3 Ds Are Too Many For Me

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

3 Ds Are Too Many For Me

Does anyone have an aspirin?

Read Full Article

Definitely agree on the Glasses with 3D part. I cannot see 3D films because of it. They don't cause epilepsy, but they do cause headaches.

I like hwhat Hwill Hwheaton has to say about this. However, I lack depth perception and thus cannot see in 3D.

You hear that James Cameron!? I won't be seduced by your cyan kitty-cat people!

As long as they started filming with the idea it would be in 3d it usually turns out great and only ads to the film's atmosphere. Coraline comes to mind.

i have made my feelings on 3D clear in the past. don't like it, probably never will. the it leaves the better

Exactly my thoughts when I exited Avatar, and that plus the gruesome Alice In Wonderland have convinced me to shun any 3D movies whatsoever.

Well said, Ma'am [/salutes]

So basically just a rehash what a lot of people were saying around the time AVATAR came out last year and all those other 3D movies were announced?

I don't mean to say it isn't worthy of saying, only that it is a year after the big denounce of the whole 3D scene and there's nothing really new here that I don't remember reading last year.

I hate 3D cause I have to wear them over my normal glasses, not to mention it doesnt really add all that much to the movie.

I think 3D should stick with Kid movies such as Pixar films and such. Putting them in every movie is just tacky now

Don't know about 3D movies and all, but I almost puked all over friend's computer after being introduced to 3D gaming on Nvidia setup. Damn, that was sickening, eye-watering, almost painful experience. 3D is a giant leap backwards in today's state of technology. People will enjoy 3D when we get Star Trek holograms. Everything else is bullshit.

Haha! I wrote an article similar to this for my school newspaper a few months ago, and I too have to wear the 3D glasses on top of my normal ones - tis a nightmare!!

Convince people that 170 year old technology is new and wonderful to sell more expensive televisions. Brilliant Idea.

Amen, sister. You want me to be impressed by 3D tech? Lose the damn glasses. When I can watch a 3D movie without headache-inducing glasses, then maybe I'll be impressed. Incidentally, I use your same rule when deciding to see a movie. If I wouldn't go see it in 2D, I'm sure as hell not going to see it in 3D. :)

I have yet to see a "new" film in 3D. I remember it being non-immersive and distracting at best back when people were using it as a gimmick in the 90's.

But the reason people make these 3D movies is obviously because people are watching them, and paying money for them.

It's like the Nickelback conundrum. Everyone I ever talk to says how bad the band is, how much they hate them, yet still, they sell millions of records.

Who buys this kind of stuff??? Apparently not the people I associate myself with anyhow.

I saw avatar in 3D and hated it. Everything was blurry and the edges of the 3d objects had a silver outline to them.
Watched it in hi-def on my 50" and I enjoyed it a lot more.

I'm not one for 3D anyway, having only watched one film which was back when it was used as a gimmick to otherwise crap movies, and before it became a new fad that seems to be placed on every movie.

I tried watching a movie in 3D without my regular glasses. I must say, the amorphus blobs looked great in 3D, if I couldnt hear I doubt I would have known what was going on.

Us glasses wearers are in the minority here. I wonder, since the big companies are pushing for 3D to become mainstream, and since we who wear glasses are in the minority, does that mean we could get handicap parking stickers because we are "less" than everyone else?

Elizabeth Grunewald:
3 Ds Are Too Many For Me

Does anyone have an aspirin?

Read Full Article

Until they are able to comfortably make 3D that takes up your entire field of view, including peripheral vision, it will fail to go beyond an "interesting novelty." But the larger problem is that our senses aren't designed to work independently to that degree.

What you see is only a single input. Granted, visual information accounts for about 80% of what we take in, but that doesn't mean our brain believes everything our eyes see. If you are to believe something out of the ordinary, what you feel and hear has to back up that unfamiliar input.

That means we've got to do a better job of making sure the sound backs up the sight, and that the sight isn't undermined by conflicting information (such as seeing the world around the movie in clear 2D. Really, is there a better way to do this than a helmet? Unfortunately not (yet). Even then, a helmet sends sensory information to your brain that says, "Dude, you're in a bucket. This isn't real."

Illusion relies on getting two or more senses to work together to fool the brain. 3D, unless you're sitting right up on it, is currently only engaging about 2/3 of a single sense.

What is it with people and complaining about 3D? to be entirely honest, its NOT that huge a problem, and if you dont like it just watch a 2D version. I cannot recall any film that had 3D NOT coming with a 2D version. What does it matter to you? OK its a gimmick, and?

