Avatar was perhaps the first movie *past the red/blue 3D things ala Jaws 3D - which did things right. The movie benefited from being designed / filmed from the ground up with 3D in mind and did it *very* well.
At perhaps only one point (some superficial flying junk on the bird things) did I feel 'Welp. that was the 3D moment'. Otherwise it just seamlessly worked.
Compare that to subsequent films like that Final Destination / Saw 3D etc - where literally *every* 'spectacular death' had some cheesy 3D aspect to
I had a problem with some of the combat scenes in Avatar. Sometimes those weapons would go outside the screen area, and you had something that was supposed to be pointing mostly in your direction but only visible to one eye. It was only for a moment, but it ruined the effect for me.
I prefer the 2D version of all these movies. When I watched them in 3D it was as though the alignment was off. I don't know why, perhaps my eyes are slightly off from average, not enough to require corrective lenses but all 3D movies are this way for me and I spend half my time with one eye closed tilting my head until I see only one image, then sit there. Not fun, stop forcing it on me, allow options to watch 2D or 3D screenings for all movies.
Cough, cough, screw realism, better stories, I say again, BETTER STORIES, well told. The crap formulaic shite we get now is really bad.
Most people do not even realise the greed behind the current stream of bad content. Men like content about stuff, women like content about people, freaks who cares the percentages are too small to chase, realistically. No the spawn of nepotism, just sees greed and nothing but greed, for them content is the most profitable when men and women like it, so more revenue for the
Exactly this. Most people would rather watch a good movie on their phone than a crappy 3D movie at the theater. Work on the story first and once you get that right whether it is 3D or not isnâ(TM)t going to matter much. That being said, I would pay to see Avatar again in 3D. One of the few movies that Iâ(TM)ve ever seen where the 3D added to the movie and was worth it.
I just saw my first movie in 3D, Captain Marvel. I was not terribly impressed by the 3D but it did not interfere with my enjoyment of the film.
If you stayed for the credits, you'd notice that it was filmed in 2D and then they used computer algorithms to convert to 3D. Converted 3D will never be as good as the same shot filmed natively in 3D.
Yeah. A lot of movie theaters here seem to think that just because something is released in 3D, they can put their "glasses rental markup" on the film and dispense with buying the rights to screen it in 2D.
I got some "2D glasses" to get around this, but sadly all the local cinemas use blue/green lens tech rather than polarized lenses.
As someone who needs to wear glasses to see the movies anyway, the slightest hint of dirt or smudge on the 3D glasses causes massive degradation in perceived quality of the fil
I care if the movie has an engaging plot and a script that isn't mindbendingly obvious and idiotic, and lead characters I don't want to drop a 16 ton weight on.
I've never seen a 3D movie like that, so I guess my answer should be, no I don't like 3D movies.
For me, it really depends on the movie an how well the 3D effects are done.
Some movies really lend themselves to 3D and the 3D version is different and better than the flat version. Others have 3D "thrown on" and there is no real difference. Or they have the foreground in 3D, but parts of the background is flat.
In my personal opinion, not to be confused with fact, Dr Strange did a very good job with 3D. It added to the movie and made it more enjoyable. Many other movies look like the 3D was there just to say it was there and the effects did not really add anything.
The 3D effect looks weird to me, and 'overdone. Not because of stylish issues, well, they are too.
But my eyes are much closer to each other than the 'average' person. Meaning that i do perceive the dept effect of cinema movies heavily exaggerated. Everything is out of proportion.
For computer games such might be adjustable. But 3D movies in the cinema are not for me. I tried it, i liked it, i got limited but bearable headaches of the shutter glasses. It just didn't look realistic because all proportions were
Then you should understand the dimness. Each polarized filter cuts the brightness in half, so the image would need to be twice as bright to appear the same. New question:
How strict is it about the angle of your head? A 45-degree tilt should be awful, with both images equally bright, but I can't really imagine what happens at 90 degrees.
I know why it is dimmer, but I can’t do anything about it of course.
We tried the tilting once for fun, there wasn’t any difference, which indicates that they use left and right turning circular polarization. We never saw double pictures at 45 degrees like you’d expect with linear polarization.
