3D
- Thread starter Gindil
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Personally, I don't care about it. This generation is simply a ton of advancements that don't need to be made. Take Blu-Ray for example. I still watch VHS tapes for God's sake! DVDs are fine, I have no problem with them or their quality.
3D is another example. It just pisses me off. It is more of a novelty than it is an experience-enhancer. I don't want to put on retarded glasses just to enjoy a film at its best.
3D is another example. It just pisses me off. It is more of a novelty than it is an experience-enhancer. I don't want to put on retarded glasses just to enjoy a film at its best.
I remember watching Spy Kids 3D and I swear the 3D back then was better :/ Saw Alice in Wonderland, and they didn't jump out at you like they used to but you can see a difference.
I don't like it at all. I actually went to go see How to Train Your Dragon yesterday (Which is a brilliant movie. Best Dreamworks animation since Shrek, and it actually might be better) and I hardly noticed anything. The one thing I did notice is that instead of trying to make things come out of the screen, they're trying to give things depth instead, which I like, but not enough to make myself look like an idiot wearing these huge glasses over my regular glasses. They're also very uncomfortable.
It's a cool gimmick, but at this point it's just that: A gimmick.
I expect the fad to fade not too long from now, but there's no doubt that it remains an interesting idea.
I expect the fad to fade not too long from now, but there's no doubt that it remains an interesting idea.
I hate it because it looks no different than regular movies to me, and regular movies look the same as real life. I've said before that it's probably fantastic if it works for you, but for the rest of us it's fucking annoying.
Not Avatar directly, but it is James Cameron's fault.Irridium said:
He dreamed up the current method of producing 3-D but using modified standard film cameras and projectors. Much simpler and cheaper than the old IMAX and red/green versions, because he couldn't fit Imax cameras (which are like a small car) to the submarine he was using to film 3-D documentaries.
IIRC the first film to hit cinemas using the current stereoscopic method was Spy Kids 3-D, which is a few years old now. The current surge in
3-D reflects how the cost of it has nose dived in the last 5 years.
Although none of that applies to Avatar, which is entirely in Imax anyway.
I was really hoping that the current 3d fad would blow over, as it has done a number of times in the past. I have to wear 3d specs over prescription and find them uncomfy and heavy and often find that 3d in films leads to gimmicky bullshit and cheap stunts to make things fly out at the audience so that the film ends up looking shitty when not viewed 3d.
Am fucking tired of it and want nothing to do with it.
Am fucking tired of it and want nothing to do with it.
I suppose there are two reasons for that.
The early 3D movies were mainly tech-demos, showing off what 3D can do (generally by throwing stuff at you). More modern movies are using the 3D to tell a story, rather than show off the 3D technology.
The second reason is more subtle: 3D movies are designed to be viewable by everyone. This means they need to be designed for the lowest common denominator. To do this, the 3D effect is toned-down, with relatively low separation and convergence.
On a computer game, these settings are user-configurable (at least they are with my setup [the iZ3D 3D monitor]). In a movie, they can't be.
The early 3D movies were mainly tech-demos, showing off what 3D can do (generally by throwing stuff at you). More modern movies are using the 3D to tell a story, rather than show off the 3D technology.
The second reason is more subtle: 3D movies are designed to be viewable by everyone. This means they need to be designed for the lowest common denominator. To do this, the 3D effect is toned-down, with relatively low separation and convergence.
On a computer game, these settings are user-configurable (at least they are with my setup [the iZ3D 3D monitor]). In a movie, they can't be.
To be honest I don't really care for the idea of it, but maybe if it becomes more common and I try it for myself (with gaming) I'll like it.
I think it's too inconvenient to become the norm. If I want to watch a movie with my friends, we'd all need the glasses, and sometimes I could have like 8 friends round. I don't want to own 9 pairs of 3D glasses. And even if everyone had their own pair, someone would forget them, and then that's it, we can't watch the movie because it wouldn't be fair on the guy who forgot his glasses. We can't blame him, he's only human. Like other people have said, it's a fad. It'll blow over. I just hope the whole motion sensor thing blows over too. But that's another rant altogether.
The headaches are nonsence. You get them because you need to not "make it work" but relax your eyes and it will work on it own. I can watch 5 hours of 3D gaming no bother at all.
3D is popular as the new 3D uses light polorization to make it work (the way that light travels) and not the silly colour method that will never work ever.
I have bought a 1080p zalman zm215mw monitor and played avatar the game in 3D its fantastic in 3D (the graphics, not the game or story good god no). the thing cost me ?250.
3D needs to used right for it to work right. Avatar did this well using it to enchance a scene that 2d never can. A good example is when Jake is lost with the spear and the forest seems to surrond him. thats good 3D usage not to throw stuff at you that breaks the film.
3D is only as good as the way its used and made. the content needs to be good or it work be good and no amoumt of 3D or HD will fix it.
Stutter tech is going to fail due to high glasses cost and the problems mentioned by Mobsterlobster. The screen I own is 21.5" and uses the same tech as the cinema.
As for glasses being uncomfortable thats because the cinamea uses cheap glasses while my zalman ones are realy nice to wear for hours and hours. (just like a pair of light sunglasses).
I know that I mispelled some words I'm too lazy to correct it.
3D is popular as the new 3D uses light polorization to make it work (the way that light travels) and not the silly colour method that will never work ever.
I have bought a 1080p zalman zm215mw monitor and played avatar the game in 3D its fantastic in 3D (the graphics, not the game or story good god no). the thing cost me ?250.
3D needs to used right for it to work right. Avatar did this well using it to enchance a scene that 2d never can. A good example is when Jake is lost with the spear and the forest seems to surrond him. thats good 3D usage not to throw stuff at you that breaks the film.
3D is only as good as the way its used and made. the content needs to be good or it work be good and no amoumt of 3D or HD will fix it.
Stutter tech is going to fail due to high glasses cost and the problems mentioned by Mobsterlobster. The screen I own is 21.5" and uses the same tech as the cinema.
As for glasses being uncomfortable thats because the cinamea uses cheap glasses while my zalman ones are realy nice to wear for hours and hours. (just like a pair of light sunglasses).
I know that I mispelled some words I'm too lazy to correct it.
Sick of it. It sucks. It's not worth an extra $5 to see a movie in 3D, and it's certainly not worth buying the equipment to do it at home. The effect adds nothing to the experience and just makes everything look darker and more washed out.
Aparently, clash of the titans is ruined by the 3D. Im going to see it on tuesday in "Normal D" though.
I think this 3D thing is a phase, same with motion sensors.
I think this 3D thing is a phase, same with motion sensors.