3D is going to ruin movies?

thekeygun said:
When i'm watching a movie in 3D, I get so immersed in the storyline that I forget that i'm watching it in 3D. I don't even remember the movie that I watched was in 3D. It makes no difference to me.
Click to expand...


When I'm watching a good movie in any-D, I get lost in the story.

Unfortunately, when gimmick-laden 3-D combines with abysmal storytelling, the result is "Alice in Wonderland." And halfway through it I couldn't wait for it to be over.
 
21.+Carrot+Top.jpg
depp-mad-hatter.jpg


I wonder where Burton got the idea? I'm still gonna' see it :)

I gotta' say... I did see a commercial for an animated flick that boasted "the 3D is so good Avatar would be jealous"... and uh... I did NOT like hearing THAT. I don't care if a lot of flicks come out in 3D... but I hope it doesn't become THE selling point on too many movies at the conceptual stage, because then it really COULD hurt the future quality of story telling in cinema.

Anytime a big-money sh*t movie is made... and it MAKES a sh*t-load of money... the best we can hope for is the trickle-down effect... but we'll have to see which of those two things trickles down.
 
Denis Haineault said:
Well if you can change the DoF of a movie playing on the screen using your eyes, then cool. I can't.
Click to expand...

Um, you've never noticed how if you hold your finger up to your eyes the background is out of focus? The same thing happens in 3D movies...

Assuming they film it right, of course. They didn't film Avatar right considering it was marketed as a 3D movie. In 3D you can't go around using super-narrow depth of field like I do with my 7D :D
 
Jester2138 said:
Um, you've never noticed how if you hold your finger up to your eyes the background is out of focus? The same thing happens in 3D movies...
Click to expand...

I think you've missed my original point.

You cannot correct the DoF of something projected on a 2D screen (using your eyes) no matter how hard you try. The next time you watch a movie (3D or not), look at something (say) in the background that is out-of-focus. It will, of course, remain out-of-focus -- you can't correct that with your eyes. It doesn't matter if it's in 3D or not.

That was my original point about why 3D will never work for me. It's a simulation of 3 dimensional space projected on a 2D physical plane. And unless you are looking at the specific spot on the screen (in focus) you are supposed to look at, the 3D illusion fails.
 
Which is exactly why it's so stupid. It's not 3D. It's an optical illusion, which last time I checked are for magic eye books, and magicians.
 
I know where your coming from but it's no more an illusion than what we already see.
We have 2 eyes, each capable of seeing in 2D only, the same as single cameras.The brain ofcourse converts those differences in images from 2D into a 3D image.
That's also a 3D illusion. A good one, mind you.
The DOF effect you mention is a good point. I'm sure it's just a technical issue that people are working on. The fact remains, our eyes can only see in 2D.

I remember talking about HDTV around '84. People said the current resolution was good enough and looked great.
I even read an article from 1973 dicussing the future of media from the industry giants and DVD's and flatscreen were mentioned.
They predicted by the 1980's. A little off there but it still same true.

Around '90 RCA and Philips began cooperating on one of 2 HDTV formats.I think the article was biased towards North American research in hindsight.
Obviously, some of it worked because now it's everywhere.

And ofcourse terabyte DVD's have been developed now.

And I'm led to believe, 3D screens have already been developed that do not require glasses. At least in the lab.

But, conclusion:
1/ 3D is not here yet in an acceptaple consumer format. But people are working on it.
2/ When it does get here it still may take 1 or 2 generations to become the standard.

I beileve it will happen, sooner or later.
 
Does anybody remember that thing (was it from TED?) where a guy had some examples of intelligent 3D? He had a screen (LCD panel, whatever) with some red and white projecting "targets" on it... this all looked like nothing but designs, art, whatever... except that through the camera... all the artificially projecting things looked like they were genuinely projecting... because the display (through an IR-laser positioning thing the guy made... I think from a remote control or something) KNEW where the cam was "looking" and positioned, in relation to the screen.

If 3D reaches that point... well... it'll be interesting.

I'm far more compelled by good 3D in video games then movies... but one thing's for sure from this thread... some people hate it too much and others love it too much.

I can't imagine 3D being "forced on us" before it's amazingly perfect... not "avatar perfect" but literally perfect... because the same filmmakers that you're all fans of... are seeing the same things you are... and having the same thoughts about it... pro and con.
 
