Considering the healthy amount of movies titles that end in 3D arriving in theaters throughout the coming year, you’d think studios would be eager to entice moviegoers with 3D home releases of their favorite films. After all, the average price point for Blu-rays dropped significantly in the last year, and what better way to make up the difference than release high-profile 3D projects such as Alice in Wonderland or How To Train Your Dragon into living rooms as premium 3D Blu-ray releases?
However, despite theatergoers’ spirited interest in 3D, studios continue to hold-back 3D formatted home-releases of some of their biggest 3D projects – releasing only 2D versions.
Analyst Helen Davis Jayalath, the Head of Video at Screen Digest, spoke with Deadline, regarding the peculiar lack of 3D home releases while 3D films continue to dominate the box office. She asserts that premium 3D Blu-rays could help expand interest in the format (as well as revenues):
“Early take-up of 3D Blu-ray would provide a much needed boost to the format, sales of which have fallen short of projections made pre-recession. Perhaps, not surprisingly, studios are hesitant to release their ‘crown jewel’ titles on 3D BD.”
Releasing high-profile films would certainly reassure consumers that 3D isn’t just a passing fad but a legitimate direction that studios intend to support at home – not just in theaters. We’ve been burned before and if there’s one thing studios should have learned from the Blu-ray/HD DVD battle of 2007, it would be the semi-familiar notion, “If you support it, we will come.” What’s the point of buying high-end 3D televisions if there’s nothing to watch – especially if we can’t be sure that studios won’t save their major at home 3D push for future glass-less 3D tech?
Jayalath’s colleague, Richard Baxter, co-author of the report Studio Caution May Stymie 3D, Blu-Ray’s Potential Killer App, hints at a possible stalemate between consumers and studios:
“Our research shows that all the studios support 3D BD but many of them are unwilling to release their strongest 3D titles before the installed base of home 3D hardware is large enough to generate serious returns.”
Why would consumers invest in the tech if studios aren’t sure about throwing their most treasured 3D releases into the mix?
When Sony added 3D gaming functionality to the PlayStation 3, through a recent software patch, the studio had a group of complimentary updates ready for use on day one, adding 3D fun to a number of already established titles – entirely for free.
If you look ahead to Sony’s biggest first-party game titles in the next year, several will include 3D functionality – offering a tangible incentive for gamers to upgrade their TVs. Sony is investing in the format and, while gamers are still hesitant, bit-by-bit they’ll have a real reason to make the switch.
Of course, Sony has extra incentive to encourage entertainment enthusiasts to upgrade to 3D tech (as a 3D hardware manufacturer) – so it’s little surprise that the 3D Blu-ray, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, is one of only a handful of 3D Blu-ray titles you’ll be able to buy at retail this holiday season – instead of packaged exclusively with 3D hardware.
Most other 3D Blu-rays will only be available as part of special 3D tech-specific packages: How To Train Your Dragon, Monsters vs. Aliens, and Shrek 4 will only be available alongside a purchase of Samsung 3D hardware; Alice In Wonderland as well as Bolt will come with Sony 3D hardware; Coraline and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs will be tied to Panasonic’s 3D hardware offerings.
According to Screen Digest, within four years 28% of homes will have 3D enabled TVs. It’ll be interesting to see how much the install base needs to expand before studios start loosening their grip on their high-profile 3D films.
Maybe the incoming deluge of 3D films currently headed for theaters will make them less protective – since they’ll have more films to sate the home market. That, or they’ll just toss those films into the vault as well and wait patiently on the sidelines – letting James Cameron to do all the convincing.
Follow us on Twitter @benkendrick and @screenrant and let us know what you think.
Source: Deadline
First Trailer for Jon Favreau & J.J. Abrams’ Sci-Fi Show ‘Revolution’ 
Rumor Patrol: Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson to Play a DC Comics Superhero? 
Idris Elba Confirms His ‘Thor 2′ Return 
Robert Downey Jr. to Earn $50 Million from ‘The Avengers’ 
Loading ...