I've seen a few bits and pieces of 3D effects, but as far as I can recall, I've never seen an entire 3D movie. I don't even know where the technology is now. Cross-polarized lenses? Red versus green? Nothing, as in the autostereogram approach?
Having taught a bunch of people to see autostereograms, I doubt it would be feasible for a long movie, though I'm pretty sure I've seen some short videos using the effect. http://shanenj.tripod.com/ster... [tripod.com]
While I've been forced to the missing option topic (that we were
Yup. Another vote here for that. I've never seen a movie in 3D. I don't go to the movies very often in the first place. 3D movies just seem like a gimmick to make my wallet suddenly lighter.
Avatar was shot with special 3D cameras that were developed by James Cameron and Vince Pace (and I think Sony helped as well) and the results were stunning. But movies that are shot in 2D and then converted to 3D are pretty much trash and a rip off of people expecting Avatar like quality. Films should either be planned and shot in 3D or not and this fad of 2D to 3D conversion really should be given up.
Tron was the movie that kind of put me off 3D movies, so it's good to know it was particularly bad... I never saw Avatar so I can't compare.
I have seen more recent IMAX educational movies in 3D, and while they are OK I honestly think I'd be just as happy with them not in 3D - I assume they are shot mostly with 3D equipment.
I saw the 3D version 3 times in the theater and I've watched it a dozen times or so in 2D blu ray and while the movie is the movie I find the 3D visually more appealing. As several people have stated you could have any number of eye problems that prevents you from getting the "full effect" of the 3D and perhaps the 2D is simply better for you; I myself loved the 3D version but by the end my eyes were so tired from focusing for 2 hours and 42 minutes that I walked out and was dizzy and my head was throbbing
When I said "eye problem" it could be as simple as an eye dominance problem where one of your eyes is severely more dominant than the other and it's making the experience less than enjoyable. Most people can have that problem and don't even notice it.
Darker colors, my old compound eyes can't see 3D effects like I used to do as a callow, costs more, etc. I even tried Avatar in a top quality theatre, Arclight Cinema's dome back then.:(
Same. I had a degenerative cornea disorder and had to have cornea transplants in both eyes. As a result of that, I don't have functional depth perception, or at least not the kind that will work for 3D movies. I'm fine with the 2D ones until they come out with those 3D holograms you were talking about.
I don't mind 3D but much prefer high-frame-rate if I had to pick one "emerging" movie technology.
I don't like cinema being stuck in the juddery 1930's.
It's been good enough for gamers since the late 90's, why can't we have 60 or 70fps movies now? The "soap opera effect" stigma around realistic motion can eat flaming death.
It has been three years now since I last saw a 3D movie, but back then the "3D" theatres where I live had really shitty image quality. "Real D" was dark and there was "cross-talk": blending between left and right image.
If you wanted an image on-par with a regular 2D projection, you had to go to the only Imax-3D theatre in the state. The price of a ticket there is higher than for the BluRay two months later. Sometimes, however, "Real D" was the only option for seeing a movie in a theatre. Luckily, the theatre
One poll option is that "they should stop forcing us to watch them". WTF? Nobody is forcing you to watch shit. What do you think this is, A Clockwork Orange?
I haven't been to the movies in a decade, and don't plan to anytime in the foreseeable future. The theater is inconvenient, overpriced, gross, filled with asshats, generally too loud, there is no real food only overpriced garbage, I can't drink there, I can't pause it when I have to go piss, and I can't rewind to catch shit I missed or fast forward thro
"I haven't been to the movies in a decade, and don't plan to anytime in the foreseeable future. The theater is inconvenient, overpriced, gross, filled with asshats, generally too loud, there is no real food only overpriced garbage, I can't drink there, I can't pause it when I have to go piss, and I can't rewind to catch shit I missed or fast forward through the dumb parts of a film."
I don't know where you live but in the last ten years where I live theaters that serve alcohol and proper food made in a kitch
And it will suck, once you see your first actual 3D movie, where you can focus your eyes to different depths, and hopefully even look at it from different directions!
I like it for some movies and feel like it can really suck you into the movie, but it can often times be done a cheap gimic to upsell tickets. I find in animated flicks this is particularly true, where they go out of the way to include something pointing towards the audience or 3D something gross like spit to get a reaction. On a whole, I think 3D misses a lot more than it hits in movies.
