2D vs 3D?

[stuartboy]

3D has seen another resurgence in popularity - remember the attempts in the 50s? And then the need for those red/green glasses? Now it seems everything gets made in 3D seemingly just for the sake of it sometimes. Does it work? Is it worth it for the viewing experience? Does it detract from other elements of the film? Will it last? Do we want it? Clearly the cinemas think we do as they have invested heavily in new equipment to project it.

What do we think?

[Celini]

I don't like it!
I am looking forward to real 3D (holographic?) when the image will be amazing cleared and detailed and when we won't be forced to wear silly plastic glasses
maybe in 10 years???

(I remember seeing Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare in 3D (green/red glasses) in the early 90's, and I already did not like it!)

[canadian_turtle]

I don't like it!
I am looking forward to real 3D (holographic?) when the image will be amazing cleared and detailed and when we won't be forced to wear silly plastic glasses
maybe in 10 years???

(I remember seeing Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare in 3D (green/red glasses) in the early 90's, and I already did not like it!)

You know, I've been wondering about what they've been calling 3D these last few years. To me it only makes the image in the front more clean/crisp and perhaps slightly more dimensional. And with cartoons occasionally it looks like something really pops out of the screen. But it's nothing like the 3D movies I used to watch in Disneyland in the 90s (Captain Eo, Honey I Shrunk the Audience) where the images truly popped out of the screen and I remember wanting to grab one of the fluffy characters from Captain Eo as a little kid as it was floating right in front of my eyes (and if you weren't wearing the glasses you could see half the audience around you, grabbing at nothing in the air).

[stuartboy]

tbh I have been wondering the same. For long enough now I have been feeling that 3D doesn't seem to work for me. Yes I get the occasional image where something suddenly pokes out of the screen at you, but for the most part - nothing much. (Having said that I never once managed to make one of those "magic pictures" work - remember those?)
Probably one of the best effects for me remains Avatar where they had those "floaters" on the screen - like dandelions "fairies" that seemed to float out of the screen and all around the cinema. No idea how that happened but it was awesome. I'm sure I saw that same effect albeit briefly in HP last week, but it was fleeting.

[Celini]

Avatar was a good one as some of the scenes were full 3D (and not only3D on 3 or 4 poor depths of field) and it was SHOT in 3D with proper stereoscopic equipment; it's, I think, not comparable with all the bad post-processing they apply to regular 2D movies.

[canadian_turtle]

I have never seen Avatar because when we got shown a 20 minute preview at Comic Con a few years ago my friend and I fell asleep :/ But floating dandelions in the cinema sound awesome! That is what 3D should really be like

[TheyCallMeMrGlass]

I don't like it!
I am looking forward to real 3D (holographic?) when the image will be amazing cleared and detailed and when we won't be forced to wear silly plastic glasses
maybe in 10 years???

(I remember seeing Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare in 3D (green/red glasses) in the early 90's, and I already did not like it!)

You know, I've been wondering about what they've been calling 3D these last few years. To me it only makes the image in the front more clean/crisp and perhaps slightly more dimensional. And with cartoons occasionally it looks like something really pops out of the screen. But it's nothing like the 3D movies I used to watch in Disneyland in the 90s (Captain Eo, Honey I Shrunk the Audience) where the images truly popped out of the screen and I remember wanting to grab one of the fluffy characters from Captain Eo as a little kid as it was floating right in front of my eyes (and if you weren't wearing the glasses you could see half the audience around you, grabbing at nothing in the air).

Absolutely! It only works well with Animation and also works brilliantly with theme park attratctions. The greatest use of 3D are at Universal Studios, Florida. Number one is Amzing Spiderman 3D. A complete 4D ride on tracks completely immersing you in the Marvel world fusing with top end hydraulics on a mini rollercoaster track. A sensational experience. Honey I shrunk the Audience, Muppets 3D and Terminator 2:Battle for Time are also very clever attractions in away that draws you into a "live" on stage presentation that goes wrong scenario. This where 3D proudly belongs.

But 3D on the big screen for live action movies dont work for several reasons.

1. Most cinemas do not compensate for the brightness levels in the projections because it costs more to increase the brightness levels. This completely ruins the experience
2. Most film makers do not give sufficient time to do post conversion 3D so this results in an eyestraining, headache inducing mess.
3. Even if they spend time and even if they film the movie directly in 3d, you lose the scope of the background cinematography. So films like Avatar, Harry Potter etc loses its visual epic scale because foreground objects become too prominant.
4. Focus levels between background objects and foreground objects become to glaringly obvious.
5. Actions sequencies become more of a cartoon effect and often becomes a motion blur.

I have the luxury of watching both 3d and 2D versions of films on my 3dtv. I own Avatar in both formats. I agree that Avatar is the best "live action" movie that uses 3D to best effect (it should, Cameron and co spent almost a bloody decade on it) and I can raise my TV brightness levels to compensate too. While Avatar is the best demonstration of 3D done well, you still lose the scope of the cinematography and so loses that epic dimension. Seen in 2D, I get a smoother flow with action scenes and the cinematography is simply more breathtaking.

However animated features fare better and I think my favourite is the Polar Express at the IMAX. With live action movies, 3d actually makes them look like a cartoon. So it makes sense that most 3d animated movies do not have as much of a negative effect and in most cases can actually add to the experience. Its quite a turnaround.

I could write a whole essay about this as I do read a lot on the behind the scenes of 3D processing...dont worry, I wont, I know you are all bored of me rambling about it all the time.

I am not sure what to vote in the pole by the way...let me think...

[valda]

Mr G has a 3DTV wow, I don't know anyone who has that.

Re the floater effects, Tangled had a great one with the Chinese Lanterns, I loved that. Having said that, for me, Animation is ok for 3d, if its done well and is bright enough to appreciate. I can't stand real life 3D it just looks odd to me. If I see footballers running around on TV they look like footballers. But in 3D, I can't explain it but they look really strange. Step Up 3d was the same, some of the effects actually gave me the creeps .

Until the day that 3D is bright and shown correctly, and you dont have to wear stupid sweaty glasses on top of your own expensive eyeglasses, I'll never be a fan. IN the old days, it was a gimmick but now they are trying to make it the norm. Still the Box Office will show its not wanted (I hope)

[TheyCallMeMrGlass]

Mr G has a 3DTV wow, I don't know anyone who has that.

I know, what a hypocrit I'm turning out to be!

[valda]

Mr G has a 3DTV wow, I don't know anyone who has that.

I know, what a hypocrit I'm turning out to be!

you should be a Gemini, having a 3DTV but then making 2D glasses for the cinema There again you can adjust the TV for the brightness.

I think we should have a thread for who's go the most teccy gadgets