I REALLY hope this is just a bad trend. I can’t watch 3D movies, nor do i have any desire to. Not to mention the amount of money it would cost to upgrade my tech to play it.
no thanks
I’m really not suprise that they aren’t pushing more for 3d
3D will dominate the market within 3-4 years everything will be 3D
the technology just needs to improve and will over time.
especially once they figure out how to get rid of crossfading, ghosting and the headache side effects.
I would REALLY like to see a study on the effects of prolonged viewing of 3D on TV. There’s a BIG difference between going to watch 2 hours of 3D at a theater once a month and watching 3D images on a television for 4-6 hours a day.
What will that do to a person’s vision? Depth perception? Affect how the brain processes visual data. ESPECIALLY for children.
Oh, and for home use – as long as people have to wear 3D glasses I doubt this will get much traction.
Vic
The only thing I hate about 3-D is the cost and the glasses. If they can fix that then I’ll be fine with it.
Those who think 3-D will “takeover” are just over-reacting, and need to chill.
All excellent points, Vic, and my thoughts exactly.
Unless they can STAR WARS it and make actual 3D images in my house, I am not buying into 3D.
I mean, I am gonna see TRON in 3D this December, but I will be content to watch it in glorious 2D blu ray when it hits shelves Summer 2011.
1) Not to be a stickler,but the movie is called “Coraline”,not Caroline.
2)I will almost guarantee that the estimate of 28% of all households in the US will have 3D tv’s within the next four years is way off.First of all,there are still plenty of people that either just bought a new LCD/plasma,and I’m almost certain aren’t willing to pay more money just to upgrade to 3D,or are still trying to catch up and get one.
I don’t think that the market for 3D tv’s is anywhere close to being viable right now,nor ever.I might be going out on a limb here,but I thing that there is a great number of people that either physically can’t watch 3D,or won’t,just on general principle.Add to the fact that they are still way overpriced,couple with the fact that there still isn’t enough stuff to watch to justify paying money for one,it just seems to be leading to the whole thing fizzling out withing the next few years.
1) Good catch. I’ve updated the article. I knew it was Coraline but must have just mistyped.
2) 28% does sound like a huge jump but if they could drive down the cost (similar to what they were able to do with HDTVs) it might be plausible – depending on how long it takes for the economy to fully-stabalize. That said, I totally agree (and mention it in the article) that there’s basically no reason for most people to upgrade right now, considering there’s nothing to watch. Similar to what Vic mentioned (regarding the effects of long term exposure to 3D), the retail demos for 3D TVs are cool but I can only watch them for a minute – without anything truly exciting to watch, the tech just comes off as a fun demo and definitely not worth the price.
Yea for example I just bought a replacement HDTV and have no intention of buying another TV. When I do decide it won’t be a 3D tv because i have no interest in the crap trend and never will. My step dad also just bought his first HDTV a brand spanking new Sony Bravo 46′ and there is no way with in 4 years he will be getting a new TV. He’s also not a fan of 3D either so when he does I doubt that’s the way he would go.
I just don’t see that 28% number happening.
i think Samsung has the only 3D TV out on the market? havent heard too much about it really, and frankly, dont want too. Vic has some valid questions/points.
This number of 28% will never happen. Not in 4 years or 24 years. There can never be a good reason to sit at home for hours looking through 3D glasses. It is outlandish for studios to ever think this will be more than a small niche market, similar to home projection screens.
Watching a 3D movie in the cinema is one thing as your vision primarily is focused on one large screen. But there has to be some sense of vertigo that will develop when trying to watch a movie and pay attention to the kids, cook dinner, answer the phone, etc. For studios to push this technology without ever studying the long term side effects of exposure to 3D imagery on the eyes, to me, is a reckless and dangerous decision.
We are already seeing the effects of overexposure to headphones on hearing, keyboards on wrist, eye strain from monitors and radiation from cellphones, I can only dread what is going to happen to people who over use this technology for games and tv.
i will never own one of these, so you cna count me out of the 28%.