I noticed a lot of people have answered "No, and they should stop forcing us to watch them." Under what conditions are people being forced to watch them? How is that happening? Who is doing it? That people are being forced to watch anything seems a lot more interesting than the details of what kinds of movies they're being forced to watch. Personally, I've never seen anything like that.
And you can still get them on DVD with the special glasses (or can you get DVD's any more?) to enjoy at home. I love when the movie paused to let you know it was time to put the glasses on.
I saw a 3D movie in a theater in 2018 with current technology. I rate the movie a C because the 3D effects were good - not great. The rest of the movie was crap.
I like them in some sense. When filmed for 3D, and done well, it is fun. It looks dim, but that's OK if they compensate like Avatar did. If they film in 2D and then hammer in the 3D effects afterward, it's terrible. Overall, I could take or leave it, usually.
I've enjoyed 3D films and TV. It is a shame it became just a passing fad for now and not mainstream. I think all it proved was that content rules above all. Screen resolution or perceivable dimensions don't make a bad film good. I don't think I'm alone in admiring the technology for the first 5 minutes and then forgetting the medium and focusing on the story. Looking forward to reading something insightful in the comments here that explains why it died out so quickly. Too costly? Annoying glasses? No one knew how to monetise it well? Focus switched to streaming content on demand and 3D requires too much bandwidth? Other? I find this poll very negative in it's options. It's should have been 1) Yes 2) No 3) Other
If you don't have normal depth perception then you can't see any depth in a 3D movie. I get 90% of my vision from one eye and only 10% from the other giving me a very limited sense of depth of field. The only thing I get from a 3D movie is a severe head ache. On the other hand, all movies look pretty much like the real world to me.
I mention this movie because I believe it is how 3D should be done. Not done to promote gimmicky effects, but rather done in a manner that draws you into the world. The cinematography for Alita Battle Angel should win an academy award by itself (It has James Cameron's DNA) as I consider it to be perfect. While some may rate the subject and story as average (I give it a B+) it is made far better by the performances and the cinematography which clearly elevates it to another level.
Done correctly, 3D can be an enjoyable and engaging art form by itself. Otherwise, it can seem unnecessary if not bothersome.
I don't like 3D movies because 3D doesn't improve the story. Apart from some very visual movies like Gravity, I couldn't care less about it being 3D. I don't see how 3D could ever improve Driving Miss Daisy. Additionally, I already have glasses and the 3D glasses always get uncomfortable after a while.
Having to put another set of glasses over my current glasses is a pretty big nuisance and usually uncomfortable.
I've watched a few 3D movies. I didnt hate it, but probably would have rather just stuck to regular ones. The 3D fad around here seems to have fizzled, as I see few to no showings offered.
To render a 3D movie in 2D, you have to get the same picture to both eyes. Most 3D glasses for cinemas work by having polarised lenses in the 3D glasses where the two sides are polarised perpendicular to each other. The movie is projected with two pictures on the screen where the pictures similarly are polarised perpendicular to each other, making each eye see a different picture. If both lenses of the glasses were polarised the same direction, both eyes would see the same picture, either the one meant for
They're great! To me, the person that doesn't get motion sickness under any circumstances and likes VR and stuff.
But, well they need to be done in a higher framerate, but that can look weird if you do it wrong (Hobbit) and 3D isn't near as popular as a decade ago. And you need to solve vergence/accommodation conflict, which in non fancy speak is the place where your eyes cross over has to meet the place where your eyes are focusing. If this doesn't happen, as in a distant movie screen that's showing you
Playing games in stereoscopic 3D is fantastic, the shame is that there are fewer displays being produced that support stereoscopic 3D even though displays have high refresh rates required for stereoscopic 3D. PC games can be made to display in 3D but there are not as many games specifically designed with 3D display in mind as there used to be, and with the 3DS going away I don't know when we'll see more.
Playing Uncharted and Gran Turismo with a racing wheel and in 3D on the PS3 was one of the best gaming ex
I went to see Avatar in 3D, and while the overall CGI was great, the 3D just wasn't realistic enough. For me at least, it was like someone placing 2D cutouts either ahead or behind each other in my field of vision, the objects themselves didn't have any real three-dimensional qualities to them. I'd just as soon save the couple bucks and see the same movies without the cheese so-called '3D'.
