Monsters v Aliens 3D & The Future Movie Experience

[satchat]

3DTV is here and it is going to change the way we view TV in such a dramatic way!

I first saw this technology about 10 years ago in DisneyLand Florida with the Bugs Life 3D and that was an awesome experience including vibrating seats for the shock effect and water sprayed to give the effect of rain and it was really exciting to incorporate the audience into the film experience.

It is now very much appearing in our local cinema's and I am writing about my first experience watching Monster V Aliens 3D. I must say I did enjoy it, the film was funny the graphics were great but for me 3D TV still has a long way to come to be in par with what I saw in DisneyLand 10 years ago. The effect leaves the screen very much in front of your face and your senses really do get a fright when something comes towards you. I believe that horror movies will be so much better with this technology and the cinema will be the only place to be at halloween.

Great movie, great technology so why do I still feel like we are behind the times? Maybe because a movie theatre should not longer be a popcorn filled floor it should be a collection of tools in order to grip their audience. Compressed air on the back of your neck when a monster roars on screen and the chair should vibrate when there is an earthquake and water should spray the audience when a character gets sprayed by water like they did in Disney Land when I first went. This would really grip the audience and you would no longer be able to incorporate such an experience into the home like we can do now with surround sound systems because you would not want water sprayed all over your front room. You would however, want this experience at the cinema and you would be willing to pay for such an experience.

I do have some worries about the 3D experience which I know will be raised in the future if they have not already. When I left the cinema my eyes were very strained to a degree which I have never experienced watching traditional TV. I have some worries that long term exposure to this type of technology may be harmful to peoples eyesight (please understand that this is my personal opinion and I have no medical evidence of such facts) it will be interesting to see if others have the same problems but I can see this type of technology being open to legal battles.

I must stress that my worries must not stop you from an experience which will be very much a part of everyones home entertainment system within 10 years and as early as 1-2 years with the proposed 3D Sky systems which are a working progress. I very much welcome 3D TV but I am also looking for the complete movie experience.

Satchat

[cockroach]

Much has been said about the new era of 3D movies. It seems that the success of Monsters vs. Aliens (raking in $59.3 million in North America on its opening weekend!) will usher in a lot of similar 3D movies, and has a lot of people and the media asking if 3D movies are here to stay. And will it last?

[cockroach]

I do have some worries about the 3D experience which I know will be raised in the future if they have not already. When I left the cinema my eyes were very strained to a degree which I have never experienced watching traditional TV. I have some worries that long term exposure to this type of technology may be harmful to peoples eyesight (please understand that this is my personal opinion and I have no medical evidence of such facts) it will be interesting to see if others have the same problems but I can see this type of technology being open to legal battles.


There is an explanation for this one. Actually, in real life, everything is in 3D. Your eyes are used to it, but with one exception, it adjusts itself, it's called convergence and accommodation. Simply your eyes adjust itself when something comes too close to you and expands your line of vision. These movements are not possible with the same sized screen, so your eyes do not get to adjust itself.

It's actually a common problem with stereoscopic images like 3D movies, and it's been known to happen in flight simulators and VR displayers.

[Olongoer]

I think that 3D movies will become bigger this year. With that kind of money coming in for a movie in times of a global crisis? Am sure there will be lots of companies who would want to join the bandwagon

[vanreek]

I think you're right. I also think that for the short term, movie theatres will benefit from 3D movies because not too many devices are good for viewing 3D content right now. So people will flock to theatres to see a 3D movie. What's more movie outfits also stand to benefit from that trend because there would be less demand for pirated 3D movies, specially if you can't watch it at home.

[satchat]

I agree with you pirated movies will not be able to re-produce the 3D graphics so people will have to purchase the real thing or go to the cinema. Especially if they add more effects and vibration into the cinema seats you will not want to be anywhere else on the weekend but the cinema.

[Jennifer_Amistad]

I agree with you pirated movies will not be able to re-produce the 3D graphics so people will have to purchase the real thing or go to the cinema. Especially if they add more effects and vibration into the cinema seats you will not want to be anywhere else on the weekend but the cinema.

To be honest? I don't think it will totally eradicate pirated movies. For one 3D content can only lend itself well in some genres. Drama, comedy and romance will be produced in 2D. It does not make sense to have something like a Hugh Grant romantic film in 3D.

I am guessing that 3D movies will be done for horror/suspense, animation, some action films... and that is where 3D will shine. But these are genres that traditionally have been better to watch in cinemas...

