Wednesday, January 26, 2011

To Convert Or Not To Convert...




That is the question... Honor here. The Colonel wanted to chime in on something he knows quite a bit about: 3-D. Being a colonel in the Army and all he deals with technology a great deal of the time. So in this battle of wills, this war of words about 3-D and conversion versus filming it, he wanted to set the field of battle for you...


Now that the “Green Hornet” is out in theaters, I thought this would be a perfect time to discuss the 3D conversion at length. While many Internet users and bloggers attack the 3D conversion process for over a year now (I vaguely remember how many people rallied that the upcoming “Priest was SHOT with 3D cameras after they saw the trailer at comic-con only to have an epic FAIL finding out that it was post-converted). The truth is finally beginning to rise to the surface and that is that 3D POST CONVERSION IS BETTER THAN SHOOTING IN NATIVE STEREO.

Yes, I said it, now let the hate mail come. People that have been screaming and writing that the 3D process is just a “gimmick” and it is “dead’ might as well stop reading this right now, and respond to that email from the Nigerian Prince who has a million dollars to give you if only you just send him a couple of thousands. 3D is here to stay, the numbers show it (50%-70% of Box Office revenue is derived from stereoscopic 3D movies”. Price Waterhouse Cooper) as well as it might be the only thing to save the Blu-Ray format. Because streaming is becoming more and more popular, the DVD is going the way of the dodo bird, but not Blu-Ray and certainly not 3D Blu-Ray. In fact, 3D Blu-Ray will wind up saving the Blu-Ray format. Because you can’t pirate it (yes, the studios love this), and because it requires higher bandwith (much higher than what is available out there right now), and even if they get the bandwidth, they have to send a right eye, left eye file and that would be double the bandwidth, so Blu-Ray 3D will be the format for a long time to come. The content has just started to come out for the home market and it will double by the next year thanks to Disney (they are releasing 15 titles in the next year).

Many companies have begun to ‘retro-fit’ older properties (please don’t equate this with Ted Turner’s colorization, and in the end you have the original just the way you like it on pristine Blu-Ray, dvd or God forbid VHS), this helps bring in new revenue for the studios, and we know how they love to “double-dip”, well this would be “quadruple dipping”. In a few short years we will have the Star Wars Saga in 3D (and of course Lucas loves this because you will be paying money to see his flawed trilogy at the cinemas and then a year later they will be on Blu-ray 3D, not to mention the gift pack of 3D action figures exclusives at your local wal-mart), Indiana Jones (yes, Indy), Titanic 3D (Really Cameron? You are down on conversion but you are converting Titanic?).  Maybe it’s because you want to sell more Pace cameras, Terminator, LOTR trilogy (3D Gandalf and Balrog just in time for a 3D Hobbit theatrical release), “Spider-Man” trilogy (so Sony can bundle with the TVs in 2012 when the Spidey reboot hits theaters nationwide) just to name a few. Those films mentioned will all be converted because they were shot in 2-D. I haven’t even mentioned “Matrix”, “Harry Potter” trilogies.

This is backed by the 3D TV market exploding this year (3D TVs were the number one item bought on black Friday). Now I get it, if you are older you may not enjoy 3D as much (we lose 1 diopter of eye coordination every 5 years after the age of 30. The older the person gets, the harder it is for them to see in stereo.), but we all know that the studios pander to the young crowd (16-35 males specifically), so you are not their target audience. But now that 3D has infiltrated video games and mobile devices, you can bet on that the generation “NOW” kids will be only used to 3D, just like they are to cell phones, ask them to remember a world without a laptop and iTunes and they will probably stare at you doe-eyed like a deer caught in headlights.

A lot has been said about shooting 3D rather than post converting. Just because some studios wanted to rush a conversion and the conversions came out poorly, people have just assumed that all conversion is poorly done. The way conversion should be used is just like any other art form, it should be viewed like cinematography, editing, sound, it is essential to the picture to be done right. “Conversion is a artistic process, not a technical one” – Jon Landau. I hear people cry over the Internet about how Avatar is so amazing and that everything 3D should be shot like that, but what they don’t know is that “Avatar” was 35% converted (and it was 50% animated but it won the Oscar for best live action cinematography, that will be another argument for another time).

