3D movies have come and gone several times since their debut in the 1920’s. Why is this cycle different? Why am I confident that this time 3D is going to stick around for good? Demand has pretty much always been there with consumers, but up until now 3D technology’s flaws have been a major obstacle to long-term acceptance in the market place.

Digital technology has finally licked major technical flaws like ghosting and R/L image registration. Now we’re entering the kind of learning curve/adjustment that the industry went through following the introduction of those other technologies. But the other ingredient is the kind of “killer app” that makes 3D the undisputed preferred format for consumers.

Back in the 1920’s, synchronized sound had been in use for 3 years prior to “The Jazz Singer.” Dolby’s optical surround sound technology was launched in 1975, two years before “Star Wars” put it on the map. 3D needs something similar.

Many believe that “Avatar” is that killer app, but I think it’s really in home applications – and specifically 3D/stereoscopic video games and the 3D broadcast of sporting events. There’s no doubt that gamers are avid early adopters and that we’ll be seeing a lot more stereoscopic 3D games in homes in the next 12 months than movies. Having seen demos of 3D stereoscopic games I know first-hand how much that added dimension makes the games more compelling. Gamers will buy 3D systems because it makes their play that much better and experience.

Sports is the other killer app for 3D. I’m far from avid as a sports fan. Most of the time, I can take it or leave it – and usually leave it. But I can easily watch sports in 3D for hours, even sporting events that under other circumstances I would never give a second thought to. As sports and games fuel demand for 3D in the home, audience hunger for other 3D content will grow and we’ll see more and more quality 3D in theatres.

Sure, there is a learning curve involved to use 3D as an effective storytelling tool. Over the next few years, you’ll see a number of movies featuring literal “in your face” 3D effects simply for the sake of showing off 3D. But just as filmmakers learned to use color and multichannel sound as part of their arsenal of storytelling tools, so too will they learn to use 3D as a way to draw audiences into the worlds they create. As “Avatar” producer Jon Landau has frequently said, “it’s about creating a window into a world, and not a world coming out of a window.”

What needs to change is only the way Cinematographers think. Easier said than done I realize, but it will happen with the upcoming generation of movie-makers (can’t really call them film makers now in this day and age can we?)

I like Scott’s reasoning above, and believe that 3D can add to almost any genre of movie, action included, provided the movie-maker does not use established 2D cinematic templates and is willing to re-learn.

The other sad thing is the “NEW” way to make 3D movies. yes.. 2D to 3D conversions.
Copy pasting (I apologize for this as it looks like spam) my answer on another forum:
I saw the demo reel for a 2D to 3D conversion service
http://bsatlabs.com/showreels.html

. Based from that work, I have to say.. un-impressive. The start has a couple with a flat unconverted background. the next scene has a “wall papered” Chair on the balcony. Followup scenes show severe cardboarding and a Photoshop layered look at the village wedding. The last scene of the cobbled stones is nothing more than a gradient depth map that shows perspective skew.

Here’s another service provider: http://www.stereoscopicfx.com/examples.html

. You can see from the poster ad for the conversion service on the anaglyph image, how the palm tree is nothing more than an “extrusion” and the bush/hedge on the lower left of the scene is a cookie-cut extrusion. Is this the sate of the art that is the “NEW” way to make 3D movies?

About close to a year ago, I had criticized the Big-boys in conversion and questioned their work.
http://www.slideshare.net/clydd/2dto3dconvertedmovies

… Now in hind sight…come to think of it..at least they cared to a great extent!

To reply to your first point:

3D is not an enhancement of 2D in this respect, because the illusion of 3D is completely there in 2D. It has nothing to do with our imaginations. It’s how our minds work with our eyes. Nobody, watching 2D, ever thinks of it as lacking depth, because the camera, by recording perspective, supplies it. Perspective had to be discovered by painters in the Middle Ages. It is built in to the motion picture camera. We do not consciously notice the depth in 2D. Often we do in 3D. We should not.

Best,
Roger

3D on a 50″ TV looks dumb and I will not support it.

I am happy to see your refutation. You may have noticed that I was quoted by Roger. I did write that the 3-D can be dim because it can lose so much light because of its physics, but I did go on to say that other ystems, such as the RealD XL, Imax digital, and the Oculus3D system (my latest venture) are decently bright.

His article is part of a reaction that is occuring — see last week’s LA Times. As long as people think 3-D is fun, they will go. Bad content and bad projection can spoil the experience but that’s true for the 2D cinema too.

And I’m sorry, but paying 5 dollars to see a movie that only looks good when I keep my head perfectly straight, where only 2-3 scenes benefit from the extra dimension at all is a rip-off. The answer shouldn’t be “then don’t go at all”. Enjoy sitting by yourself while all of your friends are out on a Friday night.