[eMo]

Oh, I would have to agree with Jennifer_Amistad here. Pirated movies are here to stay not just because not all movies will be in 3D, but also because I think it's cheaper to download movies over the net and convenient too. Specially at a time like this when things are not so hot financially. That reasoning is what drives another argument of mine which is it's cheaper to stay in rather than go out.

Another thing is that not everyone would like 3D movies.

[awkwardsilence]

Hmmmn... I have not been out for some time to watch a movie, I just catch movies on DVD or cable. But I am interested in seeing a 3D movie... anyone in need of a Saturday night date? Friendly terms of course :) I can pay my way in. I've heard that 3D movies costs more than the usual movies

[KrisyaKeno]

3D this, 3D that. Frankly, I see it as a clunky piece of technology. What's the big deal with 3d?

[ManniPakyaw]

Well, 3D actually introduces spatial depth. You don't see a square (2D) but a cube (3D), 3D also approximates how we view things in real life, so the movie watching experience is richer and more real.

[TheGENERAL]

Hmmmn... one way I could think of to really highlight the differences is through an ultrasound image of a fetus. This is what you get with 2D

http://www.yourultrasound.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/20wkuked.jpg

[TheGENERAL]

and this is what you get with 3d
http://www.yourultrasound.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/3ded.jpg

[TheGENERAL]

For those of you who has yet to watch a 3D film, here is one article about a guy's experience, and it's very enlightening too:

Grand Blanc Township, Mich. -- The purple ball practically bounced off the screen toward me, announcing that the movie I was about to see was shot "InTru 3D."

It was an impressive sight -- and sensation -- a portent of things to come as the three-dimensional visual pleasures of "Monsters vs. Aliens" -- giant robots, little talking ****roaches, big-headed presidents (or is that redundant?) and a super-sized woman who sounded like Reese Witherspoon -- came to life on the big screen.

More: Doug Pullen: We need a 4-story screen for movies - El Paso Times (http://www.elpasotimes.com/entertainment/ci_12134302)

[cholesterol]

Sorry guys, but am not really sold on 3D yet. For one it is awkward watching 3D movies. SOmething about it makes my eyes hurt! I also think that 3D is not as realistic as other people are saying it is. While we do see 3D in real life, I really don't think that you see your computer monitor lunging at you, do you? So in a way that's not realistic at all

[NuRsInGaIde]

Sorry guys, but am not really sold on 3D yet. For one it is awkward watching 3D movies. SOmething about it makes my eyes hurt! I also think that 3D is not as realistic as other people are saying it is. While we do see 3D in real life, I really don't think that you see your computer monitor lunging at you, do you? So in a way that's not realistic at all

While I would agree that it takes a little getting used to, I do think that 3D movies would find a greater audience soon enough.

[NuRsInGaIde]

There is an explanation for this one. Actually, in real life, everything is in 3D. Your eyes are used to it, but with one exception, it adjusts itself, it's called convergence and accommodation. Simply your eyes adjust itself when something comes too close to you and expands your line of vision. These movements are not possible with the same sized screen, so your eyes do not get to adjust itself.

It's actually a common problem with stereoscopic images like 3D movies, and it's been known to happen in flight simulators and VR displayers.

I think that the notion that 3D movies hurt our eyes is so 50's! :) Technology has been very fast in correcting this. It is much more pleasant to watch 3D now with all the advances in digital video production and projection.

[PedroChatter]

Sorry guys, but am not really sold on 3D yet. For one it is awkward watching 3D movies. SOmething about it makes my eyes hurt! I also think that 3D is not as realistic as other people are saying it is. While we do see 3D in real life, I really don't think that you see your computer monitor lunging at you, do you? So in a way that's not realistic at all

Well, for me, I think if it's animation it's fine. I haven't seen the new monsters vs. aliens, but I saw hmmmn... journey to the center of the earth, I think. You have to be in the center of the movie theatre to appreciate it... because we were seated at the sides and I got a splitting headache not 30 minutes into the movie.

[PedroChatter]

I think that the notion that 3D movies hurt our eyes is so 50's! :) Technology has been very fast in correcting this. It is much more pleasant to watch 3D now with all the advances in digital video production and projection.

I also think that animators are careful not to create images that makes your eyes feel crossed. I know for one the Dreamworks have this kind of rule in place.

[awkwardsilence]

I still think that 3D is nothing more than a novelty. After the curiosity is satisfied, and the fad passes, we'd be back to our old 2D movies! :)

[rosaasor]

Here's an article from Time about 3D technology!

Are 3-D Movies Ready for Their Closeup?

