Jump to content
Gharphield

3D Movies - How they working for you?

Recommended Posts

I have no eye/focus problems, but for me 3D is sometimes still used in a very gimmicky way. Avatar and Tron Legacy are the exceptions, and the 3D effect really enhanced the experience. Dramas, comedies and arthouse films - for the most part I prefer to watch them at home. I only really bother with the cinema for "big screen" movies like Inception or District 9. If it looks like 3D will be used in a gimmicky fashion, I avoid it.

 

Is 3D the way of the future? I fear that it may be. Fear, because it's a kind of visual effect that has existed for a looong time, rather than an actual innovation (such as the extension of motion-capture into "performace-capture"). Are our standards so low that an idea that's actually older than anybody living today is thought of as some big new thing?

 

What I *would* like to see is 60FPS becoming the standard framerate. Heck, I'd settle for 30FPS - after living in a world where 60Hz is the bare minimum, 24Hz is jerky and slightly disconcerting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Avatar in 3D. It was too long and I got a headache.

 

I can't stand 3D. It's a gimmick. The people who keep saying it is the future of film are idiots. I much prefer to watch a 2D film anyday, and I hardly think anything will change my mind.

This, even toy story caused me a near aneurism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Active shutter setups feel like someone is driving a nail through my forehead.

 

The cinema style polarized glasses are alright. I already wear glasses, and don't appreciate being made to wear glasses over my glasses. One of my local cinemas has come up with a solution though.

 

They are selling clip-on polarized lenses to go over glasses.

 

for $25. I feel a little exploited.

 

As for the 3D effect itself, there are two ways of doing it, and I hate both.

 

Most 3d movies as far as I can tell have been done in post. As a result, the "3D" is basically 3-5 different and distinct layers of distance, and looks like a puppet show.

 

Alternatively, for the few movies like avatar that actually filmed in 3D, there is a separate problem. If I focus on an area of the screen that the director didn't expect me to, it looks out of focus even though my mind knows it should be in focus. Totally breaks flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already wear glasses, and don't appreciate being made to wear glasses over my glasses.

I'm pretty sure no one is making you do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently inquired about getting prescription polarised lenses from Oakley for my existing frames. Answer was yes. I didn't ask about 3D ones though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen a few 3d movies (tron, megamind, avitar) and really liked them. Had no ill effects.

Having said that I can't wait for this gimmick to die the inevitable death.

 

3d does not belong in the cinemas IMHO. Give the blueray buyers the option by all means, but not in the cinemas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't stand 3D movies. There are three reasons why the current stuff doesn't cut it for me:

 

1) The active shutters, polarised lenses, and red/blue pairs ALL give me splitting headaches within minutes of putting them on.

 

2) The cameras triangulate on what the director wants you to be looking at. Many times, I don't want to look at whatevewr it is. If I've seen it before, I might want to look at something in the background. If it's a movie with an element of suspense, I will want to be looking for whatever is about to leap on 'em. With 3D, I can't see that stuff - depending on depth from the main object, those things are anywhere from a little more blurry than it should be, right through to a double image.

 

3) I don't want to wear glasses to watch a movie. I wear them anyway. Putting another set over the top is downright uncomfortable, and not terribly effective anyway. I also don't want to have to sit exactly in the veiwing spot for a glasses-free set. I put shit in the rooms that exist in my house - I don't have the luxury of building a room specifically for the tv. Nailing the viewing chair down to an exact spot nearly always makes the room unusable for anything but watching tv - and may not be possible anyway. (Putting a 5.1 system in here is utterly impossible without digging speaker lead channels into the walls and replastering. ie: More money than I currently have to spare.)

 

 

It should be noted that I have yet to see any glasses-free setup at this point, but I have read about them.

 

 

 

3D was a huge rage in the 70s. A fad, as it turns out. People had much the same issues as I have now, apparently. Given the underwhelming 3DTV sales worldwide, I'm guessing this one will turn out to be a fad too.