 People love a fight, and they want to make it out like the HD vs. Film war, or the HD vs. Blu-Ray, but what really is happening is that shooting native 3D and post converting 3D will go hand in hand. Some movies will be shot in 3D, but some sequences of the film will be post converted because conversion is like having 1000 cameras on set and being able manipulate every pixel and sub-pixel is far advantageous than just shooting everything on set. In fact, it makes sense especially with the blockbusters that are using mo-cap or heavy fx, why would you want to shoot Optimus Prime or Yogi Bear twice by dual rendering? You have to shoot the left and than the right, instead you can just wait till the fx are done, hand the material over and then post convert it. Shooting a film in 3D is only right for the big boys, the studio tent poles, it costs over 30% more (sometimes up to 50%) to shoot a 3D show, where as converting is a fraction of that cost. And just because “Titans” and other hack job conversions are done, that doesn’t mean they should all be done that way. That is like judging “Batman and Robin” was a bad film, so nobody should see “The Dark Knight” because Batman sucks.

Don’t judge the conversion process by one, two or even five films, when the technology is so new and fresh. And that is the exciting thing about 3D, is we are on the cutting edge of technology. 3D gets us away from the music video Michael Bay like cinematography and makes us focus more on the classic style of film-making. 3D is a check and balances, because it makes the filmmaker focus on the frame and everything in it, makes them think before shooting –

Shooting has its variety of problems, the rigs are huge, and you are using two cameras at once. Now I understand there is the new EPIC RED camera that Spidey is using but let’s wait and see when they get into post before we judge shall we? According to my sources, Transformers are in trouble, along with the other films that were shot with the pace cameras. The other bummer is you can’t shoot on film, so say goodbye 35mm and hello digital capture. It is also a fact that the way the cameras record the info, it distorts the face if the actor is standing 5ft away, so you can say adios to close-ups, unless you want your main movie star’s face to look like it was rolled like a fruit roll up. If anybody has made a movie, then they can tell you how hard it is to make a great 2D film, let alone a 3D one.

With conversion, the artists are left alone to concentrate on creation, rather than throwing another technical monkey wrench into the mix – “Shooting 3D can put you under enormous pressure” – Oliver Stone. With many new 3D conversions coming out – “Thor”, “Captain America”, “Priest” audiences will be able to have more of a variety to compare to instead of just a 6 week conversion of “Clash”. If studios and filmmakers alike treat 3D as a integral part of the story, and give it the time it needs, than post conversion 3D solves many problems and takes all the headaches away from shooting 3D.

Most directors are control freaks, I understand it is their baby, but I think shooting 3D comes from a place of fear, rather than knowledge. As Cameron once said “Technology should come to the filmmaker – not the filmmaker go to the technology”, shooting 3D makes the filmmaker succumb to the burden that he/she does not need. If Filmmakers take their time in post, they find the movie there with the editing, enrich it with sound, make it come alive, then they too should post convert 3D because it is another tool that allows them the time they need to get it right. Yes, you should make your movie with 3D in mind. That is what Michele Gondry did with “The Green Hornet”. His ‘Kato vision” is exactly what 3D was intended for. But that is not what 3D is all about either. 3D is best used when it is submersive, when it allows the audience to partake in the story with the characters, inhabit the world they live in.

Now the audience can live, breathe with the characters and look at the story through a “window” as James Cameron says. I can understand that there is a need for films like “Piranha 3D” , but that is like just shooting a movie all handheld because it looks cool, or if it’s good enough for Bourne it is good enough for me. But in the end I guess this article is moot because what is the underlying factor of this be it 2D, 3D, 4D or smellovision is script. In real estate it is location, location, location but in the film business it is script, script, script (yes, I am quoting Lucas but it was during the golden days of “New Hope and “Empire”, before the dark times) and without a good story with enriched characters, 3D means nothing. But when a story has layers, 3D has layers, it has subtext and meaning and if you use those qualities wisely, than it can be an experience that we will never forget.