The lights dim in the screening room. Suddenly, the doomed Titanic fills the screen--but not the way I remember in the movie. The luxury liner is nearly vertical, starting its slide into the black Atlantic, and Leonardo DiCaprio is hanging on for life, just like always. But this time, I am too. The camera pans to the icy water far below, pulling me into the scene--the sensation reminds me of jerking awake from a dream--and I grip the sides of my seat to keep from falling into the drink.

Most of us have seen the top-grossing film of all time. But not like this. The new version, still in production, was remade in digital 3-D, a technology that's finally bringing a true third dimension to movies. Without giving you a headache. (See the 100 best movies of all time.)

Had digital 3-D been available a dozen or so years ago when he shot Titanic, he'd have used it, director James Cameron tells me later. "But I didn't have it at the time," he says ruefully. "Certainly every film I'm planning to do will be in 3-D."

Digital 3-D, which has slowly been gaining steam over the past few years, is finally ready for its closeup. Just about every top director and major studio is doing it--a dozen movies are slated to arrive this year, with dozens more in the works for 2010 and beyond. These are not just animations but live-action films, comedies, dramas and documentaries. Cameron is currently shooting a live-action drama, Avatar, for Fox in 3-D. Disney and its Pixar studio are releasing five 3-D movies this year alone, including a 3-D-ified version of Toy Story. George Lucas hopes to rerelease his Star Wars movies in 3-D. And Steven Spielberg is currently shooting Tintin in it, with Peter Jackson doing the 3-D sequel next year. Live sports and rock concerts in 3-D have been showing up at digital theaters around the U.S. nearly every week.

With the release on March 27 of Monsters vs. Aliens, Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of DreamWorks Animation SKG, is betting the future of his studio on digital 3-D. While he's not the first to embrace the technology, he has become its most vocal evangelist, asserting that digital 3-D is now good enough to make it--after sound and color--the third sea change to affect movies. "This really is a revolution," he says.

Over the past few years, Katzenberg has repositioned DreamWorks as a 3-D-animation company. From Monsters on, all its movies will be made, natively, in 3-D. That's a pretty big commitment since 3-D involves even more computer power than usual. The DreamWorks crew invokes "Shrek's law," which holds that every sequel takes about twice as long to render--create a final image from models--as the movie that preceded it. Authoring the movie in 3-D effectively doubles the time called for by Shrek's law.

Katzenberg says going 3-D adds about 15% to his costs--which is nothing compared with the profits studios anticipate as the digital transformation takes hold. Digital 3-D movies usually gross at least three times as much as their flat-world counterparts--thanks in part to the higher ticket prices and longer runs they garner. Another benefit: 3-D films are far more difficult for digital-camera-toting moviegoers to pirate. (See pictures of movie costumes.)

Beyond the venal, however, filmmakers say that 3-D, like sound and color, really breaks down the barrier between audience and movie. "At some level, I believe that almost any movie benefits from 3-D," Lord of the Rings director Jackson says. "As a filmmaker, I want you to suspend disbelief and get lost in the film--participate in the film rather than just observe it. On that level, 3-D can only help."

3-D Movies, Take 8
If the return of the 3-D movie sounds like a rerun, that's because it is. By some counts, this is 3-D's eighth incarnation, and to date, it hasn't exactly revolutionized the industry. The first stereoscopic movies appeared in the U.S. before the last Great Depression, disappeared, then enjoyed a schmaltzy revival in the 1950s with such blockbusters as House of Wax (1953). They've cropped up intermittently ever since, typically attached to high-camp vehicles like Andy Warhol's Frankenstein (1973).

"To me, 3-D has always been the circus coming to town," says Daniel Symmes, a 3-D historian and film-industry veteran. Symmes worked on the soft-core 3-D hit The Stewardesses, which was produced in 1969 for around $100,000. It grossed more than $27 million, making it the most profitable 3-D movie ever. Symmes scoffs at today's digital 3-D and its big budgets and says it's déjà vu. "Does the circus stay around?" he says. "No. If it does, attendance drops off, the novelty is gone and the circus goes away."

But proponents say digital 3-D is a different animal from the ****og stuff that came before 2005. Viewers often wore cardboard glasses with red and cyan cellophane lenses (similar to but somewhat different from what you see in this magazine). As just about everyone knows, old-school 3-D was less than awesome. Colors looked washed out. Some viewers got headaches. A few vomited. "Making your customers sick is not a recipe for success," Katzenberg likes to say.

It was cumbersome to produce too. In the old days, two 65-mm, 150-lb. film cameras--each shooting the same scene in sync--were used to make a 3-D picture. The gap between the lenses simulates the space between our eyes, adding space perception. But with film, you never knew how the shot would turn out until later.

