Never Mind Film Vs. Digital: is 2D and Print "Dead"?

[amateriat]

I don't watch TV, and I don't frequent the cinema as much as I once did (galfriend did see Avatar in "just" 2D, as her older sister chided her about). And I love a finely-made print, be it silver or inkjet. But, of course, this guy keeps mouthing off about being the spearhead of the Next Big Thing, which of course will render everything before it "gaslight." (Okay, I'm quoting Herbert von Karajan's remark about the Compact Disc at its debut eons ago...come to think of it, look at what's tearing that medium a new one now!)

Damn, I was so happy when his ex thrashed his hiney at the Academy Awards.

Me? I'm skeptical as usual.


- Barrett

 

[Krzys]

All of the new '3D' movies seem to just have some extra rendered depth and no actual 3D effects like Avatar did. It was a fun novelty and wore off about halfway through the movie.....I then went back to watch it on some less than legal substances and nearly died of a headache.

What is with the loss of brightness when you put on the glasses too. Is it me or is it depressing to watch a movie so dark?

 

[sevo]

The film industry (and to a lesser degree the photo industry as well) has attempted to push 3D as the next big thing after sound and colour for eighty years. "Avatar" is unlikely to change that. Past 3D B-movie blockbusters like "The Monster from the Black Lagoon" or "The Blob" were just as popular in their time, and did not establish 3D either.

Face the facts: 3D is highly artificial and not at all immersive as long as it is restricted to mass audience projection systems. If it ever takes off, it will be in the form of home entertainment with helmet or spectacle like interfaces.

 

[Sparrow]

The IMAX is already a superior experience, even with the re-mastered 35mm films, the 70mm portrait format is simply spectacular, there is even am IMAX 3D camera but it’s a bit on the heavy side and I imagine the film cost is a bit prohibitive

 

[Krzys]

Speaking of Imax....anyone who liked the time-lapse scenes of Koyaanisqatsi should really check out Chronos (1985). Corerct me if I'm wrong but I believe that it was shot on 70mm and is one of the highest quality scanned films on Blue-Ray ever produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronos_(film)

 

[Sparrow]

I’ve not seen that, but there is a 48fps IMAX HD system, but I don’t think anyone can afford the film.

Even the short standard films are so lifelike I’ve seen people leave the cinema with motion sickness.

 

[SebC]

I am firmly of the opinion that the real benefit of 3d in movie theatres is that it stops people from making a passable copy with a dv camera. In effect it's DRM for movies. Oh, and they get to charge more for tickets.

 

[Krzys]

Haha when the new 3D movies first came out recently I was more amazed by my friend's Blueray and HD tv which included extra frames in digitally to give some insanely high FPS. The fluidity was mindblowing. Though its funny to watch cartoons when they move too smooth - looks like cardboard cutouts.

 

[johannielscom]

I think film-based still photography could benefit hugely from the 3D hype. Imagine, if all major camera manufactures jump the 3D band wagon, those that do not like the 3D thingie would become much more interested in the 'good ole 2D' technology.

Digital don't do much for me, 3D even less. But those that swing back and forth between the ease of digital and the 'art of true photography' might get that extra push to resort to film.

I think the industries will come in heavy when promoting 3D. it might be a nice trick to at least temporarily stop those pirating films and to get people back in the cinema seat.

 

[batterytypehah!]

I have yet to see any of the new 3D stuff. Not that I'm a complete Luddite, it's just that we don't go to the movies often and when we do, paying $12 each to watch a "blockbuster" at a "multiplex" with that infernal artificial butter aroma permeating everything is not very high on the list.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure this time 3D is here to stay. Reasonably priced and capable 3D TV sets are already out, and once the usual format wars are over and prices come down, you'll be hard pressed to find any quality non-3D models.

Personally, I think that not only are 2D and photographic prints dead, but the still image itself is in declining health, too. Have you been to a mall, or a fast food chain, or the checkout at a Walmart lately? Video LCD panels are everywhere. Now print media are being replaced by iPad devices, and people seem to use them more for interactive and video content than to read the "paper." Rest assured a 3D version is already in the works. Couple more years, Apple's sure-to-be stylish 3D glasses will be the new white earbuds.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Personally, I think that not only are 2D and photographic prints dead, but the still image itself is in declining health, too.

I couldn't agree more. I have a hard time believing that art galleries are selling photographic prints from current artists at the rate that they did 10 (much less 50) years ago. People can find great images any time they want just by browsing flickr. Why pay for them?

Photography is something that should be done without any expectation of fame/fortune/acclaim, IMHO. I believe this not only philosophically, but also realistically. Just shoot what you enjoy and forget about where the medium is going; that train of thought leads nowhere happy.

 

[bsdunek]

What I see is that the movies still are really bad. No content, character development, bad story line, often poor photography, bad editing, etc. It’s only the effects that come through. I guess that means, yes, 3-D will take over.
I’ll take good art over fake effects anytime, but then, I’m in the minority.