At which point it will look like a youtube video to many, not like a movie in the cinema. High frame rates haven't been successful for several years, I don't see why this should change. Same for 3D. Maybe there will be another trend that enables it, but as of now 3D wasn't a great success.
I too find 3D gimmicky often, but probably because the technology varies grandly between production, cameras and theater displays. On the other hand, there are 3D movies every day in every big cinemas and 3D TVs as well. So I'm not sure we can say that it wasn't a great success.
> High frame rates haven't been successful for several years
The number of cinemas that can display 48fps is not great, the number of cinemas that can display 60fps is zero? So I don't know how you can say that "High frame rates haven't been successful for several years".
Actually if you look on Youtube, high FPS videos are successful.
> At which point it will look like a youtube video to many, not like a movie in the cinema
There are some great youtube videos out there, don't know why you're saying this. Cinema is what you're defining as 24fps, sure because you're used to it. If tomorrow we start watching a lot of 60fps movies then you will define it as Cinema. Objectively 60fps is better for action movies anyway, the rest will follow.
I think it will change because high frame rates look much better. It's not what people are used to, but what people are used to changes over time.
3D has two major problems. First is that the technology sucks. The glasses are heavy, bulky, and don't do a particularly good job of filtering out the opposite eye's channel. Second is that filmmakers don't understand how to do 3D at all. Every 3D film I've seen loves to add parallax where there should not be parallax. They don't understand that binocular depth perception only works out to a few dozen feet, which causes anything with observable parallax to be perceived to be nearby, and that in turn causes large objects to look tiny. Seeing a spaceship or airplane or mountain that looks like a toy because the filmmakers decided to "pop" it out of the screen is the exact opposite of a cinematic experience.
High frame rate doesn't have this problem. The technology is good, and using it properly in films doesn't appear to be a failing.
Fake parallax that just turn epic scenes and scenery into tabletop models.
It's obvious, but why do they ruin their efforts like that. Don't they watch their own movies after post 3d editing?
I think even Avatar made it too far. I think I've whatched some animated films that didn't blow totally, but almost every other film that I have seen in 3d was a disappointment.
This is complete speculation, but my guess is something like: the people who might understand this (skilled directors and such) are used to 2D and don't much care for 3D, and the people who push 3D (executives) are too obsessed with making things "pop" to realize what they're doing.
Either they are huge, to get two cameras side by side, or they have a half-silvered mirror arrangement (with colour disparity)
Add to that the rigs wobble (vomit inducing) and the distance between the cameras is far to wide, it all looks a bit poop, or requires a huge amount of post work to make fly.
So the normal thing to do is manually cut out each object (rotoscope) and adjust the divergence to place it in 3d.
every object, every frame.
it mostly looks a bit poop.
Not to mention is normally done quickly, like clash of the titans was converted in ~1 month.
