4 Avatar sequels coming
 
Chris_B said:
And so the 3d gimmick dies off for another 20 or so years. How many times are they going to reintroduce this ffs?
Click to expand...
No, IMAX in 3D is gong away, 3D on "regular" screens is still here. No way a theater is going to give up it's cash cow and that extra 20-35% markup to tickets for the "honor" watching it in 3D.

However IMAX most certainly will still have a markup, and color me not surprised if it's the same amount as IMAX + 3D was.
 
Mut1ny said:
I love how since some of you think 3D is a "gimmick" or it gives you a headache that you're GLAD it's going away. Like as if 3D existing hurts you or is forced on you and those of us who do enjoy it can just fuck off.

I've never seen a theater either that DOESN'T have the latest and greatest NOT in 3D or only in the "shitty" theaters. You people act like it's forced on you and shoved down your throat.

Christ, the hate on this stuff here is so cringeworthy. People being happy that an option is being taken away...
Click to expand...
Lucky you. All my local theaters only showed 3D on the good screen. There maybe 1 showing a day that wasn't 3D. I stop going to movies cause they kept shoving me into the lame last run screen for opening weekends of big movies. So yea around here they shovel it down my throat. So yes I am glad a option me and majority of people want gone.
 
Mut1ny said:
I've never seen a theater either that DOESN'T have the latest and greatest NOT in 3D or only in the "shitty" theaters.
Click to expand...
Good for you, really. Because every time I've been to a movie showing and went the non-3D route it's always been shown in that smaller theater, that I'm sure it's a matter of perspective due to the seats but just doesn't quite feel as big, however due to the size you know the speakers are not the same... but then again movie theaters thinks loud = good, so fuck them on that side of things
 
3D is great for me when it's done well- as an after thought, it doesn't bother me, though I don't get headaches and don't have issues with wearing the glasses over my own either.

However, if my choice is 3D IMAX or Dolby Atmos, I go Atmos. IMAX may catch up, will probably catch up, but for now Dolby has the better theaters (pojecters, sound, and seats).
 
horrorshow said:
I think Sony Mini-Disc takes the cake.
Click to expand...

It's funny, I actually have fond memories of mini-disc. Back in college in the early 2000s those things were all the rage among music majors wanting to self record in the practice room. They were so much better than tape recorders, though clearly inferior to modern linear PCM recorders. That being said, musicians are probably the only people that feel any nostalgia for those things.
 
Glad this fad is finally dying out. Can't stand 3D as it just doesn't work for me, the motion is blurry.

Maybe my brain is just too smart to be fooled by the 3D effects :p

I was offered free tickets to the early premier of a couple different movies I wanted to see this year, but I passed since the premiers were in 3D. That's how much I dislike 3D.
 
Maybe when it comes back around we won't need glasses.

I've enjoyed a few movies in 3D but have also seen several where the 3D added very little.
 
nutzo said:
Glad this fad is finally dying out. Can't stand 3D as it just doesn't work for me, the motion is blurry.
Click to expand...

It's still 24FPS, so if it's blurry then either the directer intended it to be blurry or is/was an idiot.

Too bad HFR of some sort didn't take off. Hard to go from 120FPS+ with G-Sync to 24FPS in theaters sometimes...
 
Haste266 said:
Fucking idiots. HFR 3d is where it's at. The Hobbit films were fucking amazing in their detail, clarity and smoothness.
Click to expand...


Agree, this is the only 3d that did not give me a headache. But idiots with trash taste turning their nose up at high frame rate video for movies killed off that format for now. I remember seeing warcraft in the theater, with this slow panning shot across some open space, and seeing a veritable slide show of awful 24fps video puking up its limitations on screen. Total disaster and we need more high frame rate experimentation.


That said, IMAX was NEVER where it was at in terms of theaters. Most of you need to get up to speed.

Dolby Vision LASER Projection at AMC PRIME locations. Great comfy seats, large screen, great projection and most importantly, it's ALL 2d. Almost every IMAX version of a film, including the laser projection IMAX films, were 3d, which made things look worse. It's good that they are pivoting, but even there in the press release they seem to want to double down on film...


