I'm bored of 3D: How to train your dragon - Page 2

I believe this is 3D's 3rd incarnation, never seems to stay around for long!

Film studios are pushing 3D because they have to find a way to make cinema going experience different from watching TV. In a way they have early success. Over 80% of the people who saw Avatar watched it in 3D. Everyone now knows that it is the highest grossing film of all time, but few knows that it is also by far the most illegally downloaded movie of all time. Which means that people can watch it at home but choose to pay for it. You can say it's all about money but there are film makers who sincerely try to use 3D as an artistic tool. "Coraline" is a good example. "Avatar" has good intention as well. Funny thing is though, because of the early success of 3D cinema, there is a rush to bring 3D to TV which might eventually drive people away from cinemas again.
Personally, I think 3D movies will last. In fact, I think 3D TV have a good chance of making it as well. I know there are a lot of negative feelings toward it here- for good reasons too, but I do enjoy watch films in 3D.
By the way, "How to train your dragon" is a great film and the stereo effect is very subtle, not in your face at all.

Another person who thinks 3d is just a fad, at least in film. I really feel that the advantages of 3d lie more in video games where the extra dimension would add something to the experience beyond "wow that dragon/blue guy/ bird is popping off the screen!". Video games are all about imitating reality and creating an immersive life-like experience, 3d can help accomplish this goal. Film is more about telling a story and using images to enhance the story being told, 3d doesn't really do that.

My problem with 3d movies is that shots in movies don't last long, there's not enough time to take in all the visual information in a couple of seconds before the camera switches to another angle, not to mention there's also dialogue and a story to follow (well some 3d movies have a story at least). Even with Avatar and Up, which I believe are "true" 3d movies I lost my enthusiasm and interest in 3d after about fifteen minutes. The only 3d movie that really wowed me was Coraline.

Resolution > 3D

One thing to remember is that 3D we have now (film or tv) is far from a finished product. It is still being developed and will get better. We have mono-stereo- 5.1 in audio. There is no reason we cannot do the same with video and film. It doesn't mean that 3D is better, just like surround sound is not necessarily better than two channel or mono. It is another choice.

I concur. (a small voice in the crowd of dissent)

The "new" incarnation of 3D is simply an incremental advance in technology (circular rather than linear polarization is used to encode the 3D depth). It's great, most everyone agrees it is better than before. Yay, technology advances.

As an art form, some artist(s) will have to take up the new technology and use it well...I think Cameron did this well with Avatar, and I liked Up too. This happens all the time in technology development cycles. Tech comes out, artist pushes the boundary, tech gets adopted. I think it is easy to point to the tech and ignore the essential contribution of the artists.

Of course there is a financial motivation. Avatar wouldn't have sold so well if it just had liquid silver robots or really big boats. Everyone in film industry is looking for the next "Matrix." First DVD I bought, and same for many. A great movie will push the adoption of the next wave of technology in the home.

I'm going to x3 the glasses over glasses annoyance and second the headache. 2/3 of the way through 3d films I end up just wanting to leave to let the pain in my head, nose, and eyes subside.

I think the glasses design relates to its uncomfortable fit. iMax gives out these very lightweight glasses that fit very nicely, the lens are very big also s you don't see the frame of the glasses. I always forget they're on my face. I think 3-D has a chance of sticking around, especially with the clarity if offers now compared to its earlier installments.

I also agree that the current incarnation is just a passing fad. It will probably last a little longer though since I believe every computer animated film currently in production is slated to be in 3D. As far as regular films go, something like Clash of the Titans may look okay in 3D (except that it wasn't shot in 3D), but do we really need the forthcoming remake (the second one at that) of Pirahna to be in 3D? And will people continue to be willing to pay a premium to see these movies?

It will be interesting to see how the 3D television market does. Cablevision recently broadcasted a game in 3D and DirecTV has one scheduled. 3D TV is something that definitely doesn't interest me since I'm usually doing ten other things at the same time I'm watching something. I also don't think the majority of people who recently bought an HDTV are going to run out and buy a new set.

