Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Does Anyone Like 3d?

We'll see if all you 3D haters are singing the same tune after "Avatar"...
 
I'm looking forward to watching a serious film (say 500 Days of Summer) in 3D and evaluating it based on that. I hate all of that i your face stuff, but I do think it could add a sense of depth and realism if used in the right way
 
I have a problem with the concept of 3D as it is today. I watched U2's 3D concert film and I realised, yes, I can see the depth in the image better, there is the 3D effect. But I realised that there is a huge difference between natural three-dimensional visual perception: I am "told" what to focus on. That in itself is not different with traditional 2D movies where the attention is directed through blocking, selective focus etc. But I find it very distracting in a 3D represantion. Also, if the field of view differs from what is natural to the eye, it feels 'weird'.
Can anyone follow?
 
Roger Ebert:
"Simply put, has anyone ever attended a 2-D movie and thought, ‘If only it were in 3-D’? I doubt it, because 2-D creates a perfectly effective illusion of depth and dimension. When I see Lawrence growing from a dot far across the desert sands, it never occurs to me that I’m watching a 2-D image. When I watch 3-D, however, I’m constantly reminded that it’s in 3-D. Objects approach and recede alarmingly, drawing you out of the actual film."

That's where I'm at.

I think 3D is a complete and total construction of the industry biggies to try to give theater chains an additional selling proposition. Perhaps Sony sees 3DHDTV sales and needs the content.

The guys in Hollywood can sell ice to eskimos. And 3D.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Amen Roger Ebert!!
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts-and-culture/all/5402013/does-anyone-like-3d.thtml

Finally an article that lays it out well, 3D is a gimic an not a natural tech progression.

As a side, to those comparing it to the move from SD to HD. That doesn't follow.
Click to expand...

Quote of the new milennia from that article...

"The 3-D process is an abomination that has died many deaths. It failed in the 1950s as a novelty, and again in the 1970s as a device to breathe new life into exhausted franchises. It even fizzled as a promising innovation in porno. Somehow, audiences didn’t find it erotic to witness the legs of The Stewardesses extending above them as they zeroed in on the money shot."
:ihih:

As for Avatar- Its STILL a GIMMICK. T=Sorry, but the glasses give me HEAD ACHES and Ill wait to watch it in NON 3-D and bet I STILL enjoy the STORY
until it can be seen without glasses, its doomed imho.

Dont believe me? my 6 and 8 year old... HATE 3-D and refuse to watch any movie with glasses.
 
Personally, I'd rather see something in Cinemascope again before I'd be interested in something in 3D.

Perhaps Avitar will be the exception to what has been disappointing rollouts of 3D films so far. I think the video game market may also be able to make something that executes nicely and doesn't take away, but add to the experience, of the medium by incorporating good 3D technology.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Amen Roger Ebert!!
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts-and-culture/all/5402013/does-anyone-like-3d.thtml

Finally an article that lays it out well, 3D is a gimic an not a natural tech progression.

As a side, to those comparing it to the move from SD to HD. That doesn't follow.
Click to expand...

Well ... I looked up GIMMICK in an on-line dictionary and I get this "gim⋅mick"
an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

so ... sure, it's a gimmick.

And so is 5.1 surround sound and IMAX.

I just shot a bunch 3D tests on RED last week and I gotta tell ya ... don't knock it till 'ya shoot it.
 
I love love love 3D. I thoroughly enjoyed Final Destnation 3D. (Although I think ReelD is better than Dolby 3D) Its really the best thing to happen to cinema in a while. And yes, it is the way of the future as far as mass entertainment goes.
 
I have mixed feelings on 3D... I love the potential I see with it. I'm usually not that in to what most films do with it. I'm Looking forward to Avatar, now that I've accepted it's going to look more "cartoony" and "StarWars-like" than I originally imagined.

Have to agree with some of the others here. The glasses suck. I wouldn't want to do an all-day viewing event with any of the current 3D technology out there.
 
viewing practices are always generational...

when web video came out, old pharts said they'd never watch on the web what they could watch on TV...and that was, what, 1998 or so? now every 20-something I know, that is what they watch for most of their media consumption.

my 8 year old likes 3D. none of her peers seem bothered by RealD glasses. so we shall see if a generation of millenials weaned on a heavy 3D diet is as bothered by it as my peer group of boomers/echo boomers...

Just because a technology faded in and out of fashion for past generations doesn't mean that it will die a similar death now. the technology is better, the access to the tools of production is about to be democratized like never before, and there is a targeted audience that is going to grow up on it--that's a strong basis for its success.
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
Just because a technology faded in and out of fashion for past generations doesn't mean that it will die a similar death now. the technology is better, the access to the tools of production is about to be democratized like never before, and there is a targeted audience that is going to grow up on it--that's a strong basis for its success.
Click to expand...

wise words.
 
I think the problem here is physics

-You fundamentally HAVE to either wear glasses, or not move from a specific point in the room
-Everyone has a varying interocular distance

3d onto 2d has been the defining view for nearly 500 years. To me, 2d IS 3d, it just doesnt jump out at me.

I have no doubt that 3d will become standard on tentpole animation and Transformers-like action movies, I just hope people get over calling it the second coming for all or the majority of films.
 
if all we had was 3d movies.. I would never watch a movie again in my life!
I get the worst headaches from them.. and ill bet money, if someone did a medical/scientific study.. it cant be good for your eyes
 
You can see 3D?

You can see 3D?

Not all people can see 3D, so there will always be a large group of people who will have destine for those who can.

The two projector interlock print of "Kiss me Kate 1953" I think is a better film in 3D than 2D.

The two projector print of "Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)" is much better than the anaglyph print.

The idea of turning 2D movies into 3D with computers is silly and can only produce results that hurt the conversion to 3D with unsatisfactory results.

Good 3D requires higher bandwidth than 2D images and compression methods used on 2D images destory the fine detail required for 3D vision to avoid "cardboarding" of the 3D subjects.

So long as 3D is treated as a way to get more seats filled, rather than a way to improve the movie going experence it will have a boom and bust cycle.

Everyone knows a 65/70mm film print is better than 35mm in every way, but 70mm is dead because quality does not relate to seats being filled.
 
Diverge

Diverge

Zakaree Sandberg said:
if all we had was 3d movies.. I would never watch a movie again in my life!
I get the worst headaches from them.. and ill bet money, if someone did a medical/scientific study.. it cant be good for your eyes
Click to expand...

When shooting 3D you should NEVER have any subject show up on the screen so that your eyes need to Diverge. What works on a computer monitor will not work for people looking at a big screen, you need to shoot a test grid with marks, the look at the screen to make shure the test grid with marks is right in the print, otherwise you sell headache pills at the candy counter.
 
Not every story will need 3D. For the ones that won't, it would be annoying and distracting.

For a lot of summer blockbusters and IMAX style films, the benefits are obviously, but for the majority of films released every year, it just doesn't seem logical.

Now scent is an entirely different story..imagine the use of scents as motif in film...the reminiscent perfume of "girl that got away"...etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top