3D will soon be standard

Ardent

http://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/3d-will-soon-be-standard-says-cameron-457463.html

What do you think?

I watched Avatar in 3D in the Cinema and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I've watched a Premiership match in 3D in a pub and that was pretty cool too. However, I think the novelty factor played a big part here.

If truth be told, 3D technology in it's current form is no different to what was around 25 years ago (remember when 3D glasses were included in the national newspapers and RTE broadcasted 3D programs?). Until we get to a point where we don't have to wear silly glasses, 3D will always be crap technology and those buying a 3D TVs have more money than sense!

It's all a fad IMO.

bluto63

I saw Up and Avatar in 3d. Both times, I wish I had watched it in 2d. The 3d ads nothing IMO. I was expecting scenes to jump out at you, feel drawn into the film. But it was nothing like this. One or two things might seem a centimetre closer to you, but after 5 minutes, you don't even notice it and you gain nothing from 3d. Also, the glasses can get pretty irritating, but you can't take them off, because if you do, the screen is all blurry.
The sooner this fad is over with, the better

Necronomicon

I certainly hope it won't be standard. Taking the focus away from storytelling and putting it all on aesthetics is dangerous, and IMO that's what 3D has done so far. Avatar was lauded for its effects, when the plot was the furthest thing you could get from originality.

Skerries

the problem with 3D as a standard is that not everyone can appreciate it.
some people just can't see it properly due to bad sight or other factors and so they are not going to want it whereas everyone wants colour and sound bar the deaf and colour blind

I think it would be annoying to watch as i could see it giving me a headache in the long run and the glasses again would be annoying as well
I see it as a fad and as Ardent says until we can watch it without glasses it will remain that way, also the tv's would have to have the option of watching a programme in 2d or 3d before becoming embraced by all

AnonoBoy

Sound never really caught on so I doubt 3D will.

dlofnep

bluto63 wrote: »

I saw Up and Avatar in 3d. Both times, I wish I had watched it in 2d. The 3d ads nothing IMO.

Nonsense. The 3D in Avatar was amazing and really added to the film. Even the opening scene where the guy is floating around looks great.

Duggy747

Honestly, I think 3D can work when it's applied rightly. Instead, Hollywood are already burning it to the ground with awful sub-standard 3D films that have been post-processed.

As for it becoming a standard? Pfft!! Who the hell would want to watch movies with those annoying glasses!?! And even higher prices?

It's a gimmick, but a gimmick that won't die out half as quick as it did before. James Cameron got the ball rolling with it so it's his responsibility to keep the bar raised for others to follow suit. (The new Tintin movie might add an interesting angle)

I dunno, I never found anything wrong with 2D films, but I guess I'm old-fashioned and not hip anymore :pac:

I don't need CGI crap "flying out" at me to immerse me in a film.

Outkast_IRE

The sooner the studios stop trying to add 3d as a post production effect the better , this just drags down what is a great idea.
Iv seen Up, Avatar and alice in wonderland in 3d
Alice in wonderland added very litte as it was just an effect or two popping out at ya.
Up was well used i thought i got a good sense of depth throughout the entire film and main thing is i felt it added to the experience and didnt take away from it .
Avatar was the best , designed form the ground up as a 3d film , it was a visual feast that could only be appreciated in the cinema .I remember being in the cinema and during one scene seeing the ash from the fire floating in front of me.

3d should only be used if its going to add something of quality to the film, unfortunatly studios see the increased ticket prices and asked for effects to be added post production which is greedy and wrong .

Whispered

I saw Alice and Avatar in 3D and enjoyed them both. Mainly for the novelty though.

I brought my little sister to see "how to train your dragon" and I'm a 3D convert. The effects were somehow a million times better and it really added to the film. The fact that it is a really great film (if you liked shrek you'd love it) was not hidden by the effects, just enhanced.

One scene in particular, when the camera was shooting the longboats from water level, stood out. It was brilliant.

Ghost Train

I think its good every now and then but not sure I'd want to watch everything that way. It kind of distracts from what your watching sometimes and can be less immersive when you get this foreground object overlayed on the scene or something

krudler

Movies that are shot in 3D with them intented on being viewed that way ala Avatar are fine, its when studios think "3d, that'll get the audience packed in!" and add it in later like Clash of the Titans where theres a problem.

