...meet me in the parking lot.silver wolf009 said:Well this picture says three words...RedEyesBlackGamer said:A picture says a thousand words that I agree with. 3D can go off somewhere and die.silver wolf009 said:
snip.
Poll: Thoughts on 3D movies?
- Thread starter P0RTAL
- Start date
Recommended Videos
(warning terrible grammer/spelling)
personally I dont hate the idea of 3D movies because I think you could use some new techniques for example heres something I thought of:
There is a scene in a horror movie where the main monster/bad guy attacks the victim, rips their eye out and tossed onto the floor where it watchs the rest of the scene from a diffrent view.
During this scene the camera is in the 3rd person view and when the monster rips the eye out and tosses it over it give the viewer 2 diffrent viewpoints and only using 3D could you get this effect. experiencing the pain and viewpoint of the victim in one eye and viewing the events in the other.
Most likly this would kill your brain while viewing but what I'm trying to get at is that I think people shouldnt knock it because 3D hasnt been explored beyond the basic "to get depth"
personally I dont hate the idea of 3D movies because I think you could use some new techniques for example heres something I thought of:
There is a scene in a horror movie where the main monster/bad guy attacks the victim, rips their eye out and tossed onto the floor where it watchs the rest of the scene from a diffrent view.
During this scene the camera is in the 3rd person view and when the monster rips the eye out and tosses it over it give the viewer 2 diffrent viewpoints and only using 3D could you get this effect. experiencing the pain and viewpoint of the victim in one eye and viewing the events in the other.
Most likly this would kill your brain while viewing but what I'm trying to get at is that I think people shouldnt knock it because 3D hasnt been explored beyond the basic "to get depth"
So, 1003 words then?silver wolf009 said:Well this picture says three words...RedEyesBlackGamer said:A picture says a thousand words that I agree with. 3D can go off somewhere and die.silver wolf009 said:
snip.
I'm no fan of the gimmick. I'd rather watch a movie shot normally than deal with glasses, and blurry fuzzy crappy crap.
I don't give a shit one way or the other. If people feel like it's worth their hard earned money, by all means, let them go see a film in 3D. Nobody HAS to watch any film that's been converted to/filmed with 3D technology IN 3D, so I don't understand the fuss. If it's here to stay, I'll continue to just go see movies in regular old-time-o-vision. I don't feel the need to waste money on a gimmick, but apparently a shitload of people do. If they didn't, it would be gone by now.
On a different note, this is the only occurrence I can think of where people are PISSED OFF because they have MORE OPTIONS. Once our option to see something in a more traditional format is taken away, I'd start getting pissed THEN. At the moment, though, there really isn't a reason to be upset.
If you actually spent money to see a film in 3D and you're upset about it, it's your own fault. You're a sucker. We all know 3D is a gimmick and probably isn't worth any extra money.
On a different note, this is the only occurrence I can think of where people are PISSED OFF because they have MORE OPTIONS. Once our option to see something in a more traditional format is taken away, I'd start getting pissed THEN. At the moment, though, there really isn't a reason to be upset.
If you actually spent money to see a film in 3D and you're upset about it, it's your own fault. You're a sucker. We all know 3D is a gimmick and probably isn't worth any extra money.
Meh, 3D is ok if done right but of course it's mostly cheap gimmicky post filming conversion that sucks balls.
I don't really see it becoming too popular with the current tech seeing as how it works inherently causes eye strain.
I kinda like the hologram technology they are messing around with though, will be interesting to see if its the next step in attempting to enhance viewer immersion
I don't really see it becoming too popular with the current tech seeing as how it works inherently causes eye strain.
I kinda like the hologram technology they are messing around with though, will be interesting to see if its the next step in attempting to enhance viewer immersion
I think 3D movies are good, they are more immersible, especially in action scenes. Tron Legacy stands out here, I don't think the action scenes in Tron Legacy would have been nearly as good in 2D, they were incredible to watch in 3D in the cinema though. I would not recommend them for all movies, but it can improve the experience especially in action scenes, and also make the movie more immersible.
Lotsa 3d hate here. I'm going with "I like 3d", but I'm keeping in mind that it's still in its early stages of being a serious tool for film makers. Of course there are going to be some "misses" on how the 3d is used, but soon enough most movies will be using 3d in a more proper way to provide immersion and a better sense of scale that is lacking from a flat picture on a wall. It will be very much improved by the systems that incorporate head tracking to allow for glasses-less 3d.
It has been around for decades. How long do you need to develop into something legitimate?Erzengel said:
This is why I said "serious tool". Up until now it was too expensive to be used in serious movies and was relegated to gimmicky amusement park shows. Now that 3D is available in most movie theaters it is no longer a sideshow attraction and a serious tool that movie makers can use. It has been around for some time, but simply existing does not cause better things to come out of it. People have to be making use of it, they have to be doing research, making mistakes, and gaining experience. We're in the era of "making mistakes", of learning what needs to be done and what doesn't work. Techniques that have been used for decades in 2d film do not translate to 3d, and new techniques need to be used. Current serious movies are heavily geared toward 2d, and they need to learn how to use 3d.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Well, my dad kind of works for a little company called Imax, so yeah.
It also helps that I get to see free movies like twice a month (not all 3D), sometimes even twice in the same day.
It also helps that I get to see free movies like twice a month (not all 3D), sometimes even twice in the same day.
Total crap.
Reminds me back in the 90s, when they tried it and failed.
Most of you will be to young for it, but anyone got children here ?
You are aware of the fact, that children up to the age of 11 should not watch at a 3D TV ?
It 's hurting the eye muscels. I doubt everyone with a §d TV will buy a second TV to watch when children around.
Reminds me back in the 90s, when they tried it and failed.
Most of you will be to young for it, but anyone got children here ?
You are aware of the fact, that children up to the age of 11 should not watch at a 3D TV ?
It 's hurting the eye muscels. I doubt everyone with a §d TV will buy a second TV to watch when children around.
Twuny20 said:
I asked for peoples opinions on the topic. I'm not trying to say that all 3D should be burned or something. People are just giving their opinions so back off and cool down. And bitching about this thread is just unwanted negativity. You can give your opinion in a respectful manner without calling everyone on the thread an idiot.
3D is a weird beast. Until they can come up with something that has us fully immersed into the frame, I don't find anything special about the technology, at all. We already see life in 3 dimensions, having shit pop out at you doesn't help advance anything in terms of the film. I also find it sort of ironic that there are so many stylistic choices in films like having 24 frames per second and wholly unrealistic color palettes to set tone, yet it's the "realism" that 3D provides that people find fascinating.
