3D movie debate

[Dogg Thang]

As far as I'm concerned, I can see in three dimensions so I don't see why movies shouldn't be in three dimensions. When the technology is right.

When things first went colour, it was all a bit bright and weird looking. Takes a while to get things right. Unfortunately, the 3D equivalent is glasses, headaches, the inability to focus and maybe even some sort of Videodrome type brain tumours. The technology isn't quite there yet.

I think there's a flaw in the system - the points of focus are dictated shot to shot. So, unlike real life, when we cut from one shot to another, the focus distance changes with no warning. I think for 3D to truly work seamlessly, it's going to have to be the case that it all works in 3D. Like, if you wanted to focus on a tree in the background, you could. In fact, maybe the whole art of editing would have to change. I don't know.

Right now, for me, the glasses/price/focus issues mean that 3D isn't all that much of a draw. Even when it's done well.

But in terms of the actual concept, I'm all for it. Maybe in the year 2525. If man is still alive.

[spagmasterswift]

I think there's a flaw in the system - the points of focus are dictated shot to shot. So, unlike real life, when we cut from one shot to another, the focus distance changes with no warning.

Does that mean no Crank 3D then?

[cutmymilk]

I love 3D films and think Avatar benefits significantly from it. Without it, it's just an average film.

Hollywood will kill it with putting 3D in post production and high calibre stuff like Alice in Wonderland being ****e.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/470301/the_last_airbender_the_green_hornet_to_get_postproduction_3d.html

3D was special for a year when there was a film every 3 months (first was Scar 3D - it sucked but the effect was cool) but pretty soon there will ALWAYS be a 3D film out and they will do well before the fad fades.

[dvdmike]

Shot for 3d = yes please
converted to 3d = never

[NekoFever]

Can you have better than 20/20 vision?

Yes you can. 20/20 is just the minimum for stuff like being a pilot, which is why it's taken as a benchmark.

But anyway, I was impressed with the 3D in Avatar, which was my first and only 3D feature film so far, but I enjoyed the 2D version on Blu-ray. It's quite true what 3D sceptics say: a well-shot film should have depth to its image regardless of whether it's in 3D or not.

I do like the eye candy, but it is a gimmick. You can tell by the number of 2D films being retrofitted into 3D - Clash of the Titans is one of them, so you're quite right to say that it looked that way - because it's the in thing at the moment. Even Avatar wasn't immune to throwing/pointing things at the screen, which just takes me out of it.

[JP]

I'm really not a fan of it, I can appreciate it be of interest for kids in their films but I don't think it adds anything at all for grown ups.

The most recent one I saw was the first 30 minutes of Avatar but the film itself seemed completely pointless and the 3D seemed to add nothing to it. I can't help but feel that a 1D version of this film would have been a waste of a one perfectly good dimension.

In the past when technological advances in film making had been introduced they were used to make the experience more immersive, make it more evocative but this just feels clumsy and lazy to me. I don't think it adds anything at all to the vocabulary being used by the film makers.

Although I say that I can imagine that when the technology is good enough it will be able to add something extra to some games. I suppose one of the reasons I think that is because the language of gaming itself is so new that it's very basic in comparison to film that there's less of a gap between the medium and the 3D.

For the moment at least, watching a film in 3D is no more interesting to me than reading a book in 3D.

[EvilBoris]

Can you have better than 20/20 vision?

Can you see through walls and stuff?!

You can get better, I have 6/4 corrected vision which is 20/15.

[EvilBoris]

I've seen it three times (not including watching it for the first time in the blurrorrama that was the Imax) and I liked being able to choose which parts of the film I wanted to focus on, rather than being force fed a preset depth of field like standard 2D provides, which is the opposite to your experience seemingly.

But you are being force fed a specific depth of field...

[Darwock]

Yeah that's the problem I had with it, I couldn't look at anything the director had decided shouldn't be in focus - I had to force myself to relinquish control of my eyeballs and just let the images come in. Not really a good thing I'm sure?

[QualityChimp]

Yes you can. 20/20 is just the minimum for stuff like being a pilot, which is why it's taken as a benchmark.

Wow! Every day's a school day!

I saw Iron Man 2 last night and did think it would've worked quite well in 3D, especially the scenes with the holograms projected by Jarvis.

[dataDave]

But you are being force fed a specific depth of field...

I'm pretty sure I wasn't, and definately remember being spoilt for choice on what to focus on during a number of shots. Each of the three parties I attended with all discussed this afterwards as well.

Especially noticeable when looking through glass and perspex at something.

Of course you have the wide landscape shots where the extreme backgrounds were out of depth, but for everything else like rooms and layers of folliage it seemed like true 3D to us.

[Jebus]

Personally, being someone who already wears glasses, it's next to impossible for me to enjoy a 3D movie. We attempted to watch Coraline in 3D and it was just not fun, the 3D itself was impressive, but both of us started to get headaches and both of us were complaining that the colours were poor.

It's nice to have it as an option but I'd go for the standard one every time.

[EvilBoris]

I'm pretty sure I wasn't, and definately remember being spoilt for choice on what to focus on during a number of shots. Each of the three parties I attended with all discussed this afterwards as well.

If the shot had been filmed like this



You are being shown a specific focal point within a shallow depth of field (the smirnoff

By changing the lenses and settings on the camera whilst filming they could of had a very wide depth of field that allowed everything to be in focus.



Obviously on this 2nd shot you can look anywhere and have it appear in focus.
Perhaps in the IMAX due to the screen size you could only look at one small area at a time and not see everything else so it gave the appearance of being able to change your focus.

Avatar definitely had times when it was presented to you like the first example, with the director choosing what was in focus and what wasn't as I found it very disorientating at first trying to look at something that to my brain told me was nearer but my eyes couldn't actually bring it into focus.

[teddymeow]

I've yet to see a 3D film at the cinema but I've been checking out the ridiculously cool (and ridiculously expensive) 3D TVs whilst in Japan and I still don't know what to make of it all.

The first couple I tried were Panasonic TVs and the image just looked like a complete blurry mess. I don't know if this was down to poor calibration but it put me off totally.

Went into the Sony showroom in Ginza today and my mind was, almost, changed. Watched the 3D showreel on some huge Bravia and some of the stuff they had on it was immense. Motorstorm 2, Little Big Planet, WipEout HD all looked super good. The demo aquarium was very impressive with Sharks and the like all swimming straight at you and the 3D CG films looked good too.

What didn't impress me was stuff like football matches and generic films where the isn't much going on. If the tech guys are going to push towards everything being in 3D at some point in the future (imagine Eastenders in 3D) then sometimes the effect needs to be more pronounced.

And what's with the flicker when you don't look exactly where they want you to look?