3D - what is your opinion?

Richard Dower

Have to mirror Darko's comments, if it's not filmed in 3D from the start, what is the point

These "conversions" are dire to look at and ruin the movie, i'm just not feeling 3D at all!

to quote myself:

The whole conversion to 3D route is a joke, most directors are against it simply because they shot the film to be in honest to goodness 2D. There is a case for conversion for certain films, the new Nic Cage film will be converted to 3D after the fact but the film is being shot in such that the conversion should work.

I enjoy 3D when done right, Avatar was a superb use of the technology and the underrated My Bloody Valentine did magnificently well through a use of subtle and not so subtle 3D moments. I skipped Clash of the Titans in 3D as I will skip the Last Airbender and the upcoming Priest as they were shot to be displayed in regular 3D and as such are best experienced in that manner. The only reason to convert to 3D is for the studio to avail themselves of the jacked up ticket price.

Renn

Maybe it was just me but the Alice in Wonderland one looked pants. Was that another conversion job?

Renn

Renn wrote: »

Maybe it was just me but the Alice in Wonderland one looked pants. Was that another conversion job?

Yeah, it was shot for 2D and then converted in post. An absolutely dreadful film which could have worked in 2D but watching it in 3D really showed what a con it is. I should add that the only reason I went to see it in 3D or at all was because a friend did all the concept designs for the film.

bnt

I've never seen a 3D movie, tempted to go see Toy Story 3 as my first, I'm having difficulty seeing the point beyond the "wow factor".

bnt

bnt wrote: »

I've never seen a 3D movie, tempted to go see Toy Story 3 as my first, I'm having difficulty seeing the point beyond the "wow factor".

The impact in films such as Avatar is immense, it's not a case of throing things at the audience but rather it gives a sense of depth to the picture. The opening shot as they wake from cryo is jaw dropping, it's as if you are looking down a corridor rather than at a flat screen.

monkeyfudge

I think I'm pretty much done with the whole 3D thing now.

It's fun for gimmicky horror movies that don't over stay their welcome... but being pasted into all types of films is really tiresome.

I'll be going to see Toy Story 3 in 2D.

indough

@ darkos post: yes that scene in particular was exrtemely well done

actually i thought all the scenes with human tech in them were far better done than the outer, alien world scenes

johnny_ultimate

It's a technology I don't have great interest in. Avatar proved that it can work, but only when it's designed to work in the first place. The strength of 3D isn't having stuff pop out at the audience or float mid-air - it once was, but it's gimmicky. Instead, it can lend much more depth and colour to an image, which is perfect for lush landscapes like the ones in Avatar.

My issue is with conversions too. It's tacky, pointless and rushed. At worst, it can entirely dull the impact of the image on screen. It's jumping on the bandwagon. I don't see how 3D is an incentive to see a film either - I don't care either way. Obviously with Avatar 3D is pretty much a necessity, but it doesn't impact in the slightest anyway other than visually. If the storytelling is weak, or the direction weak, or whatever, 3D isn't going to hide it. I watched Alice in Wonderland the other day, it was an awful film. The CGI was poor, the tone and pacing all off. I'd still have these issues with the film if it was designed for 3D, but I watched it 2D and still thought it was garbage. Post-production 3D surely wouldn't have made me more favourable towards it, less so if anything.

I hope 3D doesn't become the norm, because it doesn't add anything significant to the vast majority of films. In fact, only one film has come anywhere close to showing it's viability as a storytelling tool. I'm happy with 2D, and will be for a long time yet.

However, there is one benefit in my eyes: it's getting people back into the cinema. It obviously is a money worthy attraction for people, and if it gets them back into a cinema rather than downloading, I'm sure the studios are going to keep pushing the hell out of it.

BlitzKrieg

I was never sold on any 3D film as any quick search of my posting history on the topic will show.

Avatar had always been positioned as the make or break justification for 3D and after seeing the film both 2D and 3D I personnally feel that there was only 2 aspects that were boosted from 3D but I felt other areas suffered from the 3D effects

(2D review: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63552491&postcount=280)
3D review: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63567179&postcount=329)

Yeah I didnt think the film was amazing but on 3D.

It only really works in a limited number of scenarios, and the problem is a number of those scenarios can come across as gimmicky, there are those that dont, which are for example the sense of depth in some interior enviroments people talk about (I really dont think it really works for large exteriors, I think its something about scale and perception you need to see the limit to be able to draw a comparison for the depth, UP had this problem) and more importantly those that use depth and movment in an action sequence.

