Anyone notice that 3D makes a big screen seem much smaller? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 01-10-2010, 04:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
conan48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Igloo
Posts: 2,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 106
I've seen pretty much every 3D movie in the theatres since Ghosts of the Abyss. I've been to both IMAX 3D and many RealD 3D theatres. I find that watching 3D, even on a huge IMAX screen seems to give the same effect as watching a much smaller screen. It's as if I was watching my 50" plasma from 4 feet away.

I've find that I can see the entire screen without moving my eyes much at all. When I take the glasses off the screen seems much larger (of course it's blurry) and I need to move my eyes more to take in the image. I hadn't thought much about this untill my dad, who has not seen many 3D movies mentioned how small the screen seemed in 3D while watching Avatar.

Anyone else notice this? I find that watching 3D on my tiny 22" montior gives me almost the same experience as watching a 60 foot screen. Are our brains tricked into losing sense of scale and or size when watching 3D? Anyone else have a similar experience?
conan48 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 01-10-2010, 04:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Fabricator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: far sw sub chicago
Posts: 1,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
i was seeing the same thing, watching AVATAR. i was thinking it was the glass's. the klunky ones i was given, made me feel i was watching through toilet paper tubes.

chasing rattles ......

Pro8100 Cult member
Fabricator is offline  
post #3 of 31 Old 01-10-2010, 04:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
conan48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Igloo
Posts: 2,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 106
I have seen 3D with Polarized (REAlD) which are not very bulky, and IMAX (Active Shutter) which are bulky and both gave the effect of shrinking the screen.
conan48 is offline  
post #4 of 31 Old 01-10-2010, 05:17 PM
Newbie
 
Ken30NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I noticed this too and i think I have a decent explanation. When u are sitting in your seat the screen is about 50 feet away from you so it appears to be huge and takes up your whole field of view.

Once the movie starts the images on screen appear to be much further away from you then what the screen actually is. Maybe 100 to 200 feet and possibly much more on landscape shots. At this point you are not looking at a screen, its more like you are looking out a window.

A blank screen feels very large and in your face, but a window opens up your perspective and doesn't feel as big.
Ken30NYC is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 01-10-2010, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chris Dallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada & Malibu California.
Posts: 1,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabricator View Post

i was seeing the same thing, watching AVATAR. i was thinking it was the glass's. the klunky ones i was given, made me feel i was watching through toilet paper tubes.

That's because the IMAX 3-D Avatar was presented in 1.78:1 therefore not utilizing the entire surface whereas the actual IMAX screen has an area of 1.43:1

All hollywood movies (for the exception of 45min of the Dark Knight) are shown on IMAX screens with banding at the top and bottom in order to preserve the widescreen nature of the image..actual IMAX documentaries or mini features that were shot with IMAX cameras engulf the entire screen.

If there is banding, the overall image will be smaller than if there isn't, but viewers won't necessarily tune into that...the viewer tends to lose focus as to what the image size is or whether there is or isn't any banding.

The Dark Knight is the only film to date (I believe) utilizing the IMAX cameras but only in some of the scenes, I think about 45-50min of the movie was shot using these IMAX cameras which is easy to spot because of the difference in picture quality and more obvious the change of the multiple aspect ratios. Some scenes have banding at the top and bottom, while others open up and fill the entire 1.43:1 screen area.

Cheers
Chris

Sony VPL-VW500ES, 150" width 2.35:1 screen, Proud owner of 1 of 399 Enzo Ferrari's in the world, a gorgeous yellow Ferrari 599GTB, + a 1970 Road Runner see it here

Chris Dallas is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 01-10-2010, 05:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Pultzar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle, Wa, USA
Posts: 882
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think that it makes sense. For example, take one of those underwater nature movies filmed in IMAX 3D. If they want to have a small fish swimming very close to your face, such that all you can see is the fish because it is so close, it needs to be projected such that it fills almost the entire screen thus filling your field of view (just as a small fish would fill your field of view if it were swimming close to your face).

So your brain sees this tiny little fish. It looks small.

Now take off the 3D glasses. What does your brain see? It sees a huge blurry fish on a giant screen located 50 feet in front of you. Sure the fish looks giant now but it also looks much further away.