After all we see the world in 3D, why shouldn’t we see our films the same way?

Kurtz Out.

58 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nerd Alert!

Tom said...

I really dislike 3D in cinema's, let alone at home... The first 3D movie (Meet the Robinsons) was amazing, the second was ok, the third became boring, now I drive to a cinema that has a movie NOT in 3D, because the view is never great and the glasses annoy me...

Sorry, but 2D is my 3D :)

Can't wait to see TRON: Legacy again in 2D ;-)

Three Dee Is Dead said...

This article is just like the 3-D that it's trying to defend.

Cold, hard and souless. Filled with numbers and no heart, no vision and no artistry.

3-D is a fad. It may last a few more years, it might even be able to go another decade, but it will NEVER last.

Never.

Dumont said...

Tron Legacy is a perfect example of how you can use 3D in a positive way. Seeing that in such an immersive environment is the perfect way to view this film. If others can learn to harness what was did with this film then Three-D will blossom and grow beyond the fans it has now.

NOT BUYING IT said...

3D is still just a gimmick. We've enjoyed 2D films for over 100 years without the studios trying to force 3D down our throats. Film is art, 3D is a scam.

Anonymous said...

3D really detracts from the story telling and does not work for many people (including me) due to eyesight issues. It is a fad and will eventually die.

Andrew said...

3D may stay if they wish but filmmakers must beware than not everyone can actually "see" in 3D, plus it's really uncomfortable wearing 3D glasses over prescription glasses because those already take away your perspective, making the whole 3D effect go to waste.

When I watch a film in 3D it takes me about 20 minutes before my eyes get used to the forced perspective and by then I'm already sick of it.

They'd better focus on making good films with memorable stories and characters rather than churning out the same crap from last year with more silly effects and a fancy 3D tag on it.

Elite Medium said...

Man, I'll be soooo glad when this color fad is over. I've been waiting for over half a century and I can't wait for the day black and white comes back into style!

3D So What? said...

I'm not convinced 3D can't be pirated. While streaming is difficult, it isn't so difficult to pirate a Blu-Ray 3D version.

Nonetheless, it hardly matters since pirated movies are still in DVD format. People will see the DVD or VHS quality movie. With more people enjoying mobile and tablet computers, a small file works better.

I'm curious how they do the 3D conversion. How do they add back the side that's not filmed? The computer must generate an image that the other eye may see. Maybe it splits the image so both eyes see a portion.

I really don't care much about seeing 3D at home. It really doesn't much matter. I still think of it as a theme park attraction rather than someone I regularly see in movies.

Case Closed said...

Isn't this the same Colonel who couldn't get his troops into Hall H at Comic Con last year? He failed then just as he's failed to convince anyone with his ranty 3D argument. Stop drinking the kool-aid. I'm more inclined to agree with Roger Ebert and Walter Murch.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

C33 said...

So much here to discuss. To all those who are saying 3D is just a fad, we got along fine without 3D for a long time- well, realize that people said the EXACT same things about Color, Widescreen, Stereo and Surround Sound. When Walt Disney made a full-length animated movie people were complaining that the colors would hurt people's eyes for such a long movie. Really. Every new cinematic technology has been introduced for commercial purposes, almost universally to compete with television and the rise of the home theater, and has been basted as a gimmick. Yet go to a theater now and you'll see movies in widescreen, color, and now 7.1 surround sound.

As to the Colonel- well I agree and I disagree. 3D conversion can look just fine when it's done right, but the truth is you can never get the amount of 3D detail with a post-conversion that you can with stereo photography. Imagine taking a picture of a tree, with all of its many branches and thousands of leaves- you could never get all of the 3D detail an original 3D photo would have out of a conversion; it would simply take too long and cost too much. The truth of the matter is, directors and cinematographers are lazy and don't understand how to shoot in 3D. It's much easier for them to just shoot in 2D and let ILM figure it out later. Obviously when you have a film that's already been shot you don't have a choice. But as you say, so much of modern films is computer generated any way that often the conversion/3D choice makes less of a difference than normal.

