I dunno. I wear glasses and I have no problems wearing the 3D glasses over them, and I see the image just fine. Maybe most people just aren’t having any issues?
I didn’t have any trouble watching Avatar in 3D even though I wear glasses, and I thought it was worth watching that way. But I still don’t see the point in most of the movies that come out in 3D (Jackass? Seriously?) I think it’s just an excuse to charge more for the movies.
You mean porn, right ?
If you can barely see 3D, I think your judgement of what it adds is rather suspect. It’s like taking a deaf man at his word when he says classical music is overrated.
It adds quite a bit to some movies (How to Train Your Dragon springs to mind). Or, at the very least, enough people seem to think that it adds enough that they’re willing to pay for it. If they weren’t willing to pay, they wouldn’t go see 'em, and if they weren’t seeing 'em, we wouldn’t have so many in the theaters. Such is life.
I’m pretty damn glad that I can see Tron tomorrow without having to schlep all over God’s creation to find a 3D theater. Already got my tickets ordered.
We have that already. It’s called real life.
:rolleyes:
I don’t get the appeal of 3D. I guess it’s just me, but after about fifteen minutes of it or so, I just stop noticing it. I don’t mind it - it doesn’t give me a headache, and the glasses they use fit comfortably over my own eyeglasses, but it’s not worth the extra money to me.
On the other hand, “I had to drive to a different theater!” really does not earn any sympathy points with me.
I have glasses and I have no trouble wearing the 3D pair over my own, and definitely don’t get an achy nose or anything like that… I know this isn’t what you guys are doing but it’s funny to imagine the people in this thread wearing the 3D pair upside down by accident or something and then complaining about how painful and awkward it is.
You know what? I’m glad there are more films being shown in 3D, and more cinemas converting to 3D capability. It’s nearly 2011 and frankly we should have had widespread (ie not “experimental” or “Theme Park Attraction”) 3D movies a long time ago.
I bet there were people whinging about Talkies too, back in the 1930s. Those people are now lampooned by Grandpa Simpson and Monty Burns.
Well, if your wife wears the glasses, she should see it as if it were regular 2D.
Basically I agree with your rant, though. 3D rarely adds anything much worthwhile to a movie, and all to often it distracts the director from adequate storytelling (vide Avatar).
This might be true if movie 3D were anything like viewing a natural 3D scene, but it falls far short of that. The technology we have is simply not good enough to function as more than a “theme park attraction”. There is very little you can do with present day 3D technology beyond impressing people who are not very used to it (still most of us, at the moment) with the cleverness of it, and, occasionally, startling them with something that seems to be coming right at their face. The novelty is soon going to wear off again (thankfully).
If we had a technology for projecting moving, colored, solid looking 3D holograms, like a holodeck (or even like a holodeck viewed through a window), then you might have a basis for major artistic advance, of the sort that talkies made possible over silent movies. Maybe we will have something like that one day, but current 3D tech is no more than an expensive gimmick.
I must disagree; I was looking at a 3D TV earlier this afternoon in a shop and it looked pretty “natural” to me; darn close to actually looking at a scene playing out in front of you as opposed to on a TV screen. The TV I saw today needed glasses to work properly, but I was very impressed with the quality (it looked good, and lifelike). I saw 3D TVs at a trade show in Singapore earlier this year that didn’t need the glasses to work and they too were very impressive.
I doubt it. Too many people have too much money, time, and infrastructure invested in 3D for it to be a “fad”.
I’m pretty sure the intent of 3D is not to offer a holographic experience. Instead, it adds depth to a scene. In fact, most movies use it for the effect as if you’re looking through a window, which is something holograms wouldn’t significantly enhance. Few movies these days use it for the “throwing shit at you,” like is common in theme parks.
We’ll see, but I don’t see it happening. Particularly with the much broader mindshare penetration it has now in the consumer realm, with 3D TVs, 3D monitors, 3D channels, 3D Blu-Rays, and of course, the Nintendo 3DS, which is going to blow up when it’s released early next year.
Perhaps more product safety testing is in order?
3D has a time and a place. It was seriously over-exposed in the 80s and died a pretty sudden death. It’s making a comeback now, but I’m not really sure it will last. Films like Avatar and some of the lovely Pixar films are ideal for it; Jackass and Croc-Killer III maybe not so much. Time will tell I guess. Audiences are damn fickle and anyone who pretends to be able to predict how the viewing public will act (even our resident “producers”;)) should read Mr Goldman ASAP.
I read last night the estimate that 15% of people end up with headaches, eyestrain, or nausea from eye issues during 3D movies. And I’m sure I can’t be the only person who just finds the glasses-on-glasses thing itself a pain in the ass.
I don’t get a headache, but I do get distracted by having to kind of force my eyes to focus. Eh, I don’t see very many movies, so it’s not like they are losing out on a great movie-goer if I stop entirely.
It’s not quite the same. Colour and surround sound in movies are good imitations of real life. Stereoscopic 3D is not, in that we only really use stereoscopic 3D in real life for close-up work - a few metres or so. Long range 3D is percieved as a result of perspective and parallax cues, which “2D” movies can already have and which looks natural.
When you see a 3D scene where the effect is used to put percieved objects right in front of you, that’s a correct implementation of the tech. If a giant alien tentacle were really to come out of the screen and poke you in the eye, it would be close enough for your two eyes to see different images, and that’s what the funky glasses do.
The trouble is, the vast majority of movie footage is not of this “coming out of the screen at you” nature. For most 'normal" footage, different images arriving at each eye is not what you would really see if you were to view the actual event in real life! For animation that’s no big deal - animation does not reflect reality anyway, but for non-animation it looks wrong. It’s like old Technicolor or worse - everything is just a little bit off. For this reason, I would cautiously bet on stereoscopic 3D movies falling out of favour in the next few years.
This is a nice little webpage on perception of 3D: Does stereoscopy (S3D) matter ? – Sébastien 'Cb' Kuntz
I’ve never seen a movie in 3D. Ever.
Having said that, I find it astonishing that the OP wants to limit the ability of the majority of people to see 3D movies because he is in a distinct minority and has to drive a little farther to see the movie in 2D. I mean, WTF???
I’m in my 20s (not a grandma as not_alice suggests) and I am not a fan of 3D. It takes me about 10 minutes or so to adjust to the 3D and actually see it, oh and anytime I look away from the screen or change my focus quickly, another 10 minutes to get back into it. It’s beyond annoying and not worth the trouble.