or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Chris Nolan on why Dark Knight is 2D: "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chris Nolan on why Dark Knight is 2D: "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D" - Page 5

post #121 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

I2D just isn't a natural way to see anything when most of us have sterescopic vision.

Current 3D is actually what I find unnatural. We only see stereoscopic depth in one focal length. 3D with the variety of focal lengths employed by cinematographers and directors is not what the human mind is really equipped to process...I think it's thoroughly appropriate to discuss our individual opinions on 3D in this thread as it is what the subject is about. Why should only positive opinions be heard? That is not a discussion. It's a cheering section.
post #122 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

2D just isn't a natural way to see anything when most of us have sterescopic vision.

Yeah... its much more natural to watch an image on a two dimensional screen and have your eyes and brain manipulated and fooled into thinking some parts of the image have artificial depth.
post #123 of 320
Arguments such as the above suggesting that stereoscopic 3D is artificial or an illusion, an argument that is repeated often, strike me as trying too hard to find problems with 3D. The stereo construct our brains create is real and we do in fact perceive depth. I don't see how the fact that we're looking at a TV has now become a problem. It's an array of pixels. It's been artificial the whole time. eek.gif

So don't enjoy this smiley. smile.gif It may look like a smiley, but know that it is in fact an arrangement of colored pixels which trick your brain into thinking you're seeing a 2D smiley!
post #124 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Arguments such as the above suggesting that stereoscopic 3D is artificial or an illusion, an argument that is repeated often, strike me as trying too hard to find problems with 3D. The stereo construct our brains create is real and we do in fact perceive depth. I don't see how the fact that we're looking at a TV has now become a problem. It's an array of pixels. It's been artificial the whole time. eek.gif
So don't enjoy this smiley. smile.gif It may look like a smiley, but know that it is in fact an arrangement of colored pixels which trick your brain into thinking you're seeing a 2D smiley!

Err except the examples you quoted exist as they are seen....... we dont have to wear artificial eyewear feeding different signals to each eye to create an illusion that the smiley is half an inch thick.
post #125 of 320
I have only seen a few movies in the theater that are 3D and I have found them to be complete garbage. However, my old projector died and I ended up getting a 3D dlp projector. The 3D wasn't important to me at the time, but I figured I'd brace for the future. I have gotta say that, on my setup, natively shot 3D movies look absolutely exceptional and I would take them over their 2D counterpart every day of the week and twice on Sunday. To me, it adds a hell of a lot to the experience. It's just too bad that there doesn't seem to be some standard that every movie theater is expected (and enforced...somehow) to live up to.
post #126 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by btiltman View Post

Err except the examples you quoted exist as they are seen....... we dont have to wear artificial eyewear feeding different signals to each eye to create an illusion that the smiley is half an inch thick.

What's artificial here is where you choose to draw the line.
post #127 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by btiltman View Post

Yeah... its much more natural to watch an image on a two dimensional screen and have your eyes and brain manipulated and fooled into thinking some parts of the image have artificial depth.

Everything you look at and see in 3D is composed of two images from slightly different perspectives. Granted objects in the real world have shape which images on a flat screen don't have but if you close one eye and look at shaped objects in the real world you can see that you start to depend on other depth clues to interpret shape.

Secondly, I would point out that surgoens use sterescopic 3D to perform complex operations on people on a regular basis with no apparent problems judging distances, positions of organs, veins and arteries etc dispite the fact that they are seeing 3D created from two 2D images via a camera. That would suggest that 3D created in this manner which you call brain manipulation, works very well indeed.

The fact is that its the different points of view in each eye that creates the sense of depth regardless of whether or not the objects are real world objects with actual shape or formed from two 2D images. 3D stereoscopic vision is a function of sight and sight is very much a function of the brain. Its all created in our heads at the end of the day.
Edited by cbcdesign - 7/22/12 at 1:01pm
post #128 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by btiltman View Post

Yeah... its much more natural to watch an image on a two dimensional screen and have your eyes and brain manipulated and fooled into thinking some parts of the image have artificial depth.

