[tiggerpooh]

Originally Posted by Matt_Aspden

As tweeted by Blogtor Who on Twitter

Are fans still going to be able to watch this as normal on TV without having to get 3D glasses? I hope so as I cannot get on with 3D glasses. When Channel 4 did a 3D week back in 2011, I tried using the glasses, but gave up after one night.

[Gordie1]

Lots of folk will boo and hiss, no doubt people years ago bood and hissed at it being colour, now people are colouring the stuff in to make it acceptable to a modern audience.

In 30 years time, when all televisions simply have 3D screens with no glasses, the Drwho fans of that time will be asking why more episodes wernt made in 3d,

I dont own a 3D tv, but one day i might, it would be great to have an episode of Who, future proofed.

[fastest finger]

Originally Posted by tiggerpooh

Are fans still going to be able to watch this as normal on TV without having to get 3D glasses? I hope so as I cannot get on with 3D glasses. When Channel 4 did a 3D week back in 2011, I tried using the glasses, but gave up after one night.

Yes, won't be a problem.

[CD93]

Now we need a trailer like THIS.

Fly in to Matt Smith's face... IN 3D!!!!!!

Latest title sequence was clearly made for 3D now. Everything breaks apart and flies in to the camera.

[nebogipfel]

Originally Posted by TEDR

But did you see it in 48fps? There's the controversy!

The only sort of 3d I really like is the projection-onto-a-dome optical illusion they use for presentations of outer space in places like the Royal Observatory in Greenwich and the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

If and when they solve the engineering problems related to light field technology that'll be quite something too. It's a moving 3d image that you can walk around and on which you use your natural focus. The maths is all there and there are a few cameras that can capture a light field but everything else is a long way off.

Just 24 frames for me. I asked if it was half price, but no.

I've got the Royal Observatory on my "must get round to" list.

Woohoo! I think 3D doodads will be a lot of fun for the special. Can't see why it would detract from anything. And I hope they pull off the cinema thing too. Terrific. So - what returning monster would be best for 3D? Alpha Centauri? Kroll?

Christmas special too. Which was all but a dead cert, but nice to hear confirmed.

[DiscoP]

Originally Posted by Gordie1

Lots of folk will boo and hiss, no doubt people years ago bood and hissed at it being colour, now people are colouring the stuff in to make it acceptable to a modern audience.

In 30 years time, when all televisions simply have 3D screens with no glasses, the Drwho fans of that time will be asking why more episodes wernt made in 3d,

I dont own a 3D tv, but one day i might, it would be great to have an episode of Who, future proofed.

Actually I thought super HD was the future

[fallfallfall]

is this the big selling point 3D but means nothing if you dont have 3D TV.
reminds me of the david brent good news bad news.
"bad news is you will only get 2nd half of S7 and the 50th special. the good news is I can watch it in 3D."

[nebogipfel]

Originally Posted by Gordie1

Lots of folk will boo and hiss, no doubt people years ago bood and hissed at it being colour, now people are colouring the stuff in to make it acceptable to a modern audience.

In 30 years time, when all televisions simply have 3D screens with no glasses, the Drwho fans of that time will be asking why more episodes wernt made in 3d,

I dont own a 3D tv, but one day i might, it would be great to have an episode of Who, future proofed.

I agree. it will be a laugh for those who have it (or go to the cinema), and I can't see it spoiling things for 2D viewers. Unless they spend 60 minutes waving the sonic screwdriver out at the audience or something.

[lordo350]

It's rant time.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's February the 11th. We are having, more and more likely with each passing day, 10 episodes of Doctor Who this year. 10. For the 50th anniversary. So while we sit, patiently waiting for the "huge massive stuff" Moffat has promised, this is what is given to us.
I hate 3d. It is a pointless gimmick, there to turn movies that are guaranteed to make millions into movies that will make billions. And now they take our favourite show, and turn it into a gimmick spectacle. No show as big as Doctor Who, on the primary channel of the country, has EVER been presented in 3D. So, there we go. They are using the 50 anniversary of this show as a money making scheme to produce more programs in 3D, as they simply cannot let this money grabbing thing die.
OK... maybe this will grab some monster ratings. Even non DW fans will be curious. But how many of you actually own 3D TVs? Exactly. So even if, and after watching several movies in 3d recently and being very disappointed its a big if, the 3D is out of this world (pun intended), we won't even get to see it. They will use the show's popularity to shove 3d into the limelight once more. Maybe it will boost the show's ratings, and I can't complain about that. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe this is just another attempt by Moff to make this as epic as he can, as he clearly is trying, episode count aside. Or maybe it is an attempt by the greedy behind the scenes producers to advertise a money grabbing gimmick dying a very slow death in the cinemas.
Time will very much tell.

