AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,630 Posts
Film critics are just out of touch snobs who hate anything with a whiff of commerical appeal and can only praise movies that no one wants to watch so that they can feel good about themselves. Their opinion means nothing to me.

Time and again we have seen that if a 3D film is done right and the depth adds to the experience, people will pay money to watch it. The problem is, and always has been, that people are not indifferent to 3D; they are indifferent to bad 3D bolted on to a movie in the hopes of making a few bucks without any artistic consideration.

Unfortunately, there will probably always be 10 Divergents or Seventh Son for every one Gravity or Avatar and that may reduce the number of 3D titles released but the format will not go away. The article also completely ignores the popularity of the format in other parts of the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,461 Posts
Rupert Murdoch owns the NY Post. I guess he better have a chat with this 3D hating clown and keep him from raining on his cash cow parade before the 3D Avatar sequel comes out from 20th Century Fox:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
In my opinion, this anti-3D article was put together in a slapdash way. It includes the following assertion and rhetorical question:
If people really preferred to see movies in 3-D, we’d all have 3-D TVs by now. Do you know a single person who has one?
Well, most people who have bought a large screen TV in the last few years will own a 3D set, whether they wanted to buy a set with 3D capability or not! 3D has become a standard feature incorporated by the leading manufacturers into their larger models.

I don't think the article should be taken seriously. It strikes me as negative, self-indulgent, and not well researched.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
I hope not as well. It is still popular in theaters and I feel that a well done 3d movie really adds to the movie watching experience at home.
Well i'm no expert by any means but what I read 3d isn't dead at all. In fact a few manufacturers at the 2015 CES was asked that question. A few said they were not pushing it like years before and they don't believe 3D is dead. This year they were pushing other things and also the fact they are working still on 3D without glasses. The titles keep coming out and some high end TV do have 3D mostly active
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
its completely dead in the broadcast world. It was all the hype at NAB in 2013 and has never been talked about since.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
It is totally dead as far as I am concerned. I bought a couple of 3D movies when I got my JVC RS-4810 projector.
However after watching these couple of films, I found 3D just a total distraction and a gimmick, that added NOTHING to the film. I have not bought a 3D blu-Ray in years and avoid 3D version of films at the theater.
Studios should stop wasting time and money on this useless 3D and focus on getting 4k blu-Rays to the market faster, which has a real benefit of higher resolution for those of us with large screens and also the wider color spectrum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,356 Posts
It is totally dead as far as I am concerned. I bought a couple of 3D movies when I got my JVC RS-4810 projector.
However after watching these couple of films, I found 3D just a total distraction and a gimmick, that added NOTHING to the film. I have not bought a 3D blu-Ray in years and avoid 3D version of films at the theater.
Studios should stop wasting time and money on this useless 3D and focus on getting 4k blu-Rays to the market faster, which has a real benefit of higher resolution for those of us with large screens and also the wider color spectrum.
Different strokes, I guess. I find the additional depth adds more to involvement or immersion than a wider spectrum. And the UHD demos I've seen so far don't seem to provide as big a difference in viewing as 3D does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
It is totally dead as far as I am concerned. I bought a couple of 3D movies when I got my JVC RS-4810 projector.
However after watching these couple of films, I found 3D just a total distraction and a gimmick, that added NOTHING to the film. I have not bought a 3D blu-Ray in years and avoid 3D version of films at the theater.
Studios should stop wasting time and money on this useless 3D and focus on getting 4k blu-Rays to the market faster, which has a real benefit of higher resolution for those of us with large screens and also the wider color spectrum.
Dionyz,

Remember Sir, your feelings about 3D are not necessarily the same as others on this forum. I for one truly enjoy 3D and feel it adds immensely to the viewing experience. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,545 Posts
It is totally dead as far as I am concerned. I bought a couple of 3D movies when I got my JVC RS-4810 projector.
However after watching these couple of films, I found 3D just a total distraction and a gimmick, that added NOTHING to the film. I have not bought a 3D blu-Ray in years and avoid 3D version of films at the theater.
Studios should stop wasting time and money on this useless 3D and focus on getting 4k blu-Rays to the market faster, which has a real benefit of higher resolution for those of us with large screens and also the wider color spectrum.
Your projector is great for 2D but not not so wonderful for 3D -- noted for dim 3D, flicker and ghosting. Bright ghost-free 3D can look pretty damn good.

In fact one of the posters above is using this projector for 3D (not that many can afford it):

http://www.trustedreviews.com/sim2-superlumis-review

And, is 3D dying? Not yet.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/04/24/3d-conversion-patents-hollywood-visual-effects-case/id=57047/

"With regard to the films themselves, according to Mark Hughes of Forbes (November 16, 2014):

3D films comprised 12 of the top 13 highest-grossing films of this year [2014] so far, with those films amassing a huge $7.5+ billion and counting at the worldwide box office. The rest of 2014?s 3D release have likewise contributed an additional $1+ billion to date, with several major 3D release still to come that should push the finally 3D box office tally over $10 billion and likely toward the $12 billion mark.
Many 2013 and earlier articles proclaimed the 3D “fad” at theaters dead, but from the figures above, it remains to be a draw at home and abroad."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Your projector is great for 2D but not not so wonderful for 3D -- noted for dim 3D, flicker and ghosting. bright ghost-free 3D can look pretty damn good.

