TheyCallMeMrGlass wrote: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.canadian_turtle wrote: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).Celini wrote: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!)
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...
I'm not keen of 3D films at the cinema, however I do hope that they continue to release 3D films as they are really good on my 3D TV. I agree that the animations are the best, A Christmas Carole, Tangled and Shrek are some of my favourites. I watched Green Lantern at the cinema in 2D, however I really would like to see this in 3D but on my own TV, oh and I'm expecting Transformers 3D to be much better on a 3D TV than it was in the cinema.