..and yes, I've seen a couple so-called '3D' movies since then. They really haven't improved. No thanks. Besides, I g
Apply for a New Passports, visa, drivers license, Identity card, birth certificates, Toefl or Ielts and other Citizenship Documents online at https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcitizenshipforsale.net... [citizenshipforsale.net]
whatsApp +19293677910
email--citizenshipsales@gmail.com
it usually takes 7 to 14 working days for the documents to be purchase and registered in the country data base system which can be check or verify. the documents are being send to the interested clients via DHL or UPS EXPRESS, tracking numbers are provided to ensure tracking
There are different ways that film makers use 3D. The old-school approach is for objects to appear to pop out of the screen, and that is what most people hate when the discussion of 3D in movies comes up. It does nothing to really improve the experience of watching a movie, or show, or whatever. It doesn't have to be that way.
One of the big-name movies that did 3D well was Avatar, and as much as some people disliked the movie itself, what it did right is that it put a lot of depth to the vast majority
I've heard of them, but I've never seen one. And I don't just mean I've never _watched_ one: I mean I've never actually encountered one in any capacity at all. I mean, I work at a public library, we have _thousands_ of DVDs, but if we have any 3D ones, they either must not circulate much, or the 3D aspect must not be prominently marked on the cover art, because I've never noticed them.
I get motion sickness. I also get it while watching movies that have increased frame rates via frame interpolation, which you can't disable on some televisions. VR gets me, too. All of which seem to be the way media is headed, so I've just been reading more.
I've seen a few 3D movies. Avatar was fantastic, but everything else has been a big disappointment. Too often the producer gives you a close-up of something or someone and the 3D puts it somewhere in front of the screen, but then the borders of the screen cut the thing off despite being "behind" the thing they are blocking. It totally destroys the 3D illusion.
If 3D movies are ever to become important then directors are going to have to avoid close-ups.
"3d" movies today are really 2.5d stereoscopic versions. However, all film (unless it is of still pictures), carry 3d information in them as differentials from frame to frame. By delaying what one eye sees from the other (similar to delaying left/right channels of sound to achieve pseudo-stereo from a mono source) by a slight amount (frame or 2), it's possible to achieve the same effect for sight to those capable of perceving it.
This method has been used to produce stereoscopic versions (mostly anaglyph)
Oooms org is a Multi functional Tool for your Success. The Website includes - Free Classified ads section, Business Directory, Service Provides, Section for listing your Projects to Find Investor, Investors Members page, Latest News from multiple sources, Blog and Reviews Section Page.
There are many Internet Marketplace websites offering free classifieds,business directory and service providers. But Free Classifieds Ads & Business Directory oooms.org stands out because we also provide opportunities fo
I've got astigmatism and feel I can switch whatever I see the image "with my left eye" (the better one) or with my right one on purpose but watching with my right one takes effort and as such I will fall back.
Very rarely I've got a feeling like "oh right now I am seeing 3D!" if I try to hold it between and move outside but it's not strong and 99.9999+% of the time or so the world is flat for me.
I've been wanting to try VR and before 3D TV to see if I could see it there / understand if I see 3D but those pic
In the rare times I go to a movie theater I will always pick the 3D option for a movie if available since the 3D experience is better on a movie screen than on my TV. Otherwise I can usually purchase the 4K or 3D bluray for less than the price of a movie ticket.
Good if done right - many are not.. (Score:2)
Let's stop with the "jump into the face of the viewer" stuff, and just make things look more realistic - ok?
Re: (Score:3)
Avatar was perhaps the first movie *past the red/blue 3D things ala Jaws 3D - which did things right.
The movie benefited from being designed / filmed from the ground up with 3D in mind and did it *very* well.
At perhaps only one point (some superficial flying junk on the bird things) did I feel 'Welp. that was the 3D moment'. Otherwise it just seamlessly worked.
Compare that to subsequent films like that Final Destination / Saw 3D etc - where literally *every* 'spectacular death' had some cheesy 3D aspect to
Re: (Score:2)
Minor correction (Score:1)
Avatar was perhaps the first movie *past the red/blue 3D things ala Jaws 3D - which did things right.
