Who killed 3D movies?

[Nammer403]

I watched the Harry Potter finale in 3D and it was actually my first 3D movie, the experiene wasnt that great, but the AVX is definatly worth it imo.

[troutman]

How is 3D TV being received?

[Rathji]

^

Not enough porn to make it worthwhile, I would imagine.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rathji

^

Not enough porn to make it worthwhile, I would imagine.

Not enough porn? I never thought we'd live to see that day....

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

while 3D movies are neat, it can be a real PITA to wear those glasses......

You need these - http://www.slashgear.com/oakley-3d-g...tion-16134132/ let in a lot more light, comfy, optically correct. Friend has a pair and they are night and day. Movies are a lot brighter. If 3D is here to stay they are a decent investment. But you still pay the premium at the gate, lol.

You get a double whammy of darkness with 3D, the filters on the projector dim the film and then the glasses some more.

So far Avatar is the only 3D movie I have truely enjoyed, the story was meh, but the visuals were worth the trip. Thor was ok, but most are just gimicky. Cap America wasn't bad, but it was truely not necessary to do 3D. One downside to being in a small town is we don't usually have a choice between 2 and 3D so I get stuck quite often. When I have the choice I avoid it.

[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.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't think so. They're dim because they the light that's going to each eye is cut in half by the polarizer. Bit of an odd complaint though, since there isn't a whole lot of ambient light in a typical theater.

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.

[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.

[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.

[GGG]

I think 3d is killing good cinimatography. Tomuch stuff just flying out at you and too many cool flying or driving scenes just because they look cool. I shouldnt actively be thinking that this movie is in 3d. It should just be part of the experience.

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.

[WhiteTiger]

I won't be sad to see this trend go away. Never as fond of movies in 3d. Very few have managed to make it something I would gladly have paid more for.

[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.

[trackercowe]

Agree with pretty much every sentiment provided. I have seen many 3D movies over the past couple years, and usually find it to be more of a distraction anyway.

As someone who wears glasses having an extra set of glasses feels uncomfortable, and can cause distortion after long viewings. In fact during a few recent 3D movies I end up with splitting headaches once the movie ends (along with blurred vision).

A lot of that has to do with the blurry, dark, and action filled (spazzy) nature of many 3D movies. I think I almost threw up after seeing the last Transformers movie (not only because of the movie itself).

3D technology began as a nice addition that I could of seen myself going to every few months. Avatar was much better in 3D, as was My Bloody Valentine, and probably a couple animated movies. Over time it became a gimmick, and actually made certain movies worse (Clash of the Titans was even worse in 3D). Now it's just annoying as many theaters only show movies in 3D, so if you want to see something in 2D you'll have to go to a different theater all together.

Then of course they jack up the price an additional $3 for something I don't even want. The only movies that can benefit from 3D are animated features, certain horror movies, and "visual epics" like Avatar where producers are willing to put money into filming in 3D, rather then just silly conversion in order to make a few extra bucks off movie goers.

Once again this is why I love directors like Vaughn, and Christopher Nolan; their movies still make money, but they chose not to release X-Men/Inception/Batman in 3D. I will be more then happy to see Dark Knight Returns multiple times, including IMAX.

I hope 3D is pushed aside where only a few movies a year use it, rather then half of the bigger releases. Two of the better movies this year were Rise of the Apes, and X-Men, neither which were shown in 3D. Hopefully they keep it that way.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Once again this is why I love directors like Vaughn, and Christopher Nolan; their movies still make money, but they chose not to release X-Men/Inception/Batman in 3D. I will be more then happy to see Dark Knight Returns multiple times, including IMAX.

Vaughn's cinematography in X-Men was total cheese. (Vignetting, seriously?)

I think Inception would have killed if they had re-released it in native 3D.

2D is a bit like painting. You can make art by flattening things, but it can never give you the realism that 3D does, and your goal is often just to get back the depth you've given up by working in a flat medium. The flatness will always take away from immersion, just like black-and-white. It's just what you have come know as "movie-like".

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by SebC

Vaughn's cinematography in X-Men was total cheese. (Vignetting, seriously?)

Yeah, but that was on purpose. I think it kind of worked considering they were trying to give the movie a 60s feel to it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Vaughn's cinematography in X-Men was total cheese. (Vignetting, seriously?)

I think Inception would have killed if they had re-released it in native 3D.

2D is a bit like painting. You can make art by flattening things, but it can never give you the realism that 3D does, and your goal is often just to get back the depth you've given up by working in a flat medium. The flatness will always take away from immersion, just like black-and-white. It's just what you have come know as "movie-like".

but 3d isnt quite true 3D yet. It is more like watching a play where the background is at a fixed depth behind the actors. This is definately more noticeable on post production 3D than filmed in 3D but it is always there. There should not be discrete depths where various things take place. It needs to be continious.

One reason 3D might never get truely beyond a gimic is the uncanny valley. As it becomes closer and closer to how we actually percieve reality we will start focusing on the differences between it and reality rather than being imersed in a separate reality.

[Dx54]

Originally Posted by GGG

but 3d isnt quite true 3D yet. It is more like watching a play where the background is at a fixed depth behind the actors. This is definately more noticeable on post production 3D than filmed in 3D but it is always there. There should not be discrete depths where various things take place. It needs to be continious.

One reason 3D might never get truely beyond a gimic is the uncanny valley. As it becomes closer and closer to how we actually percieve reality we will start focusing on the differences between it and reality rather than being imersed in a separate reality.

Completely agreed. 3D really isn't that impressive, and until you can watch movies without the glasses in 3D I could really care less for 3D.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

but 3d isnt quite true 3D yet. It is more like watching a play where the background is at a fixed depth behind the actors. This is definately more noticeable on post production 3D than filmed in 3D but it is always there. There should not be discrete depths where various things take place. It needs to be continious.

One reason 3D might never get truely beyond a gimic is the uncanny valley. As it becomes closer and closer to how we actually percieve reality we will start focusing on the differences between it and reality rather than being imersed in a separate reality.

I haven't actually noticed too many "cutout" effects except in conversions. Native stuff shouldn't have it - and you film for left eye and right eye, so it should like exactly the same as reality (except where you don't want it to, typically larger camera seperation to give you as the observer the perspective of being bigger, or smaller camera seperation to give you the perspective of being smaller).

I'll keep a look out for it in native stuff (I'm assuming if it shows up, it would be because of greenscreening, flat sets and such), but stuff like 3D IMAX films where they're shooting natively in the real world definitely have a proper continuum of depth front-to-back, so I don't think your statement that cutout is "always" there is accurate. It certainly doesn't have to be. I also disagree with your "uncanny valley" theory, for the reasons outlined above. Native 3D looks exactly like the real world.

[Yeah_Baby]

I maintain Avatar was like Nickelback. Passible in concert (allegedly as I've never been) but crap everywhere else.