I know film has higher effective resolution, near 18k for 70mm film, but film still has a "noisiness" that digital capture does not. Further, laser projection is flat out superior to film projection in the arena of contrast.

standard digital projection ~ 2000:1 contrast ratio
film projection ~ 4000:1

Laser projection ~6000+:1

Night and effing day, deeper blacks, brighter highlights, it's the oled of theater projection, and people still want to focus on film projection and capture? Wrong direction, the areas where film is ahead will be overtaken by digital, with a CLEANER image, and eventually more dynamic range not just on the projection side, but capture as well.
 
snowcrash said:
Damn. Sad news. I enjoy watching both 3D and regular 2D at my local giant screen IMAX theater. It's how movies should be watched instead of just at home for convenience sake.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, the only reason I go to theaters is for the 3d IMAX movies because that's an experience that is unique, since I'm sure not going to pay for it twice. Then afterwards, I'd watch the 2D at home away from the kids kicking my chair, noise, sticky floors, those really tall guys with hats in front of me (I'm short), fighting crowds for parking and half an hour in line. At home, I can pause, turn on subtitles, if I miss some dialogue I can roll back, control the volume, grab a decent snack, surrounded by people I actually like. Now i might as well skip the theater entirely.
 
Yes 3d is dead. Now excuse me while I put on my vr helmet.

The point is people like 3d, just not bad versions of it. And imax used circular polarizers which is the worst implentation of 3d available.

I wanted to go whole hog and watch cars in 3d dbox imax. $40 for two tickets. (My son and I). I laughed and said newp. I went to the drive in movie theater with all 4 of us for $20 and we got to see wonder woman too (always a double header)

They say that owners are having a hard time making money. That's why they rip you off at the concession stand. Yet drive in theaters which seat less still make money. My local cheap seats (old release movies) also has $2.50 movie seats with recliners and stadium seating.

So where are the movie houses losing money so badly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Haste266 said:
Fucking idiots. HFR 3d is where it's at. The Hobbit films were fucking amazing in their detail, clarity and smoothness.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm? Most people and critics hated 48 fps. They claim it's the equivalent of soap opera effect.

I admit I was a little disjarred by it at first.
 
+1 to the hurts my eyes/gives headache camp!

Only good thing I've seen in 3d was a football (soccer as you call it) game that was shown in a pub many years ago - it was fun! Only did it the once though as it never took off!
 
Well, I know I'm on the other side of the tracks for this one but I'll still speak out. I got into the 3d craze back when Avengers came out. We saw it at a midnight showing and was blown away. Bought all kinds of 3d tech over the next 5 years. Don't really regret it but as usual it became something that didn't usually get full support from either film makers or games devs. Sure many people got headaches, but crap movies will do that in 2d. The real problem for us was the price, $15+ a ticket is insane!. Closer to $20 for the IMAX. Movie houses don't have 3d to blame for losing money, overcharging, remakes-reboots-rushed sequels-rehashed stories-and just generally shitty movies are really to blame. Throw in cranking the audio till you can hear the cones pop doesn't help either.

Movies that I thought were pretty good were Avengers, Guardians, Dr. Strange, all post conversion. 1st Hobbit was awesome, saw it in IMAX HFR, very cool. {edit: I forgot to mention the Star Wars movies. Generally speaking, Disney has a nice overall post conversion process. Not saying all the Marvel stuff was good but mostly not bad}. Had to special order Beowulf, pretty cool too. The last 2 X-men movies were pretty good. We've got a collection of around 50 3d movies(I usually look for sales and never pay the 30-40 release price). Most are meh, but some are really awesome. Strange thing is that most of them seem clearer to me even when they don't have much depth/popout on our 4k/3d 55".

I also agree this synthetic 24fps is bs. From digital to the newer film formats it's totally unnecessary and most display tech is geared toward 60 or more now. It doesn't matter if I watch 2d/3d I really don't like 24fps anymore. I don't find it artistic just cheap.

