Chris Nolan on why Dark Knight is 2D: "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D" - Page 9

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart 

There is always "something around the corner" and especially now as 3DTV has not proved to be the success that the CEMs wanted. Next up - higher resolution ("4K"). It will be very expensive with little if any native content.

Originally Posted by repete66211 

Indeed, technology is a constant-flowing river, but my primary concern is with the development of an LED that produces better blacks.

Originally Posted by cybertec 

So, how many Academy awards have any of these 3D movies captured, yea I thought so. Avatar was the first big 3D flick with nice eye candy, but a horrid story line, the script and acting where horrendous, same goes for Tron, the original Tron was light years better in production, acting, script and story line, so can someone tell me what does 3D do for a movie, nothing. All these movie studios think they can just throw out a 3D flick with no regard to any type of story line and competent script or decent acting. The industry has run out of good ideas and good story telling, so all they do is rehash old films, and by throwing some 3D hoping to get an audience,, the film industry has been in trouble for quite some time now, to me this is nothing but desperate measures. For every one good movie that makes the studios money, there is 5-10 that lose boat loads of cash.

Originally Posted by Steve Tack 

Can you list some examples of emotional dialog scenes that are enhanced by 3D? I'm not doubting you, I just can't recall any of those myself. Maybe I just haven't seen the same 3D movies that you have.

Originally Posted by sb1 

Nolan simply has no future in movie making if he continues down this path. What a hack.

Originally Posted by wse 

There is also the "Shutter Effect." In a stereoscopic 3D broadcast, both cameras snap a picture at the same time, 60 times per second. However, on the screen, those two pictures are shown at different times , first for one eye, then for the other , making a fast-moving object appear to be in the foreground when it isn't.

Would it be worth an extra $8 for you to be able to smell your movie?
Great it's not enough that it cause headaches and disorientation now it will smell like S... but the guy sitting next to you didn't wash so who needs 4D

Originally Posted by cakefoo 

Hugo. Sure its only one movie, but someone had to do something as a proof of concept before others would follow.

Originally Posted by wse 

3D sucks here are all the health problem for a very large percentage of the population
BERKELEY, CA (KGO) -- More 3D movies than ever are in theaters now and manufacturers are selling 3D TVs. Yet, surprisingly little is known about the effects of stereo vision on our brains.
So, researchers at UC Berkeley are applying cutting-edge technology to find out. They are driving to discover what happens when 3D goes bad.
"Headaches and discomfort that's caused by the aberrations in the image that your eyes and brain don't expect are now gone when the 3D is produced correctly," explains Howard Postley with 3Ality Digital. Yes, but when it's not "produced correctly"?
"I know what to look for and, once you see the problems, they drive you nuts," says UC Berkeley Visual Science Professor Martin Banks.
Banks' lab at UC Berkeley is breaking new ground in the way we perceive depth. Surprisingly little is known about the physiology of stereoscopic vision. Enabling test subjects to see two screens at once using mirrors, his team has established some of the things that lead to bad 3D.
For example, much of what is marketed as "3D" today is really 2D with artificial depth added by computer. When done too quickly, as in Clash of the Titans, it can give you a headache.
Close-ups can unsettle the brain. Often, an object that is supposed to be 4 feet from the viewer, is projected onto a screen 40 feet away. An experiment by Emily Cooper's found that audiences do not take viewing distance into account.
There is also the "Shutter Effect." In a stereoscopic 3D broadcast, both cameras snap a picture at the same time, 60 times per second. However, on the screen, those two pictures are shown at different times , first for one eye, then for the other , making a fast-moving object appear to be in the foreground when it isn't.
The world's biggest electronics company SAMSUNG has issued an extraordinary health warning about the dangers of watching 3D television.
Pregnant women, the elderly, children and those suffering from serious medical conditions are among a wide range of people said to be at risk.
The alert extends to those who have been sleep deprived or drinking. It highlights alarming side effects such as confusion, nausea, convulsions, altered vision, light-headedness, dizziness, and involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching and cramps.
Samsung says there are also concerns that those with epilepsy could be at risk of fits - as they are from strobe lighting and photographers' flashes on normal television.
Watching 3D on TV, which involves wearing special glasses like those used for 3D movies, bombards the eyes and brain with a succession of flashing images that appear for a fraction of a second.
It is a new way of seeing things and so puts unusual strain on the body. The warning has been posted on a Samsung website and appears designed to protect the manufacturer from any legal claims for compensation if people fall ill.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/09/us-headache-3d-idUSTRE6080XO20100109
BUT wait there is 4D now coming to you enjoy
4D movies are headed to North America, bringing more than 1,000 new sensations to your movie watching experience, including the ability to smell.
The creation of South Korea’s CJ Group, the 4DX system takes your standard 3D movie experience to the next level using nozzles in the seats. While you’re watching a movie that mimics a trip out in the ocean, the nozzle might spray out a mist of water. Watching a movie about street racing? The nozzles might pump out the smell of burning rubber.
Seats in the theater are movable as well, so when a car crash happens on the screen it can also feel like it’s happening in your chair. Large fans positioned around the theater can make you feel like you’re caught in a windstorm, and massive lights located around the theater can be used to create huge flashes like you might see in a lightening storm. Programming the 4D experience for a film can take close to a month, depending on how complex the 4D experience is for the film.
The CJ Group hopes to outfit 200 theaters in North America with 4DX technology over the next four years, starting with theaters in New York and Los Angeles. A 4D film is expected to set you back an additional $8 at the box office over its 3D counterparts.
Would it be worth an extra $8 for you to be able to smell your movie?
Great it's not enough that it cause headaches and disorientation now it will smell like S... but the guy sitting next to you didn't wash so who needs 4D