In fact one of the posters above is using this projector for 3D (not that many can afford it):

http://www.trustedreviews.com/sim2-superlumis-review

And, is 3D dying? Not yet.
I had no ghosting or flicker the few times I watched 3D, thus that is not why I steer clear of 3D. It is 3D in and of itself that is distracting.
Not even plasma like bright 3D can change the distraction/gimmick aspect.
And as I said before, it is so distracting and gimmicky "to me" that in commercial theaters I always choose the non 3D version of the film 100% of the time.
If "you" enjoy 3D, then good for you.
But for "me" it is dead - I will not buy 3D Blu-Rays and will not watch 3D version in theaters - totally distracting and detracting from the enjoyment of the film
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,828 Posts
It is totally dead as far as I am concerned. I bought a couple of 3D movies when I got my JVC RS-4810 projector.
However after watching these couple of films, I found 3D just a total distraction and a gimmick, that added NOTHING to the film. I have not bought a 3D blu-Ray in years and avoid 3D version of films at the theater.
Studios should stop wasting time and money on this useless 3D and focus on getting 4k blu-Rays to the market faster, which has a real benefit of higher resolution for those of us with large screens and also the wider color spectrum.
+1 bigtime
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,461 Posts
Put me down for being in the camp that believes that, in the right movie, 3D can GREATLY add to the enjoyment and feeling of immersion of the movie. I watch it at home, it looks great on my system, I like it. Vive la differance:) The great thing here, is that the movies are all shown in 2D as well for those of you who don't agree. So, I really don't see a problem! Fortunately, there seems to be a strong enough minority of 3D enthusiasts to keep this thing alive. Case in point, Jurassic World, probably one of the most hyped blockbusters of the year. 3D conversion, yes, but 3D nevertheless. So, still alive:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,545 Posts
It looks like the IMAX laser theatre is going to be a game changer for 3D. Peter Howell a film critic for the Toronto Star and a 3D hater just published an article in the Toronto Star entitled: I've seen the future -- and its in 3D. He went to a screening of Mad Max in 3D at the IMAX, which uses new laser projection (only four in North America) and he claims it was an incredible experience -- bright and extremely detailed image with massive depth and he loved it. He said: "But seeing Mad Max in 3D on IMAX with laser simply blew me away. It was like viewing the film, which I love, for the first time. IMAX with laser makes me finally a believer in what 3D can do, well worth the not-inconsiderable $7 ticket surcharge."

A bright 3D image without any ghosting or flicker makes a huge difference and now that critics and consumers alike are experiencing it they too are becoming converts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
A bright 3D image without any ghosting or flicker makes a huge difference and now that critics and consumers alike are experiencing it they too are becoming converts.
I'm not sure that this will be enough. Re-reading several post an threads here at "3D central" I can't help but notice that the most acclaimed 3D films are usually Avatar, Hugo, Life of Pi and Titanic and I think there is a very good reason for it because those four share one noticable - possibly decisive - characteristic that distincts these from many others:

These have either been filmed with a true 3D camera (no 3D exaggeration possible for visuals beyond the stereoscopic range of the human eyes) or post-production (CGI rendering, 2D to 3D conversion / "dimensionalization") acknowledged that nothing beyond the steroscopic range (up to 265 meters / 290 yards maximum!) can appear in 3D!

Unfortunately, the CGI renderings or the dimensionalization of many 2D films too often do not take this into account.

Instead we have large city landscapes, spaceships, planets and stars miniaturized by adding a three-dimensional effect which none of these have or would have in real life.

While our conscious selves may marvel at the dimensionalization of these objects at first sight, our brain and/or subconsciousness will have usually and already identified such 3D effects as fake, cheap, hilarious and unrealistic by comparing such effects with our knowledge and experience of seeing 3D every day in real life.



According to my knowledge, there have not yet been any scientific studies exploring the issue. Test subjects should be given these examples:
  1. a film sequence with close-up and distant shots in "2D"
  2. a film sequence with close-up shots in 3D and distant shots in 2D
  3. a film sequence with close-up and distant shots in 3D
I'm pretty confident that unsuspecting test subjects would prefer # 2 vastly over # 3.