Ill add my own voice about the glasses over glasses complaint, its annoying, and they always slide down, at least for me. But on to 3d movies, as long as the movie was actually shot in 3d, and it has no gimmicky "3D" shots, you know the ones im talking about, like yoyo to the face or spear or whatever. Like avatar really was a perfect example, no gimmicks, just the whole movie had depth to it, you really didnt even realize it was in 3d, it just looked so natural. The other Problem with 3d, is that it just looks blurry, which i dont like. I was forced to watch alice in wonderland in 3d, because that is the only way my theater had it, and all i was thinking about the whole time was how much better it would have looked in 2d.

sometimes the blurriness is worth it, avatar, but most times i think it actually hurts the picture quality and therefor my enjoyment of the film.

To quote myself if anyones interested, it seems Canon had the same idea in an April fools joke. Oh if only it were true! That's the way of the future!

Canon DSLR video goes RAW (2100p)

I am a huge supporter or 3D, be it movies or games. After all, human eyes are meant to see in stereo, and movies/games capable of doing it can increase immersion. In current form however, while it works, is not good. I wear glasses, and wearing glasses on top of glasses is not very cool. It works, but it is uncomfortable.


When studios use 3D to make things pop out of the screen by adding a strong stereo convergence, that is indeed a gimmick and a SURE WAY TO GET A HEADACHE as it forces you to cross your eyes very strongly. But 3D AT ITS BEST is when it makes your screen turn to a window to another world, with real depth perception and all.

Avatar, for example, in 3D was average. At the times it used pop-out gimmicks, sometimes it used too much stereo separation to over exaggerate the depth sense (making your eyes feel they are very far apart), but in other scenes it was beautiful.

When I had CRT monitor, I used shutter type 3D glasses whenever I could, it made games really great. Too bad nowaday 60Hz LCDs cant do it, but now that we are getting REAL 120Hz monitors on market, 3D in games will hopefully rise again. I am just waiting for 120Hz monitors that use other panels than cheap TN, I just cant stand that god awful vertical gamma shift.

I have a DEEP hatred of 3D. I don't mind it when you are going to a movie like "My Bloody Valentine" every so often for that little extra hilarity, generally though my reasons are:

1. I wear glasses... nothing like watching a film in discomfort

2. The glasses are usually the cheapest plastic lens you can get and produce a verticle banding pattern that is CLEARLY visible

3. The 3D only works well the the object that is in focus (IMO) the parts of the image that are blurry and to the sides of the screen actually lose their "3D-ness" and you get image separation.

4. The creators of the movie realise that they are making a movie for 3D and many of them add extra parts to scenes ( and some scenes entirely) just to show of the 3D effect. - Thank you Tim Burton, you used to be cool.

5. I already have the ability to look at a 2D image and can see "perspective" and can judge distance by things overlapping and relative size. We conquered this in visual arts some time ago. These concepts were partially used by Egyptian artists and then we mastered it in the Renaissance (thanks Brunelleschi).

6. Hollywood is after easy money and is quickly running out of ideas, (Transformers 4: Prime vs GIJoe and Whinnie the Pooh) and the use of 3D is just lipstick on a pig. How about you make films that are worth watching without the use of performance enhancing apparell??

I think that might be enough ranting for the moment. Do you get the picture though?

The day I buy a 3D television will be the day when I sell all of my audio gear for a new "3D, 7.1, Dolby-Braille" machine.

Exactly. The studios saw consumers dump VHS like a steaming pile and re-buy their favorite films on DVD, and they mistakenly believe they can turn this phenomenon into a strategy. They and the music industry are caught up in the notion of selling the same content in varying formats and across multiple devices, and while it's not really working as they'd hoped, there are plenty of folks who buy the same game for multiple consoles, so perhaps people of that mindset will jump at the chance to see something like LOTR in 3D. Not me.

As far as 3DTV goes, the only thing I have any interest in seeing in 3D are nature shows. HD was a quantum leap for programming like Planet Earth, and I'd love to go on another tour of the planet in 3D. I think it'd be considerably more beautiful than any planet of James Cameron's imagining. Regardless, that's not enough incentive for me to adopt 3DTV.