3D any good, your thoughts?

I personally believe that it's a cheap gimmick just to get a few extra bucks out of the consumers (or viewers in this case). Same thing goes for 3D TVs

 

I don't like it. It's a pointless money grab. I hate going to see a movie in 3D and the TVs with the glasses and all that are expensive and silly. Give me a lovely LED TV any day of the week, that'd beat a 3D tv hands down.

 

When done properly it can be amazing like when your watching a 3d movie for example, I tried nvidia's 3d vision recently however I was not impressed, the glasses dim everything and the 3d experience was poor.

I've not seen a 3d display that works without glasses yet so I reserve judgement until then.

 

I'm in agreement, it's great in the Cinema, but I cannot see any need for it at home, I can't even see any point in it?

It is COOL at the Imax though.

 

AGREED
but 3D TVs are LED anyway lol

 

For movies like Avatar, which rely on the visuals to make it a good film(I watched it twice in the cinema just for the effects ), it is a great addition, but for actual films, like The Shawshank Redemption or Pulp Fiction, I don't even care if it's in 1080p or not.

 

Well, it depends. If you are talking about movies (in theaters) 3D movies or perhaps to use the proper term, Stereoscopic movies can be amazing. Those glasses are not really a bother if the show is well presented, you will soon forget the glasses.

If the projectionist lacks knowledge, you can suffer eye strain. Basd projection often kills stereo movies for most people.

Bob

 

Stereoscopic movies and stills require several things in order to be successful. First, the scenes must be well done. There are rules to proper stereo image making but I wont bore the list.

Secondly, the projection must be good or the viewer will suffer. Also, the angle of the polarizers must match the filter alignment in the glasses.

Third, it must be a polarized system. Red/green or blue/green systems suck and holography is eons away.

Forth, you can't easily do away with the need for some sort of viewer. In the case of movies, the best viewers are special polarized glasses. There are however, various shutter type viewers, but too costly for theaters.

The reason is because you require a left-eye view and a right-eye view. No easy way around it unless you use an auto-stereoscopic system that does not require glasses. These systems still require a left and a right eye view, however. Those lenticular postcards also use left and right eye views.

There have been many great 3D movies made over the years and they are a joy to see when properly projected.

Bob Maxey
Android Forum's Self-Proclaimed Stereoscopic Master

 

I really don't like wearing the movie theater's glasses. What's really sickening to me is that my local theaters won't have a 2D option for movies and I'm stuck paying the extra money for a feature I don't want.

 

When we (the wife & I) go to movies, we always look for a good 3D. Avatar was the best.

 

I agree it's cool when done right, but I for one can take it or leave it at the theater, and leave it altogether at home. That is unless they figure out a way to do it well, without glasses. I don't want to have to sit in the sweet spot or it looks like hell, like with old rear projection sets.

If they can accomplish this feat, then you'll have my attention.

 

It is interesting to note that high quality projected 3D in theaters is absolutely possible and it has been possible for many decades. Sadly, what often kills 3D is poor display and projection.

Also, the excessive use of gimmicks. For example, the film 'Commin At You" which is rather self-explanatory. Or poor use of the stereo window that sometimes yeilds unexpected results that most viewers find disagreeable.

Unfortunately, you still need glasses to view stereo; the alternatives are not at all good.

Bob

 

The funny thing about 3D is that it is not new technology at all.

20 years ago when I was 5 I saw Muppet Vision 3D at Disney World.

Initially I thought it was dumb. But it can actually be really fun if used as comedy (Muppet Vision 3D at Disney World is extremely entertaining and clever) but for serious movies I would much rather watch 2D even if I had 3D available (i.e. Avatar was much more enjoyable in 2D).

So if they used it for Muppet Vision type movies, they could do really well. But in terms of serious movies, I think the majority of movie lovers including myself would rather watch 2D.