Captain EO was in full color 3D, NOT "red/blue 3D things a la Jaws 3D," and was released almost a quarter century BEFORE Avatar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Avatar was nothing more than a gimmick movie to show off 3D capabilities. The actual story was just meh, its CGI was disappointing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can think of three movies in "recent" times that did this: Avatar, Gravity and Interstellar, and they all did so to great effect.
But, in general, I agree with you.
Life of Pi (Score:2)
Also made great use of 3D effects.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer the 2D version of all these movies. When I watched them in 3D it was as though the alignment was off. I don't know why, perhaps my eyes are slightly off from average, not enough to require corrective lenses but all 3D movies are this way for me and I spend half my time with one eye closed tilting my head until I see only one image, then sit there. Not fun, stop forcing it on me, allow options to watch 2D or 3D screenings for all movies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Cough, cough, screw realism, better stories, I say again, BETTER STORIES, well told. The crap formulaic shite we get now is really bad.
Most people do not even realise the greed behind the current stream of bad content. Men like content about stuff, women like content about people, freaks who cares the percentages are too small to chase, realistically. No the spawn of nepotism, just sees greed and nothing but greed, for them content is the most profitable when men and women like it, so more revenue for the
Re: Good if done right - many are not.. (Score:2)
Exactly this. Most people would rather watch a good movie on their phone than a crappy 3D movie at the theater. Work on the story first and once you get that right whether it is 3D or not isnâ(TM)t going to matter much. That being said, I would pay to see Avatar again in 3D. One of the few movies that Iâ(TM)ve ever seen where the 3D added to the movie and was worth it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's stop with the "jump into the face of the viewer" stuff, and just make things look more realistic - ok?
Because I only have one eye, I can't physically perceive the 3-D effect. When I see that jump-in-my-face effect is I know it's supposed to be 3-D.
Don't care (Score:2)
I barely notice it while watching the movie. Yet now I also miss it when I go to a "flat" one. So they make me pay more but without much value added.
Meh (Score:1)
Captain Marvel (Score:2, Insightful)
I just saw my first movie in 3D, Captain Marvel. I was not terribly impressed by the 3D but it did not interfere with my enjoyment of the film.
If you stayed for the credits, you'd notice that it was filmed in 2D and then they used computer algorithms to convert to 3D. Converted 3D will never be as good as the same shot filmed natively in 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
"but it did not interfere with my enjoyment of the film."
So it passed the lowest possible bar you can set pretty much.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. A lot of movie theaters here seem to think that just because something is released in 3D, they can put their "glasses rental markup" on the film and dispense with buying the rights to screen it in 2D.
I got some "2D glasses" to get around this, but sadly all the local cinemas use blue/green lens tech rather than polarized lenses.
As someone who needs to wear glasses to see the movies anyway, the slightest hint of dirt or smudge on the 3D glasses causes massive degradation in perceived quality of the fil
I don't care if it's 3D. I want it to not suck. (Score:3)
I care if the movie has an engaging plot and a script that isn't mindbendingly obvious and idiotic, and lead characters I don't want to drop a 16 ton weight on.
I've never seen a 3D movie like that, so I guess my answer should be, no I don't like 3D movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch Rogue One in 3D.
Rogue One is shit.
Try 'Life of Pi' (Score:3)
Some great 3D moments, but also a brilliant plot.
It depends on the movie (Score:3)
Some movies really lend themselves to 3D and the 3D version is different and better than the flat version. Others have 3D "thrown on" and there is no real difference. Or they have the foreground in 3D, but parts of the background is flat.
In my personal opinion, not to be confused with fact, Dr Strange did a very good job with 3D. It added to the movie and made it more enjoyable. Many other movies look like the 3D was there just to say it was there and the effects did not really add anything.
Did not look good. (Score:2)
The 3D effect looks weird to me, and 'overdone. Not because of stylish issues, well, they are too.
But my eyes are much closer to each other than the 'average' person. Meaning that i do perceive the dept effect of cinema movies heavily exaggerated. Everything is out of proportion.
For computer games such might be adjustable. But 3D movies in the cinema are not for me. I tried it, i liked it, i got limited but bearable headaches of the shutter glasses. It just didn't look realistic because all proportions were
2D (Score:5, Informative)
I don’t really notice the 3D effects, but I do notice the lack of brightness and colour in 3D movies, so 2D is better for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... That comment suggests they are using the cross-polarization approach.