To be honest, i think more films should use 3D, because it creates a new level of immersion. In my opinion inception would have benefitted greatly from 3D, because its the sort of film that would have worked fantastically. Ok, i dont agree to just sticking 3D on as a last minute extra for a bit more doe, from what will probably be a fairly shitty film. But if 3D is a key part of production, then it gives rise to a brilliant film. See "avatar". Ok, many people may not like avatar, but theres no denying that it was a stunningly beautiful film, and more the better for 3D.

TL;DR I dont think its too bad, go watch stuff in 2D (or get a dvd).

I hate 3D, I get horrible headaches and my nose and ears always ache like a mofo after sitting through one those damn movies because I have to wear two pairs of glasses. I skipped two movies I wanted to see in the last few months because my local cinema only offered them in 3D.

dastardly:

Elizabeth Grunewald:
3 Ds Are Too Many For Me

Does anyone have an aspirin?

Read Full Article

Until they are able to comfortably make 3D that takes up your entire field of view, including peripheral vision, it will fail to go beyond an "interesting novelty." But the larger problem is that our senses aren't designed to work independently to that degree.

What you see is only a single input. Granted, visual information accounts for about 80% of what we take in, but that doesn't mean our brain believes everything our eyes see. If you are to believe something out of the ordinary, what you feel and hear has to back up that unfamiliar input.

That means we've got to do a better job of making sure the sound backs up the sight, and that the sight isn't undermined by conflicting information (such as seeing the world around the movie in clear 2D. Really, is there a better way to do this than a helmet? Unfortunately not (yet). Even then, a helmet sends sensory information to your brain that says, "Dude, you're in a bucket. This isn't real."

Illusion relies on getting two or more senses to work together to fool the brain. 3D, unless you're sitting right up on it, is currently only engaging about 2/3 of a single sense.

Umm no offence, but what that boils down to is "3D isnt real"

Well, obviously. Of course its an illusion, or else theyd actually have something flying out of the screen. And actually, im fairly certain 3D works without sound or touch. Just look at those red and blue pictures, no sounds, no feeling, but still the illusion remains.

The 3D you get in cinemas (polarisation imagery) works solely with the eyes, by creating two seperate images. One of these images is in full colour, while the other is monochromatic. Different Polarising filters in the lense block one image, but not the other, and its this that creates the "jump out at you" effect. Like you said, its an illusion, simply a mis-marriage of information from the eyes.

This is such a non issue. I can not believe how much of a fuss is being made about something that no one is forcing anyone to partake in.

If you do not like 3D watch it in 2D. If 2D somehow isn't offered then wait for the DVD. No one is forcing anyone to watch this format. However the sales, and interest suggest many people enjoy it. Even people with glasses.

3D will not make a bad movie good. It will enhance the immersion of a good movie. It enhances the movie going experience, and gives something that one can not get in the home easily.

I am amazed at how many people claim to hate and loath this format, yet the money speaks differently. This is just the new thing to whine about. It is just whining after all. There is no valid complaint to be made. If you dont like it simply dont watch it.

Thats the internet for you though, if you dont like something you must complain and defend your position on it. Take up a crusade so that all those who enjoy something different than you will know the error of their ways.

Bottom line is your given a choice. Exercise that choice, but dont push your opinions on the issue as fact. If you dont like it show it with your wallet. The only way 3D is going anywhere is when the money dries up.

I'll stick with MovieBob's view on this;

If used properly it can certainly enhance the immersive experience.

I mostly agree. Although to be fair, "sitting close to tv will ruin your eyes" is a myth. Though, sitting obscenely close with your eyes to any object is probably not healthy.

Another article saying the same thing we all established a long time ago. Wonderful.

The sad thing is that 3D is coming in full force, and its a way for studios to gain a bit of what they lost to home theatre and pirating. I work at a cinema and we need to raise an obscene amount of money through grants and donations to get a digital projector because we will simply not stay in business in 5 years time.

On a related note the best description I heard of Step Up 3D was "A movie where the audience gets served".

Ultimately, it's going to stick around, if only because it's an effective DRM. The fact that people are paying more to see it is just gravy.

I.E.D.:
Don't know about 3D movies and all, but I almost puked all over friend's computer after being introduced to 3D gaming on Nvidia setup. Damn, that was sickening, eye-watering, almost painful experience. 3D is a giant leap backwards in today's state of technology. People will enjoy 3D when we get Star Trek holograms. Everything else is bullshit.