Duggy747

The sooner they realise that processing 3D into a film ruins the entire novelty, the better.

Movies like Avatar that are, from day 1, set out to be a 3D film and animated films from Pixar / Dreamworks will prove that 3D can actually work when applied correctly.

I was a skeptical hippo going into Avatar but the 3D did work for me, at least a few times I felt like swooshing my hand over my face to get the flies outta my eyes

johnny_ultimate

The problem with predicting 3D as standard doesn't take into account one significant thing - that the vast majority of films have no need for it whatsoever. I'm not the biggest fan of 3D, and the only time I've felt it particularly suited the film was in Avatar. This was only because the visuals were designed with 3D in mind, giving the lush images a significant sense of depth. Every other 3D film I've seen has felt a bit unnecessary in comparison.

At the end of the day I watch films for content. Yeah, Avatar looked great, but I've seen hundreds of films in 2D that looked great too. The last film I watched was Four Lions - a wonderful film, but with very muted visuals. Would I want to watch that in 3D? Hell no, far too distracting. The only case I feel 3D is warranted in is when the film is produced with it in mind, and it will add something significant to the film (I'd go as far as saying Avatar probably isn't worth watching without 3D, as it was the star of the show). But adding inferior 3D to every film just for a few extra sales? Good business, perhaps, but not adding anything to the medium.

ztoical

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The problem with predicting 3D as standard doesn't take into account one significant thing - that the vast majority of films have no need for it whatsoever. I'm not the biggest fan of 3D, and the only time I've felt it particularly suited the film was in Avatar. This was only because the visuals were designed with 3D in mind, giving the lush images a significant sense of depth. Every other 3D film I've seen has felt a bit unnecessary in comparison.

At the end of the day I watch films for content. Yeah, Avatar looked great, but I've seen hundreds of films in 2D that looked great too. The last film I watched was Four Lions - a wonderful film, but with very muted visuals. Would I want to watch that in 3D? Hell no, far too distracting. The only case I feel 3D is warranted in is when the film is produced with it in mind, and it will add something significant to the film (I'd go as far as saying Avatar probably isn't worth watching without 3D, as it was the star of the show). But adding inferior 3D to every film just for a few extra sales? Good business, perhaps, but not adding anything to the medium.

+ 1 couldn't have put it better myself. If I go to the cinema and there's a 3D showing and a none 3D showing I'm more likely to go to the none 3D as my feeling is if there is a none 3D version then the 3D isn't important to the plot of the film and therefore just pointless flash tacked on. Avatar was shot for 3D and I think it's a real shame they released a none 3D version [Yes I understand not all cinemas are able to screen 3D right now] Yet even with films like Avatar there are sections that don't really need the 3D and it just feels like your sitting there in cinema wearing these annoying glasses just for a few flashy bits and that's it. Alice in wonderland really didn't need the 3D, utterly pointless. I wouldn't go so far as to say it won't become standard as you don't know how the technology is going to develop down the line but in it's current forum I find it to be a fad and annoying one at that. The person who develops convincing 3D in the cinema without the need for the glasses will make a fortune.

I really really really hate the trend of taking old films like Toy Story and making them 3D - leave the bloody thing alone. It's like that ep of the Critic where the boss wants to alter movies to make them more "likeable".

bnt

I know Scorsese has flirted with the idea, but more recently Francis Ford Coppola has come out strongly against 3D: link.

thorbarry

God I really hope it does not become standard

Wearing glasses over my already existing glasses is very annoying. And why are they tinted? I seen how to train your dragon in 3d (which was awesome) but for some dark scenes in the movie, it was too dark

Galvasean

Avatar is the only film I've seen in cinemas where the 3D actually did anything for me. Some have complained that things werent constantly jumping out of the screen at you, but I think they are actually missing the point. The 3D effects in Avatar made it look as though you could walk deep into the cinema screen, a much better use of 3D technology than the relatively cheap thrill of having a big monster come out at you (ala Jaws 3D).
All the other movies I saw in 3d in recent times (U2:3D, Ice Age 3D, Christmas Carol, Clash of the Titans 3D) made pretty poor use of the 3D effects. They all felt tacted on, on a par with the Muppets 3D show I saw in Disneyland when I was a kid (on that note, Universal Studios' Terminator 2-3D stage show was epic). Avatar is the only film I've seen where it was used properly.
I can see 3D becoming the norm for big budget blockbusters and computer generated kids films, but the norm overall? Heck no. Do we need to see a film like Lost In Translation in 3D (Scarlet Johannsen's bum shot notwithstanding)?

jaykhunter

Ardent wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/3d-will-soon-be-standard-says-cameron-457463.html

What do you think?