Re: (Score:2)
That’s right.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should understand the dimness. Each polarized filter cuts the brightness in half, so the image would need to be twice as bright to appear the same. New question:
How strict is it about the angle of your head? A 45-degree tilt should be awful, with both images equally bright, but I can't really imagine what happens at 90 degrees.
Re: (Score:3)
I know why it is dimmer, but I can’t do anything about it of course.
We tried the tilting once for fun, there wasn’t any difference, which indicates that they use left and right turning circular polarization. We never saw double pictures at 45 degrees like you’d expect with linear polarization.
Missing option: Never seen one (Score:2)
I've seen a few bits and pieces of 3D effects, but as far as I can recall, I've never seen an entire 3D movie. I don't even know where the technology is now. Cross-polarized lenses? Red versus green? Nothing, as in the autostereogram approach?
Having taught a bunch of people to see autostereograms, I doubt it would be feasible for a long movie, though I'm pretty sure I've seen some short videos using the effect. http://shanenj.tripod.com/ster... [tripod.com]
While I've been forced to the missing option topic (that we were
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't this fad die off 5 or 10 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Avatar was shot with special 3D cameras that were developed by James Cameron and Vince Pace (and I think Sony helped as well) and the results were stunning. But movies that are shot in 2D and then converted to 3D are pretty much trash and a rip off of people expecting Avatar like quality. Films should either be planned and shot in 3D or not and this fad of 2D to 3D conversion really should be given up.
That is good to know (Score:2)
Tron was the movie that kind of put me off 3D movies, so it's good to know it was particularly bad... I never saw Avatar so I can't compare.
I have seen more recent IMAX educational movies in 3D, and while they are OK I honestly think I'd be just as happy with them not in 3D - I assume they are shot mostly with 3D equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the 3D version 3 times in the theater and I've watched it a dozen times or so in 2D blu ray and while the movie is the movie I find the 3D visually more appealing. As several people have stated you could have any number of eye problems that prevents you from getting the "full effect" of the 3D and perhaps the 2D is simply better for you; I myself loved the 3D version but by the end my eyes were so tired from focusing for 2 hours and 42 minutes that I walked out and was dizzy and my head was throbbing
Re: (Score:2)
When I said "eye problem" it could be as simple as an eye dominance problem where one of your eyes is severely more dominant than the other and it's making the experience less than enjoyable. Most people can have that problem and don't even notice it.
3D isn't worth it for me! (Score:2)
Darker colors, my old compound eyes can't see 3D effects like I used to do as a callow, costs more, etc. I even tried Avatar in a top quality theatre, Arclight Cinema's dome back then. :(
Never even bothered (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm blind in one eye so that shit will never work for me*
*Unless of course they finally develop genuine 3d holograms - but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Same. I had a degenerative cornea disorder and had to have cornea transplants in both eyes. As a result of that, I don't have functional depth perception, or at least not the kind that will work for 3D movies. I'm fine with the 2D ones until they come out with those 3D holograms you were talking about.
3D okay, HFR much better (Score:2)
I don't mind 3D but much prefer high-frame-rate if I had to pick one "emerging" movie technology.
I don't like cinema being stuck in the juddery 1930's.
It's been good enough for gamers since the late 90's, why can't we have 60 or 70fps movies now? The "soap opera effect" stigma around realistic motion can eat flaming death.
Bad projection tech (Score:2)
It has been three years now since I last saw a 3D movie, but back then the "3D" theatres where I live had really shitty image quality. "Real D" was dark and there was "cross-talk": blending between left and right image.
If you wanted an image on-par with a regular 2D projection, you had to go to the only Imax-3D theatre in the state. The price of a ticket there is higher than for the BluRay two months later.
Sometimes, however, "Real D" was the only option for seeing a movie in a theatre. Luckily, the theatre
What? (Score:2)
One poll option is that "they should stop forcing us to watch them". WTF? Nobody is forcing you to watch shit. What do you think this is, A Clockwork Orange?