Some things that are stated here are factually untrue. You do not HAVE to shoot digital to shoot 3D. 3D films have been shot for years using film cameras, even using gigantic IMAX cameras, without issue. And since everything gets digitized anyway for post it's not a huge deal. Shooting digital just gives you a smaller amount of equipment to work with and makes things easier to manuever.

For that matter, you don't even need digital projection to show 3D. Lenny Lipton, who invented the RealD technology, has a new company that's working on a single-strip film 3D process for movie theaters that wont require 100,000 dollar digital projectors.

People have been making 3D movies for decades. It's not hard to do- I've done it myself- it just requires a knowledge base that modern filmmakers don't have. They can use post-conversion as a crutch if they want but in the end they're gonna get left behind by people who actually know what they're doing.

bsmith13 said...

Sounds like a sales pitch.

I know that I am in the minority on this, but I don't like 3D.

1. The glasses give me a headache.
2. The glasses negatively impact scenes not shot in 3D, as they appear more dim (at least to me). I saw Tron in 3D and 2D and prefer 2D.
3. A movie is by definition 2D. A play is 3D. The 3D effect of a movie is an ILLUSION.

If and until movies become available in 3D, I will not support the format.

Just my opinions, mind you. And I know that the "data" says that I am an unimportant minority, not worth listening to. But I'm not going to decrease my enjoyment of movies just because everyone else thinks that something better has come along.

Darrell said...

Sorry, Elite Medium, but color is better than black & white!

Rogus said...

3D rules baby! You guys need to step up the 21st Century.

Siskel said...

I'll listen to Ebert when he gets a real jaw.

grumpyfan said...

Try as I have, I just can't "get" 3D. It's gimmickry at its best, for most movies. So far, only Avatar and Alice in Wonderland seems to have done it right. All the others just leave me feeling cheated out of an extra $5. So, it would seem that it can be done right, provided the director and the editor really work at it and/or know what they're doing. Perhaps in time it will get better as directors learn how to properly setup and film their shots, but for now, I still prefer 2D.

Convert This said...

Who has actually made a 3D movie done right? Avatar? Tron? I've yet to see a 3D film that unequivocally convinces me that I simply can't watch a movie without it. The color vs. B&W argument is invalid. I still enjoy B&W films especially artistic films that are shot in B&W just as much as color because they are both two-dimensional images that immersive the viewer into a fantasy dreamscape and, as Walter Murch points out, doesn't rely on gimmicky technology or uncomfortable glasses to take you there. Film used to be a creative medium that captured our imaginations not conjuring cheap circus parlor tricks to sell tickets. Seeing as how movie theater attendance was down again in 2010 even with the sumnmer 3-D conversions it smacks of a failed last-ditch effort by the theaters to lure audiences back into the theaters and justify inflating admission prices while the DVD/Blu-ray/streaming/download market continues to undermine theatrical first-run box office.

Nathan Birnbaum said...

First off, I want to say that I feel article contains a lot of useful information that explains the current trends the entertainment industry is moving in. I think that if you look at the totality of the argument about 3D, it's not a fad. Some may want it to be, but that isn't the case.

Secondly, I'd like to thank the Colonel for his input. Hopefully we'll get more from him on this. Perhaps a series about technology or interviews and reviews?

Anonymous said...

I know someone who has one eye. How the heck is he supposed to watch movies in 3D?????

Anonymous said...

"After all we see the world in 3D, why shouldn’t we see our films the same way?" - because the two things (natural vison / stereoscopic 3D) have got nothing in common - if you look aut of your window and have the same impression that you have when seeing a stereoscopic 3D movie, then you should really see a doctor...

Jones said...

I am generally interested in movie technology, and for that reason, I have seen many movies in both 2D and various 3D formats (projection methods, i.e. RealD, Dolby 3D, XPanD), just to compare things and get an impression of te state of the technology. While there were some nice scenes (especially "flight" scenes - How to train your dragon,Avatar, lanterns in Tangled), I *always* liked the 2D versions far better - I will not see another 3D movie. (A note to people who claim it´s just like color was a few decades ago - I have never met anybody who got a headache from a colors, but I know a lot of people who´d rather see their dentist then go to a 3D movie again. Personally, I don´t have that problem, but it can´t be ignored.)