I watched Avatar in 3D in the Cinema and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I've watched a Premiership match in 3D in a pub and that was pretty cool too. However, I think the novelty factor played a big part here.

Agreed man, I don't mind going to the cinema for 3D -sometimes- for the novelty; but i'd hate to watch TV in general in 3D. I also find 3D to be pretty blurry (to combat eye strain)...I enjoy enough "proper" Cameron 3D but not the crappy post-production 3D.

Anyway, where did you see a premiership game in 3D? I'd like to check it out.

Ardent

jaykhunter wrote: »

Agreed man, I don't mind going to the cinema for 3D -sometimes- for the novelty; but i'd hate to watch TV in general in 3D. I also find 3D to be pretty blurry (to combat eye strain)...I enjoy enough "proper" Cameron 3D but not the crappy post-production 3D.

Anyway, where did you see a premiership game in 3D? I'd like to check it out.

Kiely's in Donnybrook. It was on a normal sized TV so I was a little underwhelmed, was expecting some huge screen. The camera angle is lower than what we're used to in 2D (in order to provide better depth of field I guess) and it felt like you were there on the sideline at times.

At the end of the day though, I'd rather watch a match without the gimmicks.

I don't understand what this whole 3DTV crap is about. People'll pay thousands on one of these and won't be able to do anything with them for the next few years. I hardly see how most TV shows would benefit with the extra dimension!

And as for the 3D movies becoming standard - yes, fine! But stop making us charge people an arm and a leg to see them. And make a universal pair of glasses that would work with all 3D technologies that you would only pair the set fee for and then just be charged as normal for these movies.

Ri_Nollaig

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Sound never really caught on so I doubt 3D will.

Sound and colour where passive improvements while you must wear glasses for this.

Perhaps when 3D TV's that don't need glasses start to become common but till then I can't see the current generation been anything more then a gimmick.

jaykhunter

Ardent wrote: »

Kiely's in Donnybrook. It was on a normal sized TV so I was a little underwhelmed, was expecting some huge screen. The camera angle is lower than what we're used to in 2D (in order to provide better depth of field I guess) and it felt like you were there on the sideline at times.

At the end of the day though, I'd rather watch a match without the gimmicks.

Cheers. Sounds like i'll enjoy seeing it but not for general use. I don't think 3D will catch on until they make TVs that don't require glasses. Or the Holodeck. I do think games have huge potential for 3D; that said 3D's picture has to make the background blurry so you don't get a headache....which you'd need for games to be viable in 3D...

I must be one of the few who enjoyed Avatar better in 2D; on Blu-Ray it's razor-sharp and since i've seen it already in 3D, I don't have to pay attention to the plot and just watch the extremely pretty pictures

Flaregon

Ardent wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/3d-will-soon-be-standard-says-cameron-457463.html

What do you think?

I watched Avatar in 3D in the Cinema and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I've watched a Premiership match in 3D in a pub and that was pretty cool too. However, I think the novelty factor played a big part here.

If truth be told, 3D technology in it's current form is no different to what was around 25 years ago (remember when 3D glasses were included in the national newspapers and RTE broadcasted 3D programs?). Until we get to a point where we don't have to wear silly glasses, 3D will always be crap technology and those buying a 3D TVs have more money than sense!

It's all a fad IMO.

ROFL,the glasses set up will be out dated soon.
http://www.taranfx.com/3d-without-glasses-on-mobile-gadgets

maggy_thatcher

thorbarry wrote: »

And why are they tinted?

They're "tinted" because that's how they work -- each "lens" filters out half of the light, so that each eye only gets the necessary information to pretend it's a 3-dimensional image. A side effect is that the screen is only half as bright when wearing the glasses. To combat this, 3D cinema screens are usually much more reflective than normal.

thorbarry

thorbarry wrote: »

. And why are they tinted?