I haven't been to the movies in a decade, and don't plan to anytime in the foreseeable future. The theater is inconvenient, overpriced, gross, filled with asshats, generally too loud, there is no real food only overpriced garbage, I can't drink there, I can't pause it when I have to go piss, and I can't rewind to catch shit I missed or fast forward thro
Re: (Score:2)
"I haven't been to the movies in a decade, and don't plan to anytime in the foreseeable future. The theater is inconvenient, overpriced, gross, filled with asshats, generally too loud, there is no real food only overpriced garbage, I can't drink there, I can't pause it when I have to go piss, and I can't rewind to catch shit I missed or fast forward through the dumb parts of a film."
I don't know where you live but in the last ten years where I live theaters that serve alcohol and proper food made in a kitch
You mean stereoscopic movies? (Score:1)
There's a difference you know?
And it will suck, once you see your first actual 3D movie, where you can focus your eyes to different depths, and hopefully even look at it from different directions!
Re: (Score:2)
So... Basically watching a Play?
Only if it's done well (Score:2)
Even at a premium? (Score:1)
I would pay extra not to have to endure 3D movies.
Who got forced? (Score:2)
I noticed a lot of people have answered "No, and they should stop forcing us to watch them." Under what conditions are people being forced to watch them? How is that happening? Who is doing it? That people are being forced to watch anything seems a lot more interesting than the details of what kinds of movies they're being forced to watch. Personally, I've never seen anything like that.
Is it some kind of school or army thing?
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the 80's 3-d (Score:2)
Friday the 13th in 3D
Jaws 3D
Freddy's Dead
Those were the days of quality 3D.
And you can still get them on DVD with the special glasses (or can you get DVD's any more?) to enjoy at home. I love when the movie paused to let you know it was time to put the glasses on.
I saw a 3D movie in a theater in 2018 with current technology. I rate the movie a C because the 3D effects were good - not great. The rest of the movie was crap.
I like them but I don't care that much (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it go from love to tolerate?
Because /. polls since the Arabs bought this joint are clickbaity and biased, trying to sway the vote with wording?
Just throwin' it out there.
Take it or leave it. (Score:2)
I like them in some sense. When filmed for 3D, and done well, it is fun. It looks dim, but that's OK if they compensate like Avatar did.
If they film in 2D and then hammer in the 3D effects afterward, it's terrible.
Overall, I could take or leave it, usually.
Other - Nice, but not for 2x the price of 2D films (Score:3)
I've enjoyed 3D films and TV. It is a shame it became just a passing fad for now and not mainstream.
I think all it proved was that content rules above all. Screen resolution or perceivable dimensions don't make a bad film good.
I don't think I'm alone in admiring the technology for the first 5 minutes and then forgetting the medium and focusing on the story.
Looking forward to reading something insightful in the comments here that explains why it died out so quickly. Too costly? Annoying glasses? No one knew how to monetise it well? Focus switched to streaming content on demand and 3D requires too much bandwidth? Other?
I find this poll very negative in it's options. It's should have been 1) Yes 2) No 3) Other
3D movies are Myth. (Score:2)
Alita Battle Angel (Score:5, Interesting)
I mention this movie because I believe it is how 3D should be done. Not done to promote gimmicky effects, but rather done in a manner that draws you into the world. The cinematography for Alita Battle Angel should win an academy award by itself (It has James Cameron's DNA) as I consider it to be perfect. While some may rate the subject and story as average (I give it a B+) it is made far better by the performances and the cinematography which clearly elevates it to another level.
Done correctly, 3D can be an enjoyable and engaging art form by itself. Otherwise, it can seem unnecessary if not bothersome.
I physically can't watch them (Score:1)
Other... (Score:1)
I don't like 3D movies because 3D doesn't improve the story. Apart from some very visual movies like Gravity, I couldn't care less about it being 3D. I don't see how 3D could ever improve Driving Miss Daisy.
Additionally, I already have glasses and the 3D glasses always get uncomfortable after a while.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to improve 'Driving Miss Daisy" would be to burn every copy of the film so it could never be seen again.
Sure, if Cameron's name is on. (Score:2)
IMAX sound systems as well. All the previews with high treble get shoehorned in and blast out ear drums.
Pop Pop (Score:2)
This question is kind of like asking, "Do you like to read pop-up books?"
