i LIFTED A VAN LIKE sTEVE aUSTIN.
We’ve seen one 3D film, Beowulf. Watched it after seeing it 2D. I’ve heard it said that the 3D process makes the end result dimmer than 2D, but we did not notice that with Beowulf, although truth be told it’s such a visually dark film anyway. We could have done without seeing it in 3D.
We’re hoping it’s a fad that will eventually go away. We can’t see paying a premium price for the gimmick, plus the glasses do not feel comfortable placed over my own glasses. And if it’s true it makes most if not all films noticeably dimmer, that’s really not a selling point.
I also experienced the transversion of the tram and parting of the Redsea… A sIERRAS mADRE FLOODING OF A mEXICAN TOWN. The San Andreas fault in hydroyluics and Propane.
Did you spill Coke in your keyboard?
Put me in the “no” camp.
No, those were all rides at '80’s Universal Hollywood, no shit.
Yes. But only films which have a spatial and/or visual impact aspect. Any only if they use real 3D and not post-filming faux 3D.
Personally I enjoy 3-D films a great deal and think they provide a more immersive experience than 2-D. I would love to see the technology used in more types of films. For example period dramas where 3-D could provide a real sense of immersion in a different world.
I suspect the technology is here to stay. Not everyone likes it but clearly there are enough people who are willing to pay a premium and the technology will probably get cheaper and better over time. At the very least, I think movies like Avatar which are built for 3D from the ground up will continue to be made and remain very profitable. Cheap, low-quality conversions, of the kind seen in Avatar may fizzle out, which is a good thing.Yep, I like them, the good ones anyway.
I saw Avatar on a Classic Imax screen. I didn’t think the 3D was a big deal, but watching the movie on a huge screen that fills almost all your of field of view is quite immersive.
I remember when I watched “To Fly” on an Imax screen many years ago. The regular 2D movie was realistic enough to cause vertigo.
I have seen a couple of movies in Real3D: if both that and the “flat” version are available, I’ll take the flat one.
My brain is already used to interpreting “flat” movies as three-dimensional; with Real3D, sometimes the image on the first plane looks a lot flatter than the rest. It’s as if I am looking at a picture stuck on a window: the part behind it looks 3D, but this figure up front, which is supposed to be the most important item in the image, looks stomped-on, flat. Like bad animation, it just takes me out of the story.
I realize that the way I perceive the world appears to be uncommon, but it’s the only way I happen to have.
One thing I don’t like about 3D, and I think I’m right with this one, is that with real world 3D our eyes can instantly focus on something and the rest of the image our eye sees is a safe out of focus blur that lets us comfortably ignore it.
With fake 3D all of it is in focus, no matter how far away each element is pretending to be, done that way so your eye can rest on anything in the shot and see it clearly, and our brain can’t defocus the extraneous ones in the same way as the real world, because they aren’t really in a different focal plane, it’s just an illusion; so instead they remain rigidly in focus, and not for just the length of the shot, but the length of the movie.
Headache inducing, confusing to the brain, and a frustrating reminder of its artificiality.
Agreed, I’ve not seen many 3-D movies, only Alice in Wonderland and a couple of others. I’ve not been impressed really and don’t like wearing the glasses. Plus the colours are washed out and it gives me a headache as others have already stated.
Is the bizarre capitalization a joke I’m not getting, or what? Because it’s really hard to read, and you should stop it.
Anywho, I’m in the minority here, I guess. I’ve only seen Avatar, but I loved the 3D, and it’s just about the only thing that will actually get me to a theater at this point. I can watch 2D movies at home much more comfortably and cheaply, with better popcorn.
Double post
I’m experienced the dimming effect. I don’t know all the factors, but obviously the projection brightness needs to be greater when the viewers are all wearing sunglasses.
My guess (as a photographer) is that the 3D glasses cut the illumination in half (or more.) So the projector bulb needs to crank out twice as much illumination.
I don’t think every theater has a projector with enough horsepower to do a good job with 3D films.
I hope it stays an occasional novelty, rather than becoming the default. Wearing 3D glasses on top of prescription glasses is not much fun, the payoff isn’t much at all.
Those are all still mostly rides at Universal California and Orlando now, too. No need to shout, most of us have seen them, too.
To the OP, I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3d and just found it more distracting than anything. Though I had heard that Alice had really poor 3d implementation, so who knows.
When done well, I like it.
Not well: Filmed flat, then turned 3D by a box full of indians
Not well: THERE IS NOW A BALL IN YOUR FACE! BOOYAH!
I liked Coraline, Avatar, Toy Story. Alice in Wonderland and Piranha 3D sucked balls.
I seriously doubt that we’re going to start seeing 3D become the actual default - 3D is great for animation and special effects vehicles, but I’m not sure the latest Noah Baumbach movie is going to be enhanced much by stereo.
That said, get used to it for the spectacle movies – and don’t despair, with the ubiquity of 3D movies, more and more film fans who wear glasses and don’t like contact lenses will opt for a set of 3D glasses in their prescription. There are still only a few fru-fru outfits offering these so far, but it’s only a matter of time before it’s a stock option at LensCrafters.
Not a helpful answer, but I’ve given up on theaters entirely. Too many commercials, rude people, phones ringing, talkers, etc. To heck with it.
(Get off my lawn?)