I thought 3d ready games were cool too. Problem is they needed hardware akin to 4k demands to pull off 60+ fps/1080p ultra. Batman Arkham City, Witcher 2 and 3, Metro's, Crysis 2/3 all looked amazing on my monitors. 3d rendered at 120fps is a much better experience. When I got my 1440p/3d setup, once again it showed both the demands and the increased quality. That reminds me the 1080p/24fps/3d standard was ridiculous. They could've easily incorporated 60fps w/ hdmi 2.0. I'm pretty sure a lot of gamer's would've been more impressed if they either could play 50-70" 3d/60 or even projection if not for the lame 24fps cap.

Bottom line is yeah 3d is a gimmick. So's VR. I'm not going to say 3d was ever perfect either, ghosting is almost always an issue as is improper shadow/lighting rendering. Things either sucked or were great but never perfect. I was willing to put up with the glasses and occasional ghosting issues of 3d but not even going to start strapping things to my head for VR. I've been wondering if chiropractors have seen an increase in business since VR. Both are trying to go the same direction which is a virtual experience. Even a good idea when implemented half-ass is going to suck.

I have noticed that with native shot 4k, 5k, or more that hasn't had a 2k DI that depth and clarity can create an almost 3d depth experience on some displays but its pretty rare. Problem is, now most new movies are 2k DI even if shot in 4k or more. So even 4k is now getting the half-ass treatment and many people will be right to say it doesn't look that much better because of it. Have to say that HDR has yet to impress me but OLED does-just too expensive.
 
Last edited:
Zinn said:
So about those 3D TVs that were all the rage a few years back. Does everyone who bought abandonware technology get a partial refund?
Click to expand...
One of my TV's is 3D. I didn't buy it for that - it was the same cost as regular TVs when I bought it. I think I watched a few movies at home, put the glasses away, and haven't tried it again since. I didn't like the glasses and thought the effect was not worth it at all.
 
I bet theater VR will be the next thing in a few years, and I'd actually be down for trying that.
 
Have to chime in on the side of mild disappointment that IMAX 3D is going away. It was the one format/experience that I couldn't reliably approximate at home, and in some instances, I thought it was worth it. Dr Strange and Rogue One were both better for the 3D experience. Saw them both in premium 2D and 3D theaters and nothing was lost going to 3D. It was all gain. Losing the option to see something in a unique format is not a good thing.
 
I personally love seeing movies in 3D. I believe it may do the opposite for the industry. It's just as easy to stop supporting IMAX as it is for them to stop supporting 3D. Somehow I see ticket prices going up even with the removal of 3D. This looks like laziness on IMAX's part.
 
While this is all well and good, real IMAX theaters are usually found in Museums and so forth, the screen is closer to 4:3 than 16:9 and is huge, so an IMAX theater at your local cinema usually just tends to have a bit better picture and sound. I'll opt for a Dolby Vision showing instead.
 
There are a few 3D movies that I couldn't imagine watching regular. Pacific Rim, Guardians of the Galaxy are a couple that come to mind right away. I was actually really disappointed that the Imax by me was showing Dunkirk and not Valerian. I guess my wife and I will just watch it regular and keep the extra money.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
It's still 24FPS, so if it's blurry then either the directer intended it to be blurry or is/was an idiot.

It's not blurry for everyone, just for me.
When there is little or no motion on the screen, the 3D image can look amazing.

However when there is motion in a 3D movie, my eyes/brain blur the images. The faster the motion, the worse it gets.
Probably due to my stigmatism or some other abnormality in my eyesight, but like I said, 3D just doesn't work for me.
Click to expand...
 
Dunkirk, another "great" 'war' movie.. I been past those for years now, some reason they just don't 'go down' like a terrible tasting drink or something.
Oh yeah, 3d.. what? that was still a thing?.. I did enjoyed it a bit here and there.
Not sure I will shed a tear though.
 
Design1stcode2nd said:
While this is all well and good, real IMAX theaters are usually found in Museums and so forth, the screen is closer to 4:3 than 16:9 and is huge, so an IMAX theater at your local cinema usually just tends to have a bit better picture and sound. I'll opt for a Dolby Vision showing instead.
Click to expand...
Most theaters do indeed use "minIMAX" instead of full IMAX, true, but this is an economic decision based on the fact that most directors still choose to shoot in a wide format instead of the 1:1 ratio that full IMAX uses. So why, as a theater owner, would you waste money on a screen that is twice as big along with the space to house it when all that screen space ends up being wasted for the majority of the content you're showing?