I don’t really know how niche front projection is when there are more than a handful of companies selling everything from 100$ pocket projectors to 100k+ hyper projectors for “home” use.
I wouldnt imaging watching 3DTV for hours on end as I only watch shows in sessions and only show that are actually good (DVRed and are shorter due to software magic). Chances are if you own a CRT you can make it an ideal 3D display or even a TN LCD panel display is technically a 3D display. It is mostly now just software a bit of hardware magic that makes a display 3D capable.
It is now trivial to get a 700$ 720p 3D 120hz shutter glass projector and in a year or so they will also support HDMI 1.4 not that a computer cant fix any HDMI compatibility issues for you (Converting videos on the fly to any 3D format is already done in commercial software).
I also would not know why you would be watching a movie while cooking dinner as that might lead to a lot of burnt food or missing good portions of a movie. I am not so sure if regular TV needs 3D (Sports, Nature, TV movies, … might benefit but I dont think CNN or the weather needs and pop to the image)
“We are already seeing the effects of overexposure to headphones on hearing, keyboards on wrist, eye strain from monitors and radiation from cellphones, I can only dread what is going to happen to people who over use this technology for games and tv.” This is an different set of issues, all of the things you describe are physical overexposure way outside normal conditions (Cellphones are not going to kill you, they even turned off a couple towers in a complaining town secretly and they still complained about sickness from “radiation”). In any case overuse of any technology can cause problems given 3D viewing technology has existed in industry for decades for viewing medical/engineering/mining/AUG sims I doubt there are any severe risks.
They’ll improve the 3D so that you won’t need the glasses in about 5 years.
Those that purchase the 3D tvs today, will be not only throwing your money away, supporting this 3D bs,,,
We already see movies and tv shows in 3D, only its called 2D,,,
3D is more of a marketing/agenda scam, then an improvement in the visual spectrum.
Keep paying to see this gimmick and your gonna be screwed,,, and so will your children.
i want nothing to do with it all 790 its all rubbish and BS to me
I think your dimensions are mixed up a bit. (3D is xyz dimensions, 2D is yz directions, S3D which is what we see in 3DTVs and the movies is a halfway point that takes advantage of all that advanced processing software in something called your brain, because we actually see the world in 2D as are eyes are just cameras we have to take the two 2D views and generate 3D depth information from it, S3D does this by providing the brain two separate views as if you were standing in the position of the two cameras)
Just because you film a 3D object in 2D doesnt mean your transmitting any information about the objects size in 3D space. Its like saying I recorded a mono version of a 100 track surround mix file and there is no information lost.
If you ever used visualization technology in commercial/industrial settings it is very useful and actually adds information that is impossible to see in a 2D display. Your brain will actually fill in information given the two related views. The advantage with a large 3D setup is that you can actually move side to side and it will appear as if you can see around the objects something a 2D feed would never do.
The only issue with S3D is to do with its single plane of focus as although the depth information is provided there is still only one focal plane but the brain accommodates these errors easily as the depths cues are more important than focal distances.
It might take some time to understand how advanced everyones mind is from the start but we see with two 2D views and make a 3D model of our surroundings with 3D movies we can allow the same process to occur and when done right it can make things more convincing and realistic. On the other hand never trade of resolution or throw away color/brightness just to get 3D as stereoscopy is only an additional source of information which is dependent on the quality of the video itself in the first place.
All of this Hollywood backlash is just some people find it harder on them as the added realism can reveal mistakes that are easy to cover up in 2D production.
Ant’s,,,
I’ve never understood the need to obtain a Projection screen tv, in the same way I’ve never understood the need to drive a monster truck, or pay extra to see stuff fly out at the screen, while I pay more and wear Elton John glasses,,,
Whatta shiney cheap toy. Cheap and meaningless.
They both strike me as the same thing. How big does your tv/Imax theater experience have to be before your gratified,,,?
Rick 3D is how we see, be it on tv, the movies or print ads,,,
What your talking about is a cinematic perversion of the term,,, do you understand that?
