Originally Posted by dnoonie
I look for movies in non-3D theaters. It just doesn't do anything for me, the disadvantages outweigh the benefit. The main disadvantage I see as reduced color saturation, followed by being dimmer. Although I can see the 3D effect it just doesn't add to the experience and is mostly an annoying distraction that takes away more from the story than it adds. 3D on an LG OLED is another story, it looks great.
3D movie tech is improving, the last iteration just didn't work at all for me. This current tech works for me but isn't compelling enough to seek out in the theater. Maybe the next iteration will finely be meaningful to me.
I think HDR and WCG in the theater is more important than 3D at this point.
Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes
I saw Gravity in the theater in 3D, and Avatar at home on my TV in 3D, and both were neat (Gravity in the theater being the better experience) but not so special that I've been tempted to repeat the experience or seek out other 3D films.
For home viewing 4K UHD discs with HDR and WCG are more appealing to me than 3D. For movie theaters from what I understand 3D mutes the colors and contrast, so I'd rather have those at full-blast than 3D.
see my note below next quote. (…I agree about HDR & WCG, but, also prefer 3D IMAX (see below).
Originally Posted by jerrolds
Outside of Avatar, Gravity, Pacific Rim and some Pixar movies - 3D has been pretty garbage imo
- Lower contrast
- Glare/Internal Refelection
- Sucks for people who wear glassses
- Inflated ticket prices
- Gimmicky uses
- Ghosting, trailing
You obviously have never been to IMAX 3D...(except for price) none of these are issues...IMAX 3D uses two brighter projectors, (one for each eye), and the glasses are bigger, more accommodating for glasses wearers. I've rarely had these issues in a properly calibrated IMAX theater. In fact, I recall my first 3D movie experiences around 2009, The first was IMAX 3D, which was great, got me hooked on 3D, then I saw something in RealD 3D and it was disappointing, had all those issues. After this, I always preferred IMAX 3D, and, if a film was in 3D but not IMAX 3D, I would not always bother seeing it in 3D. I really think the RealD 3D experience has brought 3D down.
Originally Posted by Dreamliner
I've brought it up to IMAX and the theaters directly multiple times: IMAX and theaters in general, need to replay more movies. During the middle of the week, or if a movie is performing poorly, they need to rotate in another title from that same studio. Could you imagine if every week they had a "Throwback Thursday" or something where they replayed great movies from the last decade or so?
Last year, AMC & IMAX had 'space week' where they played the IMAX space documentaries during the day (like Hubble 3D & Space Station 3D) then every night they played a different movie: Gravity, Interstellar, Star Trek 09, Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek Beyond, The Martian, etc. I bought the unlimited pass and was there every single day that week.
I am totally with you on this^^
Originally Posted by beast69
I love 3D and alway choose it over 2D. The main problem with it, in my opinion, is the glasses. Especially in theaters. They give you those little glasses that you can barely see out of. If they had bigger lenses, they wouldn't limit your field of view. Which is one of the reasons it will be better when they perfect glasses-less technology.
Originally Posted by Keithian
I actually really like 3D at the movies. The problem in many of the theaters is the glasses. They are a royal pain in the ass. Even here in Los Angeles which has some of the best theaters, those same theaters are being very lazy about providing glasses that aren't heavy or impossible to clean..thus causing smearing while watching. They are using glasses from like years ago (The Grove, Arclight, etc). I'd rather use the disposable glasses that are so common in New Jersey when I visit my family. The only exception to this was when I went to the Hollywood IMAX this past weekend to see Valarian. The glasses were perfect and the 3D effect was great. The problem was the uncomfortable seats lol.
So really you’re talking about the difference between RealD 3D glasses and IMAX 3D glasses. Yeah, they should all be big like the IMAX 3D glasses, but, again, the IMAX 3D experience is superior, mostly due to the dual projectors, (with computer correction), and larger screen. (Yeah, some older IMAX theaters have sucky seats. The closest one to where I’m currently at has decent, (but not luxury), leather seats.)
Originally Posted by krismate
I don't think it was. I believe it's mostly shot on film even.
(Star Wars: The Last Jedi) Without going to some kind of Star Wars forums, I can’t find more specifics, but, yeah, I think it’s all shot on film.
“In 3D. Originally 2D, converted during post-production. Select sequences filmed with IMAX cameras. IMAX 2D 70mm DMR version to be released on select screens in the US and abroad.*” see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films
Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka
Yeah but IMAX has more light output @ 12 to 18 while most commercial cinemas cap out @ 8. IMAX in 3D looks crazy good, isn't dim at all. I would never see a movie in 3D in any other theater unless it's AMC Prime.
Again, to all I quoted above, ^^this^^ (Not near an AMC Prime theater, but, would like to see a movie in Dolby Atmos.)
My all-time favorite IMAX 3D movie experiences are tied for first place:
While Tron: Legacy may not have had the best story, having used the same tech as Avatar, it had the best combination of visual and auditory experience for any movie, solely based on the IMAX 3D version. Even though it’s a conversion, Doctor Strange ties for #1
, but, more for the immersive visuals than the visual/auditory combination of T.L., again, based solely on the IMAX 3D experience, (which I wish was available on the home version :P.)
To add: As far as Home 3D
goes, active glasses are what killed it. I think it would have taken off with passive glasses, same as in theaters, no matter how much more expensive the TVs/Projectors would be at first, having to pay so much extra for heavy, cumbersome active glasses makes it just way too unmanageable…batteries or wires…yank on the wire, drop it too many times it’ll break, lose one and it’s an expensive replacement, there’s just too much of a mess and expense with active 3D glasses. It was a stupid idea to use that tech. to determine if people would go for it.
However, I have been waiting since the 1970s for Holographic movie theaters.
In any case a glasses-free 3D experience, holographic or not, would be ideal, and is possible as pointed out, (missed the quote). I don’t see why this can’t be done with lasers. (Finally, after seeing a demo in 1983 of future tech…a laser movie (done in rough vector resolution with only 3 colors, (RGB))…we have IMAX laser projectors starting to be installed, some 34 years later).
At least several years ago Apple put in for a patent on glasses-free 3D tech that used that Israeli company’s tech, (they bought sometime before this), that senses where people’s eyes are, so, I’m sure they are not the only ones trying to develop the tech.
So, since UHD has no 3D standard at the moment, let’s hope 3D gets a reboot in a couple years with passive glasses or glasses-free, w/HDR & WCG.