3D Films

[marc]

Ok last night we saw our first modern 3D film, Toy Story 3.

It started a whole conversation on Facebook and Twitter as to what people expect.

For me the things coming out at you belong in a theme park and rubbish 3D films from the 80's.

New 3D for me is about depth and feeling part of it.

I do feel people are going to see films and rather than talk about the film 3D effects are the main topic.

So please see the poll and answer Also say what you think as well as I am interested to see what people really think.

 

[Nemesis Inferno]

Depth...

But, I reckon 3D will only really work very well in animated films...

That's the long and short of it really, I was very impressed by Toy Story and Despicable Me's 3D, but those are the only two times I've bothered with it...

 

[Inverse]

I also voted for Depth. I saw Up shortly after reading that depth was their philosophy, just before that I saw Monsters Vs Aliens that had pop-out stuff. I believe Up, and the films after it have got the medium right. Pop-out is uncomfortable and for short amusement only.

Having said all that, and seeing 3 or 4 3D films, I don't see it as worth the extra cost and I opted to see Toy Story 3 in 2D. As I will with the Harry Potter finale, I don't think seeing it in 3D when I saw the rest of the films in 2D will add anything significant.

 

[kimahri]

I'll say Depth.

The only thing I've seen 3D really work in is Avatar. Stuff actually looked 3D in that. Unlike Alice, where everyone looked like cardboard cut outs. :|

 

[jokerman]

I don't mind 3D, but I don't feel it's worth the mney if it's just a 2D film that's been converted to 3D.

As long as the film doesn't rely on 3D then it's not so bad...

 

[Mr Nash]

I really don't see what all the fuss is with 3-D,having a film in 3-D certainly doesn't make me want to watch it even more.

I recently watched The Final Destination in 3-D,(I borrowed it from a friend,no way would I have bought it),and although it had depth,I wasn't all that impressed.Maybe it's different watching it on a big cinema screen,rather than on the tv in a living room,maybe you get the fuller effects on a big screen,but then surely it defeats the object of releasing it on dvd.

Plus,I feel such a tit,sitting there with silly cardboard glasses on. :lol:

So for now,I'll stick with 2-D thanks.

 

[ciallkennett]

As people know, I can't stand this new 3D. It is, and will always be in my eyes, a gimmick. It's awful, expensive and hasn't made me want to see any film more so, nor do I feel like paying an additional £2+ onto my already expensive £8 ticket to see a film which makes me want to puke.

People say "It makes it more real!" or as the answer in the poll puts "be in the environment" If you ****ing want really go out into the ****ing street and have a look around you! Eugh...

I boycotted 3D after watching about 6 films in it, with only 1 I felt actually enhanced the film (Avatar). THAT used depth perception well.

Having said all of this, it has boosted cinema intake and that from a film-lover's point of view, is great.

I think this 3D TV thing is a load of crap as well. I hope the concept dies out quickly so that we can get back to the cinema we love.

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

I refuse to watch 3D, because if a film needs to use that to be good, it must not be very good in the first place. I'd rather watch it for what it is than be sucked into the 3D trap.

 

[Error]

I refuse to watch 3D, because if a film needs to use that to be good, it must not be very good in the first place. I'd rather watch it for what it is than be sucked into the 3D trap.

That has to be one of the smartest things I've heard you say in a while.

Outside of one movie (It was a Disney ride so not sure if it counts), I'm never impressed with 3D. Alice in Wonderland was eh, Christmas Carol was crap, Avatar is VERY much **** (I will argue this till forever. WHY THE **** ARE THEY RELEASING IT AGAIN?). I've seen movies in 2D that were available in 3D, and never once I thought to myself "I would of rather seen it in 3D". Mostly because, generally, it's still a movie that tells a story. If the story isn't good, it's not a good movie.

I do NOT care how pretty it is, the special effects used, or anything like that. I've watched very VERY good movies that are 50-60 years old, many I think should never have sequels or re-releases. But I'm deviating from the point.

I really hope this 3D phase dies a quick death, and only have, if anything, short 3D movies.