Anonymous said...

It is irritatingly clear that the author of this piece doesn't know what he is talking about by virtue of the fact that he has to propose the argument to begin with and then expects numerous counter-arguments. The corporate-twisted studios must be loving this nonsense. Furthermore, Disney (or should I say Dis'me) is the biggest purveyor of 3D conversions and also does the worst 3D conversions of all of the studios. Most likely because the Dis'me is notoriously penny-wise but pound-foolish. He must be on Dis'me's payroll.

Phil said...

However you look at it, wearing awkward glasses that dim the colour of the movie is not a positive......

Imax glasses are better as they are a better quality and fit, but otherwise, no thank you.

As for 3D TV? Who the hell wants to wear glasses in their home on the sofa with partner.....

Urban Legend said...

Within five years the glasses will start to disappear. Phones and iPads will be 3D within the next three years, television shortly thereafter.

Theaters will start the conversion within five years and most chains will be that way by the end of this decade.

The glasses are simply a bridge.

Comin' At Ya! said...

"The glasses are simply a bridge."

You mean "crutch." Wake me up with holographic technology arrives. Until then, 3D gets a big pass.

Conscientious Objector said...

3D is the future. All you fuddy ole' farts that don't like it need to put in your dentures and head to the food all for your medication.

Time marches on and you still keep sitting down in front of your tv watching TCM. I'll be at the movies.

Anonymous said...

The whole article felt silly - like a schoolyard argument - and poorly written even at that level.

Honor, in the future, perhaps you should avoid having high schoolers contribute as guest bloggers. It's kind of embarrassing and would show more respect to your loyal readers.

Animated Response said...

Poorly written? Why? You perhaps don't like facts and figures that differ with your own personal view?

I think the Colonel did a great job of conveying that 3-D is here to stay and you crybabies just can't accept that.

No3DVision said...

I can't see in 3D anyway, so it's a moot point for me.

Even if I could see in 3D, the cinema experience is dead. Why spend money to see a movie once when you can buy the DVD for a few bucks more and watch it as often as you want, whenever you want, however you want? Or go the Netflix route? Or rent from your local library?

Cinemas are just content delivery providers, the same way that arcades used to be. Cinemas are going to go the way of the drive-in theater... It'll still exist but as a niche experience and nothing more.

Cineaste said...

I disagree that the cinema experience is dead.

the cinema has always been a communal experience. I remember the excitement of standing in long lines to see Star Wars as a child. The lines wrapped around the block. There's something about seeing a blockbuster film with a public audience that you can't get from the privacy of your living room. Sure, no annoying talking, ringing cell-phones, and crying babies to contend with but that's what the DVD/Blu-ray experience is for. No home theater is capable of delivering the Imax experience. People still pay to go watch old movies that are re-released to the theaters. My cinema usually plays retro 80's films in weekly distribution for $5 like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back to the Future, Die Hard, Jaws, and many others and it always draws a big crowd who'd rather experience it on the big screen then stay at home and watch the DVD.

Anonymous said...

Yes, poorly written. Frankly I'm ambivalent on 3D. I enjoy it in some films, not so crazy about its implementation in others.

But yammering off a succession of plaintive gripes and whines while supplementing your contentions with stats, facts and figures culled from whatever sources are convenient to your point does not constitute good written construction or flowing prose.

The whole article feels like it was written by a high school senior who otherwise doesn't get out much. There are more important things in life to get riled up about (particularly now) and please - learn to write without the blundering affectations so endemic to adolescence. Shed them quickly, before people stop listening at all.

Michael said...

2D movies are an illusion. There really aren't people up on the screen and that explosion behind you is just surround sound. 3D is just one more technology that film makers can use to trick us into believing their movie is really happening.

Gee Whiz said...