Outkast_IRE

Flaregon wrote: »

ROFL,the glasses set up will be out dated soon.
http://www.taranfx.com/3d-without-glasses-on-mobile-gadgets

The date on that seems to be april 2nd , id be fairly sceptical probably a leftover from april 1st.

smcgiff

Anyone that didn't experience the leap forward that Avatar 3D was then they must not have been able to get the effect (poor eyesight, wearing the glasses like some wear sunglasses ... as a headband). Should've gone to specsavers.

Now, agree that other 3D movies may not match Avatar as I don't think Alice was as good, but both were miles ahead of the old 3D movies I'd seen.

ztoical

smcgiff wrote: »

Now, agree that other 3D movies may not match Avatar as I don't think Alice was as good, but both were miles ahead of the old 3D movies I'd seen.

Avatar was shot to be 3D with Alice it just felt pointless. With Avatar you had the big action moments that worked well in 3D but you also had just the over all look and feel. The film was def more focused on the 3D side esp if you watched both the 3D and the none 3D versions. The colours in the none 3D version were almost painfully bright in order to make up for the effect 3D has on colours something Alice failed at....that whole film in 3D just felt dark and muddy and there were large sections were there was no need for it and it was annoying. Avatar, for all it's failings story wise, felt like an experiment with the technology while with Alice it just felt like a gimmick.

Galvasean

ztoical wrote: »

Avatar, for all it's failings story wise, felt like an experiment with the technology while with Alice it just felt like a gimmick.

That's a better way of saying the point I was trying to get across in my earlier post.

MrSir

What I'm worried about is the development of 4D.3D sucks still so why bother with 4!Can I get an amen?

sprinkles

3D films should and will be limited to the usual Hollywood blockbuster fodder imo. I can't see how it would improve a serious film that doesn't rely on visuals to impress. It's a creation that will only help the likes of Roland Emmerich sell tickets.

I saw Avatar in 3D and while the initial few minutes I was wowed it soon wore off and I was more conscious of how uncomfortable the glasses were (over my own glasses) that what the 3D was adding to it. I honestly think it looked better in 2D...

As for 3DTV sets in the home, they will be great for gaming but I'm not so sure about films and TV programs, again I can't see what the extra dimension will add to Corrie or Masterchef!? Besides they won't take off until they release glassless tech which is a year or so away atm.

Hank_Jones

That's basically just Cameron patting himself on the back.
My opinion of Cameron completely changed after watching Avatar.
I haven't been able to bring myself to watch another Cameron film since, I've lost pretty much all respect I had for the man.

Personally, I hate 3D and I honestly don't think I will ever watch another 3D movie, they just leave me disappointed.

Plus, who wants to wear a pair of stupid uncomfortable glasses when trying to enjoy watching something...

Certainly not me.

Galvasean

MrSir wrote: »

What I'm worried about is the development of 4D.3D sucks still so why bother with 4!Can I get an amen?

What you mean time travel?

L'prof

Galvasean wrote: »

What you mean time travel?

privateBeavis

The whole point of 3D is to make the experience more immersive so you almost feel like your standing in the room with the action. One scene in Avatar that I really noticed this was near the beginning when the soldiers were all sitting in the long narrow transporter heading wherever but with the 3D perspective looking down the room felt like you were standing at the end of it. So the 3D perception goes into the screen. Anything coming out of the screen to poke you in the eye is just pure gimmick!

.Moosejam

Avatar was brilliant as 3d - if we got more of that standard that would be good
Alice in wonderland was well below - I was off to one side and I'm pretty sure that has an effect, one side of the screen was darker than the other
Clash of the titans the 3d was poor - hardly noticed it at all I hope they didn't pay too much for it

TheEdukator

As said countless times before me, Avatar truly was the only live action 3D film that worked. It was made for that format and it brought incredible depth and beauty to the world of Pandora. That being said, its visual originality was certainly there to cover up the complete lack there of in the story department...it truly was Pocahontas in space! Are we going to be lumped with 3D spectacles to the detriment of real stories and characters?

With regards the current crop of 3D films, I just don't get it. With "UP", although the 3D was nice it was completely unnecessary and, upon watching it in 2D stripped of the gimmicks, I felt I was able to appreciate the film for what it was - one of the finest animated films in recent years. "Alice In Wonderland"...again it just didn't seem necessary. Also it was the first time I experienced headaches with the 3D glasses, which annoyed me as they were distracting to say the least!