Not too much different than watching a 2D image and having your eyes and brain being fooled into thinking there is depth (artifical) because of the contrast ratio. Of course 3D provides more depth than 2D does.
post #129 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I seriously doubt that. Not with over 20% of the population having physical issues with 3D which BTW did not exist with either of the two examples you listed.

People are colour blind but that didn't stop us moving to colour video. Some are deaf in one ear too, that didn't stop multi channel sound either.

When the technology reaches the point where glasses are not required and it will reach that point eventually, stereoscopic video, tv in particular will almost certainly become the norm. Technology doesn't stop evolving simply because a minority have physical issues with stereoscopic vision. There will be a 2D option I dare say for the minority with physical issues but I just can't see 2D dominating forever.

I don't pretend that this is going to happen quickly mind you, it could take a decade or two.
Edited by cbcdesign - 7/22/12 at 1:26pm
post #130 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

People are colour blind but that didn't stop us moving to colour video. Some are deaf in one ear too, that didn't stop multi channel sound either.

"About 8 percent of males, but only 0.5 percent of females, are color blind in some way or another"

Nowheres near the 20% for those that suffer physical side effects when watching 3D. Plus there are no physical side effects to either being color blind or deaf in one ear.
Quote:
When the technology reaches the point where glasses are not required and it will reach that point eventually, stereoscopic video, tv in particular will almost certainly become the norm. Technology doesn't stop evolving simply because a minority have physical issues with stereoscopic vision. There will be a 2D option I dare say for the minority with physical issues but I just can't see 2D dominating forever.
I don't pretend that this is going to happen quickly mind you, it could take a decade or two.

Removing the glasses to see 3D (Autostereoscopic 3D) does not always remove the physical side effects. It depends on their ailment and or the severity of their eye muscle imbalance.

It's been 7 years since the rebirth of 3D in movie theaters and the number of 3D movies still remains less than 10% of total movie production. . For television, it is probably less than 1% (3D content) and we passed the 3D-TV 2 year anniversary 4 months ago.

3D has been and always will be a novelty. The future will be Quad HD (4K) and Super Hi Vision (8K) - both in 2D (lions share of content). With SHV, you don't need 3D. It is literally like looking out a window.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 7/22/12 at 2:05pm
post #131 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

While I don't mind seeing a movie in 3D once in a while for me it adds nothing to the movie experience. On the contrary, having to wear uncomfortable glasses and those weird cross-eyed moments that happen from time to time, I'd say it actually takes away from the movie experience.
Oh, and 3D is a gimmick. More than some simply a technological advancement, it's a calculated marketing move rolled out when ticket sales sag. I'm glad to see someone commenting honestly on it. Up to now the only press you see are the marketing people and the fanboys. I wonder if someone as respected as Nolan bucking the 3D trend will be the tipping point for 3D. While I don't care if it exists--I'd like it to be available for those who prefer it over 2D--if it's ever between 3D and 2D I'll opt for the 2D.

Yes, we know its a "gimmick".

Its mentioned about 20 times in every 3D thread.
post #132 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1 View Post

I have a VT30. Tons of blu rays in 3D and hate watching the 3D version. I still feel its a gimmick and nothing more than a way for movie companies, producers, and directors to profit more on exploiting mostly badly converted 3D films. I end up thinking about the glasses on my face more than the movie. It's a shame that artistic integrity is constantly challenge by the almighty dollar.

Is there really "tons" of 3D Blu-rays?
post #133 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

Yes, we know its a "gimmick".
Its mentioned about 20 times in every 3D thread.

So is Multichannel sound a gimmick. More so because almost all the sounds we hear are artifically created. Like the snapping of celery stalks to make us believe the sound of an actor getting punched in the jaw.