 

[Jer]

3D is a pointless, stupid, gimmick. The sooner it goes away, the better. What was wrong with 2D?

 

[peep]

Right, having watched a stupid amount of films in 3D I feel like I have a good say on the topic.

So far all the best 3D films have been animations. Toy Story 3, Up, Despicable me, Nightmare before Christmas (actually the best 3D I've ever seen) and Fly me to the moon have all been fantastic and the 3D has just given them an added depth to make it feel more like you're in a theatre rather than a cinema.

The only other films imo that have managed to actually look good in 3D are the ones filmed in 3D, none of this conversion cripe. The two dance flicks that were released in 3D this year were great and I think they used the effect well and they didn't try to just throw stuff at the audience.

However 2D films converted to 3D (Clash of the titans, Cats and Dogs 2 and even to a degree, Toy Story 1&2) don't really work, they were originally meant to be in 2D and they should have been left that way. Now they just make people question the whole format of 3D films because if they are so expensive to see they want to see it in proper 3D.

I also think these weird motion-capture type animations that are 3D don't really work. A Christmas Carol, Beowulf and Avatar occasionally work but overall don't seem to get the 3D technique quite right. So in some scenes there seems to be lots of depth and it looks and feels right and then there are other scenes where it looks like the whole 3D technique was forgotten about and it either looks too 2D or just rubbish where they've tried to add too much 3D and it stands out.

Then there are 3D films in the IMAX format. I've only seen Avatar and a documentary about fish in the ocean but it's so much more immersive (then again, just a normal IMAX film is epic) and the experience is fantastic.

Oh and don't get me started on so called 3D on DVD. It makes me so angry, no such thing should exist.

3D TVs at home? Don't really see the point but I'm intrigued.


Overall I think the only films worth it are ones filmed in 3D, IMAX 3D and animations. Give me depth over 'omg it's in your face' 3D anyday.

 

[Hixee]

^^Well, in fact, studies have shown that it is more difficult to watch a 3D film than a normal 2D film. In a 2D film the director used depth of field to highlight the key focus point in the film. The brain is extremely good, fast and efficient at noticing the 'in' focus part of the scene, making films with fast scene changes easy to watch. Due to the nature of 3D films, the depth of field effect isn't as noticeable, so the brain struggles to find the action in the scene, especially if it has fast action changes. Even though 3D is more similar to how our eyes actually view the world, we're not deciding where we want to look in a film, often meaning the 3D effect can confuse viewer's brains.

Now that's basically paraphrased what was written in a New Scientist article. I'm not sure about the science of it, but it certainly seems logical. Animated films are the only ones where I don't have a slight feeling of unease watching it.

I think it's a gimmick, I can't see it lasting another 10 years. It might do, but right now I'm not really fussed about it. The technique is still be explored, so who knows where it might lead?

 

[furie]

With the majority of the 3D films I've seen, I've found that generally I ignore the 3D after about 15 or 20 minutes anyway.

As I've said previously (and as Hixee points out), my brain is a complex bit of kit and it can work out 3-dimensional plains on a 2-dimensional screen.

The only times after the first short while of a 3D film I notice there's 3D, is as Hixee says (again). It's when the 3D is in tune to the focus of the action correctly. I think animated films can get this right because if it's made to be 3D, it can be much finer tuned to this.

I don't think it's a gimmick which is going to go away either. It's revitalised the cinema industry, got people back into cinemas and Sony are seriously pushing home 3D. It's their next Blu-ray.

Speaking of which, I've not played a 3D game yet, but apparently for racing games (particularly those who have played Gran Turismo 5) it's superb. The depth of vision really makes the game much better as you get a much greater feel of where you are on the track in relation to everything else, and the speed you're coming up on a competitor and the like. It would be interesting to see it in action, but not at the £1500+ price tag of a 3D TV :lol:

 

[Hixee]

but not at the £1500+ price tag of a 3D TV :lol:

That's a question in itself! What the hell even is a 3D TV? I've made 3D pictures and one piece of test footage that I have viewed on a normal 42" screen. We had the glasses already (Spy Kids 3D, which also works at home) so I don't see the advantage yet. Unless they don't require you to have the glasses, but I wasn't aware of one of those on the market yet. 3D TVs are definitely gimmick.