Originally Posted by WagBoss 

wow 4D sounds awful, I don't want water sprayed in my face when im watching a movie -.-
if i want this ill go to disney world or universal studios or something.

Originally Posted by Steve Tack 

Can you list some examples of emotional dialog scenes that are enhanced by 3D? I'm not doubting you, I just can't recall any of those myself. Maybe I just haven't seen the same 3D movies that you have.

Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis 

Not a fair question. Let's not forget that 3D is just another tool in the film makers arsenal.
Let's put it another way. Is it fair to ask does 5.1 Dolby enhance emotional scenes? Of course it doesn't, but, all other things being equal, would I rather listen to a film in mono or hi-fidelity audio? Would I rather watch a movie on DVD or Blu-ray? Would I rather watch a scene (ANY SCENE) in 2D or 3D? The answer for me is to simply go with the higher tech.

Originally Posted by cakefoo 

Uh, I claimed it, he asked for examples, I told him to watch Hugo. 3D is not just eye candy.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart 

3D is just a different way of watching a movie. Just like if the industry had gone to Binaural Sound and each movie goer wore a headset versus sitting in a theater having speakers pointed at you.

Originally Posted by cakefoo 

I don't even agree with you a little.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart 

You may not want it but it has proved to be very successful in Korea. They already have a number of theaters in the USA with D-Box Motion-Controlled seats. 25 to 30 per theater.

Originally Posted by WagBoss 

Motion controlled would be neat I think

Originally Posted by cbcdesign 

I really don't get that as a point of view at all.
When I compare watching a good 3D movie then switch back to 2D I am instantly reminded of just how flat and boring 2D actually is. The term moving picture really strikes home for 2D. 3D on the other hand is like looking into another world through a window with the odd moment when that other world comes out of the screen into the real one.
I dont see how people can not like 3D unless they just aren't seeing it the way I do. Its just too good to write off as easilly as some of the naysayers do. I get that people who are deaf in one ear don't appreciate surround. I can only assume people who don't like really good 3D have similar physical issues, its the only way I can make sense of their point of view.

Originally Posted by cbcdesign 

I dont see how people can not like 3D unless they just aren't seeing it the way I do.

“The idea that you’re holding in your hand a device that will actually let you speak to another human being and instead of using it for that, you type some silly little message and send a one-way communication — it’s a very odd step backwards in communication terms.,” he said.

Don’t even try explaining Siri or that you can speak into an iPhone and have the words translated to text.

“Really?” he said, looking bewildered. “What’s the purpose of that?”

Originally Posted by jakirk 

I agree with Nolan.
3D just kills the picture- you lose so much detail with it. It also becomes more about the gimmick of the 3D than the substance of the movie- there's a focus on how good you can make it look rather than how good the movie can be.
Also if your like me and wear glasses and can't wear 3D over your normal glasses properly then it sucks even more.

Originally Posted by OmahaTVAddict 

I can't deal with 3D as it hurts my eyes plus it's not worth the extra cost of tickets which are costly enough.

Originally Posted by jakirk 

I agree with Nolan.
3D just kills the picture- you lose so much detail with it. It also becomes more about the gimmick of the 3D than the substance of the movie- there's a focus on how good you can make it look rather than how good the movie can be.
Also if your like me and wear glasses and can't wear 3D over your normal glasses properly then it sucks even more.

Originally Posted by Xavier1 

Lee, I gotta say I really appreciate your level headedness. 3D seems to bring out extreme emotion in people, either positive or negative. I don't understand why...

Also, a good point made by a poster above, is that we all do not see 3D the same way. Also many people with laser eye surgery, imbalance in eyes, etc. will either see very little or no 3D at all.

I think watching 3D on a good display with good content can convince the biggest skeptics. For the home, we have various techs and glasses. Find 3D glasses uncomfortable? Try the dozens of others and find a proper fit. Too dim? Get a brighter TV/PJ.

The main problem I have with these types of threads, is the number or 3D haters it invites. And there is no convincing them, so most of us 3D lovers just give up. I don't have a problem with the 3D haters in the thread, as its their money and choice, but I don't like it when they state their opinions as fact. As if because they have experinced 3D as dim, uncomfortable, lacking detail, that all of us experience 3D that way. Don't paint the whole world with such a broad brush, and choices are a GOOD thing.
/rant