This is one phenomena. I'm sure that wearing the 3D glasses also masks out much if your surroundings and gives you less perspective on how big the screen is compared to other things in the room.

How were you watching 3D on your 22" monitor?
Pultzar is offline  
post #7 of 31 Old 01-10-2010, 06:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
conan48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Igloo
Posts: 2,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Great responses. It makes sense, and I like the analogy of looking through a window. We are looking "past" or into the screen rather then looking "at" the screen.

Im using Nvidia 3D shutter glasses on my PC. Mostly for gaming, but there are some amazing videos out there that I have seen in 3D and I have a program that converts 2D to 3D. I guess sitting closer or getting a bigger screen woud be even more beneficial for 3D viewing.
conan48 is offline  
post #8 of 31 Old 01-10-2010, 08:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KyaDawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,040
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I think there is another reason for this, and I noticed it while watching "Beowulf" and also at some amusement parks on their 3D "rides". Depending on the framing of the shot, if the object is presented as a close-up, such as a floating fork (for example), the 3D effect makes it seem like it's right in front on you. However, the amount of visual real estate that a movie screen can present, even if it's 5 stories, is very small compared to one's normal field of vision. Therefore, that floating fork, even it's a close up and taking the entire height of the screen, will seem relatively small compared to if you were holding a real fork directly up to your nose. However, on a 2D screen, that fork looks like it's 40 feet tall, since there is no 3D depth perception.

Probably not the best or most eloquent way to explain it. However, I find that "shrinking" effect to be less prevalent on wide shots like vistas or more prevalent on close-ups, when the 3D object is presented as closer to the viewer.
KyaDawn is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 01-11-2010, 11:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
jlanzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken30NYC View Post

I noticed this too and i think I have a decent explanation. When u are sitting in your seat the screen is about 50 feet away from you so it appears to be huge and takes up your whole field of view.

Once the movie starts the images on screen appear to be much further away from you then what the screen actually is. Maybe 100 to 200 feet and possibly much more on landscape shots. At this point you are not looking at a screen, its more like you are looking out a window.

A blank screen feels very large and in your face, but a window opens up your perspective and doesn't feel as big.

Wow, I gotta get a pair of these glasses and put them on when my in-laws visit, since it will appear they are far away on the other side of a window then I can close the shutters
jlanzy is offline  
post #10 of 31 Old 01-11-2010, 12:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
Norde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City,CA,USA
Posts: 560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This smallness is even more pronounced when looking at a plasma or LCD
screen. A quick visit to CES convinced me that a 65" screen is minimum for a flat panel 3D viewing.

A live soccer game, supposedly the holy grail sport for 3D, looked like a video game with poor graphics on a 42" screen.
Norde is online now  
post #11 of 31 Old 01-11-2010, 12:33 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:


Anyone notice that 3D makes a big screen seem much smaller?

Better take the glasses off before going to the bathroom.
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #12 of 31 Old 01-11-2010, 12:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
Pultzar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle, Wa, USA
Posts: 882
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Better take the glasses off before going to the bathroom.

Unless you want something to appear very close to your face.
Pultzar is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 01-11-2010, 02:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GoCaboNow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post

I've find that I can see the entire screen without moving my eyes much at all. When I take the glasses off the screen seems much larger (of course it's blurry) and I need to move my eyes more to take in the image. I hadn't thought much about this untill my dad, who has not seen many 3D movies mentioned how small the screen seemed in 3D while watching Avatar.

Anyone else notice this?

It was the same with me watching Avatar as well. I noticed it immediately and was slightly bummed about it. Once the movie got going and I was immersed in the 3d it became less of an issue. I figured it was a tradeoff in experiences between perspecitve of size and the 3d immersion effect.

Location: Beaverton, Oregon
My Dedicated Home Theater Room
GoCaboNow is offline  
post #14 of 31 Old 01-11-2010, 11:01 PM
Member
 
hkhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pultzar View Post

I think that it makes sense. For example, take one of those underwater nature movies filmed in IMAX 3D. If they want to have a small fish swimming very close to your face, such that all you can see is the fish because it is so close, it needs to be projected such that it fills almost the entire screen thus filling your field of view (just as a small fish would fill your field of view if it were swimming close to your face).

