Are stereo movies going slowly out of date ...at last?

[jstrob]

I love to watch movies. but I always thought stereo movies are alway just a gadget or craze with some peaks in history that always end up fading and letting place to the real cinema: the one with just a standard 2D screen slightly more large than high and with good surround sound system.

If this chart is representative...:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films

...there was a peak in 2014 with around 60 stereo movies, then it started fading with around 40 in 2015 and around 20 in 2016 and just around 5 annouced for 2017. Or maybe the list is incomplete?

And now VR!!! I hate this system that put the camera in the end of the viewer and probably will give him a neck pain! For now it takes an insane resolution to get a crappy result. Another craze that I hope will fade even faster than stereo. (And ther's even stereo VR... YEuuurrrk!)

Ok I'm really not partial cause I am the guy having the do the renders and I hate to render double and 10 times the resolution without talking about 3d assets and compositing problems with that kind of setup for a gadget craze that in my opinion rarely really add something to a story.

So I would like to know other people's opinion here about that. Is stereo and VR just gadget crazes that ware slowly but surely going to fade?

[AlexP]

Its surely rather the next eventual step as real time rendering improves and VR gadgetry improves, why stare at a 2D still when you could look around in full 3D?
Im all for stereo panos/rendering, i think they're far superior to 2D.

im coming from an Arch viz pov so, guess it may depend what field someone is in.

[flino2004]

depending of the market I think...Real 3D we all know takes more time in production and you have to pay 50% more in movie theaters to watch the movie in 3D....maybe they have numbers and it doesn't make sense financially.
On the other hand I can see them (including VR) more and more in the architectural visualization & Real estate marketing material....because you are selling something and more tools to seal the deal is better.
In movies you see all types of qualities in CGI when they try to cut corners to be more profitable...one example is "Lord of the rings", They started very well with excellent effects and CGI but the latest movie the effects look very cheap, almost for TV.

[jstrob]

Oh yes I agree with you AlexP for any kind of vizualisation, stereo and vr are worth it. I was thinking only with movies in mind. I don't think the 7th Art necessarily need 3D and VR though I still do think that once in a while some specific movie may makes good use of it and I could enjoy watching one of these movies once every 10 years. But I don't see VR and stereo like an evolution for movies but rather like some gadget that could be useful only for a bunch of stories once in a while.

[jstrob]

And I agree with you too flino2004, I was a huge fan of Peter Jackson even before he started to be famous with lord of the ring and I enjoyed the 2 first movies, I don't remember the 3rd one and I didn't even bother watching the last Hobbit....

[AlexP]

Movies, im not 100% convinced yet. Its cool sometimes, but it's too unnatural at the moment imo, quite a strain watching a stereo movie on a big screen I find.
First transformers at the Imax in stereo was seriously hard to watch.
But I think its more a current tech limitation, once they figure it out I reckon it could be back quite popular again.

[flino2004]

if you have the chance to rent the hobbits out ...do it, you would see how bad the effects are,... in some cases pixeled backgrounds, out of scale elements, wrong perspective, etc.... the characters, some were poor done.... in one scene if I remember well... they were running and the movements of the feet were off with the speed ..... so many terrible effects.!!!!!

it looks like they hire the same people that worked on "Sharknado"

[hardrock_ram]

At least VR is taking technology forward, unlike 3D glasses ...

The thing about movies is that we are not neccessarily watching to be "in" them. Rather, we are connecting with and are engaged in the characters, what they do and how they develop. VR is also making it difficult for the director to focus the audiences attention as razor sharp as they do today. In other words, I don`t see a place for VR in traditional movies, and it holds the potential to ruin movies to a much larger extent than 3D glasses.

On the other hand: When it comes to games, visualization, experiences and so on, I regard VR as a huge leap forward that can really take things to a whole new level.

[Mokiki]

To be honest and I'll probably sound selfish but I surely hope so. Since I have a defect in one eye and can't really see the 3D glasses effect 90% of the time I haven't been to the cinema at all. Because most of the time the movies I'd like to see are only shown in 3D which I don't really feel like paying extra for and just get a headache halfway through the film.

[RotemS]

why stare at a 2D still when you could look around in full 3D?

That's highly debatable. One answer to your question might be "because it distracts from the story", and cinema is fundamentally a tool for storytelling. Feeling physically immersed in an environment is not necessary the same as feeling emotionally immersed in a story line or conceptual world.

I feel going with 3D or VR somewhat strips away some of the tools of the movie maker, because it's easier for the viewers to decide for themselves which element in the frame they want to focus their attention on. For interactive experiences such as games or arch-viz, this is often an advantage. For traditional predetermined storytelling, I am not so sure.

[hardrock_ram]

To be honest and I'll probably sound selfish but I surely hope so. Since I have a defect in one eye and can't really see the 3D glasses effect 90% of the time I haven't been to the cinema at all. Because most of the time the movies I'd like to see are only shown in 3D which I don't really feel like paying extra for and just get a headache halfway through the film.

Cant`really see the 3D glasses effect and getting a headache halfway through the film - Believe me, that experience isn`t limited to people with eye defects :P

[kalamazandy]

I think they all have their own place. Think about a movie where you're watching the movie as one of the characters. It could position you As the character. You'd have control of everywhere you look, but the character still says everything, and moves however. But you look around based on whatever reaction you would have as that character. That would be a pretty cool way to tell a story. But other than something like that, the VR films would seem kind of dumb to me. Plus, they'd have to be direct to home sales unless VR theaters start popping up. That'd be a great place to get robbed.

For 3D, I think many people get headaches from mistakes rather than the effects. If you don't do it properly, it makes you dizzy. One big issue is DOF. you use DOF to help place where you want someone to look. But in 3D I can look wherever I want, and Now it makes me a bit uncomfortable to do it. I think there's a bit of a learning curve there with what camera lenses you can actually use without making people ill, and how much you can try and force the viewer what to look at. It's a different art. You can't just take a 2D film crew, and go shoot a 3D movie. And for goodness sake, don't just convert to 3D with rotoscoping layers. That's painful. I'm looking at You Wrath of Titans.

I enjoy 3D movies when I forget they are in 3D. I thought Prometheus did a great job, and there weren't really any gimmicks. They had mostly all great shots, and the 3D added a bit to some of the shots. But it seems every movie has a few spots where I'm less than impressed with a shot here and there. And in 3D, that poor shot may give you a headache? Yikes.
Looking at 3D movies in a slightly different way may help some of the more close minded, on the subject, to enjoy them a bit more. If you look for how some of the scenes end up really adding something to the environment and feel of a shot, you end up appreciating it more.

I'm not sure if I'm right about what causes the headaches. I only seem to be bothered by the 3D when there are actual glitches/mismatched lenses, etc. But I don't get headaches. It just makes me uncomfortable, and cringe a bit. So just close one eye through those things? I wish the glasses had one eye that you could quickly rotate to change the polarization. That way, if something sucks, you can just view it in 2D.