Edited by Cybes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replacing 2D?

 

Not going to happen. As much as I dig the format, I don't see it becoming a long-term change in the film market. (I've read pieces stating this in the past, but I cant remember where...might see if I can dig some up)

 

Whatever the case, 3D *is* either a gimmick for those that don't get/like it, or it *is* an additional layer for those that enjoy it. I fall in the later camp.

yep, those talkies will never catch on

 

and colour neither

 

today's gimmick is tomorrow's standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, further to my comment about 3DTV sales being slow: http://www.thewrap.com/television/article/...projected-21696

 

Also, it looks like big screen is also finding 3D not to be the miracle they thought it was: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11...l#axzz1CKIQdO00

 

(Figured nobody would see it if I edited these into the previous post - it's on the previous page for me, and I don't suppose I'm unique.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a few movies in 3d at Event/Hoyts/Imax etc.... To be honest once I'm immersed in the movie I think I stop noticing if it's actually in 3d or in 2d, with the exception of Avatar.

 

Anyway I've got a quick question, is watching the 3d movie with the Shutter glasses very different from the polarised version??? And how so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3D completely bores me unless it's a 3D based movie (not a conversion) and it's at the cinema.

 

Loved avatar in 3d, didn't hurt my eyes.

 

Other cheap trick 3d stuff is just dreadful, also I never ever feel the need to see anything in 3d on a screen smaller than a house.

 

I'll take 2d high res aka blu ray at home over 3d, no matter how well it's done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, further to my comment about 3DTV sales being slow: http://www.thewrap.com/television/article/...projected-21696

 

Also, it looks like big screen is also finding 3D not to be the miracle they thought it was: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11...l#axzz1CKIQdO00

 

(Figured nobody would see it if I edited these into the previous post - it's on the previous page for me, and I don't suppose I'm unique.)

First one doesn't really surprise me. As for the second one, I'll take your word for it as I need to be registered to view that link. The cinemas will only fuck themselves over by charging (in examples given here, $5) extra money just so you can hand the glasses back at the end of the day.

 

I don't know if the Hoyts here charge extra just for the 3D movie, I do know that you pay $1 for the glasses and if you keep them, they charge you nothing.

 

I was also a little surprised at the number of you who get headaches from the 3D experience, much more than I expected!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i fucking love it!

 

LOVE it.

 

i have trouble grasping how anyone could think it didnt add massively to Avatar. i am tempted to think these viewers are just 'doing it wrong'!

 

the feeling of immersion i had in Avatar sometimes bordered on the synesthetic. first-person flying sequences gave rise in me to bodily motion effects on a whole new level. occasional moments of suspension of sensory-belief were exhilarating. it is one thing to be engaged within a theoretical dimension, admirably achievable through narrative and sheer imagination, it is another to enlist rafts of reflexive neurological pathways to corroborate the illusion.

 

adding depth perception to pictorial story telling utilises more of the instinctual processes by which we know physical reality. this can be very powerful. some of Avatar's night sequences in the jungle were amazing. in a darkened cinema, and darkened scenes — which muted and obscured many of the 'seams' and typical objects that might have otherwise been counterproductive to all-encompassing visual illusion — you could find yourself convincingly in the middle of all manner of a bioluminescent fantasy. totally bitchin!

 

i didnt need to wonder what it would be like to see all those weird glowy flora and forna falling around me. i didnt see them in 2D and then merely muse about how such a sight 'would be cool'. nay! that sight was a psycho-physical actuality for me. my eyes focused on one, then another, flitting between some close and some far away in an apparently expansive vista. on a fundamental gut level, i bought it. despite awareness of where i really was, my tether to that awareness was more distant than usual, and in any isolated moment my system could be powerfully convinced that i could reach out and touch a bunch of stuff that was not there.