So your brain sees this tiny little fish. It looks small.

Now take off the 3D glasses. What does your brain see? It sees a huge blurry fish on a giant screen located 50 feet in front of you. Sure the fish looks giant now but it also looks much further away.

This is one phenomena. I'm sure that wearing the 3D glasses also masks out much if your surroundings and gives you less perspective on how big the screen is compared to other things in the room.

How were you watching 3D on your 22" monitor?

I think you have nailed it.

I also noticed that watching Avatar, I was constantly looking around at all the little details and constantly changing my focus. Usually, when I watch a movie or TV I look at the entire image at once, but in Avatar I was always looking more intently at one or two things in each particular shot and usually not taking everything in from edge to edge at once like I usually do when watching movies. The 3D is just much more immersive, instead of looking at the entire shot I found myself investigating every little nook and cranny with more attention and that meant that what I focused on at any one time was usually much smaller than the entire screen.
hkhawk is offline  
post #15 of 31 Old 01-11-2010, 11:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gremmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but watching Avatar, the SCREEN size was the last thing on my mind. In fact, it felt as though I had fallen into the action on the screen, like I was actually IN Pandora.

My wife and I were talking about this the other day. We both want to see the movie again, but not because we want to see the movie per se, but rather because we want to go back to Pandora. Seriously, that movie felt like I was on a trip, and I don't even do drugs.

To me, after a while, it felt like there was no screen.
gremmy is offline  
post #16 of 31 Old 02-26-2010, 02:08 PM
Member
 
Pando's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I saw Avatar in IMAX 3d (seated in mid-section), and I noticed this effect also. The actual distance to the screen become irrelevant and all that mattered was the viewing angle to the edges of the screen. I started thinking that it felt like I could get the same effect watching it in my living room (if I had a 3d TV).

It made me wish that they should come up with a Super-IMAX screen that fills your field of view completely so that you can experience 3d in the peripheral view as well. Now that would truly be immersive.
Pando is offline  
post #17 of 31 Old 02-26-2010, 03:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Interesting Pando....

I did find that 3D Aavatar seemed to some how allow me to feel the borders of the screen more. So similar effect at least.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #18 of 31 Old 02-26-2010, 06:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,623
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

Interesting Pando....

I did find that 3D Aavatar seemed to some how allow me to feel the borders of the screen more. So similar effect at least.

Now imagine that on your average 50" plasma.... It'd be like looking down at your watch!

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #19 of 31 Old 02-26-2010, 11:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fire407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Now imagine that on your average 50" plasma.... It'd be like looking down at your watch!

Some of the best looking 3D at CES was on a 21 inch Sony OLED TV. The effect was just as good as looking at the larger displays, and the color and clarity of the OLED was the best of any technology. I don't think the smaller screen sizes will keep people from enjoying 3D. Having said that, I still want to get either a 65" plasma or 73" LCD this year, because especially for 2D, bigger is better.
fire407 is offline  
post #20 of 31 Old 02-26-2010, 11:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norde View Post

This smallness is even more pronounced when looking at a plasma or LCD
screen. A quick visit to CES convinced me that a 65" screen is minimum for a flat panel 3D viewing.

A 65" screen is about 56" x 32" high (if I did the math correctly!) In preparation for UHDTV, NHK 'determined' that for optimal immersion, the correct seating position is around 0.75 x screen height away from the display . . . that translates into around 24" for a 65" class screen! [I sat about 1.0 x screen height away from the screen at Avatar 3D, and though it worked out just about right...]

And if you think 24" inches from the screen is too close, there are two other major problems: (1) the visual 'sweet spot' can probably fit only about two people 'shoulder to shoulder', and (2) the 'sound stage' is a room only about 6' square!

Good news! With an 8' ceiling, you can fit a 96" height screen in your house (200" class), and sit six to eight feet from the screen . . . which probably explains why some industry estimates are that the *primary* display in the home, in around 2020, will be 100" to 200" class! (Which living room wall am I going to strip bare?!) Time to buy stock in a display manufacturing company!