As a very satisfied owner of a 3d-vision set-up with a 60-inch Mitsubishi set let me be the first to say that any eye strain or headaches were most likely caused by incorrect set-up, or by playing half-compatible games. Seeing the incorrectly rendered water reflections in Source engine games doesn't just give me a headache . . . it eats at my very soul. But on the other hand, playing my meticulously tweaked version of Dirt 2, and having my car's hood start at the end of my desk and protrude inward into an actual world is like nothing else available in gaming. Ever. And yes I have a virtual boy ;)

When gaming in 3d, keep in mind that you are way in early adopter territory right now. Many recent games use more hacks then honest rendering techniques to squeeze all their precious HDR's and normal maps out of the current consoles anemic horsepower . . . resulting in stereoscopic rendering that is a complete mess. However, pop in a good ole made-for-PC DX9 game like Unreal 2k4, and watch your 3d jaw hit the 2d floor :)

I.E.D.:
Don't know about 3D movies and all, but I almost puked all over friend's computer after being introduced to 3D gaming on Nvidia setup. Damn, that was sickening, eye-watering, almost painful experience. 3D is a giant leap backwards in today's state of technology. People will enjoy 3D when we get Star Trek holograms. Everything else is bullshit.

But how will we get to said holograms without baby steps that work and can be profitable in order to still fund the research?

I'm a glasses wearer and I'm perfectly fine with 3D. Occasionally I adjust the glasses, but other than that I'm perfectly fine with it.

Frankly, I think people are blowing this way out of proportion. I mean, really, if you don't like 3D then watch it in 2D. If 3D gives you headaches, watch it in 2D. If there are only 3D available movies at your local cinaplex, send a complaint to them or something.

As others have said, 3D does not make a bad movie good, it makes a good movie that much better. Toy Story 3 did 3D excellently, and How To Train Your Dragon was also a great 3D experience in IMax. Tron: Legacy looks to be kickass in 3D, and hopefully the movie itself will compliment it. 3D has a lot of potential, especially in video games. I played WipeOutHD in 3D, and it was practically like a whole new game, and it'll be interesting to see how 3D plays out in this medium.

Overall, I'm not worried. I personally think that 3D is just the new "popular" thing to hate on, like Justin Beiber or general pop culture. That's not to say I don't understand some of the complaints, but if you don't like it, then fine, don't watch it in 3D.

Wil Wheaton <3

Let's be fair, those movies would have been released anyway, regardless of 3D.

I mean really, you can tell the new Resident Evil movie will suck even before they slap the 3D badge on it. If you still watched it (like I did... my friend <3s Milia Jovovich) then it's your own fault.

Daemascus:
I hate 3D cause I have to wear them over my normal glasses

Main reason I don't like going to 3-D movies. Plus I don't want to get contacts at all.

The glasses thing and the headaches are what I loathe the most about 3D movies. I thought that in a few movies, it added a whole new dimension (Pardon the pun). In others, it was just incredibly unnecessary, and I'm thankful I didn't shill out more than I did for the shit-tastic Clash of the Titans remake for 3D glasses.

Jacob Haggarty:
What is it with people and complaining about 3D? to be entirely honest, its NOT that huge a problem, and if you dont like it just watch a 2D version. I cannot recall any film that had 3D NOT coming with a 2D version. What does it matter to you? OK its a gimmick, and?

To be honest, i think more films should use 3D, because it creates a new level of immersion. In my opinion inception would have benefitted greatly from 3D, because its the sort of film that would have worked fantastically. Ok, i dont agree to just sticking 3D on as a last minute extra for a bit more doe, from what will probably be a fairly shitty film. But if 3D is a key part of production, then it gives rise to a brilliant film. See "avatar". Ok, many people may not like avatar, but theres no denying that it was a stunningly beautiful film, and more the better for 3D.

TL;DR I dont think its too bad, go watch stuff in 2D (or get a dvd).

I'll field why this is a HUGE PROBLEM as you put it. Because instead of putting money into things like script or acting (or if your wealthy imax cameras) they are wasting money adding very little immserion (to the extend that I can honestly say only two films have used it anywhere close to succesfully). And hollywood are making a big push for this to be the primary viewing method in cinemas. So for all of us who don't like being ripped off but like the cinema there is no option. Pile ontop of that the increased price to the viewer (which is annoying as all hell). And a trend in post converted (read badly done) 3D movies and you have the clusterfuck monstrosity that is the 3D issue.

Name 1 film that benefits from 3D and I'll name you 3 which would have benefited more from better scripting/acting/directing. It isn't where money should be being spent and it encourages bad movies in the name of progression.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here