http://gizmodo.com/5592956/is-3d-already-dying

Is 3D Already Dying?

Earlier today I reported on the unlikelihood that the next Batman movie will be in 3D. But is that a fluke or part of a trend? If box office numbers are any indication, it's definitely the latter.

Since the high-water mark of Avatar, where 71% of the revenue came from 3D screenings, numbers for big-budget 3D movies have plummeted to less than 50%.

Obviously Avatar was a unique case in that it was basically sold as a 3D "experience," so if you saw it in 2D you were missing out. But then three months later the animated How to Train Your Dragon pulled in 68% of its revenue from 3D screens, hardly a significant drop-off.

Fast forward a mere four months and you have Despicable Me, another 3D animated kids movie, pulling in 45% of its revenue from 3D screens. As you can see by The Wrap's chart below, it's a pretty clear trend.

What's this mean? It means that now that people have had a chance to experience 3D in theaters, they're opting to spend $10 on a 2D screening rather than $15 on a 3D screening when given the option.

It's not great news for Hollywood studios that have sunk boatloads of money into 3D cameras and tech, but it's much, much worse news for consumer electronics companies such as Sony and Panasonic who are betting the farm on people wanting to upgrade two-year-old HDTVs to 3D HDTVs. But if Hollywood finds that making 3D movies isn't as profitable as they thought, they'll stop doing it. And without that content, no one will have any reason to buy a 3D TV.

Sucks for them, but it's good news for consumers who are voting with their wallets. No more inflated ticket prices and no need to buy a new TV for a feature no one ever really wanted? Sounds good to me. [The Wrap via Ebert]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I certainly hope so! I'm tired of today's seriously crappy and flawed 3D from the movies to the games and TVs. I have yet to try a 3D  tv set/movie/game for which the huge amount of downsides (headaches, glasses, cost, etc. etc.) even came up to the quarter mark of the upsides (3D).

Maybe 3D only works for some movies.

Avatar was enhanced significantly to justify the extra cost of 3D. Do the other movies that don't have as much action and quality?

well that trend is clearly down but there could be other factors. the one that comes to mind is most of these films were post-processed for 3D rather than filmed for 3D which makes that extra few bucks kind of a waste.  also, why didn't they include all films released in 3D?  Alice in wonderland and clash of the titans come to mind, i think they are missing another movie or two as well.

but as a lover of 3D i find that trend to be disturbing.

3DS and Sony are doomed.

I think the novelty might be wearing off. Im sure there'll be a crowd of people who'll see the 3D version exclusively but that won't represent the whole of the market. Its just a natural progression really.

For instance:

X number of people watch movies in black and white.

X - Y number of people care that the movie is in colour.

X - Y - Z number of people care that the movie is in 3D.

Its always going to be diminishing returns once you move beyond the basic experience. A lot of people buy games consoles even though they don't really care for the graphics improvements in order to play current/new titles. Just as a lot of people buy Blu Ray because its the latest standard, not because they really care for it or saw much need to upgrade.

Lol, did Roger Ebert write that?

If Christopher Nolen really said, "I find the dimness of the image *extremely* alienating.” and Ebert is laughing over 3D demise, then this really might be a trend. There will always be a market for 3D and thus a product, but if the best products aren't in 3D, then the contraptions really lose their point.

I found this talking about 3D and Christopher Nolan:

At the Hero Complex Film Festival in downtown Los Angeles in June, “Inception” director Christopher Nolan joined the 3D naysayers, saying that he refused to make his new film in the format largely because of the darkness problem.

“On a technical level, it’s fascinating,” Nolan said of 3D, “but on an experiential level, I find the dimness of the image extremely alienating.”

The 3D process, Nolan said, makes “a massive difference” in the brightness of the image. “You’re not aware of it because once you’re in that world, your eye compensates – but having struggled for years to get theaters get up to the proper brightness, we're not sticking polarized filters in everything."

Nolan also got into the numbers, using “foot-lamberts” – the unit of luminance by which screen brightness is measured – to explain the difference between regular and 3D projection. But when he said that traditional 2D cinema is projected at 16 foot-lamberts, but 3D automatically loses three foot-lamberts, he was grievously underestimating the 3D effect.

In fact, a typical 3D system can lose as much as 80 percent or more of the light from a 2D system on the same screen, and result in an image projected at only two or three foot-lamberts. 

It's just like videogames once we see good content the numbers will be up.

3ds is alreaady distrupting it seems :b

when they make movies in true 3d not after production 3d , then u will get better returns on their 3d investment. avatar was shot completely in 3d and it showed, clash of the titans which i loved was transferred to 3d after it was finished and it showed in the theaters. that was a perfect example, make it with quality and from the start and ppl will respond with their wallets.