Ok...now the kicker.

only 2 films in my opinion have used 3D successfully. Those are Avatar and How to train your dragon. Thats out of probably 20 or so films (converted and designed from the start), so thats a 10% success rate.

And by successfully I mean they are the only films were I'd be more likely watch the 3D version over the 2D.

Every other 3D film was marred with inconsistencies with the effect, with niggling issues on if the effect was working right or not, which is probably the biggest problem for me, I spend too much time craning my head or adjusting the glassess under my own or over my own to ensure that the effect is coming through, far too often it feels like its not coming through fully and I need to adjust, and I do so but the effect remains the same, so I start craning my neck to check if the glassess are working by checking the colour consistency on the image and so on completely going against the film's intention.


So yeah I wasnt sold prior to avatar and after avatar i'll be honest and I think its not worth it. Avatar worked because of design, the battle sequence and the interiors were designed for 3D so look good for 3D but neither of them brought anything new to either. having 3D interiors didnt make them feel more clausterphobic or any new sense. Equally the battle sequence didnt give me any new sense of excitement from the 3D. IT looked better then it did in 2D because the 2D shots looked worse cause they were not designed for 2D so it looked very cramped. In 3D that sense of crampness is gone but nothing outstandingly new has replaced it.


3D has the problem that it has no narrative purpose, its like product placement, it sticks out for its own purpose and it cant be anything else but 3D and I held hopes that Cameron would have done that, that he would have repeated his success with giving emotional meaning to CGI that he did with The Abyss (water makes me emotional! *sob*) and Terminator 2 (liquid metal gonna kick my ass!). In that regard he failed predominantly, being 3D did not make me care more for any of the characters or love the planet pandora anymore.


How to train your dragon worked, but I think that was down to character design, because dragons tend to be long creatures their features stretched across the different depths, so when there is this close up of a dragons face it works really well. Equally flying worked well because while the whole background is 2D (again wide exteriors dont work) you just focus the 3D on the little flying object. Trying to layer out an entire exterior setting (like a jungle) is just very difficult and sort of messy in the end.


So thumbs down for 3D, unneccesary and at the moment it is being so aggressively pushed that it just makes what is an annoying itch into the biggest d*ck to your face jirating pulsating annoyance hollywood can come up with.

Also it just makes things worse when you get nintendo and sony on to the bandwagon (and yes....I know the mod of the xbox forum saying this stinks of fanboyism) cause Sony just sound like arrogent cocks when they try to sell any sort of new technology and nintendo cause then it feels like you are kicking a doe eyed puppy whenever you say its a waste of time.

Firmly in the *no to 3D* bandwagon

BlitzKrieg

nstead, it can lend much more depth and colour to an image, which is perfect for lush landscapes like the ones in Avatar.

???


Its the opposite, 3D drains colour from film and light too.

Mark Kermode quoted Christopher Nolan talking about it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKohgeG4Mo0

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Also it just makes things worse when you get nintendo and sony on to the bandwagon (and yes....I know the mod of the xbox forum saying this stinks of fanboyism) cause Sony just sound like arrogent cocks when they try to sell any sort of new technology and nintendo cause then it feels like you are kicking a doe eyed puppy whenever you say its a waste of time.

Firmly in the *no to 3D* bandwagon

The only difference between 3D on the Xbox and 3D on the PS3 is that Sony aren't going to charge you for the privilege.

BlitzKrieg

Deleted User wrote: »

The only difference between 3D on the Xbox and 3D on the PS3 is that Sony aren't going to charge you for the privilege.

true, but I was just saying its a matter of arrogence, nothing to do with the actual technology, I can ignore microsoft hammer on about 3D because they do such a bad shuffle feet bring up the price one of 30 things they are trying to sell you pitch (and yes that was a dig at their awful E3 show) that you can completely ignore it. While with Sony its like someone tieing me to a chair and beating me over the head with whatever they are trying to sell me until I am blubbering with tears begging for them to let me go.

krudler

3D gaming is very interesting though, playing a FPS with your ammo/hud right in front of your eyes with depth, the 3DS is a really cool piece of technology, you cn even take 3D pictures with the camera built into it.

