[SebC]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

IMAX > 3D

I'll take IMAX over 3D anytime, anywhere. Take The Dark Knight for example; the scenes shot in IMAX were absolutely stunning and far superior to anything done in 3D. The aspect ratio avoids the need for the widescreen black bars and the resolution is clearly second to none.

I think IMAX is the future of film, not 3D. IMAX cameras are expensive and big and bulky as is the actual film, but I'm sure in time, they will be easier to work with and we'll see more and more filmmakers using them.

IMO 3D is gimmicky and targets the youth audience. For true fans of cinema and/or film, nothing comes even close to IMAX.

EDIT: Also, when I wear 3D glasses in a theatre or at someone's house with a 3DTV, I find there's a disconnect between me and the screen. It's like wearing sunglasses while watching a movie or something.

IMAX 3D? And 3DTVs will be glasses-free in the next decade or so.

Originally Posted by Burninator

Not an odd compliant at all. It's a big compliant from detractors of 3D. It's like wearing sunglasses and watching your TV. The amount of light from the screen that hits your eyes is a lot less in a 3D movie than a regular movie.

It is an odd complaint. Human perception of lighting, like sound, is highly dependent on ambient levels (which are low in movie theaters). Furthermore, the drop-off is somewhere between half and three-quarters, which sounds like a lot but isn't typically perceived as such.

Originally Posted by Mazrim

This is kinda relevant, but the use of 3D in some Nintendo 3DS games is how I think 3D should be done more in movies, for depth in the background, not foreground stuff popping into my face. I really like how some games use it subtly to enhance the scenes, not to make a gimmick super obvious.

Absolutely. Technically anything touching the edge of the screen should never be in front of the screen.

Originally Posted by octothorp

I've found that 3D is okay for animated films, but I really dislike it for live action (or live action + effects) films. I think this is because when I'm watching a live-action 3D film, my eyes feel like they should be able to focus on things that are going on in the background or foreground of a scene, and are working to bring these things into focus, which is impossible. This doesn't seem to happen the same way with animated 3D films, possibly because my mind isn't trying to treat it like a real scene. Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing it. I've only seen about six 3D films in the last two years (three animated and three live-action) so that's going from a very small sample size. Either way, I think I'm swearing off 3D films for a few years, and then if they're still around and the technology has improved, I'll give them another try.

As I pointed out earlier, this isn't a problem with 3D itself, but rather with how it is currently being executed. It's certainly possible to shoot sharp front-to-back. It would probably ruin the 2D versions of the films though, which are important for home releases.

Originally Posted by GGG

The closest comparison i can think of is colour. You arent aware that a movie is in color it just is. And you dont make everything bright pink just because you can. The goal should be a more immersive experience instead of being pounded over the head that this movie is in 3d.

Agreed. But when it's missing, you notice.

The people who complain about (good) 3D are a bit like the people who complain about 60 fps. They're used to one thing and are averse to changes, even if they improve realism.