I went to see Avengers yesterday with some friends, who insisted we see the 3D version, which completely ruined it for me.
Instead of making it “more real,” to me the 3D has the opposite effect of making everything look fake, even when it’s just two guys standing in a room talking to each other. The image has layers, but it still has no depth; the layers may be separate from each other, but the image in each layer is still flat, which makes everything look like a cardboard cutout. It made images like Loki in his full regale outfit with the horns and everything look ridiculous (and I couldn’t stop laughing at it every time he came on screen).
I agree about the cardboard cutout thing-the film geeks here can feel free to expound on why a more realistic 3D in this regard is not in the works as of yet, BTW.
My primary complaint is that it doesn’t add $4 worth of enjoyment to the experience- ever. Sometimes it makes the experience worse, other times it’s just an unnecessary extra, but it never makes the experience $4 better.
Also, I can never not see the glasses. I’m aware of the glasses frames for the entire duration of the movie. I can’t imagine having to wear them over regular eyeglasses.
I’ve seen* Thor*, Captain America, the last Harry Potter, and now Avengers in 3D. Avengers was at a different theater than the others, and used a different style glasses, which I did find more noticeable, but I still enjoy the effect. It’s $2.50 extra at the nicer theater here (where I just saw Avengers), and only $1.00 extra at the other one. Well worth it in my book.
More realistic 3D isn’t “in the works,” is a mature technology. When you see a movie that looks like cardboard cutouts, it’s because the movie wasn’t actually shot in 3D; the 3D effect was added in post production.
Shot-in-3D will always look better, because when you actually have two cameras, each eye gets everything it needs for a realistic 3D image, down to very subtle differences in parallax for the fine details of objects.
Imagine the problem of starting with a monographic image and producing an accurate image for a second eye. “Okay, let’s take this image and make it look like the POV has shifted two inches to the right. Let’s see, this object is in the extreme foreground, so it gets shifted quite a lot to the left. This bit is in the middle ground, so it gets shifted half as much. This bit is on the horizon, so we’ll just leave those pixels alone. Alright, close enough - we just need to do that 10,368,000 more times and we’ve done the whole movie!” This is why it tends to look like an assembly of flat objects moved to different planes- you’re only making very broad adjustments to the image.
Of course 3D conversions look crappy. When you consider what a huge task it is to undertake to provide that second POV for a whole movie, it’s impressive that they can get it to kinda-sorta work at all - but it still looks a bit crap, which is only natural.
This is why when you’re trying to make up your mind about whether or not to see a 3D or 2D showing of a movie, the first thing you should look at is whether or not it’s actually shot in 3D, or if it’s a cheesy conversion. http://realorfake3d.com/ is a good place to quickly check this.
I’ve seen Avengers twice now; once in 3D and once in 2D. In my opinion, the 2D version was more enjoyable. The 3D effect was very unnatural and distracting, and in a lot of the action scenes I found myself thinking, “Oh, 3D effect there” instead of being absorbed in what was happening on screen. Definitely not worth the extra money, in my opinion.
I generally avoid 3D these days unless I know the movie was shot in 3D (which Avengers was not) and sometimes even then.
Go to the 2D version. My wife and I do; we avoid 3D movies like the plague and still can go to every film released that we choose. Even Avatar had 2D screenings.
Yep, even those “Journey” 3D movies have offered 2D, and those were mainly made to use the 3D effect.
No. If your left and right eyes are getting different images, the only way you can tell that the screen is flat is by moving your head around way more than people do in movie theaters, or by the focus changing, which can’t actually get you anywhere near that precision.
I hate them, too, because my convergence disorder makes it impossible for me to reconcile the images. I end up spending the whole movie with one eye closed.
My biggest problem with 3D movies is the fixed focus of the picture. In 2D, I can somehow accept it, but in 3D, when I’m unable to switch focus from that branch in the foreground to the actors and to to that house in the distance, it sort ruins the effect of realism.
That’s because it literally is layers, at least with converted movies such as The Avengers, as someone else noted up thread. Movies filmed in 3D, such as Avatar, look many times better/more realistic.
It’s the difference between watching a movie filmed in color, and one that was colorized from black and white.
No, the plane of the screen doesn’t really enter in to it. Your brain interprets depth from comparing the differences in parallax between each eye, on the fly. In true stereo, each eye sees different images in much the same way as if you were looking at the scene itself. This is easy because you actually have two images that correspond to what each eye would see.
Imagine you are trying to convert this image to 3D. We’ll say the original image is the left eye image - you need to supply the right eye image. This is all about displacing the existing pixels, based on an assignation of depth supplied by a human operator - the greater the shift to the left, the greater the apparent closeness.
At the crudest level, the operator is going to just trace around the figure - now it can be assigned a depth relative to the background. To add more detail, you’ll trace the arm and say that it’s just a smidge closer, and trace his staff and say that it’s a smidge further. That’s all fine - it’s very easy to define the position of cutouts like this against other objects in the scene.
But look at those dramatic horns. Now imagine his head in motion, turning ninety degrees. During this turn, imagine trying to define how much a point at the base of a horn varies along the z-axis from a point at the middle. This changes dramatically as the object rotates - in full profile there is very little change, but if he looks straight on, the base is further back. It is simply not possible to accurately reproduce the incredibly complex variations needed to give you realistic stereopsis for this level of detail - and this is just when you’re talking about defining the z-axis every point on a single curve as it rotates. A typical scene is loaded with difficulties like this, that simply get fudged over in the process.
Your brain screams “Okay, I get that Loki is in the middle ground, but you can’t fool me, that dude is flat!”
I find 3D too distracting and headache-inducing, myself. The one place it worked perfectly for me was the T2: Battle Across Time attraction at Universal Studios Florida, which was 31 flavours of wicked.
I’m sure part of the problem, especially with an action movie like The Avengers, is the quick-cut editing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, 3D needs as few cuts as possible. Wide angle lenses, tracking shots, camera moves instead of cuts, all work in favor of keeping the depth illusion intact.
Actually, The Avengers did do at least some more detailed 3D. Whenever we had a closeup of a face, it looked to me like the face had depth. I’m guessing that they did this using 3D computer models of the actors’ heads.
