Tutor Meeting

I met with Jo and discussed how I have been getting on. Everything seems to be going well although the work load does seem alot sometimes. Design for the Internet has a lot of work within the module and seems to be the one that worries me most. Everything else seems to be OK and Jo has confidence in me that my essay for HE and Skills Work will be fine from what has been seen on the blog. I feel better about the work once talking to Jo and will work as I have been and harder to achieve what I want from the course.

Main Argument (needs to be shortened)

Main Argument

There has been a huge surge of 3D film and television in today’s society recently, with businesses and film-makers investing heavily into the technology. But whether people really grasp the advance in theatrical technology is questionable.

With primary research collected, it is clearly seen that almost everybody who answered the questionnaire had seen at least one 3D film at the cinema (Fig 2.). This suggests that the technology is popular with most but some believe it is just a novelty. Deneroff (2010) compares box office sales and concludes “stereoscopic films are no longer a recurring fad” and believes they are here to stay. However Ebert (2010) believes it is not here to stay and thinks that cinema turns to technology when it feels threatened. “Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened it has turned to technology: sound, colour, widescreen, Cinerama, 3-D, stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again” (Ebert, 2010). Whether or not it will stay is yet to be seen, it is up to the cinema goers.

Within the results it is possible to see that there are many people that do not have any problems viewing a stereoscopic format. But there were those who did. Fig 2.1 shows that approximately a third of people asked suffer from some kind of symptom, most commonly “headaches”. Different experts voice different opinions. Banks (2010) reported that 3D is straining the eyes and making them do something they were not made to do. “You're taking that normal relationship which has been coupled in the brain for years and you're changing it”. Other experts, such as Salz (2010) states there is no evidence of health scares. “We’re not aware of, nor have we seen, any negative permanent effects”. With a third of the consensus stating they have “headaches” and other problems, it is evident there are side effects to watching 3D for some people.

The Likert Survey results (Fig 1.) shows that the majority of the consensus would still go and see a film, even though it is not 3D. Ebert (2010) agrees and even thinks “When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned”. This suggests that 3D is not taking over the industry and is not making 2D films obsolete.

It is seen in Fig 1 that many people think the charge for a 3D film is too much. A regular theme going through it was that paying for 3D glasses is understandable but extra ticket prices is too much. Ebert also thinks it is too expensive “you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theatre, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22?” This is a problem with the films and does not help towards it becoming more beneficial for movie goers.

More than half the consensus felt they were not interested in buying 3D TV (see appendix). Many of them felt it was too expensive at the moment and also the programmes broadcast did not have a wide enough variety. The people that did want 3D TV said it would make “television more interesting” and involve you more. Critics also agree: “There is still little on TV to watch in 3D. Sky’s new channel is one, but only a handful of 3D Blu-Ray films or games have so far come out” (Dhanendran 2010), . “I cannot for the life of me see anyone spending an evening in front of the box wearing a pair of overpriced 3D specs” (Parrack 2010).

A lot of people thought 3D TV did not improve watching television. This may relate to Fig 1 and highlight that 2D shows are not out of date whatsoever. Parrack (2010) agrees “Movies and sporting events, sure, but sitcoms and reality TV shows? No thanks” These results suggest that many people are not ready for 3D TV and it will be sometime before it is widely used.

Secondary research conducted highlights UK cinemas across the country are considerably investing in 3D (see appendix). Cineworld (2009) states they are integrating “74 further digital projectors at a total cost of circa £4m”. Vue cinemas claim to be adding “200 RealD 3D screens to its circuit” (Barco.com, 2009). These high investments suggest that the industry is foreseeing that 3D is here to stay.

Cinemas did claim to make a large profit from 3D films, “the firm’s takings grew £6million to £162m in the first half of this year as it charged a premium for movies such as Avatar and Alice in Wonderland” (The Mirror, 2010). Deneroff (2010) agrees claiming that these films will bring in “substantial profit”. This highlights that many people are viewing 3D and it seems to be benefitting the industry, even though the technology is quite expensive with each projector costing £200-300 (pureprojectors.com).

There are many different opinions in the field and also different opinions in the primary research. The film industry are greatly benefitting from 3D, with takings being at there highest. The technology is expensive but economically is improving the industry.

There are, however, problems health-wise such as headaches. This is a large downfall for the stereoscopic format.

A large portion of the consensus highlights 3D is an amazing advancement in film, but not so much for television. Many people are not ready, due to price and availability of programmes.

The answer to my hypothesis is inconclusive due to the popularity of 3D film but the unpopularity of 3D TV. The industry obviously finds it the logical progression as they are investing so much money into 3D. 3D does enhance movies and lets the viewer become more involved but not 3D TV is involved.

If this report was to be investigated again, it would be recommended to delve deeper into both 3D cinema and 3D television separately. This would divide the conflict between the two formats and provide a clearer understanding of how stereoscopic technology can enhance people’s viewing.