So is a Viewmaster.

Ben Willard said...

It seems like to me the Colonel has his facts and you guys just want to call him names because you don't agree with him. The truth is that 3D is gathering steam, it's not something that is fading. If you don't like it there are places you can go to see something in 2D, but there will be fewer and fewer. Just make sure you address the argument and not insult the writer just because you don't like what he writes.

Col. Lucas said...

Terminate the Colonel with extreme prejudice.

Kurtz said...

The horror...

The horror...

Kilgore said...

Charlie don't surf!

Willard said...

Even the jungle wanted him dead.

Number One Sun said...

I'd say the response to this article comes from high schoolers, and a few pre schoolers it would appear, not from the Colonel.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, from the comments I've read here it seems all the whiners are in diapers. Either a bunch of crying babies or they're sitting at their computer in their Depends waiting for the nurse to come around with their meal.

Maybe they're just upset to find that Social Security really isn't going to be there for them.

Nobody Likes A Troll said...

Oh get off your high horse with your holier than thou attitude. People have a right to voice their opinions/criticisms whether you agree with them or not. Stop being a troll.

Anonymous said...

Hey Nobody, you're a whining Troll, that's the worse kind of all.

There's a difference between opinion and just whining like a little baby.

Anonymous said...

Well this thread as officially derailed itself.

Hey Honor, /thread.

Cory Gross said...

I find the "get with the times grandpa" arguments kind of amusing as I sit here watching the 1923, silent film version of The Ten Commandments... Amusing because it is, indeed, no kind of argument at all. New does not immediately equate to "better", nor does old necessarily equate to "worse".

Case in point, I can't stand high-def. Trying to watch something on a high-def screen buggers my eyes up even worse than what I hear 3D does to other people. All it does is look like someone jacked up the sharpen filter and reduced all films to the clarity and quality of television soap-operas. Something weird happens between foreground and background and I actually get vertigo and nausea from it.

So I guess it's good that I pretty much have everything I really want on DVD already. I won't be making the Blu-ray conversion, since I've already got what I want and can't stand what the new format has to offer. Besides, my most favorite films were all made in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, so they weren't even in high-def to begin with.

Of course, I do like some newfangled films, like anything by the Wachowski Bros. But the question I have to ask is if anything will really be added by converting The Matrix Trilogy to 3D. The answer I reach, when I examine the 3D films I have seen, is no.

Of those films, even ones made explicitly for 3D, nothing was really added. Now and then there was some neat faux-dimensionality, but even that is usually wanting. I honestly barely noticed that Tron Legacy was even in 3D. All I remember of Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D was the part where Jack's hand sunk into the wall because the post-conversion got messed up.

Because of this, I don't even really dislike 3D. I'm disinterested in it. Tron was probably the last film I'll bother to see in 3D. There's no point otherwise. A bad film isn't made good by it, and a good film isn't made better.

Maybe that makes me an outlier, but here I agree wholeheartedly with Ebert and Murch. Real dimensionality is a good story well told. 3D as it exists right now is a parlour trick.

mransr said...

While the Colonel presents a lot of facts (which may or may not be opinions)…he seems to ignore the fact that somewhere between 25%-40% of people can’t see the 3D effects consistently (and that percentage will increase A LOT as the population ages and eye sight gets worse). Also 3D movies cause discomfort like headaches and eyestrain in a significant percentage of movie goers

No, it’s not like the move from B&W to color…color pictures don’t cause eye strain, headaches and other discomforts in a significant percentage of people by trying to trick the brain into seeing something that isn’t there.

Googly Eyes said...

I have astygmatism and when I try to watch a movie in 3D it causes ghosting images that are blurry like double vision. In fact it looks almost like watching the movie without the glasses on only not quite as bad.

COL. KURTZ said...

Hey folks , the Col here - here are some more facts for you doubters out there. Somebody please wake up Ebert and Murch...

3D TV Purchases to Increase 500% in 2011
Accenture study predicts huge decreases in sales of home computers, massive growth in spending on 3D, and an increasing role of tablets in the home.
By Jason Knott

January 26, 2011
A new survey predicts there will be a big upheaval in home electronics in 2011.

