Images that are uncomfortable because of some extreme color presentation or uncomfortably loud sound are the very, very rare exception, not the rule. ALL of stereoscopic 3D has the unnatural qualities I just mentioned by its very nature.I've also seen colors and heard sounds that were physically uncomfortable experiences for me (cartoon-induced mass seizures anyone? Death metal maybe?), I see that as having more to do with the skill of the person delivering those sensory experiences.
Now you're getting to the heart of the matter. If we actually had a 3D delivery system, I might agree that it would be interesting. Different than projected cinema, but interesting. Unfortunately, we don't. We have stereoscopic imagery, which is not a 3D delivery system. But it really doesn't matter what any of us here think about it, it will either grow or diminish in its own course, determined primarily by box office results, since this is, after all, a business.We're learning more about how to deliver 3D in a way that will feel more natural to us, it just takes time.
Having said that, I'm planning to see Green Lantern in 2D...
I always thought something like 3d had nothing to do with creativity but with a new way of making more money; but Werner Herzog is working with 3d, I heard, and I assume he will do something creatitve with it; maybe one lens out of focus at the right moment? The main reason why I don't like 3d is you'd need 2 epics instead of 1 for every shot
Unlike a lot of the people on this and other forums, I don’t have any trouble at all watching “3-D” movies. That’s not to say I always think it adds anything to the experience, in fact for just about all the live-action stuff I’ve see so far, it seems a total waste of time. Animation is a different story, and I really believe that that’s probably going to be the only time it does contribute anything.
But here’s an interesting thing. Last week I went to a special “Gold Class” screening of “Thor”. Gold Class is a special adult-patrons-only cinema that only holds about 30 people and has special luxury recliner seats, allows alcohol and hot food to be served and so on. This was for a special birthday celebration, so they booked the entire cinema, and so I knew everybody in there.
It was only just before we went in that I learned that the movie was going to be shown in 3-D. Just about all the people there were over 50, and only one or two had ever seen a 3-D movie before; most of them didn’t even know what 3-D was! (And before you ask: “Why Thor?”, remember they were all teenagers when Marvel comics were in their heyday).
So I was thinking this will be great; they’ll all be whinging and complaining and wanting to know who organized this crap. (Not me, fortunately ;-)
But no; they all loved it! I made a point of talking to everybody afterwards to find out if they had eyestrain, headaches, or any other problems. Nope. Not a single complaint. So we have an unusual sampling of patrons: 30 middle-aged people all viewing the same screening of a 3-D movie, but not intentionally choosing the 3-D version.
So I began to wonder what was going on.
First off, this was a high quality installation. You can see into the projection booth on your way to the cinema. I couldn’t see what make of projector it was, but the thing was the size of a small locomotive, so clearly this wasn’t any cheapo setup. But I've been to less-well-set-up places with darker screens and crummier glasses, and I still had no problems interpreting the 3-D image.
So what else could be the explanation?
The main problem people have in digesting “3-D” is that of course it’s not really 3-D. There are at least 10 mechanisms your eyes and brain use to determine spatial positioning, current “3-D” systems really only give you two: Fixed parallax from using separate images for each eye, and apparent depth of field, permanantly baked into the image by the camera lens.
In the real world, we also make extensive use of differential parallax, which just means noticing the amount things in the background shift when we move our heads slightly. This is completely missing from “3-D”.
Other important clues are generated by your eyes automatically focussing on different parts of the image at different times, allowing your brain to estimate distances. This is also completely missing.
And that might be at least part of the answer. With most people, after they reach 40, the elasticity of the lenses in their eyes gradually starts to reduce, limiting the range over which they can focus. This is known as presbyopia, and is by far the most common form of visual impairment. At the same time the irises of the eyes tend to remain permanently “stopped down”. (You may have noticed the striking difference in the size of the pupils of young people in low light, compared to those middle-aged or older).
The bottom line is, once most people get past middle age, the depth of field of their unaided visual system becomes very wide, and they also lose most of the focussing ability they had when they were young.
The result is that they have effectively lost two of the mechanisms used to generate depth perception when they were younger, but because the change comes on so slowly they are not even aware of it. They still have binocular vision, and they can still judge parallax by moving their heads, which is good enough for most situations.
But maybe, because they are used to not having these mechanisms available, it’s not as disorienting for them when they are missing from a 3-D movie presentation.
It would be height of irony if it turned out the only people who are really comfortable with 3-D projection turned out to people over 50, who as a rule, make up only a tiny percentage of the general viewing public…
Even more ironic if the generally middle-aged producers couldn’t figure out what people were actually complaining about.
Last edited by Keith Walters; 05-25-2011 at 02:06 AM. Reason: Left bits out...
I like 3D; it adds a sensation you can't get from 2D. I don't get headaches or eyestrain. On my 65" Samsung DLP, Avatar looks great. We turn off all the room lights and block off the LEDs on the Blu-Ray player, cable box etc. Now the eyes only see the 3D window, not the 2D surface of the screen or other distracting visuals. After years working with holograms and stereo photography, now I'm moving into 3D cinematography. I hope to capture some 3D footage on my RED soon.
3D is great...on animated films, like Toy Story and so on...
Saw Pirates, i wish it was in 2D where I saw it, 3D is really starting to annoy me, just for the fact that I feel like I can enjoy this stuff so much more in 2D, feels like the glasses are kind of holding me back in some ways from enjoying the film,
not saying glasses free 3D would be any better as that's ages off from being good enough to be used in cinemas...
Loved Tron though with the fact that they used 2D and 3D, knew when to use each one, it helped increase the difference in the worlds and it was a pleasant surprise to see them embracing both worlds and giving some reason to using it
I do wish though that they'd cut it out with the 3D on EVERYTHING almost, saw a trailer with Pirates and instead of saying 3D it now says "2D in selected cinemas"... total reverse from before which is quite sad,
anyway, I'm fine if they decide to stick it for animation and stuff of that kind, visual effects maybe like avatar was?
Though some say that 48fps 3D is different from the stuff now? I'm no expert at this stuff but I take it the stuff now isn't 48fps and there's supposedly a major difference in viewing experience between the two?
So I guess I'll hopefully be converted to 3D when i see a 48fps 3D film...
Given, had this thought the other day whilst seeing Pirates,
What happened to the days of using 3D for throwing things into the audience and having snakes jump out at people? A lot of the 3D now seems really contained in the screen if that makes sense
I'm not getting into the technical details of 3D (i'm not an expert anyway, though I've studied some stuff related to visual perception at university years ago), or of whether or not it's another tool for storytelling or simply an improved version of an old gimmick that studios are interested in so they can charge a lot more money per ticket. I don't believe the analogy to the introduction of sound and color makes much sense, but it's just a personal opinion, and other people have expressed it much better than I'd do.
I don't like 3D at all, simple as that. Last 3D movie I saw was Tron, nothing wrong with it, but I don't think I'll ever see another 3D movie ever again, not as long as a 2D version of it exists.
it's just that I miss the point of 3D, I guess. I don't really feel "immersed" in the movie better, actually I'm distracted by the 3D "effect". I don't go to theaters to have some strange illusion of looking through a window or to see stuff that comes out of the screen. If I want real 3D, I go see a stage play or a musical. In the end, the audiences will determine "new" 3D's success or its failure, just like they've done before.
With some of the new 3D titles that are coming out in the next year, I can almost promise you will see another 3D movie. You won't be able to stay away from seeing what these truly creative directors do with big, non-effects-driven titles.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|