 

I'm with a few others on this. In the cinema, with a good movie which was filmed in 3D(NOT 3D added in post), and if it's presented well. It can be a great experience. But at home with the current shutter-glasses technology, it's just horrible and NOT worth it.

 

20 years ago?


3D was the big deal in the 50's and always will be. They'll just keep trying.

 

Well forsure the technology is impressive. It'll never go away completely, nor would I want it to. But it'll never become main stream unless they can find a way to do away with glasses. I'd say anyone who ever tried playing a Vitual Reality game would agree that it was a cool ass technology that was ultra cool to play.... at the arcade. The home version never took off for a number of reasons, one of which was that people didn't want to have to wear that contraption the whole time they were playing games.

I would be willing to bet that if you had to wear glasses just to watch color tv, the majority of people would still have black & white tv's.

 

Very true. Stereo goes way back.

Disney has the ability to control everything associated with their 3D presentations, so no wonder it is so good.

Say, any fans of Viewmaster on the list?

Bob

 

Not true. A well presented 3D movie makes you forget you are wearing glasses or viewers unless they are huge or mechanical. The glasses can be simple cardboard glasses that are soon forgotten, if everything is properly done.

There have been studies done by theater owners, producers of 3D movies, and by manufacturers of glasses that show the wearing of glasses is not really the big issue unless there is a problem with the presentation.

Bob

 

Yeah but I'm not talking about the presentation quality here. I know what you're getting at, but I'm talking about the inconvenience of glasses. People who wear glasses deal with it, but nobody chooses to wear glasses any longer than absolutely necessary (unless you're 21 years old at the night club wearing your Ray Bans cuz you think it's gonna help you score chicks).

Then you have your people who already wear glasses. They have to either have special made 3D glasses, or all glasses will have to be made to accommodate glasses (which equals bulky). Plus we know that no matter what we're talking about, no two people want the same thing. Which means that they'd have to style all different kinds of glasses to pacify the masses. And anyone with a child age 1 to 21 knows small things like glasses get lost or broken daily. Then there's the issue of having company over. Do you have them bring over their own glasses from their system? The problem with that becomes, will all brands use the same technology? Like would glasses for a Sony Ultra 3D set work on a Vizio? Doubtful. Which means you have to stock pile extra glasses in case you have company.

All this and currently 3D glasses run better than $100 bucks. I just don't see the general public buying into all that.

 

This reply assumes conventional theater projection of polarized 3D, not the systems used with the current crop of 3D TVs or various shutter type devices.

The presentation quality as you put it has everything to do with what the public considers inconvenient. I know about stereo projection and in all my years of viewing 3D in theaters as well as viewing the 3D I take with my Stereo Realist or Viewmaster cameras, presentation quality has everything to do with how inconvenient the glasses are or how they are perceived. Bad projection and bad glasses equals unhappy patrons and terrible 3D.

If the theater is setup for polarized 3D, and the projectionist makes sure the filters in the projector are aligned with those in the viewers, everything goes well and the patron forgets he or she is wearing glasses.

And by the way, the best glasses for polarized stereo are nothing more than cheap cardboard glasses that cost very little. And I have no problem wearing them over my eyeglasses. In this case, decades old technology trumps modertn efforts to create and display stereoscopic motion pictures.

As to the idea that we need different glasses to accommodate the taste or fashion sense of the patron, that is bloody silly. That has never, ever been a consideration. The best glasses for quality polarized 3D in the theaters are simple glasses that cost very little.

Bob

 

I think we're debating different things then. The case I'm making is that what they're trying to sell the consumer right now consists of high cost, shutter style glasses. That's the technology that the 3D channels are set up on. And my stance is that I don't think the general population will buy into that due to the reasons I gave.

I think the point you're trying to make is that they're pushing the wrong technology on us... yes? If so then maybe you're right, but good luck changing their minds since they wouldn't be making any money off of those glasses. And my gut instinct tells me the whole reason they tried this is because they saw money signs when they thought about all the money they'd make from 3D accessories.