Once the glasses are no longer required the “term” 3D, will fade away, and be replaced by the term, “virtual”
As in virtual reality,,, VR. For short. That’s where we’re heading with this technology.
3D is a growing phase nothing more.
Tomorrows 3D tv’s are next years obsolite curbside junk.
I really have no interest in 3D for everything.
Perhaps it can be done well in the occasional film (not all will have Avatar’s $500 million effects budget, and it shows) but I cannot see any reason why the majority of TV would or should go 3D.
My favourite soaps in 3D? get real.
The problem the CE corps & movie studios have is that in chasing sales with this recurring novelty they have lost sight of the fact that most of our watching is best done in 2D.
3D can not only often be an annoyance but it is intrusive and distracting and thoroughly inappropriate.
I’d far rather see broiadcasters implement HD properly with high bit-rates than dilute the HD effect to barely better than upscaled SD with this 3D nonsense.
3D TV is the future and it is a permanent feature of all TVs made from this point on. The same arguments against new technology were made when color tv came out and again when high definition tvs hit the shelves. Most if not all of the comments in this post come from people who have never seen a 3DTV or who cannot afford one. I have a 58″ 3DTV and it is easily worth the $500 premium over a 2D set. Give it a few years and all TVs will be 3D by default without the premium, then its only a matter of time for the studios to release more 3D movies when everyone with a newer TV is capable of watching 3D. Its hilarious that people think 3D will damage your vision, if you have 2 eyes then 99% of you see in 3D everyday, the offset of your eyes creates a paralax that your mind converts into depth perception. I hope the negative comments above me are saved for posterity, it will be funny to check back in a few years and laugh at the luddites!
one more thing, 3D without glasses is at the very least 10 years away. Current technology does not support this without an extremely limited viewing angle and a lack of quality 2D support. For an example check out Nintendo, they have the current tech in their handheld system.
@Unequivocal, I love guys like you. And
no I don’t want a Best Buy gift card. ^
Since you sound like your ready to sell me a 3D tv, just curious if you’ve read anything on the new subliminal audio technologies that were stumbled upon developing Digital HD 3D?
Not trying to sell you anything, just countering the majority opinion of posters who either haven’t viewed 3D BluRay yet or decided that they can’t afford one right now. I suppose there is a third group, those who have recently purchased a new 2D set and are dissapointed that they need to upgrade in order to view 3D. Do yourself a quick favor and search the discussion forums when HDTVs first started coming out. You’ll find plenty of “I can’t tell the difference”,”its too expensive”, “its a fad” and “not enough content” comments. Case closed, good day!
@Unequivocal, I’m fully aware of 3D BR and 3D Web Streaming capabilities.
Now that we are past that, you didn’t answer my subliminal subterfuge question,,,
All wait while you google it,,,
You’re joking about the subliminal audio right? The subliminal audio is imbedded in the 3D Blurays to convince the viewer that they made a good decision in purchasing the set? Ha, well that could be the case, but I think its just the awesome visuals that has me sold. Honestly I bought the 3D set without ever seeing it in person and thought it was just an extra gimmick that I’d never use. But upon viewing a single BluRay it has changed my mind. I wish the studios would publish more titles, so its frustrating to see awesome 3DTV, only to find articles and forums filled with mostly uninformed naysayers. Check out the price of the 3D BluRays on Ebay, the ones that are only available when bundled with a TV are going for $80 and up. ONce a person has seen it I can only imagine that they’ll want more, 3D may never be implemented on all movies, but it definitely will become more prevalent than it already is. I wish that those who haven’t seen it would refrain from commenting – you’re scaring the studios!
“@You’re joking about the subliminal audio right?”
You aren’t a regular reader of this site are you?
@Unequivocal,,,
“You’re joking about the subliminal audio right?”
^
^
Giggle’giggle,,, oh of course I’m kidding unequivocal.
^
The corporate media (Ministry of propagada) machine would never strive to perfect embedded manipulation technology and improve upon it…
That’s just crazy talk,,, enjoy your 3D tv,,,
@Unequivical
As for all of us who haven’t tried it.. 3D TV gives me a headache in about 5 minutes, and I don’t mind scaring the studios!!
