So, Anyone seen The Avengers yet? [+ 3d related question time]

[Trevor Emmerson]

I know it was shot on one of those other cameras but i thought the 3d and effects were pretty ninja at times. Saw it in 3d because the local theatre only shows the 2d prints during daytime. Still got mixed feelings about it though, 3d.

Firstly, i've got to say i'm really looking forward to Prometheus and Hobbit, and Skyfall for that matter, because these digital images are looking better to me than film ever has. There were some stunning images in Avengers, some shockers too but the clarity and the textures and the colour.. quite amazing at times. I think the 3d side has still got a way to go but definitely Avengers was an evolution since last time i saw something in 3d. Probably the best visual effects i've seen too, for the type of movie it was. To think of the post production man hours that must of gone into this film hurts my brain. unbelievable. hats off to all those hard working folks.

Back to the 3d. i'm one of those people who wishes it never happened. but it did. it shits me. but i'm not about to stop going to see the films i want to see just because all these hot shot directors are jerks and want to take the new toys for a spin 3d, here to stay and all that.

I totally get why they do it, i can only imagine how awesome 4k 3d looks in a controlled environment with best in class projection, calibration, glasses and what have you. I am green with envy of what people must be seeing behind closed doors on some of these films.

But my question to Jim, to James, to Ridley, to PJ and all these guys [not you Ketch.. thanks ] is have you ever slummed it with the rest of us and been down to the local multiplex and sat there in the dim with the $2 glasses they sell you and seen how things look on the other side? Because THAT! my friends, is fucking shit. Just a terrible experience a lot of the time. Sure there are some glimpses into an amazing world full of potential. but they are only glimpses. And it makes me really angry every. single. time.

Because to me it just reeks of arrogance on a filmmakers part. There are clear, and not insignificant quality issues with 3d for the end user and i think everybody acknowledges this and its like they are saying "we know there are issues but trust us it gets better, one day 3d is going to be amazing, thanks for all the money for the abortions we made while trying to figure this out, keep watching, one day you'll see what we see and it'll blow your mind!" Well, thanks guys. Glad to be part of the experiment. Hope you get back to making some good stories soon, and I'll keep watching cause i like movies and you haven't really given me a choice. Cheers. Good luck. K. Bye. Just so you know i idolise the lot of you. But i do think you are truly a bunch of jerks.

So, given the fact that the only thing i dislike more than 3d at the moment is a thread on reduser devoted to bickering about the subject, i'll draw inspiration from this annoying sign some idiot taped to the wall at work that says "you lose the right to complain about a problem if you aren't prepared to be part of the solution." Or something..

So for the time being this is my personal solution: Buy a better pair of glasses.

Question to fellow redusers: Are there some super awesome 3d glasses that i could go to a store and buy that i can take to the movies when i go see something in 3d that will improve the viewing experience? I'm looking for 2 things mostly: a design that is generous enough in proportion to cover the entirety of my eyeballs, so that the frames are not sitting out there in my field of vision. And some nice optics, something clear, expensive looking i guess, something that feels like i am not wearing glasses, like i am looking through a clear glass window rather than my own personal +1 ND w/soft focus filter. Anyone have any suggestions? Anyone know how much a good pair would cost? I think there were some Oakley ones for the 4k projection at NAB right? Do they sell those?

Anyone thinking the same thing? I mean its the most obvious solution right? Just buy a better pair of glasses and half the problem goes away, doesn't it?

While i find it morally reprehensible that i need to invest in some dedicated hardware to get the same pleasure i used to get out of going to catch a movie, i think i have to be a realist here and cough up the cash. i'm still going to movies all the time. I don't want to buy my own glasses, but i feel like the longer i leave it the more i am missing out on. And there isn't really any alternative. When the idea first occurred to me 30 films or so back and i said I'D RATHER F#*KING DIE! And i really hoped 3d was going to be a fad. Not to be. The point is some truly awesome films are coming out this year and looking forward i think for the first time they are going to be films which i actually care about getting the most out of watching. Probably everything to this point i've gone to see just for entertainments sake, pretty much knowing they wouldn't be very good films all things considered, genre type stuff. But for Prometheus, for Hobbit, i don't want the first time i see them to be ruined by shitty $2 glasses. So. seriously. i think i want to invest my own money into something that is going to make these movies all that they can be, or at least a lot better than they currently are.