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by lordo350

It's rant time.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's February the 11th. We are having, more and more likely with each passing day, 10 episodes of Doctor Who this year. 10. For the 50th anniversary. So while we sit, patiently waiting for the "huge massive stuff" Moffat has promised, this is what is given to us.
I hate 3d. It is a pointless gimmick, there to turn movies that are guaranteed to make millions into movies that will make billions. And now they take our favourite show, and turn it into a gimmick spectacle. No show as big as Doctor Who, on the primary channel of the country, has EVER been presented in 3D. So, there we go. They are using the 50 anniversary of this show as a money making scheme to produce more programs in 3D, as they simply cannot let this money grabbing thing die.
OK... maybe this will grab some monster ratings. Even non DW fans will be curious. But how many of you actually own 3D TVs? Exactly. So even if, and after watching several movies in 3d recently and being very disappointed its a big if, the 3D is out of this world (pun intended), we won't even get to see it. They will use the show's popularity to shove 3d into the limelight once more. Maybe it will boost the show's ratings, and I can't complain about that. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe this is just another attempt by Moff to make this as epic as he can, as he clearly is trying, episode count aside. Or maybe it is an attempt by the greedy behind the scenes producers to advertise a money grabbing gimmick dying a very slow death in the cinemas.
Time will very much tell.

It's apparently being shown in cinemas as well as on tv.....see the last page.

TBH, 3D tends to give me a headache, but it's an interesting development nonetheless.

[kyllerbuzcut]

It will probably be nice to have it in 3d, but how much does that cost to film it in 3d? I hope it doesn't add up to the amount of money that could have been used to produce some more episodes of 'normal' television.
Especially when you factor in the number of people who will specifically watch it in 3d compared to the number of people who will watch it on normal mode either way. Is it really going to make a huge difference in the special that it would be worth missing out on half a series that we could have had, for example? Had someone at the BBC not wanted a 3d fancy version.

On the other hand, if someone can tell me that it is cheap add chips to film it in 3d then fair enough, why the he'll not do it. Some people just don't 'get' 3d. I'm one of them, but I'm not against it per se. There comes a point though, where having something in 3d will mean missing out on something else, and depending on what that is, I might very well mind.

[tomwozhere]

If it definitely is being shown at the pictures, surely they'd consider it wise to screen both 3D and 2D there? I know it's being shown in both on telly but I'm sure many people would love to watch it at the pictures regardless of it being 3D or not.

[DiscoP]

I wonder if you would have to pay to watch it at the cinema? Can the BBC even charge people to watch it at the cinema?

I probably would pay though, especially if money from the sales can go into funding more series of Doctor Who...

[Lulz77]

Originally Posted by tomwozhere

If it definitely is being shown at the pictures, surely they'd consider it wise to screen both 3D and 2D there? I know it's being shown in both on telly but I'm sure many people would love to watch it at the pictures regardless of it being 3D or not.

I expect it will only be screened in cinemas the once, live. So there wouldn't be a point to screen it in 2D, when everyone could be watching it at home at the same time for free.

[Lulz77]

Originally Posted by DiscoP

I wonder if you would have to pay to watch it at the cinema? Can the BBC even charge people to watch it at the cinema?

I probably would pay though, especially if money from the sales can go into funding more series of Doctor Who...

Pretty sure you'll have to pay. For a start, if the cinemas weren't charging, the BBC would have to pay them or no where would screen it. Then a waste of the license fee. Cue uproar.

Don't see any reason they can't charge, as long as its also available on TV for free, which it is. No different to selling DVDs really.

[TEDR]

Originally Posted by kyllerbuzcut

It will probably be nice to have it in 3d, but how much does that cost to film it in 3d?

That really depends on whether it'll be an after-the-fact conversion or a proper shoot. The former is a lot cheaper. You pretty much just run the finished footage through some computer software and have someone go through and massage the results.

Originally Posted by kyllerbuzcut

Some people just don't 'get' 3d. I'm one of them, but I'm not against it per se. There comes a point though, where having something in 3d will mean missing out on something else, and depending on what that is, I might very well mind.

That's primarily because stereoscopy is a poor emulation of 3d. It doesn't react properly to subtle tilting of the head, doesn't present the correct perspective to anyone off centre and — worst of all — gives you entirely the wrong signals about how you should be focussing.

Within the constraints of stereo imaging the focus issue is technically unsolvable, and it's a serious creative problem too. Focus is normally used by directors to direct attention in a shot; with this sort of 3d you make more and more people sick the lesser your depth of field.

[Lulz77]

Originally Posted by TEDR

That really depends on whether it'll be an after-the-fact conversion or a proper shoot. The former is a lot cheaper. You pretty much just run the finished footage through some computer software and have someone go through and massage the results..

I have a feeling it will be a proper shoot, since they've announced it 3 months before filming. Plus since its being released in cinemas I imagine they want to make sure it's flawless.

[DiscoP]

Originally Posted by kyllerbuzcut

It will probably be nice to have it in 3d, but how much does that cost to film it in 3d? I hope it doesn't add up to the amount of money that could have been used to produce some more episodes of 'normal' television.
Especially when you factor in the number of people who will specifically watch it in 3d compared to the number of people who will watch it on normal mode either way. Is it really going to make a huge difference in the special that it would be worth missing out on half a series that we could have had, for example? Had someone at the BBC not wanted a 3d fancy version.

