If you look at the graph below you will see that the percentage of revenue from 3D movies has drastically declined. Why are movie goers shunning 3D? Well there appears to be two factors. Firstly, 3D movies are noticeably dimmer, film critic Roger Ebert has declared 3D movies are ‘noticeably darker than standard 2D’ and Hollywood golden boy Christoper Nolan agrees,
“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.”
Now pay attention: Here comes the science bit. Movie screen luminance is measured in units called ‘foot-lamberts’ with your standard movie weighing at around 14 foot-lamberts. Lenny Lipton, a pioneer in the area of projection noted that ‘you lose half your light, because half the light goes to one eye and half goes to the other.’ In other words a 14 foot-lambert movie is half as bright as a standard movie. Lipton comments,
“Avatar generally screened at about four-and-a-half foot-lamberts; other films are as low as two or three.”
The other factor to consider is the price. 3D movie screenings are usually at least 25% more expensive than 2D movies. Whilst movie goers are happy to pay for the experience for an ‘event’ such as Avatar they are less willing to pay the premium for a standard Saturday night popcorn flick.
So what does that mean for 3D gaming? Only time will tell but if 3D movies go the way of the dinosaur then TV manufacturers are going to have a very hard job selling expensive TVs just for gaming. Michael Pachter recently commented that 3D is just a ‘fad’, what do you think?
Source: The Wrap
Severn2j
I think the problem is more to do with the movie industry tacking on 3D to any old thing than anything to do with brightness.. Avatar was a great experience in 3D, but I’m not interested in seeing every movie like that. How gullible does Hollywood think people are?
.
BTW, cant they just output twice the brightness for 3D movies to compensate?
Tuffcub
Good question: The answer is the projectors would melt from the heat generated.
stingraz
you can’t be serious, if you’d rather watch a movie in 2D when there is a 3D version for just £2 more!
If you notice how dim the movie is compared to another movie in 2D, you obviously weren’t paying attention to the film!
taylort
This graph is such BS though.
It should be a composite graph of the last 3 years. Also why not include total box office revenue for each film? Where is Clash of the Titans on the list? Why aren’t other non-3D movies included as a point of reference – I’m pretty sure this graph would follow the revenue ALL summer movie releases regardless of being 3D (inception not included).
cc_star
Pointless graph
Those films aren’t as suited to 3D as Avatar. Simple.
Also Avatar and the cartoons (keep in mind children shouldn’t view 3D imagery) are the only 3D films there – the others are just an added effect.
Gaming will be the kicker, and as more and more films are filmed in proper 3D without crappy pseudo effects, movies (like Avatar) will also contribute.
Pretty sure you could draw a graph like that with anything new, there’s nothing negative being said about 3D that wasn’t said about HD – and look how foolish those people look now.
Antipas
Step Up 3D? I think the studios are already out of ideas.
I enjoyed Avatar and I’m sure certain movies will be worthy of a 3D title, but does a lame movie about dancing really require 3D? I think not.