Sorry, turned into a long post. Suggestions/personal anecdotes welcome

Cheers

 

[Petri Teittinen]

Imagine how nice The Avengers would have looked if it had actually been shot in 3D...

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

Hmm, They should really get around to doing that more often.
I mean dam i just assumed they has shot 3D, should of gone at 11am and seen the 2D.
To be honest though i think post conversion is far less of a problem than the projection and the cheapy glasses. There were some shots in there with some weirdness going on but that doesn't really bother me, just part of the 3D aesthetic, which i don't have a problem with in and of itself. I still prefer the look of 2D. But the look of 3D i'm comfortable with however they make it, if i could just find a way of seeing it properly.

 

[Bob Gundu]

As someone who worked for 5 years with the best artists on the planet converting 2D to 3D at IMAX, I was shaking my head and wondering how long this can be a viable business model. We were the most expensive because it required the best artists to do it properly. It would take us 3 months to convert 30-40 minutes. No one wants to pay those rates anymore. There are so many shortcuts today to make it profitable and quite frankly the 3D conversions are terrible. The only way to do it right is to shoot with 2 cameras. That doesn't guarantee a pleasurable experience but it sure will be better than converting it.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'm told it was shot on Alexa and 35mm film. Absolutely beautiful-looking film (by DP Seamus McGarvey), though I've only seen the 2D so far.

If you want some terrific 3D polarized glasses (not for XpanD or Dolby), you could always go for the Oakleys:

http://www.oakley.com/products/6629...terms-_-exact-oakley-_-[OakleyProdExtensions]

I agree with Trevor that brightness is still an issue with 3D, given that you lose as much as 75% of the screen brightness with the glasses. Ideally, the SMPTE standard is about 14 fL, and some recent films have hovered at or below 4 fL, which is pretty damned dark. There's only so much for which you can compensate these losses in post.

If you dislike it, vote with your dollars and see the movie in 2D. No harm in that. The movie's doing huge -- I'd bet you right now this is in the top 2 or 3 grossing movies of the year, at least a billion bucks. And the reviews have been stellar. eFilm did a very nice job on the DI.

There are so many shortcuts today to make it profitable and quite frankly the 3D conversions are terrible. The only way to do it right is to shoot with 2 cameras. That doesn't guarantee a pleasurable experience but it sure will be better than converting it.

I dunno. The example I always use is Alice in Wonderland, which Tim Burton completely designed from top to bottom in 3D, shot in flat HD, and did the effects and conversion while the movie was still in production. The film got rave reviews, made over a billion dollars, and looked very nice. It can be done -- you simply have to have great talent and lots of time.

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

Cheers for the link Marc, $120 isn't too bad. I think i'll spring for a pair. I'm paying $2 a pair for the disposable glasses they give you and the cinemas. I probably go see at least a movie a week, sometimes more. So if half of them are 3d, not a bad investment. Helps keeps a little bit more plastic out of landfill too which is nice. Going to see a movie is making about as much sense environmentally as drinking water out of plastic bottles, which concerns me. I wonder how many billion pairs of those things end up in a bin every year.

Taking a look over the marketing material over at Oakley for these 3D Gascans they make a pretty good case for investing in your own pair.

"With ordinary 3D eyewear, there can be ghosting or “crosstalk” between the images that reach each eye from one moment to the next. Inferior 3D lenses can also diminish clarity and fidelity, causing subtle distortions that cheat you out of the full entertainment experience. Lens glare can be an annoying distraction, and your perception of colors can be altered. The problems aren’t limited to vision. Conventional 3D eyewear does not fit well, so comfort is a major issue.