 

to me, that specific quality and quantity of palpablility (is word?) is new and awesome! on a plane of movie-going existence removed from traditional suspension of disbelief, i was inhabiting a wondrous alternate world. now, the appeal may well have more in common with the sensorial gratification of a carnival ride than the fruits of great narrative, and that movie in particular may be far from the perfect synergy of both, but it sure was something! i would be loth to label a technological achievement capable of bringing genuine moments of childish wonder to my cynical adult mind in any way "cheap".

 

how could anyone experience that movie in the way it was intended and not be anything but defeatist about the potential of 3D? to me, it adds new colours to the palette of film making, and to continue the metaphor, those proclaiming its gimmicky worthlessness must be colour-blind or something. its not your fault if 3D gives you headaches or for some reason the effects dont work on you -- but that doesnt make it sensible to dismiss the reality of how it works on many others.

 

in the article Hector posted earlier all we get from Walter Murch is "Wah wah. I'm old. 3D bad". *yawn*. okay, to be fair......the problems put forth about object edges and strobing and incompatible focal distances to eye-crossing angles (not to mention ill-suited source material) are all very real. but its early days yet. geez, dont be such a killjoy, Mr Killjoy.

 

 

some points:

 

 

- 3D is currently being over-hyped and used as a gimmick by some.

 

- 2D to 3D post conversions are disgusting and wrong!

 

- the material must fit the medium, not be wedged in like a square peg in round hole.

 

- 3D technology will get better at fitting all kinds of people.

 

- all kinds of people can and will get better at viewing 3D. (neuroplasticity FTW!)

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replacing 2D?

 

Not going to happen. As much as I dig the format, I don't see it becoming a long-term change in the film market. (I've read pieces stating this in the past, but I cant remember where...might see if I can dig some up)

 

Whatever the case, 3D *is* either a gimmick for those that don't get/like it, or it *is* an additional layer for those that enjoy it. I fall in the later camp.

yep, those talkies will never catch on

 

and colour neither

 

today's gimmick is tomorrow's standard

 

Smell-O-Vision

AromaRama

Odorama

SMELLIT

XML Smell

iSmell

 

seeing a pattern? These are all technologies invented because the studios thought we would pay a bit more.

 

3D movies are not new, only the delivery technology is new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing a pattern? These are all technologies invented because the studios thought we would pay a bit more.

 

3D movies are not new, only the delivery technology is new.

smell is a gimmick for a movie

 

vision is a mandatory experience (unless you're blind)

 

sound was a new gimmick too

 

not saying 3d will be for everything, but the genie's out of the bottle, and the technology is getting better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a few people that are one eye dominant.

 

One of them went to see Avatar. He couldn't see any of the 3D effects because of his eyes.

This means any 3D movie is useless to him (and the others I know).

 

 

I can watch 3D, but I wear glasses most of the time. I don't want to be putting them over my own, especially since I have large frames that are hard to cover (Think Kim Jong Il's glasses).

 

It was a gimmick back in the 1950s, I still see it as one now.

Edited by morris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually stop noticing the effect after the first 20 minutes or so. It's impressive to start with, but after a while I just watch the movie and it just doesn't sink in that I'm watching it differently to normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- all kinds of people can and will get better at viewing 3D. (neuroplasticity FTW!)

I see in 3D 24/7. I do not get headaches from natural sight. What I get headaches from is glasses which artificially increase divergence between left and right views, and/or disagreement between triangulation and focal length.*

 

*When you look at something in real space, your eyes look at the object and focus on it. From that, your brain can figure the angle of each eye, and thus triangulate the object's position, aided by the focal length returned by each eye. When you look at something on screen, your eyes focus on the screen - a fixed value. The eye deviation, however, varies in an approximation of that you would have in real space.

 

 

 

Until such time as TV is actually present as volumetric entity (ie: actually 3D, not just an illusion of it), I suspect you are not going to be able to improve the headache issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you with 3D TVs - http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/01/britains...e-filmed-in-3d/

Enjoy :D

 

 

=======================================================

Britain’s Very Royal Wedding To Be Filmed In 3D?

