Do you like 3D

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Have to admit that I've never seen anything in 3D. I'd like to see a 3D movie just as a matter of interest in seeing how well it works. I might go and see the 3D version of "Titanic".

I suggest that for your first 3D film you pick one that was actually shot in 3D. The fake 3D added to a 2D film is terrible. Even worse than colorised B&W films.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I suggest that for your first 3D film you pick one that was actually shot in 3D. The fake 3D added to a 2D film is terrible. Even worse than colorised B&W films.

Precisely so. Fake 3D only fakes layers of depth, by separating each scene into lame foreground, background and focus.

The only worthy live action 3D movie I've watched so far was Scorcese's Hugo, worthy in it being a good movie and also featuring good 3D effects. It seems 3D works better in animations and games...

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by 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

It was not filmed in 3D, it's a lame 2D-to-3D conversion.

Ebert used this one to show how 3D can be so lame.

[John Carroll]

Like others, if it's made for 3D, I like it. If it's a conversion, I can do without.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Like others, if it's made for 3D, I like it. If it's a conversion, I can do without.

Except that 3D computer animation (Toy Story) can easily be converted to quite admirable 3D. It's live action (Clash of the Titans) and cel animation (Beauty and the Beast) that does not convert well.

Am eagerly looking forward to Finding Nemo in 3D in September.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Except that 3D computer animation (Toy Story) can easily be converted to quite admirable 3D. It's live action (Clash of the Titans) and cel animation (Beauty and the Beast) that does not convert well.

It's because all the models are already 3D information in the computer. They basically just need to render the same scenes again from a secondary viewpoint and merge with the already shot scenes.

No such luck with 2D movies, which are not 3D models, just 2D photos... the conversion then proceeds basically by dividing a scene into foreground and background and just slightly shifting such layers away from each other for each camera angle. It's quite like taking a photograph, cutting away foreground and midground and sticking them stacked higher relative to each other to the background with nails. There's no extra 3D information in there: if a scene happens to show a cube whose left side is never shown in the original recording, you'll never see it in fake 3D anyway...

Originally Posted by HarryT

Have to admit that I've never seen anything in 3D. I'd like to see a 3D movie just as a matter of interest in seeing how well it works. I might go and see the 3D version of "Titanic".

I have seen one 3-D film in my lifetime, Creature from the Black Lagoon, but that was long ago and using a different technology then today. My memories are vague, other then that that clawed hand appearing through the tent flap at about 0:30 in the Youtube clip had me in nightmares for days after (I was only 6-7 years old when I saw it). I don't recall being impressed with the 3-D effect.

I would like to see a film employing the more modern technology just to see how much it adds to the film, or potentially subtracts from it. I doubt I will be that impressed as I would still prefer even an old film in B&W with good acting, script, and story, to film weak in these attributes but made with the latest innovations, including 3-D.

Originally Posted by wodin

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

Oh, good point. I did not know enough about the modern 3-D to know that would be an issue. Since my cataract surgery in both eyes my right eye is 20/20, but my left eye is an uncorrectable 20/60.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I have seen one 3-D film in my lifetime, Creature from the Black Lagoon, but that was long ago and using a different technology then today. My memories are vague, other then that that clawed hand appearing through the tent flap at about 0:30 in the Youtube clip had me in nightmares for days after (I was only 6-7 years old when I saw it). I don't recall being impressed with the 3-D effect.

I would like to see a film employing the more modern technology just to see how much it adds to the film, or potentially subtracts from it. I doubt I will be that impressed as I would still prefer even an old film in B&W with good acting, script, and story, to film weak in these attributes but made with the latest innovations, including 3-D.

The underwater sequences in CFTBL are outstanding.

If you're wanting see a modern 3D film, I highly recommend 'Coraline'. 'How to Train Your Dragon' and 'Tangled' also made good use of 3D without it being too gimmicky.

The best way to use 3D is NOT to have a bunch of stuff flying into your face, but to use the technology to exploit the space the story takes place in.

'Avatar' is pretty to look at, and the 3D is impressive, but the story is so bland and derivative that I don't recommend it, especially not over the three films I mentioned.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I would like to see a film employing the more modern technology just to see how much it adds to the film, or potentially subtracts from it. I doubt I will be that impressed as I would still prefer even an old film in B&W with good acting, script, and story, to film weak in these attributes but made with the latest innovations, including 3-D.

I'd highly recommend Scorcese's Hugo, which sports an intriguing story with good acting first and foremost and makes good use of 3D cinematography.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's still showing in movie theaters and I highly doubt you have a 3D TV...

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Oh, good point. I did not know enough about the modern 3-D to know that would be an issue. Since my cataract surgery in both eyes my right eye is 20/20, but my left eye is an uncorrectable 20/60.

This has got nothing to do with modern or ancient 3D technology: if you mostly lost *your* stereoscopic vision, there's nothing to be done about it. You can't watch the world in 3D anymore, and that includes 3D movies. Technology isn't magic.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

This has got nothing to do with modern or ancient 3D technology: if you mostly lost *your* stereoscopic vision, there's nothing to be done about it. You can't watch the world in 3D anymore, and that includes 3D movies. Technology isn't magic.

Not necessarily - I don't see the real world in 3D, but I can enjoy stereoscopy and 3D movies just fine.

That's because I have a convergence deficiency - but since stereoscopy presents different images to each eye, there's no convergence required. Voila! 3D movies look more real than real life. Magic!

I'm not sure how that would work if you eyes have different focal points, though. It might or it might not - someone should try it and report back.

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

I'd highly recommend Scorcese's Hugo, which sports an intriguing story with good acting first and foremost and makes good use of 3D cinematography.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's still showing in movie theaters and I highly doubt you have a 3D TV...




This has got nothing to do with modern or ancient 3D technology: if you mostly lost *your* stereoscopic vision, there's nothing to be done about it. You can't watch the world in 3D anymore, and that includes 3D movies. Technology isn't magic.

Originally Posted by khalleron

Not necessarily - I don't see the real world in 3D, but I can enjoy stereoscopy and 3D movies just fine.

That's because I have a convergence deficiency - but since stereoscopy presents different images to each eye, there's no convergence required. Voila! 3D movies look more real than real life. Magic!

I'm not sure how that would work if you eyes have different focal points, though. It might or it might not - someone should try it and report back.

Actually with both eyes open my ordinary 3-D vision is just fine. It is just that when my left eye is closed images at a distance are sharper than with both eyes open. Just the opposite when my right eye is closed.


Thank you both for the recommendations. I must make the trip to a theater showing a 3-D film sometime soon. Unfortunately my local theater is just not equipped for it, I suspect I will have to travel at least a 100 miles to find such a theater.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Toy Story 3 in 3D.

I saw Toy Story 3 (in HD on blu-ray) recently and I never once thought that it could do with being 3D.

[captkjaneway]

Saw The Avengers in 3D last week at the IMax over in TST, and it was stunning. No issues with glasses over glasses and the effects were really good.

I think if used well 3D can add to the experience - but 3D for 3D's sake can be poor, Green Lantern for example was rancid as a film and as a 3D experience.

Off to see The Avengers again tonight.......not sure if it is 3D but blooming well hope so!

[The Terminator]

I didn't like the older 3D with the paper glasses, it made me dizzy and my eyes hurt.

RealD 3D with the polarized glasses is good though.