Everyone keeps trying to compare 3D with HDTV and other innovations but still you still fail to make the leap that you never needed glasses to use these other technologies, glasses that already cause problems for a minority of users who either can’t watch 3D, or get headaches from this technology.
So to assume that people are going to jump behind this like they have other technologies is just absurd.
So enjoy the 2 movies you can already watch on your big ass TV and hope they make at least one porno to justify your expense.
Oh, and don’t complain ten years from now when you are bumping to walls because you lost all sense of depth perception.
The 3D technology works by delivering a separate image to each eye, this is the exact way you perceive depth on a day to day basis. There is no voodoo magic involved, the TV simply replicates what you see in real life and it will not interfere with your normal depth perception. 3D BluRay is not a replacement to HD, its an enhancement. 3D is similar to 5.1 surround, sure some people are annoyed by the extra wires and boomy bass associated with surround sound, but there is a large market of consumers who seek to experience realistic audio while watching a film. 3D simply offers a more realistic visual experience.
As far as the glasses go, yes you will have to take a second to don some glasses, and a very very small minority of people get headaches. But some people get headaches when watching HD on a DLP television and DLP survived. Do you think manufacturers will cease the production of hula hoops because a small minority of people are in wheelchairs and can’t enjoy the hoop? Nope the hoop lives on.
I think some research needs to be done by those making negative comments. 3D is here and it may not stay forever, it will be around for a few decades at least. It goes well beyond televisions, theaters, movies, games. It was mentioned previously by Rick “medical/engineering/mining/AUG sims” look at schools as well. How many of us would have paid more attention in school if our biology or geography was shown in movie form in 3D, well its already happening, and catching on.
As for 3D Televisions and glasses, they will need an external device (3D Glasses) to convert the image from the flat screen television into a 3D, virtual or extended image. For 3D to work as unequivocal pointed out, each eye sees the image at different times creating the 3D effect. The 3D glasses use a shutter technology that utilizes a split millisecond opening and closing of each lens to only allow each eye to see the image. A television is unable to perform this process to create shutter effect to create the 3D image, because it is unable to single out each eye, it only shows a single viewing area.
I’ve found that most ppl that complain about headaches and eye strain are
talking about anaglyph 3d (red/blue glasses).
I’m not sure why everyone is complaining. The prices are already dropping week to week. When they eventually cost the same as the 2-D HDTVs do now, why wouldn’t you want the 3-D as an added feature? I just bought my second Bravia less than a year ago. Had I done some research I would have waited. Skype and Facebook aren’t features I would use on my TV but I don’t see any reason to complain about them. Unequivocal is 100% correct. 95% of people see in stereo anyway. @negacrowbar, If anything, stereoscopy would strengthen your eyes. Not cause you to lose depth perception. Doctors have used stereoscopic images to strengthen and exercise eyes for decades.
3d that needs glasses = fail. Who is going to pony up money so that they have extra glasses around fro when people come over to watch a 3-d game of movie?
Anybody who thinks that $99 for a set of glasses is a good idea from a business perspective probably still dusts off their Pioneer Laser Disc player to watch 2001 or a Betamax to watch original Star Wars, just because they wanted to be at the bleeding edge of failed technology too.
Me, I’ll save my money and wait for the technology to be perfected. Let the rubes go out and blow the big money like hey did with the 1st generation plasma screens and 1st gen LCD’s.
2nd sentence, fro = for & of = or. I hate having dyslexia.
Who is the fool who decided that watching films was best done in 3D?
I see they are not going to release the Star Wars films until they have converted it to 3D.
Anyone reminded of tht ghastly colorisation process they tried on classic old B&W films?
Maybe for gaming it will appeal but for my regular TV?
Forget it.
For films?
Maybe as a novelty once in a while (like when they throw $500 million on the effects budget á la Avatar).
Don’t they know films are best watched in 2D?
3D is distracting and interferes with the story telling process.