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is online now  
post #21 of 31 Old 02-27-2010, 01:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fire407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

A 65" screen is about 56" x 32" high (if I did the math correctly!) In preparation for UHDTV, NHK 'determined' that for optimal immersion, the correct seating position is around 0.75 x screen height away from the display . . . that translates into around 24" for a 65" class screen! [I sat about 1.0 x screen height away from the screen at Avatar 3D, and though it worked out just about right...]

And if you think 24" inches from the screen is too close, there are two other major problems: (1) the visual 'sweet spot' can probably fit only about two people 'shoulder to shoulder', and (2) the 'sound stage' is a room only about 6' square!

Good news! With an 8' ceiling, you can fit a 96" height screen in your house (200" class), and sit six to eight feet from the screen . . . which probably explains why some industry estimates are that the *primary* display in the home, in around 2020, will be 100" to 200" class! (Which living room wall am I going to strip bare?!) Time to buy stock in a display manufacturing company!

I was never that close to the TVs at CES and the 3D effect was very good on the sets I saw. I hope that in ten years OLED technology will be cheap enough to where there will be paper thin displays that will pull down and cover a wall. The picture would be just about perfect and they would be very energy efficient. 100" to 200" might be considered small.
fire407 is offline  
post #22 of 31 Old 02-28-2010, 08:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post

I've find that I can see the entire screen without moving my eyes much at all.

Maybe, as an experienced watcher of 3D, you've let your eyes be trained to point toward an object in the plane of the camera focus, since if you look away from it, you'll see objects at a different depth which you will not be able to focus on (as you would be for real life objects). That's true for 2D to an extent, but the effect should be more pronounced for 3D, and should make 3D more immersive, because the director can better control your attention.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #23 of 31 Old 03-01-2010, 01:24 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

A 65" screen is about 56" x 32" high (if I did the math correctly!) In preparation for UHDTV, NHK 'determined' that for optimal immersion, the correct seating position is around 0.75 x screen height away from the display . . . that translates into around 24" for a 65" class screen! [I sat about 1.0 x screen height away from the screen at Avatar 3D, and though it worked out just about right...]

And if you think 24" inches from the screen is too close, there are two other major problems: (1) the visual 'sweet spot' can probably fit only about two people 'shoulder to shoulder', and (2) the 'sound stage' is a room only about 6' square!

Good news! With an 8' ceiling, you can fit a 96" height screen in your house (200" class), and sit six to eight feet from the screen . . . which probably explains why some industry estimates are that the *primary* display in the home, in around 2020, will be 100" to 200" class! (Which living room wall am I going to strip bare?!) Time to buy stock in a display manufacturing company!

And now - the rest of the story . . .



33 megapixel Super Hi-Vision (Ultra HDTV) could be on the air in 2015

Quote:


The technology, to be called "Super Hi-Vision", could show images of about 33 million pixels, 16 times more than the present Hi-Vision technology, a high-definition TV technology developed by public broadcaster NHK, it said.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/14/3...on-the-air-in/
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #24 of 31 Old 03-02-2010, 02:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
NorthTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I see NHK projects the new technology to be available in 5 years. That probably means 15 years for the U.S. It took ten years for the U.S. to catch up with wide screen TV that had been available in Japan for a decade and it was being broadcast in close to HD resolution during all that time.
NorthTV is offline  
post #25 of 31 Old 03-02-2010, 06:35 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
This might help to explain why 3D looks smaller on a big screen:

http://www.in-three.com/downloads/stereop-wp.pdf
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #26 of 31 Old 03-07-2010, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthTV View Post

I see NHK projects the new technology to be available in 5 years. That probably means 15 years for the U.S. It took ten years for the U.S. to catch up with wide screen TV that had been available in Japan for a decade and it was being broadcast in close to HD resolution during all that time.

Considering NHK already broadcast (albeit analog) HD back in 1992 (the first time I remember watching HD) and we don't get to watch HD until around 2004 (in Canada), I guess Canadians will have to wait at least another 17 years before we can watch it here... let alone proper penetration of the technology (even now in 2010 HD penetration in Canada is minimal at best)

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
post #27 of 31 Old 03-07-2010, 06:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

33 megapixel Super Hi-Vision (Ultra HDTV) could be on the air in 2015.