Avatar is the only movie I've seen in 3D I enjoyed, it wasnt the fact there was stuff being flung at you, it was the depth in the picture, especially in the forest and lab scenes, the computer monitors having their own depth of field ws very impressive.

johnny_ultimate

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

???


Its the opposite, 3D drains colour from film and light too.

Yeah, bad wording on my half. I think it's more the good digital projectors they used can create some very vibrant images. I'm not entirely sure about how 3D works technically, but something like Avatar proves the capabilities of good digital projection etc... 3D ups the resolution, which is beneficial, although of course you don't actually have to watch it in 3D and would be better to have 2D digital projection.

Or something. I don't know, it's late :pac:

BlitzKrieg

Its what christopher nolan said.

Because of 3D all the cinemas across the world are being somewhat forced to upgrade to actual decent projectors so the image quality has generally improved for the better.


Sort of like how Dolby and THX have been able to push cinemas to improve the sound systems with surrond sound featured films.

3D gaming is very interesting though, playing a FPS with your ammo/hud right in front of your eyes with depth

its interesting but it has the same crux as film in that its a matter of design. I'd say the type of games that will benefit the most from 3D games would be titles like Gears of war where moving from cover to cover is crucial so the sense of depth between each piece of cover is such a key focus of the gameplay.

Elements like Huds and menus are all design choices that are not necessarily improving the experiance. I'd argue games like dead space and ghosbusters which incoperated the hud elements into the game models (on the players backpack) do a much better job of immersing the player and economically using the screen space then over emphasizing a layer of the game enviroment that most people perfer to keep as much out of the way and tidy as possible, (supreme commander got alot of grief on its release for its ugly overbearing hud)

Improbable

I just saw Shrek in 3d recently. I never got to see avatar in 3d though and I was wondering if anyone would be able to offer up some insight if you've seen both because I really thought it was just gimmicky and nothing to boast about. I've heard a lot of good things about the avatar 3d but it didn't exactly blow me away on shrek.

thorbarry

I just cant stand how dark some films are in 3d, its so annoying. Also wearing glasses over my current glasses sucks

DualBladez

the 3rd dimension rocks

jaykhunter

It's hard to say anything new in this thread because i think we're all in agreement. Post-conversion is rubbish and we should always check out if the film is in actual ('Cameron') 3D before committing e12.60 to it.

I don't think 3D adds anything -- in Avatar 3D, i was struck by the visuals, not the visuals in 3D, and enjoyed it more in razor-sharp 2D -- but I'm glad Darko mentioned "My Bloody Valentine". Although it was/is an awful movie, it used 3D 'correctly' as a gimmick; stuff flying at the screen. It was a film you had to see in 3D.

I must say that the best part of (proper) 3D for me, is knowing two things - that the film is shot on really new HD cameras (so it looks amazing on bluray) and that it's shot in 16:9, which means no letterboxing when you're watching at home. Simply joyous.

Blitz mentioned that cinemas --especially the crap ones here in ireland-- are forced to upgrade their equipment, which is just fantastic.

As for gaming in 3D -- a medium I think would be amazing if it works -- I'm skeptical about getting headaches, and keeping everything in focus. Some games, especially shooters and stealth games, could be brilliant in 3D. We'd need things to come out of the TV though, not just deeper inside. That said, I'm not buying a 3DTV until they get rid of those damn glasses!

A quick plug, but the Nintendo 3DS looks amazing. Apparently it works really well, and I want one!

filmfan

It makes sense to be that gaming be in 3d but in movies it just doesn't add anything to the experience for me personally, it's a bit annoying more than anything

jaykhunter

I had a hard time cleaving the fat from the meat, can someone post a list of all the proper 3D films from the last few years?

Shrek 4 was filmed using the sytem "Digital 3D" and tech "Dual 70mm" while Cameron's Avatar used "Fusion Camera System" and "Dual HD". Up (which looks great in 3D) used "Disney Digital 3D" and "Dual HD". So i'm guessing Shrek 4 is a cheap cash-in hack-job. I'd assume it looks better than "Clash of the titans" since it's a CGI film, Clash was a 2D film post-processed in 3D, which is a turn wrapped in tinfoil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films

filmfan

Clash of the Titans made me sad, such a waste of a potentially great story! The 3d was so bloody pointless

_Kaiser_

I think that 3D is just a gimmick that will be forgotten about (again!) in a year or two. I saw Avatar in 3D and it didn't really blow me away - but then it might be that it just doesn't work on me as the vision in one of my eyes isn't great.

