Do we all really hate 3-D?

It's not that I hate 3D, I just prefer to watch 2D.

What I DO hate is 3D gimmick shots.



Cracker Funk said:
If done right, I think it's great. I would equate it to the visual equivalent of surround sound. Surround sound is more "immersive" than stereo, right? When done right, so is 3D more immersive than 2D.
Click to expand...

And I couldn't give a damn about surround sound.
 
Most of the time the 3D doesn't bother me. It's something that I notice when the film first starts, but I eventually sort of forget about it as I start paying attention to the film. What takes me out of that immersion is shots that have things moving directly towards the audience. When this is done it just seems gimmicky. I noticed this the most in Pirates of the Caribbean 4 (which I saw in 2D and it was still obvious that they added those parts for the 3D crowd.)

I don't remember being bothered by this in other 3D movies I've seen (Avatar, Christmas Carol, Toy Story 3). At that point if the effect neither adds nor detracts from the experience I'd rather keep my $2 and see the movie in 2D.

Strangely the movie in which I found the 3D most effective was in the re-release of The Lion King (a film not originally meant to be released in 3D). I only really noticed the 3D in one scene, when Mufasa is showing Simba his future kingdom on top of pride rock. There was a huge distance between the lions and the land below them. This works on a thematic level; Simba and Mufasa are royalty in the pridelands. They are disconnected from the lower level animals. This is juxtaposed in the following scene when Simba and Nala go to the elephant graveyard. The lowest area (socially) and the furthest from the audience in the scene on pride rock. While that theme was still in the original it was greatly heightened thanks to the 3D.

If more film makers incorporated the 3D into the story and theme rather than just an effect to boost the price of tickets than I would be fine with it; however, as a whole I think it's a gimmick.
 
The last movie I saw that really made good use of 3d was the Muppet's 3D at Disney's Magical Kingdom. Also the 3d in Captain EO was gimmicky but worked.
 
Some 3D can be good. If it's being used to create depth in a scene, over just "wow it's coming right at me" it can work. Harry Potter in my opinion used the 3D in some parts quite well. There wasn't little gimmick, excluding that bit with the snake. I prefer 2D but it can be fun to watch a 3D, but maybe more so for the experience than the actual difference
 
3D movies have always hurt my eyes. And, I wear glasses. I prefer 2D.

The day is coming when 3D will be replaced by holograms. A holographic movie that is interactive is the shape of things to come.

Anyone ever been to Universal Theme Park? Being inside of an interactive movie is awesome.
 
I honestly think 3D is here to stay. Many people may not want it, but I think future TVs will ship with it automatically. One thing that annoys me, some 3DTVs only come with one pair or none at all. If I pay a certain amount for a TV I expect at least 4 glasses. haha!

As for filming in it, I really wonder how that'd be. :D
 
documentarytube said:
I honestly think 3D is here to stay. Many people may not want it, but I think future TVs will ship with it automatically. One thing that annoys me, some 3DTVs only come with one pair or none at all. If I pay a certain amount for a TV I expect at least 4 glasses. haha!

As for filming in it, I really wonder how that'd be. :D
Click to expand...

That's one advantage to getting a 3D TV that uses the polarized glasses rather than the stereoscopic ones (I think I got those terms right): we just hang on to our 3D glasses when we go to the movies to use at home.

Honestly, I like 3D movies when the film was originally shot in 3D, and when things are shot with a very deep depth of field. Shallow depth of field does not work well in 3D, because your eyes are "seeing" depth, and expecting to be able to focus on things in the background, so when those things are blurry, it really screws with your head. Very far background things can be blurry, but you've really got to have a very deep DOF for the vast majority of your shots, with the exception of extreme close-ups. I think that's one of the things that gives a lot of people headaches when watching 3D.
 
Those seem really cool and interesting, but obviously they're a bit too concerned with getting them out the door ASAP, and the development and quality of the technology seems to be suffering as a result. As I've said, nothing is better than IMAX-and I doubt anything ever will be. Except holograms. :D
(And these reviewers act as though they've never heard of the 3DS...?)
 
FormerDominator said:
Those seem really cool and interesting, but obviously they're a bit too concerned with getting them out the door ASAP, and the development and quality of the technology seems to be suffering as a result. As I've said, nothing is better than IMAX-and I doubt anything ever will be. Except holograms. :D
(And these reviewers act as though they've never heard of the 3DS...?)
Click to expand...



I've been building 3D projection systems for some time and recently ive found a setup that Dose look as good as IMAX . there is no reason theaters with 3D cannot be better, the old polarizing and anaglyph systems are old and suffer issues.
i have been using a couple of newer filter systems that make a huge differance in how good the 3D looks, now this dose not of course fix bad or gimic based shooting to be better. 3D should be immersive and pull you in in a subtle way like avatar. negative paralax to get things to pop out is not even natural to the eyes.
this is one of the newer systems i found and tried that looks as good as an IMAX theater even on a small scale.
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiWf_69xHW0"
i would love to see some small indie films done in 3D. im not a big fan of glasses either btw lol
 
Slick... As a light geek, I'm curious to know what the filters are doing spectrum wise, but understand if it's secret sauce for you ;)
 
knightly said:
Slick... As a light geek, I'm curious to know what the filters are doing spectrum wise, but understand if it's secret sauce for you ;)
Click to expand...

im a light geek too lol. its no secret. this filter system is a modern form of anaglyph but instead of red and cyan they filter each eye with a multiband filter so each eye gets full color but in alternting bands. i have also used the Dolby 3d filter system that splits rgb into two bands each and sends one set to each eye, but this other system works far better by using many more bands per eye.
i like this approach becuase i dont need a silver screen like i had to with polarizers. the images are very impressive. my shows impress all who come to see.
i get that some dont like 3d and some cant process the images but that is a small minority. i have a portable rig that is really cool and i want to see if any indie film makers i can contact that are interested in showing their work would be interested in ways to get it shown without having to try to get a theater to show it.
i just love movie tech.
 
Last edited:
When I watched THE AVENGERS in 3D too many "epic scale shots" looked too much like bugs on a leaf.

27066108_0ff7e354bd.jpg



For me everything looked more "detailed, tiny" rather than the intended "Super hero in an even greater super scenario."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top