Posted Image

 

Apparently Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding – aka, THE (British) event of the decade – will be broadcast in 3D in the UK. Because what Brits really want to see is Prince Charles leering out of their non-existant 3DTVs?

 

Admirably, the television networks are trying to scratch together a deal so the much-larger 3D cameras won’t impose on the “intimacy” of the royal wedding, which is to be held at Westminster Abbey on the 29th of April. The BBC, BSkyB and ITV have all be rumoured to be involved in filming, but whether it’ll be in 3D – and a pooled effort – is anyone’s guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- all kinds of people can and will get better at viewing 3D. (neuroplasticity FTW!)

I see in 3D 24/7. I do not get headaches from natural sight. What I get headaches from is glasses which artificially increase divergence between left and right views, and/or disagreement between triangulation and focal length.*

 

*When you look at something in real space, your eyes look at the object and focus on it. From that, your brain can figure the angle of each eye, and thus triangulate the object's position, aided by the focal length returned by each eye. When you look at something on screen, your eyes focus on the screen - a fixed value. The eye deviation, however, varies in an approximation of that you would have in real space.

 

 

 

Until such time as TV is actually present as volumetric entity (ie: actually 3D, not just an illusion of it), I suspect you are not going to be able to improve the headache issue.

 

 

i acknowledged these problems.

 

in your case, it could be something as simple as the distance between your pupils. could be. i dont know how much biometric divergence there is in humans in this regard, but i am confident that even a few millimetres could make a very big difference. 3D cameras no doubt have lenses affixed at the best generic approximation.

 

but for those who fall either side of this sweet spot (heres one example), the greater the physical incompatibilities the brain must 'magically' ignore to resolve closer images. but this has to come at a cost which manifests itself as pain, in the same way the incompatibility between the desired direction of a turning car and its forward momentum manifests itself as friction.

 

mmm, i love the smell of burning brain rubber in the morning!

 

yes, there are aspects to the problem which are "hardware" based, for sure. but there may be a lot that can be addressed at the "software" end. one reason i cited neuroplasticity is because i recently saw Norman Doidge, author of The Brain That Changes Itself talking here, and in particular his account of some tribe in SE Asia whose livelihood depends on fishing underwater. the gist of it was they found these people had a level of visual acuity underwater that would have previously been pronounced an outright physical impossibility for the human eye-brain system. but what was once 'impossible' is now deemed learnable.

 

even if non-holographic 3D tech could better cater to individual eyes (and i think theres ways it will in the future), i suspect there would still be those who find 3D problematic. but then a great many of them could perhaps benefit from some structured practise of the skill. because thats exactly what it is -- a skill. it seems perfectly natural to me that acquiring this somewhat unnatural skill is going to require more or less wiring/re-wiring and strengthening of uncommon neural pathways in some than in others, and entail varying amounts of pain and effort and time, even amongst those not already biometrically 'up against it'. who knows, hard wired physical limitations could extend deep into idiosyncratic brains, but for the aforementioned reasons, i lean towards optimism. i'll be damned if there arent a bunch of people out there at the moment who dropped the ball at the first sign of discomfort. oh well. since theres not a lot of great 3D material out there yet, 'sour grapes' is still a fun game to play.

 

as for the tech side of things, wont it be cool in the future when we can add individualised biometric data to the experience of 3D rendered movies? imagine a CGI title rendered in real-time, all calibrated perfectly for your eyes, with zero-latency eye-tracking pumping out dynamic depth-of-field effects and peripheral motion smoothing et cetera. all lovingly stuffed straight up your occipital guts via tiny lasers n shit, whilst binaural sounds are transmitted wirelessly into cochlear implants adjusted for the HRTFs that were automatically uploaded upon your entering the cinema. oh fuck yeah!

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×