Sky and the TV manufacturers are trying to push 3D now as well, but seeing as the former is still charging for HD (and thus limiting its uptake of a technology that is more important I think) and the latter wants you to spend a few grand on a new TV (when again a lot of people have yet to make the jump to HD) and wear glasses at €150 a pop while you sit in your living room (and what happens if you have guests over?), I can't ever see it really taking off in the domestic market.

I'd predict it'll remain primarily a cinema attraction (part of an effort to draw people back from downloads, DVD/Blu-Ray and such), but it'll fizzle out just as it did back in the 80s.

Renn

Not a mad fan of it myself but gotta disagree with the above comment. The money this is taking in is phenomenal and it's pretty much here to stay. Certainly not a gimmick any more.

jaykhunter

I can see 3D being in cinemas for the foreseeable future but not at home. Despite nobody wanting to watch TV in 3D all the time, it's too expensive. And needs glasses. Hell, bluray is having a hard time selling to the masses! 3DTVs will need to be glasses-free with a generous viewing angle (+/- at least 45 degrees) and cheaper before people start buying them.

I think 'a new way to experience a movie' = gimmick, until it becomes an industry standard. Like 'iMAX' is still a gimmick, as only a small % of films use this technology. 4D is another gimmick; again, sparsely used. When 3D becomes the standard (like how HD is the standard; i.e. when most films are shot or converted into 3D) it'll cease to be a gimmick.

The fact that over 99.9% of homes can't experience 3D (--proper 3D--) at home kinda defines it as a (cinema) gimmick.

Snake Plisken

think it's just a way for studios to stop pirating of their movies in cinemas, if we have no choice and 3D movies becomes the standard then that basically kills guys camming movies for the net. I saw Shrek 3D with the kids today and found it very gimmicky.

indough

its no longer a gimmick but at the same time i doubt it will ever become standard

Looking at the upcoming 3D films there actually are a number I am looking forward to watching and they are all shot in 3D or shot with 3D conversionintended in post.

Others such as Priest are films I really am looking forward to but I fear a poor conversion will ruin the film so it'll be a regular 2D experience.

Interestingly enough in recent days Zack Snyder has come out and said that he would not allow WB to convert sucker punch to 3D unless he could be shown that it would benefit the film and not simply be a rush job to add a few dollars to ticket prices.

List of upcoming 3D films:
- 2010 -
Shrek Forever After (May 21)
Toy Story 3 (June 18)
Despicable Me (July 9)
Cats & Dogs: The Revenge Of Kitty Galore (July 30)
Step Up 3D (Aug 7)
Piranha 3D (Aug 27)
Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D (Sep 10)
Legend Of The Guardians (Sep 24)
Jackass 3D (Oct 15)
Saw VII (Oct 22)
Megamind (Nov 5)
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Nov 19)
Tangled (Nov 24)
Chronicles Of Narnia: Voyage Of The Dawn Trader (Dec 9)
Yogi Bear (Dec 17)
Tron Legacy (Dec 17)
Gulliver’s Travels (Dec 30)
The Hole
Bait 3D

- 2011 -
Priest (Jan 14)
Cabin In The Woods (Jan 14)
Drive Angry (Feb 11)
Sucker Punch (Mar 25)
Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom Of Doom (June 3)
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (July 15)
Smurfs 3D (July 29)
Underworld 4 (Sep 23)
Flanimals
Cowboys And Aliens
Green Lantern
Spider-Man 4

Schorpio

3D is a bit of a fad in my opinion. They did it in the 50s, the 80's and now they're at it again. Doesn't really add anything to the experience. I'd prefer to go to the cinema and not have to wear stupid glasses for little or no gain.

TV manufacturers are pushing 3D because they saw the rise in sales when people upgraded to HD. They are trying to get people to upgrade again. I can't see it taking off with most people. A lot of people were happy to upgrade to HD as they had been living with and probably had a SDTV for their whole lives and HD was a noticeable increase in quality. These people won't buy into the whole 3D thing at home and I don't blame them.

I'm fine with my movies and TV being in only 2 dimensions

Mitch Connor

Personally I do like 3D cinema, and I do think it can add to the experience.

