This is an intriguing discussion. I'm on the bullish side about RE in 3D, but admittedly there are a few scenes that are fairly flat. Then again, I don't think a lot of depth is appropriate for every scene in every movie. My desk, where I'm typing is against the wall in a narrow room. Life can be flat.
If you browse user blu-ray 3D reviews on Amazon, which arguably features a lot of unsophisticated feedback, you'll read angry criticism from those expecting a constant assault on the senses. If T-Rex isn't jumping off the screen and barfing on their lap, they feel cheated.
I'm confident that is not
what is going on here, but I wonder if our subconscious "mental set" (expectations) come into play. For example: I thought Pirahna 3D looked fairly flat. Since others have been impressed by the depth, I wouldn't rule out my own psychological "set", whether I was aware of it or not. I don't know if this little theory of mine has merit, but I'm adding it to the mix of possible perception differences.
This article is exactly a year old, but if you haven't seen it, it provides a couple of stereo-acuity tests:http://www.mediacollege.com/3d/depth...ereoblind.html
Originally Posted by Droozy
I thought the reverse field of depth (going to the Back of TV) was stunning.... the pop out of screen depth was limited though, and truly, alot of beginner 3d people, thats all there really looking for is frontal depth. Which is not what 3D is about IMO.
I take some
exception to that. I've been a 3D fan since I was a little kid in the 60's. I still love in front of the screen effects when they're used the same way a great chef uses seasoning. Unfortunately, too many directors go overboard, but directorial excess also applies to a lot of movie making techniques these days (i.e. high speed shutter, shaky cam, etc.).