 

[furie]

Lots of home 3D TVs on the market already.

They use differing technologies though for the 3D effect, but they're all akin to the modern film, not red/green lenses.

I can't remember all the ways, but they basically interlace the two eyes on the screen alternately. There's then (in the active systems) a link between the glasses and the screen. When it's showing the left image, it makes the right eye of the glasses flash dark. So the glasses actually alternate switching on and off alternate eyes at 60 frames per second. I've not tried one yet, but it sounds like a nightmare to me.

However, it's supposed to be okay.

The other system is basically the passive system we see at the cinema. Polarised lenses of some kind and each eyes image set to the corresponding wavelength of the each side of the glasses. It's cheaper than the active stuff, but apparently isn't as good.

Both are 2000 times better than standard red/blue 3D-TV of old (and some of the new films).

They're also massively expensive and you need to buy a special TV AND compatible 3D hardware.

For home TV use, I don't see the point, but Sony are selling it on gaming and I think it may push it, as it's supposed to really be excellent.

There are glasses free screens too (like the new Nintendo 3DS employs), but they're prone to limited viewing angles.

Rumours are abound of a device that can change any TV into a 3D TV with active glasses for cheap. Again, for the number of films out there, is it worth it? If you have a PS3, maybe as there are something like 30 3D titles due out in the next 12 months with 3D support, including a large number of serious big hitters (Gran Turismo, Kilzone 3, Motorstorm 3... Erm, others).

If I remember correctly, Avatar 3D is exclusive to only one manufacturers hardware (as usual there are different standards for 3D). It's all a pain in the butt

 

[Nic]

Do I want things to come at me and make me jump for 90 mins? Yes.
Do I want depth and to feel part of the environment? Yes

Have the feature length 3D films that I've seen so far provided either of these things? No.

This leaves me with... 3D who cares it is not worth the extra cost. The films I've seen so far I did not feel were worth the extra cost. I'd have been just as happy seeing them in 2D. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a good idea - I do, and some 4D attractions (namely Shrek and the one at Drievliet), prove that 3D can be done well. I'm just yet to see a film at the cinema which has warranted the effort and cost.

PS. Wearing those 3D glasses over normal glasses is rubbish.

 

[Gavin]

I'm hoping that being able to see a 3D movie in basically any cinema will mean the death of the amusement park 3D/4D cinema; the single biggest waste of money and space in ANY park. **** me, I hate them.

 

[peep]

PS. Wearing those 3D glasses over normal glasses is rubbish.

Cineworld has come up with a solution for this. Actual lenses that you just attach to your normal pair of glasses. Annoyingly they are still trialling them at random cinemas in the UK but I do hope they become available at all cinemas as it sounds like a fantastic idea for those that already wear glasses.

 

[Thekingin64]

If Films are to be in 3d then they should actually work as 3D. I watched clash of the the titans in 3d a few weeks ago and the 3d did not work at all. does everyone agree the when the creature dies it should come out Of the Screen not look like it should and stay in the screen!!

 

[tomahawk]

I can't stand 3-D. Avatar, aka Pocahontas in space, was nothing more than an acid trip. Yeah it felt real, but then again, so does any other movie that is not anime. I worked at a movie theater for almost 4 years, two of them to be exact, and honestly, I prefer 2D. A. It's cheaper. B. Most movies that are 3D are converted afterwards making it look awful and fake. If a film is shot IN 3D, I will see it that way, otherwise, I see it in 2D because thats how it was actually shot. Animated movies are so advanced now that the feeling of depth is already there, without putting glasses on. Compare Toy Story 1 to Toy Story 3, the depth and change of scenery is incredible.

Until we are able to bring our own 3D glasses in and the extra cost is eliminated, ok it will just be added on, I will avoid it whenever I can.