LOL - can anyone really say with conviction what the roar of a T-Rex sounds like as they all have been dead for 65 million years. Did it roar? How would you know?

But people don't have a problem with that gimmick do they?
post #134 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

Is there really "tons" of 3D Blu-rays?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1235684/the-official-avs-3d-blu-ray-release-schedule
post #135 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Approx. 10 to 20% of "the masses" suffer from side effects trying to watch 3D. Most are caused by an eye muscle imbalance. Something that only causes issues watching 3D - no issues with normal vision. So approx. 80% have no side effects from watching 3D. Most of the resistance (IMO) comes from the premium added to 3D tickets. If there was simply a $1 premium placed on 3D tickets, I firmly believe you would see vastly different numbers than are showing up today where the premium is considerably higher.

Well, if one goes to a 3D movie for the first time an gets a headache, I would think it would be their last time going to see one.

I think the the premium is generally to high for 3D and a good reason why ticket sales have perhaps lagged.

I just got a Samsung PN60E7000 plasma set and it seems to handle 3D pretty well. As with quit a few movies, I think I will just wait for the disc to come out and then watch.
post #136 of 320

Well, I guess that is a "ton"?
post #137 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So is Multichannel sound a gimmick. More so because almost all the sounds we hear are artifically created. Like the snapping of celery stalks to make us believe the sound of an actor getting punched in the jaw.
LOL - can anyone really say with conviction what the roar of a T-Rex sounds like as they all have been dead for 65 million years. Did it roar? How would you know?
But people don't have a problem with that gimmick do they?

Well, I have never said it was a gimmick. Many do though.

I actually like it though it does vary from film to film and I have not seen a whole lot as of yet.

I like multi-channel sound by the way.
post #138 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuddles View Post

I agree with Nolan. While I have certainly seen some films in 3D that created "Wow" moments, for the most part I find the 3D in movies to be either annoyingly distracting or something that I complete forget about after the first half hour, and either way my eyes feel strained by the end. There are movies that really take advantage of it like Avatar or Hugo but I still feel those films are just as enjoyable in 2D for the most part. And even then were talking about a very small amount of films. Many films with 3D are still either using it as a tired gimmick or poorly implemented it as a way to make more money off ticket sales.
If that wasn't bad enough, if I want to see a 3D movie I have to choose to see it alone. My girlfriend is part of the 10% who can't see 3D, and all my friends either dislike it or get nausea or headaches viewing it for too long.
I don't think that's contradictory at all. He feels like filming in IMAX adds to the movies he makes, and he doesn't feel the same way about 3D.
Anyways, glad he's not making 3D movies if he doesn't like them, because obviously that would be a negative experience for all involved. I'm sure some directors aren't free to make that choice and I suspect many post-conversions happen without their permission.

I think these I hate #d replies can just be cut and pasted.

Would save typing for some. smile.gif
post #139 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

I certainly am not a basher of 3D, but I am also not yet fully convinced that I should join the dedicated 3D cult members who want to silence anyone who is not mesmerized by it, to the point where they keep demanding that all non true-believers leave their temple at once.
It is no different that people expressing different viewpoints about various other video technologies and hardware on this site, so all you 3D cult members, stop telling those who are not members of your temple that they should not express their opinions about 3D. They have a much right to do so, as you do. Your attitude is going to sour people on even trying it, since they would not want to be linked with such a group of insular knee- jerks!

Well, calling us "cult" members does not exactly help.
post #140 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by WagBoss View Post

Personally, I would pay 3D prices to watch 2D movies if hollywood would stop making 3D movies wink.gif
note I don't suffer from any of the "side effects" I just don't like the glasses, darker picture, and being forced to focus on certain objects while watching a big screen.

You hate 3D.

Boo hoo.
post #141 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

Well, I have never said it was a gimmick. Many do though.
I actually like it though it does vary from film to film and I have not seen a whole lot as of yet.
I like multi-channel sound by the way.

