[marone]

I do not care for them.

They make the entire film an oval that is in the centre of the screen as everything needs to come at the audience. Not only are the sides of the frame not used, but everything outside what is directly in front of the viewer, narrower even than 4:3 aspect ratio on old school broadcast television in field of vision, is now ignored by the director and cinematographer.

I have seen several films in 3-D and I simply do not like it. It hurts my eyes, I find myself taking off the glasses frequently due to fatigue, it's a gimmick as it was back the 1950's with similar technology, and it's just a way to prevent in theatre video piracy and internet re-posting of content as it was then to counter act the rise of television.

The 3-D is not even convincing. Everything is now a 2-D cardboard cutout in a 3-D diorama stage with arrows and rocks and characters flying at the audience. Dull, boring and repetitive.

The effect is not new - it looks exactly as a Tru Vue stereoscope or the View-Masters from the 1960's that had cartoons and such on them in single paired stereo frames in colour.

It looks exactly like that, only in motion.

The final time I saw a 3-D film last month about 35 minutes into the move (The Hobbit), I got a splitting headache.

Then to my alarm my left eye goes completely blank dark black blind for a few seconds, vision returns and when it does my brain was no longer able to coalesce the two blurred images on screen, via the glasses, onto my eyes and into my brain and integrate them as one 3-D image.

Whether with the glasses on or off at that moment, I saw what you see when you take off your special 3-D glasses. Glasses on or off, I saw the blurry image with the two colours. My brain had reached its limit and was no longer able to process 3-D.

35 minutes into the film I took this as a sign, and I left.

I shall never watch another 3-D film or TV show ever again.

 

[billybob_jcv]

I agree with you. This was a technology that we simply did not need. I hate the stupid glasses, and I hate that movies are being made to emphasize the 3D. Gee, how about just making a good movie???

I usually just go to the 2D showings. If the movie sucks because I saw it in 2D instead of 3D, then I say the movie sucks!

 

[Lorspeaker]

i love the 3D avatar ....transported me into another realm

 

[Spareribs]

Perhaps you are right but technology does get better over time. Check back in 10 years. Maybe you will love it.

 

[alv4426]

Well there already was 3D 10 years ago, I honestly dont see that much improvement so I say death to 3D

 

[Spareribs]

You are right. I myself am not really a fan of 3D as well. But as a rule, never solidify your opinion. Times can change. Eras change. The type of materials used for movie screenings can drastically change in the next 25 years or so.
 
Perhaps 3D will be bad but will it always be bad after 100 years?  We don't know and again, never solidify all your opinions. The world is always changing.

 

[marone]

You are right. I myself am not really a fan of 3D as well. But as a rule, never solidify your opinion. Times can change. Eras change. The type of materials used for movie screenings can drastically change in the next 25 years or so.

Perhaps 3D will be bad but will it always be bad after 100 years?  We don't know and again, never solidify all your opinions. The world is always changing.

True, but the future does not necessarily mean that a given aspect of it will be better.

Rectifying valves were invented between 1873 and 1910. We are talking about Edison and Tesla. Many audiophiles consider SS amps to be a mistake and can tell you by listening when SS entered the recording chain in the early 1960's. Same with digital studio technology in the early 1980's.

The screen of 2013 3-D looks much like a 3-D film of the 70's when old ones were re-released for the occasional gimmick. Two out of phase blurry images stereoscopic and projected on to the screen in two differing colours. Now it's done with computing power, but it looks the same on a 2-D screen.

 

[PredatorZ]

I agree, I will not go to a 3D movie after my last few head-aches, perhaps it will improve with time, but as it is now, just a gimmick. 3D won't make a mediocre movie great, movies tailored to 3D, with special scenes to take advantage of the technology isn't good story telling.I can only imagine a writer having his vision compromised to add the 3D logo to the marketing blitz. I love tech, but this is one fun idea gone horribly bad.

