3D Films I dont get the hype???

[Batutta]

Of course it was shot the same way they did Avatar.
They do this for a long time. Every amusement park uses the same technology - including polarized glasses - as Cameron, since over 30 years.

There is nothing new here, only the hype. If you tell people long enough it´s new and groundbreaking they start to believe it. And even better (for the propaganda) they start to believe they actually see it.


Frank

The basic tech is the same, but it's been refined, and that makes a difference. Cameron's camera system has lenses that move as the depth of field changes to eliminate convergence problems. Also, digital projection improves the 3D experience as the image is more stable than polarized film projection. I've seen all kinds of 3D over the years, and RealD is an improvement over past systems. The only thing as good in the past was 3d IMAX.

 

[Sad Max]

Of course it was shot the same way they did Avatar.

I think Jon meant that it was a post-process wherein the requisite data was interpolated from an original non-stereoptical 'flat' image, rather than being originated on a stereoscopic system, to begin with.

 

[KMR]

I think Jon meant that it was a post-process wherein the requisite data was interpolated from an original non-stereoptical 'flat' image, rather than being originated on a stereoscopic system, to begin with.

And Jon was mistaken. The 3D films of the 80s (and earlier, going back to the 20s) were in fact "true" stereoscopic films, with the images captured from two separate perspectives. It is only very recently that successful methods have been found to convert 2D films to 3D.

 

[Sad Max]

Really, it was me mis-reading Jon's post. I thought he was talking about the post-converted films, but re-reading his post I see that he wasn't. Never mind...

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

And I keep hearing people argue about the 3D in titans and alice... well yeah it's crap, cause it's not actual 3D! It's cause the technology wasn't there during production, but they wanted to jump on the bandwagon. If anything I'm talking about 3D technology in the next few years, when it'll be properly shot 3D.

No I read somewhere (it might have been one of the aint it cool reviews of Clash) it was intentionally shot in 2D because the director and cinematographer very much wanted it that way.

 

[BVX]

The percentage of stereovision-blind people I recently read was 11-12%, not 4%. It was described as a fairly sizable minority, so 4 wouldn't fit that.

My take on the 3D hype is that it is being pushed partly by the manufacturers who see market saturation soon arriving in HDTV and HD camera sales and are grasping for the next big thing to get buyers to buy. It likely won't be 4K home systems.

And the movie studios are also looking for creating a big event that more readily convinces us to pay more for the experience than wait for satellite or DVD playback.

Why would you want to see Avatar at home when it's out in theaters and you can get the full experience?

Because my family of 4 could watch it for $4 instead of the $60 I paid maybe?

Has anyone seen U23D?

I did and enjoyed the music but thought it a great example of 3D gimmickry that added very little other than some enhanced depth of field occasionally.

 

[HorseFilms]

1953: Brief 3D fad... died.
1983: Brief 3D fad... died.
2010: Brief 3D fad... will probably hang around a little bit longer, but will soon be deader than sh*t, too.

 

[Postmaster]

Actually I hope you are right, thou not "lovin" 3D seems to b a bit "political incorrect" these days ;-)

Frank

 

[Sad Max]

Among whom? I don't know anyone within or outside the industry who cares, aside from obvious commercial interest...

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

It's like video calls. Remember when they first started adding cameras on cell phones?
Nobody asked for video calls (well except maybe deaf people). There was no market demand for it, but the cell phone industry pushed it onto the market anyway. Nowadays, who besides deaf people do video calls?

Not even deaf people asked for 3D movies.

 

[GRENCH]

Artificial 3D Mode on SAMGUNG LED

Artificial 3D Mode on SAMGUNG LED

Samsung just warned a week or so ago that "3d" can make you sick.



Also, 1 in 25 viewers are STERO-BLIND meaning in a theater of 50, 2 are likely to see little to no affect of 3D.

And the argument that it's for piracy is BS at the moment because they're still releasing the 2D versions of the films, How long are they going to do that for? and when it's still just "Fake" 3d why should I go to the cinema to watch CLASH OF THE TITANS for "full effect" when it's not even filmed in 3D.

Maybe I'm bias because I get motion sickness. So I'm sure it's great for the rest of you, but I don't want to watch this BS and get sick from it, I got a headache from Avatar when I left the theater and felt somewhat nauseous (not as bad as a theme park ride though, but enough to complain.). I certainly hope it's not the only way to view films in the future. Esp. in the theater because I love going to the theater. I also like to roam the frame which is impossible to do in a 3D film. Than again I also get motion sickness from the blair witch project. I'm okay with video games though, probably because I can choose how fast I'd like to jerk my character around. It's more of my doing and my eyes moving than the thing moving on it's own.

I watched the none 3D version of Avatar on a Samsung in 3D mode and it was really bad. But if a film is shot in 3D like the next batch of Avatar BlueRay's are reported to be sold man it will look amazing like Monster's VS Alien's. Avatar was made to view in 3D. I don't believe true 3D movies will yield such a warning. It's when the television is put into Artificial 3D mode that this sickening dizziness occurs.
Just speaking from my experience.

 

[Evan S]

I checked out one of the TV's at best buy and the shuttering lenses nearly made me go into epileptic seizure. Lol, I'm exaggerating, I just don't see how you're going to watch it if your room is bathed in sunlight. Whilst watching it at best buy the room was fairly dark, but any light outside the frame and I could see the shutter effect even worse, I still saw the shuttering within the frame. I felt like I was watching a continuous flip book. I can't say that was that great. REAL D is OKAY, but it still makes me nauseous. Anyhow, I still don't like 3D and no one will convince me otherwise, it's a contrivance...