7680x4320 resolution Super Hi-Vision, also known as UHDTV2, is 33 megapixel, but [I believe] the initial NHK test transmissions to start sometime in 2015-2017 are likely to be UHDTV1 (3840x2160 resolution, which I guess translates to 8+ megapixel). The econometrics forecasts that "28% of European households will have SHV receivers by 2025" most likely refer to UHDTV1 broadcasting, and I'm not sure they distinguish between households with 3480x2160 sets, or homes with a 720/1080HDTV set plus an SHV-to-HDTV converter box.

[Just so long as the 22.2 channel audio is available right from the beginning of SHV, I'll be happy! ]

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is online now  
post #28 of 31 Old 03-08-2010, 04:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wesley Hester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Selma, Alabama, USA
Posts: 1,992
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I agree with the original poster. The best 3D I ever saw was at an IMAX many years ago and I thought then it was because the freaking screen was several stories high and decided then that: the bigger the screen, the better the 3D. Of course I can't fit an IMAX into my living room but I do know that I want something at least near the same size as my current HDTV (56") or bigger. Definitely not smaller.
Wesley Hester is offline  
post #29 of 31 Old 03-11-2010, 07:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Bigger is definitely better for 3D. Here's how I know. When I first saw Avatar, I sat where I usually sit in a theater - a little less than half way back, in the middle. The next time (without knowing exactly why I was doing it, and contrary to all my previous viewing habits) I sat 5th row center. I've almost never sat that close in a regular movie. The only times I've done it, I was uncomfortable and my eyes and neck felt strained afterward. Guess what? I enjoyed Avatar so much more the second time around, and I experienced none of the problems I'd experienced in regular films.

I've read that James Cameron prefers 1.78:1 for 3D, but not for 2D films. I think the reason is pretty simple. The feeling of depth I had by sitting so close in Avatar was enhanced when the edges of the screen disappeared as much as possible, left to right and top to bottom. Scope films limit the height, and the top and bottom borders limit the sense of envelopment. In a 2D film, being that close is overwhelming. In a 3D film, it's that much easier to become a part of the time and the space of the film. When I saw the 3D Space Station film at the Smithsonian, in IMAX, I felt that I was in that space. I felt the same way watching Avatar. It's just that with Avatar, that sense of being in that place was thrilling - I mean really, really thrilling. I liked it so much that I went back, and sat close, 2 more times.

I know that I felt more detached from the story in Avatar the first time I saw it. When I sat closer, I felt the place more. I felt the characters' feelings more intensely. I didn't worry so much about the story (which I still feel is not nearly as strong as the visuals).

I'm already making plans to move my seat closer and to the middle of the room for 3D films. I can't go larger than 110" with my screen. I'll have to make that work. What I do expect to happen, with Avatar, is a better experience at home than at the theater. I suspect Avatar will be 1.78:1, since Cameron believes this works better (and I suspect it will for me, too, based on my up-close and personal experience in the theater). I also expect the contrast and color will be better on my projector at home. I suspect that no 3D small screen will ever work for me. It's going to have to be projection.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #30 of 31 Old 03-11-2010, 07:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
As soon as I finished the last post, I thought I'd misrepresented one other feeling I've had with 3D. I don't want to imply that it was just the grandeur of Avatar that pulled me in so completely. That was certainly true. It was also true that I felt emotions more intensely because of that 3D envelopment. I honestly believe that there is as much potential for 3D to enhance personal and intimate moments in film as it does soaring over Pandora on a Banshee. We'll see it, and I don't think it will take that long for filmmakers to embrace the potential. I can already see so many such scenes in my mind's eye. One day, before too long, we'll be blown away by a gifted 3D filmmaker who makes us feel pain, sorrow, joy, fear and grief more intensely than we ever have before. We did see it in Avatar, when Zoe Saldana reacts with such horror to the revelation that Jake came to them as a spy. In many ways, that was one of the biggest highlights of the film for me.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
Reply 3D Tech Talk

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off