 

[tkang]

I think that current 3D technology is too immature. For one thing, I wear glasses, so having to wear 3D glasses on top of another pair just dosen't work very well. In addition to this, you can't really look at the background in 3D movies since the "3D effect" blurs it all out, and I personally enjoy looking at the backgrounds of movies. A significant minority of the population will also experience headaches due to the way current 3D effects work.
 
I also think current filmmakes don't really know how to fully utilize 3D. In my experience, at best it adds nothing (e.g. Avatar), at worst it looks gimmicky (most 3D movies I've seen). That being said, I'm not a very "visual" person (I like books more then movies).
 
I'm sure one day we'll address these issues, but I doubt it will be anytime soon.

 

[Spareribs]

Perhaps in the future when (or if) it does improve it will be called 4D? 

 

[billybob_jcv]

Unless a bad movie can go back in time and prevent me from wasting 3 hours of my life, I'm NOT going to call it "4D"...

 

[oqvist]

I like 3D. It´s not necessarily papier mache it depend on how it´s done. Often they make it a bit like that to make it easier on the eyes with less focus points. Some of the most convincing 3D I have seen is 2d/3D conversions but the amount of focus points do cause a bit of eye strain and there is always artifacts with 2D/3D conversion on the fly.
 
But I am not surprised some hate it. 10 % can´t see 3D anyway and some with less then perfect vision easilly gets headache. It put higher demand on the monitors too so image quality do suffer more or less. Yet to see a LCD TV with acceptable crosstalk for example. Plasma is much better in this regard though still not CRT class by any means.
 
I had better stereo3D 15 years or what it was when I ran Edimensional stereo3D glasses on my CRT. It´s as mentioned the same technology but on worse not better hardware. The better part is the bigger size which can be quite a big parameter of course.
 
But to me real life is 3D and well done 3D movies look more natural then their 2D counterparts. But my brain is well schooled to. stereoscopic viewing and how much you can accept is something you can train if you are not one of the 10 % that for medical reason can´t cope with 3D. As for detail I think 3D models come through much better in 3D and allow me to see more detail and appreciate them more. In 2D movie you also have this depth of field effect where the director try to help you with the tracking so I don´t necessarily see a big difference here in say Avatar that a lot has seen.
 
I don´t think anybody have to fear 3D will replace 2D to any big degree. Hopefully they can coexist. Particularly for the animated genre you really can´t go wrong with the 3D and the playfilm conversions do get better and better. Rome is not built in one day we will see directors making better and better decisions.
 
A format I really hate is 24p. It is just crazy we haven´t got rid of this already! I fail to see how the strobing effect add anything to the experience. 

 

[Audio-Omega]

I had to stop watching the 3D version of The Hobbit this afternoon.  It was similar to riding a roller coaster.  

 

[PleasantNoise]

I saw Avatar in 3D, that was a film made just for it, and I enjoyed it.. after that most films did it slap dash to cash in, I saw one other film in 3D, and it just annoyed me, so it's normal screenings all the way for me.
I think 3D tv is an  awful idea too.

 

[Exediron]

I have two big problems with 3D: 1) The technology doesn't work yet, so it's distracting and immersion breaking, and 2) Every movie I've ever seen that was designed for 3D either used it as a pointless afterthought or compromised itself to show off the 3D technology. I personally also don't really like the 3D experience and think it makes it harder to focus on the whole instead of becoming distracted by one part of it - kind of like how in a modern 3D video game it's easy to lose track of things, but in an isometric it's effortless. Bottom line for me, it's pointless at best and very annoying at worst.
 
For the record, I do have noticeably different vision in my two eyes and 3D glasses have never caused me any headaches. My weak eye does ache for a day or two afterwards, however.
 
PS: I don't really get the big problem with 24 fps. I've seen 30 and 60 and they're okay, but personally I think it's a great deal of added expense and effort for very little return; also, I'm afraid that if high frame rate becomes the next big thing it will push costs up across the board to pay for itself and kill some of the smaller studios. Also people will start remastering all the 24 fps originals as 30 or 60, and they will look awful.