However one film that I didn't see mentioned previous to this that I certainly felt rivalled "Avatar" for it's graphics was Coraline. Although this is an animated film (although in my opinion, I feel that is where 3D is best utilised) it gave the film incredible depth and some breath taking graphics and I think it was quite sad it was overlooked.

jaykhunter

TheEdukator wrote: »

As said countless times before me, Avatar truly was the only live action 3D film that worked. It was made for that format and it brought incredible depth and beauty to the world of Pandora. That being said, its visual originality was certainly there to cover up the complete lack there of in the story department...it truly was Pocahontas in space! Are we going to be lumped with 3D spectacles to the detriment of real stories and characters?

With regards the current crop of 3D films, I just don't get it. With "UP", although the 3D was nice it was completely unnecessary and, upon watching it in 2D stripped of the gimmicks, I felt I was able to appreciate the film for what it was - one of the finest animated films in recent years. "Alice In Wonderland"...again it just didn't seem necessary. Also it was the first time I experienced headaches with the 3D glasses, which annoyed me as they were distracting to say the least!

However one film that I didn't see mentioned previous to this that I certainly felt rivalled "Avatar" for it's graphics was Coraline. Although this is an animated film (although in my opinion, I feel that is where 3D is best utilised) it gave the film incredible depth and some breath taking graphics and I think it was quite sad it was overlooked.

Agree with everything here, except i thought the 3D effect in Coraline wasn't great. I thought it looked like a diorama (2D images at different depths). It's not surprising that everyone's not buying into non-Cameron 3D!

OutlawPete

I really liked the old Imax.

That had me grabbing in front of me as the objects seemed to be only inches away.

Apart from that I only liked the 3D effects of a Christmas Carol.

Seen that Street Dance film the other night also and at times that was amazing. Like watching dancers on a stage.

I noticed on the poster it was advertised as "Real 3D", is that a different format than say Avatar?

U23D was also enjoyable for it's 3D effects but ultimately none that I have seen have come close to the full Imax experience.

johnny_ultimate

Well, I thought it would be hard to instantly sum up the redundancy of 3D conversions in one foul swoop, but then I saw this:
Battle Royale 3D

Really? The only good thing coming out of these conversions are theatrical re-releases of good films (despite the 3D, I loved seeing Toy Story again in the cinema). I can't imagine many people are going to see these films and thinking 'wow, that 3D was amazing', although alas that seems to be the case. Battle Royale was a 2D film that was designed that way by the late director, except for some possible post-production three dimensional gore - which, incidentally, isn't as extreme as I've heard many suggest - I can see few benefits to the conversion.

jaykhunter

It'll probably take something the masses will detest to get hollywood to calm down on the post-production aka fake/crap 3D...like Casablanca 3D.

I don't mind if a film is made with proper 3D -meant- for 3D, but i can't stand the half-ass 3D. That said, I'm loving how 3D films are 16:9. No more bars on the high-end films. It's amazing to see Avatar and Alice in Vunderland fill my TV screen

Galvasean

Battle Royal 3D? No thanks. I like the film, but I don't wanna see that in 3D. Same goes for Visitor Q :eek:

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

Same goes for Visitor Q :eek:

3D lactation.... I think I threw up in my mouth a little.

Necronomicon

I don't want to see Visitor Q 3D either, but mostly because I just don't want to see Visitor Q again.

Might sound a bit strange but watch Street Dance 3D recently and, while the movie itself sucked, I found that the 3D effects were used pretty well. The dance scenes were well choreographed and the extra dimension actually added a lot to them.

Flaregon

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

The date on that seems to be april 2nd , id be fairly sceptical probably a leftover from april 1st.

Well the next Ds Is said to be 3D with no glasses.
http://kotaku.com/5499697/nintendo-announces-new-hardware-the-nintendo-3ds

wanrek

I think its a fun novelty for kids to watch in the flix. The technology would have to come a very long way to become standard.

Rigardo

I found the 3D thing more of a distraction at the start of Avatar. I was looking at things that seemed out of focus. I got into it after a while but I feel they've still a lot to do. I think as long as people have the option of 2D and 3D everyone will be happy