The colors are horribly diminished when wearing those stupid glasses. I’d rather see rich , luscious colors than a snowball or something stupid pop out on the screen.
I’ve got two movies in 3D for my home theater,* Alice in Wonderland* and Tron Legacy, and I saw *Avatar *in 3D in the theater and have the BluRay at home. In all three cases, I do think the 3D version has a little added something that makes it a richer experience. But I’m also content to watch them in 2D if I don’t feel like wearing the glasses. 3D is cool, but not essential, when it’s a movie I enjoy.
Christopher Nolan doesn’t think the image quality of 3D movies is as good as regular movies. That’s why The Dark Knight Rises will not be in 3D. I have to agree with him. All of the 3D movies I’ve seen have looked fuzzy or blurry, like my contacts are acting up, but I never can get them cleared up all the way.
I hope 3D movies are a passing trend (like the last time the fad hit in the 1980s) but am a bit pessimistic about the chances of this happening. It just feels to me like too many film-makers are relying on 3D to turn their movies into some kind of theme park ride instead of just focusing on making good movies in 3D or not.
Hugo is worth seeing in 3D
The same was true of Sensurround and previous iterations of the ThreeDee fad.
When Thor wasn’t too dark for me to see what was going on, I kept trying to clean the smudge off my 3D glasses. Maybe it wasn’t a smudge?
-
Adding sound and color did not require the viewer to wear special glasses.
-
Adding sound and color did not induce nausea in a significant portion of the audience.
-
Adding sound and color did not degrade image clarity or brightness.
One point he makes is that the prevelance of ThreeDee causes movies in general (not just ThreeDee showings) to be projected at half normal brightness, because it’s easier for multiplexes to leave the ThreeDee polarizers in place than to have the projector minion take the time to swap it out (and possibly break something in the process).
This column posits that Hugo may be the technology’s last stand – either turning the decline around, or rendering it one with Nineveh and Tyre and Sensurround and Smell-O-Vision:
Early iterations of color would have degraded both clarity and brightness, until they learned to compensate.
There isn’t any “decline” to turn around. The linked article reads a bit like Python’s Black Knight in terms of denial. Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron are making 3D films. I don’t recall Billy Wilder, John Ford, and Elia Kazan making films with “Percepto” to see if there might be something in it.
When top-tier filmmakers go 3D, you see the difference. It’s not a crap effect applied in post, and it’s not a tool that’s wielded half-assed and clumsily - these guys are serious. The impression you have after seeing The Hobbit will not be compare with the feeling you have after sitting through Captain America “in 3D.”
Evidently there is, as indicated by the cited examples:
Actually, the experience will be precisely identical:
-
Captain America is coming out “in 3D.” 3D gives me a throbbing headache. I pay money for products that cure headaches, not products that cause them. Pass.
-
The Hobbit is coming out “in 3D.” 3D gives me a throbbing headache. I pay money for products that cure headaches, not products that cause them. Pass.
Missed the edit window, but did want to offer my condolences in case your optimism led you to make some bad investments. :smack:
That article’s from half a year ago.
Hokay, here’s one from three hours ago:
As for the longer-term trend, the shares are trading at a bit under $10, down from a 12-month peak of about $35.
Coming back to normal after a spike is hardly evidence that the technology is failing.
What that proves is that we’re very far away from every movie being in 3D (which moviemakers keep threatening us with). I’ve never seen a 3D movie (unless you count an IMAX nature film with the cardboard glasses when I was 10), but I don’t think there’s enough evidence to show a trend either way at this point. Big event films do well in 3D and smaller (usually gimmicky) 3D pictures do terribly.
He’s missing the point. The reason The Dark Knight Rises shouldn’t be in 3D isn’t because of concerns about image quality, it’s because Batman movies aren’t the sort of movie that benefits from 3D.
Come to think of it, the only 3D film I’ve enjoyed was during the Terminator 2 3-D: Battle Across Time attraction at Universal Studios, probably because they didn’t overdo it. There are a few awesome moments of a Robert Patrick T-1000 literally poking his head out into the audience, but no real effort to render the motorcycle chase in 3D - it was limited to the CGI effects only.