The Accenture (NYSE: ACN) study shows consumer purchase rates for personal computers and mobile phones (excluding smart phones) will decline by 39 percent and 56 percent this year compared with last year, respectively.

By contrast, buying rates of 3D TVs are expected to rise 500 percent, tablet computers 160 percent, ebook readers 133 percent and smart phones 26 percent.

New Report: 450% Increase in 3D Cinema Screens in 18 Months
A new report by DIGDIA explains the 3D Entertainment ecosystem, practical realities and opportunities - from movie production, exhibition, distribution to consumer products and services.
Email PDF Print
(PRWEB) January 19, 2011

3D made a big splash a year ago, and it is still going strong.
In mid-2009 there were about 5,000 3D movie screens worldwide. Now there are over 22,300 3D screens worldwide. This is an increase of nearly 450% in 18 months.

I can go on and on, but the guys who want to drink the koolaid and tell themselves that 3D is a fad, have at it.

Kurtz out.

Darrell said...

3D is fine, provided it's used with the right movies. Other than that exception (example: Toy Story 3), I'm rather surprised by the war going on over 3D.

You got enough men to fight this one off, Colonel? ;)

Rumor Control said...

Kurtz, your figures are only analyst "projections" and "speculations" about what they "think" the numbers will be and not undisputable data. I really don't buy that mobile phones will decline 56% this year now that Verizon has the iPhone. To the contrary, they will only increase by 56%. You are worse than a car salesman pulling questionable facts out of... erm... the air.

Read my 3-D lips said...

If 3-D was really as good as people like the Colonel keep telling us it is, everyone would be buying into it without argument. It would sell like gangbusters. The truth is the more that 3-D fails to win over and impress the consumer, the more persistent and vocalbthe spokesman become in their desperation to convince everyone that 3-D is the best thing since sliced bread.

mransr said...

ohhh sales up 500%...file that under lies, damn lies and statistics ;)

Samsung, the leading seller of 3D sets expects to sell 600,000 3D sets in the first 6 months of 2011, sounds like a lot until you hear the number of TV sold last year was over 45 million...so even a huge percentage increase means a tiny, tiny increase in the number of actual people buy 3D...and a twisted stat like “500% increase” doesn’t help to lend an credibility to the pro-3D argument.

not saying that 3D movies should go away, but it's not a substitute, or even an improvement on a good HiDef movie

Anonymous said...

I'll bet the "Colonel" is just some ranting fanboy that drools at every Transformers and Snakes On A Plane film. Probably wiping the sweat off his geeky brow as he sips on his Slurpee and ruffles threw porn wishing it was in 3D.

Willard said...

Anonymous, you obviously don't know the Colonel.

Al Martin said...

How would you know, Willard? You're a lowlife dirty rat!

Willard said...

At first, I thought they handed me the wrong dossier. I couldn't believe they wanted this man dead. Third generation West Point, top of his class. Korea, Airborne. About a thousand decorations. Etc, etc... I'd heard his voice on the tape and it really put a hook in me. But I couldn't connect up that voice with this man. Like they said he had an impressive career. Maybe too impressive... I mean
perfect. He was being groomed for one of the top slots of the corporation. General, Chief of Staff, anything... In 1964 he returned from a tour of advisory command in Vietnam and things started to slip. His report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Lyndon Johnson was restricted. Seems they didn't dig what he had to tell them.

Anonymous said...

Hunter, your commenters keep getting weirder.

Darrell said...

Wow, how many attackers and as one person put it, "weird commenters," can one post have? Apparently a lot.

Anonymous said...

After reading this article one thing is clear.

The Colonel knows nothing about 3D. He's a wanna be nerd boy who spews out stats he got from some magazine that he found in a bathroom stall having too much fun with himself.

I don't know why Honor lets such childish dribble ruin an otherwise good blog.

Read my lips: 3D is a FAD. It will Fade. The Colonel will be crying in his beer goggles, or 3D glasses when this happens.