Oakley has applied its decades of innovation to achieving a new benchmark in 3D eyewear. HDO-3D™ technology allows us to create lens curvature that maximizes your field of vision for a full panoramic view. As the world’s first optically correct 3D eyewear, OAKLEY 3D GASCAN gives your eyes sharp images that are true and accurate. What it doesn’t do is make images appear magnified or shifted like conventional 3D eyewear.

With Oakley 3D eyewear, problems like ghosting and glare are virtually eliminated. Color perception is more accurate, so you’ll see what the director had in mind for every shot. Your vision will be clear and accurate, and with an Oakley engineered frame, you know you’ll have the most comfortable fit possible. All those benefits come with the quality, durability and style you expect from a world leader in eyewear technology.

If you want to get the full 3D experience, get the best 3D eyewear. It’s OAKLEY 3D GASCAN and it brings a whole new dimension to 3D entertainment."

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

Anyone know if its a bad idea to wear a pair of these instead of sunglasses? how bad would that be for your eyes?

 

[Todd T]

It would be worse to wear these instead of sunglasses than not wearing any eye protection at all. Typical polarized filters would block visible light but not UV light. This means that your pupils would be dilated and letting in much more damaging UV light. With no glasses, you would be squinting or otherwise feeling uncomfortable enough to seek relief from the light.

Kind of like how you can get sunburned worse on a slightly overcast day, the clouds block the infrared light so you don't feel the heat, but the UV streams through causing the sunburn.

 

[L. Langer]

Cheers for the link Marc, $120 isn't too bad. I think i'll spring for a pair. I'm paying $2 a pair for the disposable glasses they give you and the cinemas. I probably go see at least a movie a week, sometimes more. So if half of them are 3d, not a bad investment. Helps keeps a little bit more plastic out of landfill too which is nice. Going to see a movie is making about as much sense environmentally as drinking water out of plastic bottles, which concerns me. I wonder how many billion pairs of those things end up in a bin every year.

Taking a look over the marketing material over at Oakley for these 3D Gascans they make a pretty good case for investing in your own pair.

"With ordinary 3D eyewear, there can be ghosting or “crosstalk” between the images that reach each eye from one moment to the next. Inferior 3D lenses can also diminish clarity and fidelity, causing subtle distortions that cheat you out of the full entertainment experience. Lens glare can be an annoying distraction, and your perception of colors can be altered. The problems aren’t limited to vision. Conventional 3D eyewear does not fit well, so comfort is a major issue.

Oakley has applied its decades of innovation to achieving a new benchmark in 3D eyewear. HDO-3D™ technology allows us to create lens curvature that maximizes your field of vision for a full panoramic view. As the world’s first optically correct 3D eyewear, OAKLEY 3D GASCAN gives your eyes sharp images that are true and accurate. What it doesn’t do is make images appear magnified or shifted like conventional 3D eyewear.

With Oakley 3D eyewear, problems like ghosting and glare are virtually eliminated. Color perception is more accurate, so you’ll see what the director had in mind for every shot. Your vision will be clear and accurate, and with an Oakley engineered frame, you know you’ll have the most comfortable fit possible. All those benefits come with the quality, durability and style you expect from a world leader in eyewear technology.

If you want to get the full 3D experience, get the best 3D eyewear. It’s OAKLEY 3D GASCAN and it brings a whole new dimension to 3D entertainment."

The 3D glasses they sell with The Avengers in RealD 3D are also Oakley frame designs. Every single one of them. Probably not as nice though.

 

[Reinhold R.]

I watched the Avengers in 3D the other day and was pleasantly surprised. Saw it at a small independent cinema here in London and the projection was fantastic. No ghosting and respectable brightness. Still convinced that action movies are the wrong market for stereo though. At least it wasn't distracting from the story.

Here is another company that produces high quality 3D glasses: http://www.gunnars.com/shop/Premium-3D-Eyewear/