3D is a movie presentation technology like other movie presentation technologies (past and present):

Sensurround
Cinerama
Multichannel Sound
Widescreen (70mm and 2.35/2.39/2.40)
VistaVision
IMAX 15/70
D-Box
4D

But 3D is the most controversal isn't it? Why is that?
post #142 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

But 3D is the most controversal isn't it? Why is that?

IT GIVES PEOPLE HEADACHES!
post #143 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

IT GIVES PEOPLE HEADACHES!

But according to cbcdesign . . . that is not going to be a consideration.
post #144 of 320
With all the piracy problems going on over the last decade, i think not shooting in 3d was probably a wise decision on his behalf. I'm not bothered whether i see it in 3d or not, but i guess others would love to. dont see why not to shoot in both and then let the viewer decide
post #145 of 320
At this time we're still cavemen messing around with the wheel and fire. It's going to take time to master 3D. Even though it's been around for 160 years or more it's only been marginally practical for the past year thanks to lighter digital cameras and 3D rigs. It's exciting though because some filmmakers are nailing it on their first try, which bodes well for the future.

Hating 3D based on the success rate of today's films is like saying baseball sucks because your home team is in last place. Both are exciting when done well.
post #146 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeburroughs View Post

With all the piracy problems going on over the last decade, i think not shooting in 3d was probably a wise decision on his behalf. I'm not bothered whether i see it in 3d or not, but i guess others would love to. dont see why not to shoot in both and then let the viewer decide

1. Nolan is not a fan of 3D (that's what this thread is all about right?)

2. Shooting in IMAX 3D would have been that much more expensive (2X the IMAX budget).
post #147 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

1. Nolan is not a fan of 3D (that's what this thread is all about right?)
He may not be a fan of it but he's not 100% opposed to it.
post #148 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrobitaille23 View Post

translation: I am afraid to try because I may fail to deliver my movie in 3D successfully. Avatar, Avengers, Dark of the Moon, Hugo, and any Pixar in 3d are all stunning.

First of all Pixar isn't even live action - it's inherently better suited to the 3D format. And Transformers 3D gave me headaches. So what are you left with? Avatar really remains the sole justifiable reason to opt for 3D - a completely CGai world whose depth came to life in 3D.

I did end up some movies like watching Thor and Avengers in 3D, but only because 2D was sold out. Sometimes we have to take the 3D glasses off just to 'take a break' - is that really your idea of "stunning"?
post #149 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

First of all Pixar isn't even live action - it's inherently better suited to the 3D format.
Sure, being CG makes things a little more possible, like epic camera work, but the live action movies are actually more hampered in large part due to filmmakers being stuck thinking in 2D and not knowing how to envision a 3D movie from the preproduction stage, whereas CG movie makers take the time to get their stereography just right, even after the animations have been done.
Quote:
Transformers 3D gave me headaches.
So your particular screening gave you a headache... clearly it didn't do that with everyone.
Quote:
Avatar really remains the sole justifiable reason to opt for 3D - a completely CGai world whose depth came to life in 3D.
Here you go again, arguing with someone who merely had an opinion. No intelligent person is going to play that game.
Quote:
I did end up some movies like watching Thor and Avengers in 3D, but only because 2D was sold out.
I was unimpressed by the 3D in Avengers and the Thor trailer.They were conversions done not for art, but for money, and more time was spent making sure the heroes' muscles were well oiled rather than how the 3D was going to compare to the best. So what if they weren't good in 3D? When people try 3D is good, that's what counts.
Quote:
Sometimes we have to take the 3D glasses off just to 'take a break' - is that really your idea of "stunning"?
Whatever dark recess you pulled that comment from, it wasn't constructive or well thought out.
post #150 of 320
The movie studios should just focus on making great films, and forget about this 3D nonsense.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Chris Nolan on why Dark Knight is 2D: "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D"