However, I think it can only do this for movies that are written, and directed to be in 3d from the start. Too many movies, such as Shrek, or Alice in Wonderland, or a few others I can't think of right now have it meaninglessly tacked on so 95% of the movie has no real 3d imagery and the remaining 5% is a shameless and needless scene on a rollercoaster or something.

3d can add to the experience, but it needs to be used correctly and with thought - like anything else really.

Interesting but it seems that glasses free 3D may be closer than we think, supposedly Albert Pyun's Tales of an Ancient Empire is being screened at Comic Con using a Paramagix system which will offer 3D without the need for the glasses. If the system works then I can see 3D becoming a viable option especially if it can be adapted for home use.

the_monkey

I don't think 3D TV's will do so well ... , who wants to wear glasses
while watching TV ? also what happens if you have guests and there isn't enough glasses?

nah , keep it simple , 1080p HD 2D is more then enough, thats the way I saw Avatar and was impressive enough !!

3D didn't catch on 20 years ago, can't see it catching on now ...

Turtyturd

Deleted User wrote: »

The impact in films such as Avatar is immense, it's not a case of throing things at the audience but rather it gives a sense of depth to the picture. The opening shot as they wake from cryo is jaw dropping, it's as if you are looking down a corridor rather than at a flat screen.

That shot was the highlight of the 3D in the movie. The problem with Avatar was that it was 3 hours and after a while it loses it effects. I can't help but feel its going to be a novelty and will disappear again after a while or remain used solely for computer animated films which it is best suited to.

cabrwab

I have to echo what others are saying, but at home unless you've a 100inch screen I can't imagine it would immerse you properly.

nintendo ds is being released with a glasses free screen for 3d.

avatar provided some amazing scenes the one were the forest was burning and the ash was coming at you was the best use of gimmicky 3d I've experienced.

im not enjoying the way every movie is being converted. either do it first in 3d or not at all.

mikhail

Snake Plisken wrote: »

think it's just a way for studios to stop pirating of their movies in cinemas, if we have no choice and 3D movies becomes the standard then that basically kills guys camming movies for the net.

That's rubbish. Cam through a circularly polarised lens and you get a 2D version of the movie. From a business perspective, 3D is about marketing and ticket prices.

Snake Plisken

mikhail wrote: »

That's rubbish. Cam through a circularly polarised lens and you get a 2D version of the movie. From a business perspective, 3D is about marketing and ticket prices.

Not rubbish have u even watched a 3d movie? without glasses its very dark picture as highlighted by Chris Nolan, cams look crap at the best of times they will look even worse converted from 3D! Studios think that movies in 3D will make customers go the cinema's for the 3D experience as per the quote below

According to a Fox studio spokesperson, pirated 3D films are not a concern at all. Quoting from the New York Times, this spokesperson said, “Bootleg copies are unlikely to have much impact. Seeing the movie in 3D in a cinema offers an experience that cannot be replicated.”

mielag

Renn wrote: »

Maybe it was just me but the Alice in Wonderland one looked pants. Was that another conversion job?

ditto

mikhail

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Not rubbish have u even watched a 3d movie? without glasses its very dark picture as highlighted by Chris Nolan, cams look crap at the best of times they will look even worse converted from 3D! Studios think that movies in 3D will make customers go the cinema's for the 3D experience as per the quote below

I really feel for people talking about stuff they don't understand. 3D is a bit dimmer with glasses, because they remove over half the light. The image on the screen is actually quite bright. This has been a problem in post-converted films because the contrast (particularly on CGI elements) has been too low. As films which are actually filmed in 3D become more common, this isn't going to be much of a problem any more. Cams already, as you say, look rubbish. This is hardly going to be a major factor. Frankly, the kind of people who watch cams are not going to pay €12 to go see a 3D movie any more than they pay €10 to see a 2D one.

BlitzKrieg

mikhail wrote: »

That's rubbish. Cam through a circularly polarised lens and you get a 2D version of the movie. From a business perspective, 3D is about marketing and ticket prices.

my question is why would you bother to cam the 3d version of the film for a 2d pirate when hollywood puts out 2D versions alongside every 3D release anyway (great vote of confidence guys!)

amacachi

I'm not arsed with 3D. For now nothing I've seen has sold me on it(I include Avatar in that). I think it's just a way to increase Box-Office takings. I don't imagine that many people have a set-up worth waiting for a home release of a 3D film yet. When that happens in ~5 years I'd say there'll be a drop-off in 3D releases again.