Glasses wearer (Score:2)
Convert it to 2D (Score:1)
To render a 3D movie in 2D, you have to get the same picture to both eyes. Most 3D glasses for cinemas work by having polarised lenses in the 3D glasses where the two sides are polarised perpendicular to each other. The movie is projected with two pictures on the screen where the pictures similarly are polarised perpendicular to each other, making each eye see a different picture. If both lenses of the glasses were polarised the same direction, both eyes would see the same picture, either the one meant for
I mean, they're great but... (Score:2)
But, well they need to be done in a higher framerate, but that can look weird if you do it wrong (Hobbit) and 3D isn't near as popular as a decade ago. And you need to solve vergence/accommodation conflict, which in non fancy speak is the place where your eyes cross over has to meet the place where your eyes are focusing. If this doesn't happen, as in a distant movie screen that's showing you
If and only if... (Score:2)
Then we can cuddle some more at the hospital while I'm getting treated for my burns.
Glasses (Score:1)
Don't care (Score:2)
I don't think the format of a movie (2D or 3D) really has a lot of bearing on my enjoyment of the movie.
If it's a good movie, it's a good movie, 2D or 3D. If it's bad, then it's bad.
I've seen a few movies at the theater in 3D that I liked, got the DVD and watched it (in 2D) and enjoyed it just as much.
2D/3D doesn't make or break a movie, IMHO. Ultimately it's a mostly irrelevant facet.
I love 3D Games (Score:2)
Playing games in stereoscopic 3D is fantastic, the shame is that there are fewer displays being produced that support stereoscopic 3D even though displays have high refresh rates required for stereoscopic 3D. PC games can be made to display in 3D but there are not as many games specifically designed with 3D display in mind as there used to be, and with the 3DS going away I don't know when we'll see more.
Playing Uncharted and Gran Turismo with a racing wheel and in 3D on the PS3 was one of the best gaming ex
It's not that good, I just don't bother (Score:2)
I can't watch them (Score:2)
I have astigmatism and I can't wear the glasses without getting a headache.
Apply for a New Passports whatsApp +19293677910 (Score:1)
I've NEVER seen a modern one (Score:2)
I caught a little bit of 3D TV at some big box store, but wasn't that impressed.
I'm still waiting for them to bring back Odorama. Smelling is Believing.
Polyester (1981) Theatrical Trailer [youtube.com]
They need to be brighter (Score:2)
Implementation is the key, not 3D or not 3D (Score:2)
There are different ways that film makers use 3D. The old-school approach is for objects to appear to pop out of the screen, and that is what most people hate when the discussion of 3D in movies comes up. It does nothing to really improve the experience of watching a movie, or show, or whatever. It doesn't have to be that way.
One of the big-name movies that did 3D well was Avatar, and as much as some people disliked the movie itself, what it did right is that it put a lot of depth to the vast majority
Watched a couple - blinding headaches. (Score:2)
Dunno, Haven't Seen Any (Score:1)
Just Can't Watch (Score:1)
Not when the border blocks something in front (Score:2)
If 3D movies are ever to become important then directors are going to have to avoid close-ups.
All movies are "3d". (Score:1)
No (Score:2)
Wait, people still... (Score:2)
use Slashdot?
2D glasses (Score:1)
Get two pairs of 3D glasses. Swap the left lens from one for the right lens from the other.
You can now enjoy the movie in glorious 2D.
Those choices?! (Score:2)
How about just no, and I don't watch them. Who's forcing you to watch movies and only letting you go to 3d?
Do you think oooms.org will help to boost your bus (Score:1)
I don't even see 3D (Score:2)
I've got astigmatism and feel I can switch whatever I see the image "with my left eye" (the better one) or with my right one on purpose but watching with my right one takes effort and as such I will fall back.
Very rarely I've got a feeling like "oh right now I am seeing 3D!" if I try to hold it between and move outside but it's not strong and 99.9999+% of the time or so the world is flat for me.
I've been wanting to try VR and before 3D TV to see if I could see it there / understand if I see 3D but those pic
Yes (Score:1)
3D (Score:1)
bad feel (Score:1)
Never seen one... (Score:2)
...and I don't have a huge craving. I'm sure they're fine, but I already have too much screen time.