The birth of high-definition, digital filmmaking changed all that. Cameron and an associate, Vince Pace, developed the 3-D-capable Fusion camera system, which is cheaper, smaller--13 lb. each--and way more versatile than the old film rigs. "Every movie I made, up until Tintin, I always kept one eye closed when I've been framing a shot," Spielberg told me. That's because he wanted to see the movie in 2-D, the way moviegoers would. "On Tintin, I have both of my eyes open."

A Beverly Hills company called Real D took the lead on the theater side. It leases out a kind of digital shutter system that sits in front of digital projectors, alternating the two views of each frame 144 times per sec.--fast enough to achieve stereovision. The new system uses polarization, rather than color-coding. Gone are the completely cheesy cardboard glasses, replaced with slightly less cheesy disposable plastic-frame glasses that have gray lenses. "Someday," predicts Katzenberg, "people will buy their own movie glasses, which they'll take to the movies--like people have their own tennis rackets."

Even if you're willing to grant him the glasses, there's still one problem. For digital 3-D to work, the movie theater must first convert from ****og to digital--that is, from reels of film to data feeds. Theaters have been slow to do it, citing the expense and security. Disney chairman **** Cook is credited with breaking the initial logjam with Chicken Little in 2005. About 75 theaters converted to digital to show the film, and a surprising thing happened: 3-D theaters reported three to four times the box-office gross as those that showed the 2-D version. (All 3-D movies can easily be stepped down to 2-D and are typically shown in both forms.) That was the jump start digital 3-D needed. Katzenberg predicts that more than 2,000 theaters will be 3-D-ready by this week. (See the top 10 movie performances of 2008.)

But in this economy, will people spend as much as $15 a ticket for a movie? Katzenberg is optimistic, pointing out that consumers are cutting back on everything but cheap entertainment. "The movies have been the greatest beneficiary of this," he says. "So to offer a new, exciting premium version of a bargain will be a big winner."

The Future of 3-D
Cameron's Avatar, due in December, could be the thing that forces theaters to convert to digital. Spielberg predicts it will be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever. More than a thousand people have worked on it, at a cost in excess of $200 million, and it represents digital filmmaking's bleeding edge. Cameron wrote the treatment for it in 1995 as a way to push his digital-production company to its limits. ("We can't do this," he recalled his crew saying. "We'll die.") He worked for years to build the tools he needed to realize his vision. The movie pioneers two unrelated technologies--e-motion capture, which uses images from tiny cameras rigged to actors' heads to replicate their expressions, and digital 3-D.

Avatar is filmed in the old "Spruce Goose" hangar, the 16,000-sq.-ft. space where Howard Hughes built his wooden airplane. The film is set in the future, and most of the action takes place on a mythical planet, Pandora. The actors work in an empty studio; Pandora's lush jungle-aquatic environment is computer-generated in New Zealand by Jackson's special-effects company, Weta Digital, and added later.

I couldn't tell what was real and what was animated--even knowing that the 9-ft.-tall blue, dappled dude couldn't possibly be real. The scenes were so startling and absorbing that the following morning, I had the peculiar sensation of wanting to return there, as if Pandora were real.

Cameron wasn't surprised. One theory, he says, is that 3-D viewing "is so close to a real experience that it actually triggers memory creation in a way that 2-D viewing doesn't." His own theory is that stereoscopic viewing uses more neurons. That's possible. After watching all that 3-D, I was a bit wiped out. I was also totally entertained.

[satchat]

Without a shadow of a doubt 3D movies are here to stay. It does feel very novelty i agree but its still in the transitional period where they have not used it to its full potential. I agree that pirated movies will still exist people will always sacrifice quality to ensure that they see the movie but the amount of people who go to the cinema will definately increase which will cause a major decrease in demand for pirated movies.

[Beamer]

Now as Satchat had noted in an early post, 3D has been with us for a while and it is mostly featured in theme parks. Our own Legoland Windsor will soon join the list of these 3D friendly theme parks as it works to have its Imagination Theatre equipped with RealD's 3D technology

[awkwardsilence]

Actually Legoland Windsor has been using a dual projector for its 3D offerings. Now they will have RealD's XL Cinema System.

[cholesterol]

Great move for RealD. although they have been involved in a lot of cinema projects here, this is their first foray in installing their technology into a European theme park.

[rosaasor]

Well, yeah. But I think Legoland would be able to save a ton of money from having just one projector too. That would mean one less machine to maintain and lesser down times. It works both ways.

[NuRsInGaIde]

Am sure that Legoland Windsor's decision has been greatly influenced by the success of RealD's efforts with Legoland California.