2 ms·

I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? 3D movies are still around, though sadly "real" 3D is pretty rare (remove the "Filmed in 2D" from

I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? 3D movies are still around, though sadly "real" 3D is pretty rare (remove the "Filmed in 2D" from the list, and of course the Digital 3D animations have different constraints : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%9.... But it's kind of weird that you would say this, with 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere now (if not in homes any more, though my own TV is still compatible), especially with Avatar 2 that just released ? https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-high-frame-rate-104938634.html https://news.yahoo.com/james-cameron-avatar-way-of-water-3d-...

wpietri 4y ago
> I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? I in fact don't. The wave starts earlier. > 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere It's an option that not many people pick. Even before the pandemic, 3D ticket sales were declining: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023 https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=... And it has rebounded less well than 2D: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office... Compare that with the introduction of color or sound, and it's pretty obvious that 3D films are at best a niche. I haven't heard of any 3D film that's offered only in 3D. Even Avatar 2 is available in 2D, suggesting that even James Cameron, one of 3D's biggest proponents, considers it optional. Will theaters keep offering it? Probably, but theaters are a business in decline and so are desperate for anything that gets people coming in. Just looking at some theaters selling Avatar tickets, 3D is treated as an amenity like Dolby sound or reclining seats or "plush rockers", whatever those are. Perfectly nice, but hardly the stuff of societal transformation like Zuckerberg is hoping for.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Wasn't Avatar 1 also available in 2D ? When 3D was NOT an amenity ? Anyway, yeah, arguably even color wasn't "transformational" (sound probably was ?) But then 3D films and TVs are pretty much offtopic anyway - unlike VR/AR compared to 2D (or even 3D) monitors, they don't radically change the mode of interaction compared to 2D films and TV... (not to say that VR/AR will be successful)
  - wpietri 4y ago
    3D films are relevant in that they are an example where something that was technically better was not transformational. And where there was a lot of hype but it turned out that people didn't really care. Which is important, because Meta is betting tens to hundreds of billions that facehugger VR will be transformational. If you go back to the Brewster stereoscope, I count 6 waves of people expecting that stereoscopic 3D would change the world. Each time, there was lots of investment and lots of hype. Each time, it turned out that people were fine mentally reconstructing 3D from 2D without stereoscopic assistance. My point here is that Meta's efforts could well be failed wave number 7.

wpietri 4y ago

> I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? I in fact don't. The wave starts earlier. > 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere It's an option that not many people pick. Even before the pandemic, 3D ticket sales were declining: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023 https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=... And it has rebounded less well than 2D: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office... Compare that with the introduction of color or sound, and it's pretty obvious that 3D films are at best a niche. I haven't heard of any 3D film that's offered only in 3D. Even Avatar 2 is available in 2D, suggesting that even James Cameron, one of 3D's biggest proponents, considers it optional. Will theaters keep offering it? Probably, but theaters are a business in decline and so are desperate for anything that gets people coming in. Just looking at some theaters selling Avatar tickets, 3D is treated as an amenity like Dolby sound or reclining seats or "plush rockers", whatever those are. Perfectly nice, but hardly the stuff of societal transformation like Zuckerberg is hoping for.

BlueTemplar 4y ago
Wasn't Avatar 1 also available in 2D ? When 3D was NOT an amenity ? Anyway, yeah, arguably even color wasn't "transformational" (sound probably was ?) But then 3D films and TVs are pretty much offtopic anyway - unlike VR/AR compared to 2D (or even 3D) monitors, they don't radically change the mode of interaction compared to 2D films and TV... (not to say that VR/AR will be successful)
- wpietri 4y ago
  3D films are relevant in that they are an example where something that was technically better was not transformational. And where there was a lot of hype but it turned out that people didn't really care. Which is important, because Meta is betting tens to hundreds of billions that facehugger VR will be transformational. If you go back to the Brewster stereoscope, I count 6 waves of people expecting that stereoscopic 3D would change the world. Each time, there was lots of investment and lots of hype. Each time, it turned out that people were fine mentally reconstructing 3D from 2D without stereoscopic assistance. My point here is that Meta's efforts could well be failed wave number 7.