Do you like 3D

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by tecweston

When a movie is released in 2D and 3D, I will only see the 2D version (the only exception to this was "Avatar," because it was being marketed as such a huge breakthrough in 3D technology. In retrospect it really didn't add anything to the movie, and distracted from the story because I was too busy noticing the 3D effects).

Seeing that the story was a rehash of 'Ferngully', distracting you from the story was the entire point.

That said, you have to put me in the pro-3D camp because I have an eye anomaly such that I can *only* see in 3D through artificial means. Yes, 3D movies look more real to me than reality does.

I still prefer movies where the 3D enhances the storytelling (such as 'Coraline') than those where it's only a gimmick. But that's true of CGI or any other technology. The tech should serve the story and not the other way around.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Ebert is plain wrong, as usual when he obsesses over some particular pet peeve.

Look at a mirror. Are your eyes focusing on the mirror plane or on the image double the distance from you to the mirror plane?

Just because the image is projected on a plane doesn't mean your eyes are focusing on the plane.

Stereographic 3D is a precise recording of a 3D scene as your eyes would get it from the same viewpoint. Of course, it is static in relation to that viewpoint, as you can quickly check by moving your head to the side and not getting any more 3D info as you would expect. It's good enough while full dynamic 3D isn't available as a hologram...

i don't think that's true for a mirror. when you look at a mirror, you focus through the mirror just as you would looking at an object. the Ebert argument seems to hold water. the mirror argument needs evidence.

[BeccaPrice]

My daughter can't see 3D movies in 3D, and they give me a headache. We just don't bother with 3D movies anymore - they're not worth the premium price one pays to get into the theater.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

i don't think that's true for a mirror. when you look at a mirror, you focus through the mirror just as you would looking at an object. the Ebert argument seems to hold water. the mirror argument needs evidence.

I did an interesting experiment. My wedding ring has very tiny diamonds on it (really, so small I don't know why they bothered). I held the ring about a 1/4 inch from my eye and I was looking at the reflection on the overhead lights. Now, I couldn't possibly focus on the ring, it was only 1/4 inch from my eye. But I was able to focus quite clearly on the image of the overhead lights.

[Don0801]

I only had a 3-D movie experience(Avatar). The 3-D effects were very impressive, but I was one of those unlucky moviegoers that suffered severe 3-D headache, so I guess I'm fine with just being a 2-D creature.

I don't think I'll want to try 3-D TVs ...

[QuantumIguana]

I found that I had to keep my head very still or the 3-D would break up.

[RainingLemur]

I would like to see an option somewhere between YES and NO. I ultimately went with NO. I've seen some 3D stuff that looked REALLY cool, but ultimately didn't add anything to the movies that I would have missed if it weren't in.

One thing that really annoys me is when 3D effects are thrown in for the sake of having cheesy 3D effects. Like, when it's really obvious that's the only reason the camera focuses on the pick-axe flying towards the screen. Some of the animated stuff, though, were fun to see in 3D. I actually really liked How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 in 3D.

[Xanthe]

I cast one vote for "I've never seen a 3D movie".

[Blackadder]

None of those options work for me. 3D is fine on CGI films but doesn't work so well on live action.

I saw Avatar and Tron Legacy (Imax & 3D) and both worked really well. But the same can't be said for Pirates of the Caribbean 4, the 3D was a distraction.

So for me if done correctly it's fine, but if it was stopped and never used again I wouldn't be too bothered.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Ebert is plain wrong, as usual when he obsesses over some particular pet peeve.

Look at a mirror. Are your eyes focusing on the mirror plane or on the image double the distance from you to the mirror plane?

Just because the image is projected on a plane doesn't mean your eyes are focusing on the plane.

Stereographic 3D is a precise recording of a 3D scene as your eyes would get it from the same viewpoint. Of course, it is static in relation to that viewpoint, as you can quickly check by moving your head to the side and not getting any more 3D info as you would expect. It's good enough while full dynamic 3D isn't available as a hologram...

Yeah, I wrote Ebert an email explaining why he was wrong, but he never answered me. If you read his blog frequently, as I used to do, he's very good when he writes about things he knows personally, but he's very bad when he writes about things he doesn't know, like science. He has a bad tendency to embrace any argument that supports his prejudices, such as his hatred of video games and 3D. He also believes anything he sees in a documentary, without checking. I know he was an early adopter of the Internet, but he doesn't seem to know how to use Google to save his life, or he doesn't want to.

The reason 3D causes headaches is actually very simple. In real life, you don't use both your eyes at once most of the time. One eye works while the other rests. You only use your 3D vision when you actually need it. Watching a 3D movie forces you to use both eyes for an extended period, causing eyestrain and headaches. Some people are more prone to this than others, but it can't be worked around because of the very nature of 3D and human vision.

Of course, realistic, eyestrain-free 3D entertainment has been around since the ancient Greeks. It's called 'theater'.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Yeah, I wrote Ebert an email explaining why he was wrong, but he never answered me.

he has a busy enough time replying to infuriated comments in his blog posts...

If you read his blog frequently, as I used to do, he's very good when he writes about things he knows personally, but he's very bad when he writes about things he doesn't know, like science. He has a bad tendency to embrace any argument that supports his prejudices, such as his hatred of video games and 3D. He also believes anything he sees in a documentary, without checking.

Precisely. I even bothered replying to one of anti-games posts back then, but not anymore. He's world is clearly not the same as mine.

The reason 3D causes headaches is actually very simple. In real life, you don't use both your eyes at once most of the time. One eye works while the other rests. You only use your 3D vision when you actually need it. Watching a 3D movie forces you to use both eyes for an extended period, causing eyestrain and headaches. Some people are more prone to this than others, but it can't be worked around because of the very nature of 3D and human vision.

Your claim does not make any sense.

The very nature of human vision *IS* 3D. We have stereoscopic vision, 2 lenses focusing the same scene from slightly different viewpoints. That's how it's recorded in 3D movies.

Of course, our lenses are about, what?, 5 cm's away from each other? When filmed, can you believe those huge lenses are just 5 cm's away from each other.

Not just for that, but in order to enhace the 3D aspect, the larger apart and the more tilted (rather than parallel), the more dramatic the 3D effect. It may be too much to some folks, because it may feel like looking at a scene through the eyes of a giant. That, I suppose, is the main culprit for headaches in many people.

My 9 years old daughter and I always watch 3D movies without headaches.

Of course, realistic, eyestrain-free 3D entertainment has been around since the ancient Greeks. It's called 'theater'.

oh, but it has no panning nor pies flying in your face...

[wodin]

Having one eye that works reasonably well, and the other not so much; it doesn't work too well for me.

[lucasfernan89]

I find 3D entertaining, buts its true, it's often used as a gimmick which doesn't truly add to the experience. It tires me and I prefer to view films without it. Although, recently I saw Pina in 3D, and I wouldn't watch it any other way. For me it's a medium that has its place but used far too much.

[Pookeysgirl]

I saw Clash of the Titans in 3D, it was awful. I wear glasses full time, and trying to get the 3D shades over my glasses without having to hold them there was impossible. I couldn't watch it without my regular glasses for obvious reasons. Even on the big screen it was all blurry. I had such a headache afterwards. Great movie though, wish I could've seen it properly the first time

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by Pookeysgirl

I wear glasses full time, and trying to get the 3D shades over my glasses without having to hold them there was impossible. I couldn't watch it without my regular glasses for obvious reasons. Even on the big screen it was all blurry.

+1

Also, any time I see a 3D movie I get terrible flashbacks to Monster Chiller Horror Theater! (Canadians of a certain age group will understand...)