On the other hand, if someone can tell me that it is cheap add chips to film it in 3d then fair enough, why the he'll not do it. Some people just don't 'get' 3d. I'm one of them, but I'm not against it per se. There comes a point though, where having something in 3d will mean missing out on something else, and depending on what that is, I might very well mind.

I guess it all comes down to budgets. I expect somewhere there is a budget and remit within the BBC to encourage people to take up 3D and HD and they have been able to use some of that for Doctor Who. I doubt it is the same budget that would be used to commission programs.

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by DiscoP

I guess it all comes down to budgets. I expect somewhere there is a budget and remit within the BBC to encourage people to take up 3D and HD and they have been able to use some of that for Doctor Who. I doubt it is the same budget that would be used to commission programs.

Yeah, i tend to agree. BBC have started to push 3D recently, and would likely see this as a good opportunity, as such I doubt the money for 3D is coming from the doctor who budget.

[JCR]

Originally Posted by DiscoP

I wonder if you would have to pay to watch it at the cinema? Can the BBC even charge people to watch it at the cinema?

Yes. I was charged to watch Let's Kill Hitler & Asylum of the Daleks in the cinema before they were on tv. £4.10 to be exact in Daleks case. Whether they'd do it en masse is a different matter I suppose.

[Lulz77]

Of all the reports of this story I've seen, not one of them have used a picture of David Tennant wearing 3D glasses from Army of Ghosts/Doomsday! Come on people! It's just too obvious!

[gingerfreak]

I'd be totally happy to go to the pics to see the special, but 3D I just find a bit meh. The only film I've seen so far where 3D actually added to it was Dredd, in the Slo-Mo section with the bubbles. That was brilliant.

But too fast a switch in focus is painful and hard to adapt to. The bit in Thor where he gets run over at the start springs to mind. I didn't know what was going on as I couldn't follow the fast cuts. That was adapted after filming, I know, but in 2D it was fast and urgent, and those sorts of cuts don't work in 3D. So you end up losing such cuts if you're filming in 3D, or with a conversion in mind.

[bayards]

Originally Posted by nebogipfel

It is not a film for cinema. The BBC release said they will broadcast it using their HD Bandwidth. 3D tv has been around for a couple of years. In fact we bought a tv recently and they pretty much all had 3d as standard. Some programmes (if you have access to the right channels such as sky ones) are broadcast in 3d. Or you can buy a 3d film on bluray if you have one of those devices. Or, on our telly, you can push a button and it turns anything into 3d by software magic (although the results are hit and miss I'm told).

As it happens our new telly did not come with the silly glasses you have to wear so I cannot tell you if 3d is any good (also we only have freeview and don't have a blu ray so no specially made 3d to watch either). We are too tight to but some glasses.

If your tv is the passive 3d sort they will cost a quid a pair (or
Use cinema ones)...

[snakecharmer37]

Originally Posted by lordo350

It's rant time.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's February the 11th. We are having, more and more likely with each passing day, 10 episodes of Doctor Who this year. 10. For the 50th anniversary. So while we sit, patiently waiting for the "huge massive stuff" Moffat has promised, this is what is given to us.
I hate 3d. It is a pointless gimmick, there to turn movies that are guaranteed to make millions into movies that will make billions. And now they take our favourite show, and turn it into a gimmick spectacle. No show as big as Doctor Who, on the primary channel of the country, has EVER been presented in 3D. So, there we go. They are using the 50 anniversary of this show as a money making scheme to produce more programs in 3D, as they simply cannot let this money grabbing thing die.
OK... maybe this will grab some monster ratings. Even non DW fans will be curious. But how many of you actually own 3D TVs? Exactly. So even if, and after watching several movies in 3d recently and being very disappointed its a big if, the 3D is out of this world (pun intended), we won't even get to see it. They will use the show's popularity to shove 3d into the limelight once more. Maybe it will boost the show's ratings, and I can't complain about that. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe this is just another attempt by Moff to make this as epic as he can, as he clearly is trying, episode count aside. Or maybe it is an attempt by the greedy behind the scenes producers to advertise a money grabbing gimmick dying a very slow death in the cinemas.
Time will very much tell.

I own a 3D television, but I don't use the 3D feature, not unless there is something I really want to watch as it gives me headaches, eyestrain etc.
No doubt I shall probably watch the Doctor Who special in 3D, but if it's no good then I shall charge Moffat for the paracetamol I will need after. You're right in saying it will be a gimmicky special, of that I have no doubt now. If I am wrong, I will eat my 3D glasses.

[davrosdodebird]

On DS, often perceived to be the lesser of two great DW froums (the other being GB), the announcement of DW in the cinemas and also in 3d has sparked a discussion over the merits of the technology and what it means for the show. All in all a very positive and sensible discussion. On GB, usually considered to be the greater of two sites, things have descended into pessimistic nonsensical chaos about how the evil BBC want to profiteer by forcing us all to pay extortionate cinema fees to see something the Licence fee is paid for etc.

I know which site I prefer right now