Yeah, but in no time at all all of your viewing customers have an eye put out and you are right back to 1 eyed 2D.
We are reducing our carbon footprints together by only wearing recyclable clothing.
No there aren’t. There were more 3D films released this year than any other:
No there aren’t. There were more 3D films produced this year than any other of recent times:
3D is only going to get better, and it has momentum now.
Previous iterations of 3D were not practical for the sort of films which benefit most from them - special effects-laden adventures and animation.
Filmmakers now have a full set of post-production tools for working in 3D, instead of being stuck with awkward kludges and “let’s hope it works, and if it doesn’t, too bad…” In addition to the tools, there is consciousness of the need to keep the depth consistent to avoid viewer fatigue, and tools to adjust it in post.
There is tremendous infrastructure the theatres and at home - and in the next three years we can expect the prices for home 3D gear to come down even farther.
Proper 3D movies are spectacular. They aren’t going anywhere. (I do hope they stop cranking out crappy post-conversions, though - these are a waste of time.)
And I don’t know where you guys are getting the idea that the pornhauses aren’t doing 3D stuff. There is loads of HD3D porn out there. (Or so I have heard.)
But did they really? I find it hard to believe anyone credible would object to colour in movies.
I know many thought TV was a fad that wouldn’t last. I know that colourising black-and-white films raised any number of objections. But surely there wasn’t anyone upset by bringing colour into cinemas.
I think the objection most have with 3D is that you require the glasses, you cannot move from your seat (which in cinemas doesn’t matter, but at home it does), and it gives an alarmingly high number of people a headache. Plus you’re paying more for this inconvenience.
It’s not so much that it’s a fading fad, as it’s just not worth the hassle, so will rapidly become less popular and not financially viable.
I’ve seen one new movie in 3D - Thor. It made the movie really dark, and the benefits of having the foreground stand out a little bit more distinctly from the background was definitely not worth it. I know more people who dislike 3D than like it. I hope it goes away, but if it doesn’t, it’s no skin off my nose. I only go to one or two movies in the theater a year anyway.
Thor was not shot in 3D, so please don’t judge 3D movies on that basis. Go see Hugo and then let me know what you think.
And it’s in 3D!
I’ve only seen one recent movie in 3D and I was sitting in almost the exact center of the theater. Unless whatever object was headed straight for you, the effect was lost because there was almost no discernible difference with 2D. Except you paid more, had to wear the stupid glasses (awful if it’s over your regular glasses) meant to be returned and the whole time you had a nagging feeling that peripherally, you were missing something.
I won’t do it again. It’s not that I hope it goes away, but there should always be the availability to see a movie the way God intended… 2D.
Which is ironic because peripherally, you’re actually seeing more than the 2D version.
I don’t know about “shot in 3D”, but it required me to wear the glasses where I saw it. They called it “Real D 3D”, and I removed the glasses a couple times and found the movie simply looked slightly fuzzy without them. There weren’t any sequences with the “OMG! Duck!” effect in the film.
And if there were, people would complain that 3-D is just a “gimmick”. Myself included. 3-D is so much more than “the spear is RIGHT IN MY FACE!!!11”. We see the world in 3-D. Seeing a movie in 3-D seems much more immediate to me than seeing it on a flat screen.
I do enjoy the visuals of these movies with the “laid-back” 3D, but really, they seem to be no better than a Blu-ray on 1080p. Which wouldn’t bother me, except for the stupid glasses.
Amen. I’ve seen native 3D stuff like Avatar, animated 3D like Despicable Me and 3D conversion stuff and it all looks like hell when you have to juggle those stupid glasses over your regular specs.
if they can’t fix he problem of it giving a significant number of people headaches and nausea it seems pretty bad for business.
The hobbit is being shot in 3D =P, kind of scares me, having to amp up the saturation of the sets and makeup and costumes to compensate for the darkening, watching the film with glasses on, bleh, seems like a lot could go wrong there to make it not near what the original 3 were like in quality.
I like 3D, if there’s a choice I go and see the 3D version (unless I know it’s postprod 3D).
I wear glasses and have never had a problem with the second set.
Many filmmakers shoot 2D and then rush a 3D effect in post-production - which looks terrible.
Imagine you have a 2D photograph, and want to make it stereo after-the-fact. The problem is straightforward: just* recreate all the parallax shifts that would be there if the camera were moved a little bit to the right.* Obviously, it’s not practical to aim for a very detailed stereo image - you’e going to focus on the main elements - and you end up with a crap effect where you’re just putting various elements on different planes, but they are by-and-large flat cut-out looking things - especially when you consider that you have to process about 150,000 frames this way - you can’t hope to approach the level of detail you would have if you actually originally had another lens recording the scene for the second eye. (And re-rendered the effects shots, instead of fudging the entire composite.)
In short, 3D conversions suck.
You’re more blessed than I am. Besides being physically distracting, the 3D looks like crap to me.