With the internet at our disposal brick and mortar stores have had to take huge losses in profit margin off of big ticket items such as TVs, stereos, receivers, etc... Because customers will order off the internet if they can save $700 bucks on the purchase. So now they make most of their money off of 'after the sale' items such as wires, cords, stands, warranties and hopefully.... glasses. Therefore they naturally chose to go with the technology they could sell. Paper glasses aren't worth their time.

So you may be right on your point. Consumers might go for that better. But I don't feel like they're going to go for what's out there now.

 

That is why I was careful to point out that my comments had to do with theater projection and not home systems. I really can't speak to the home systems much, but those I have seen look interesting.

I also wonder how many direct to Internet or direct to DVD movies we will eventually see. Will the grand old theaters finally die? Gosh, I hope not. If they last, we will still see new 3D releases in the theaters.

One of the big issues with 3D movies has been that it arrives in waves and in many cases, they are terrible movies created just to emphasize 3D. Bad 3D often kills 3D off for a decade or so.

Bob

 

Very well rounded discussion thus far. I enjoy these!

To answer the original question, I feel that 3D, when FILMED correctly, makes all the difference in the world. The gimmicks of "in your face" stuff is useless IMO.

I also agree that proper projection is key but in the world of digital cinema (which accounts for the majority of your 3D movies at the theatre) the average "button pusher" projectionist has no clue what they are looking at or what to check for. They simply know that they need to push play at a certain time. Being a projectionist used to be a career; sadly, those days are quickly disappearing. Proper polarizer alignment and cleanliness, clean porthole glass, clean lenses and reflectors and mirrors, a properly focused bulb, proper airflow inside of the projector, viewing angle, proper illumination of the screen, correct screen type and gain, keystoning, etc can all play a hand in what might ultimately make or break the 3D experience.

Personally, I can't stand one of the methods (linear polarization) of current 3D cinema, two other methods don't seem to bother me too much and the final method I've seen done horribly wrong and amazingly correct (was traditional film).


Regardless of my personal thoughts and feelings on the matter, 3D isn't going anywhere anytime in the near future. Z-Screens, polarized glasses and silver screens will and ARE quickly replacing the days of house reels, polyester based 35mm film and focusing the grain.

 

Ok, my theater experiences (3D wise), are few and far between. Over the past few years I can remember seeing 'Beowulf', 'Spiderman 3', 'Batman, Dark Knight', 'Avatar' & 'Green Hornet'. Of those the experience that impressed me most was 'Beowulf', and 'Batman' was pretty good as well. The rest didn't do a whole lot for me, especially 'Green Hornet'. I had seen it in 2D a week before seeing in 3D and to me it seemed like a total waste watching it in 3D. I don't know if ut was the filming process, the screen, the viewing glasses or what, but it just seemed to me as though it wasn't supposed to be watched in 3D.

While I never expect 3D to die completely, nor would I ever want it to... I think Hollywood is pushing a shit ton of 3D films on us right now trying to give us 3D fever. So that we feel we just have to buy a 3D set for our home theater systems. And while I know the transition between the older, regular tv's and the newer Hi Def 1080p sets didn't happen overnight. What I do remember very clearly was how amped everyone was about doing it. It was pretty much unanimous, everyone was pumped about switching over to a hi definition. They were excited about tv stations going digital and eventually broadcasting in 1080p. Everyone seemed to be on board with that plan.

But with 3D... I'm not seeing it. There doesn't seem to be that same excitement surrounding it. It seems more like something that's being shoved out on us then something the public is beckoning for. So, I dunno, it's possible it will gain steam and eventually it'll be the new standard. But personally, I'm not feeling it. I'd be more apt to believe it's going to make very modest gains for a few years, then stall out and fade away like Betamax.

And then 3D movies will go back to being an occasional treat out of Hollywood instead of. What's been pumped out as of late. That's just my opinion.