Thanks Bat... so when it reaches that point... (I guess for an audience of 1) then I'm in heart and soul... *ahem*... again... primarily for video games... unless movies can use this technology in a way that's so good I'm not even aware of it.

PS. I want to get a tattoo of that guy at 3:53 on my bicep.
 
Denis Haineault said:
I think you've missed my original point.

You cannot correct the DoF of something projected on a 2D screen (using your eyes) no matter how hard you try.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. I did during the Hubble 3D Imax trailer. It doesn't matter that it's ACTUALLY on a 2D screen, the fact is your eyes perceive it as 3D just as if it was really 3D so the DOF effect your eyes naturally create still exists. Go watch another 3D movie and you'll see what I mean.

Denis Haineault said:
The next time you watch a movie (3D or not), look at something (say) in the background that is out-of-focus. It will, of course, remain out-of-focus -- you can't correct that with your eyes. It doesn't matter if it's in 3D or not.
Click to expand...

Ah, now we're getting to the meat of our disagreement. Read my other post and you'll see me mentioning that my point is based on the assumption that the 3D movie was filmed "right." That means no shallow DOF from the camera. The DP has to use deep focus on both lenses so that when projected in 3D there is no artificually blurred background floating in 3D space for the viewer to give himself a headache trying to focus on. That's why the Hubble 3D trailer was so much better-looking than Avatar - they used deep focus and I could look wherever I wanted in the frame naturally like I do in real life.

Denis Haineault said:
...why 3D will never work for me. It's a simulation of 3 dimensional space projected on a 2D physical plane.
Click to expand...

I think someone already mentioned this, but 3D movies don't really "simulate" much, they actually do 3D in the same way our eyes do. It's just a matter of getting the finer points done correctly before 3D becomes as standard as sound.
 
Back to the OP. 3D is nothing new. It has popped up countless times since the fifties. It stays around for awhile as a fad and then slowly fades away.

Who knows maybe this time is different, but i wouldn't bet on it.
 
3D will stay around after the requirement to wear glasses is solved through technical innovation. Until then, fad.
 
thekeygun said:
When i'm watching a movie in 3D, I get so immersed in the storyline that I forget that i'm watching it in 3D. I don't even remember the movie that I watched was in 3D. It makes no difference to me.
Click to expand...


I can't get that caught up in any 3D movie. I took my glasses off about 12 times, during my first viewing of AVATAR. My second viewing - I took my family to a 2D showing. One, it was a lot cheaper for the 5 of us. Two, there was no way our youngest child would put up with those fricken glasses.




MattinSTL said:
some people hate it too much and others love it too much.

I can't imagine 3D being "forced on us" before it's amazingly perfect... not "avatar perfect" but literally perfect
Click to expand...


I absolutely hate, hate hate........the idea of imperfect 3D forced on my, as a new standard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :kali: That's not to say that I hate the existence of 3D movies. They're okay once in a while, but AVATAR and all the rest of them give me a headache! The idea of endless content in 3D riles me. I love watching movies - I used to see 3 to 5 features on an opening Friday, but I'll cut way back if this becomes the standard.



basspig said:
3D will stay around after the requirement to wear glasses is solved through technical innovation. Until then, fad.
Click to expand...


Hopefully so. I want my rack focus. I want shallow depth to hide my less than perfect sets. I don't want to rely on a Point Of Convergence calculator. I don't want the viewer wandering about the shot. I want the ability to focus their attention.

I'm really amazed that one movie could sway so many people, who otherwise didn't care about the process before. I enjoyed Star Tours and HONEY I SHRUNK THE AUDIENCE, many years ago. I didn't find AVATAR's 3D to be much different. What a let down, too. I thought I was going to see something revolutionary, as opposed to some of the same old. The movie used the effect minimally. If you took your glasses off (like I did, over and over), many of the shots looked fairly clear to the naked eye. The background seemed more affected than actors in the foreground. Cameron knew that the audience could only take so much of the effect, so it's ironic that the subtleness caught on in a big way.

After all this time, videographers have been trying to mimick the shallow depth of film, and now they are clamoring for deep/infinity focus. Ironic. :furious3::D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top