I have been to a few theaters that had full sized 1:1 IMAX screens. I saw The Dark Knight on one and there were a few scenes that were shot in the 1:1 IMAX ratio and they looked amazing. It was just a shame the rest of the movie wasn't shot like that.
 
"but the story sucks..."

"not a problem, we can take the film and use a computer to make it 3D-like. Audiences love 3D movies!"

yeah, fuck that shit
 
i like when movies just threw in 3d parts to make the gimmick worth it.

resident evil after life was like that.
 
Saturn_V said:
Shot on 65mm and IMAX 65mm, printed on 70mm.
Click to expand...
Ah I see:

Dunkirk is being presented in Imax 70mm, standard 70mm and anamorphic 35mm, as well as digital formats — van Hoytema says roughly 70 percent of the movie was lensed with Imax cameras in 15-perf 65mm (65mm is the production format used for 70mm exhibition), and the rest with 5-perf 65mm using Panavision cameras.
 
Mut1ny said:
Oh really? Tell IMAX that. They've only been doing it for decades and things like VR headsets are doing absolutely terrible, too.
Click to expand...
IMAX 3d is leaps and bounds better than cinema 3d. Ive seen a few 3d movies in the theater and none of the 3d stuff added to the experience and it was actually a little more distracting and gave me a slight headache. When i can have IMAX quality 3d in the theater without it looking like a gimmick then i might try it again. 3D TV's were also a stupid gimmick that im glad is gone.
 
Mut1ny said:
I love how since some of you think 3D is a "gimmick" or it gives you a headache that you're GLAD it's going away. Like as if 3D existing hurts you or is forced on you and those of us who do enjoy it can just fuck off.

I've never seen a theater either that DOESN'T have the latest and greatest NOT in 3D or only in the "shitty" theaters. You people act like it's forced on you and shoved down your throat.

Christ, the hate on this stuff here is so cringeworthy. People being happy that an option is being taken away...
Click to expand...

Theaters charge a premium for 3D so in most cases there are 10+ 3D showings a day and maybe 2 non-3D showings.

So, yeah, it can't die fast enough.
 
I've seen the last two Star Wars movies in 3-D. The first time I was very disappointed by the 3-D coming attractions which looked like layered 2-D movies but the actual movie was amazing. Really amazing!
 
Zinn said:
So about those 3D TVs that were all the rage a few years back. Does everyone who bought abandonware technology get a partial refund?
Click to expand...
I have a 55" 240hz 3D TV. I tinkered with the 3D stuff with the free videos on Comcast On Demand and it wasn't bad really, just dopey demo stuff like Christopher Lee talking about ancient Egypt or whatever. The only issue was ya had to sit REAL close or else you're looking at a 3D window and the effect doesn't make sense.

3D had to bomb, there was no real other outcome since it required the glasses and only affected the screen area. Aside from a few movies that just happen to look really good in 3D (ie. Doctor Strange) it was a really tough sell. I saw Tron Legacy in 3D and I wasn't sure why they bothered, I mean in a few scenes it was ok but the rest was just "welp yay he's standing at a different depth than the other character."
 
Armenius said:
Most theaters do indeed use "minIMAX" instead of full IMAX, true, but this is an economic decision based on the fact that most directors still choose to shoot in a wide format instead of the 1:1 ratio that full IMAX uses. So why, as a theater owner, would you waste money on a screen that is twice as big along with the space to house it when all that screen space ends up being wasted for the majority of the content you're showing?

I have been to a few theaters that had full sized 1:1 IMAX screens. I saw The Dark Knight on one and there were a few scenes that were shot in the 1:1 IMAX ratio and they looked amazing. It was just a shame the rest of the movie wasn't shot like that.
Click to expand...

I completely agree I just didn't state it well. Real Imax is few and far between so Imax dropping 3D is irrelevant. Theaters are not going to invest a large amount of resources when there isn't enough content to make that money back.

I could make the case that 2.40:1 is the better format. Wide sweeping vistas horizontal panning all better in widescreen.

But then I'm biased as my home theater has a 2.35:1 screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top