Simply put: If you want to have convincing 3D you won't be able to have it unless you muster some restraint to leave distant scenery in "2D".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
I had no ghosting or flicker the few times I watched 3D, thus that is not why I steer clear of 3D. It is 3D in and of itself that is distracting.
Not even plasma like bright 3D can change the distraction/gimmick aspect.
And as I said before, it is so distracting and gimmicky "to me" that in commercial theaters I always choose the non 3D version of the film 100% of the time.
If "you" enjoy 3D, then good for you.
But for "me" it is dead - I will not buy 3D Blu-Rays and will not watch 3D version in theaters - totally distracting and detracting from the enjoyment of the film
To you it's distracting and gimmick...to you .Lets keep it that way. Many others here love 3D, what makes you think ,what you think ,is right. Everything comment on the internet is about the person making the comment , who really cares about you or me for that matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
It looks like the IMAX laser theatre is going to be a game changer for 3D. Peter Howell a film critic for the Toronto Star and a 3D hater just published an article in the Toronto Star entitled: I've seen the future -- and its in 3D. He went to a screening of Mad Max in 3D at the IMAX, which uses new laser projection (only four in North America) and he claims it was an incredible experience -- bright and extremely detailed image with massive depth and he loved it. He said: "But seeing Mad Max in 3D on IMAX with laser simply blew me away. It was like viewing the film, which I love, for the first time. IMAX with laser makes me finally a believer in what 3D can do, well worth the not-inconsiderable $7 ticket surcharge."

A bright 3D image without any ghosting or flicker makes a huge difference and now that critics and consumers alike are experiencing it they too are becoming converts.
So here's the proof 3Dis not dead and improvements are in the works. So 3D haters...chill!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
I'm not sure that this will be enough. Re-reading several post an threads here at "3D central" I can't help but notice that the most acclaimed 3D films are usually Avatar, Hugo, Life of Pi and Titanic and I think there is a very good reason for it because those four share one noticable - possibly decisive - characteristic that distincts these from many others:

These have either been filmed with a true 3D camera (no 3D exaggeration possible for visuals beyond the stereoscopic range of the human eyes) or post-production (CGI rendering, 2D to 3D conversion / "dimensionalization") acknowledged that nothing beyond the steroscopic range (up to 265 meters / 290 yards maximum!) can appear in 3D!
I would agree. For example, the true 3D in the opening minutes of Life of Pi of a variety of wildlife is particularly impressive. [As a minor exception, I do recall finding the very opening scene of Avatar jarring. There is a miniaturisation effect when viewing cyrogenic pods and a guy floating in the foreground who gives advice. The guy who is floating looks dwarfish.]

Unfortunately, the CGI renderings or the dimensionalization of many 2D films too often do not take this into account.

Instead we have large city landscapes, spaceships, planets and stars miniaturized by adding a three-dimensional effect which none of these have or would have in real life.

While our conscious selves may marvel at the dimensionalization of these objects at first sight, our brain and/or subconsciousness will have usually and already identified such 3D effects as fake, cheap, hilarious and unrealistic by comparing such effects with our knowledge and experience of seeing 3D every day in real life.



According to my knowledge, there have not yet been any scientific studies exploring the issue. Test subjects should be given these examples:
  1. a film sequence with close-up and distant shots in "2D"
  2. a film sequence with close-up shots in 3D and distant shots in 2D
  3. a film sequence with close-up and distant shots in 3D
I'm pretty confident that unsuspecting test subjects would prefer # 2 vastly over # 3.

Simply put: If you want to have convincing 3D you won't be able to have it unless you muster some restraint to leave distant scenery in "2D".
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I've come to the conclusion I disagree. This weekend I saw Jurassic World. Many of the aerial shots of the island used hyperstereo. And I found that interesting. It made me think about the times I've seen video created to give the viewpoint of someone other than an adult human with normal vision:


  • a child - camera is low and is angled up towards the adults
  • a drunk - scene goes out of focus and can wobble horizontally
  • an android: - scene can be overprinted with computerised text (e.g. in the Terminator movies)
  • an alien being: may be monochromatic (e.g. Predator where the alien wears no mask) or heat-sensitive (e.g. Predator where the alien wears a mask with imaging capability)
  • a monster: poor colour, low resolution
  • a supernatural being: X-ray vision (e.g. Superman Returns)
  • a miniaturised human character: microscopic objects appear life size (e.g. the Dr Who episode Into the Dalek)
  • a person who has lost their glasses: a blurred image
  • a sea captain looking through a telescope: a round telescopic image with black surrounding the image.

In all of these situations we as an adult audience with normal human vision accept that we are a viewing a scene not as we ourselves would view it under normal conditions but as another person, animal, or sentient being might view the scene, in their circumstances.

People sometimes talk about the need for a recognized "syntax" for 3D moviemaking. I think that a practice or tradition may emerge of using a wide effective interaxial for panoramic views of landscapes, and even perhaps views of planetary systems, requiring us to pretend that we are seeing through the eyes of a giant or a supernatural being, witnessing an enhanced stereoscopic effect well beyond our mortal capacity.

I noticed in Jurassic World that most of the close up scenes used a reasonably realistic effective interaxial distance for the simulated 3D (erring at times, I thought, on the side of a slightly wider than realistic interaxial). But there were many scenes from overhead showing buildings and creatures with a strong 3D effect, and with the human beings looking like small children, i.e. a stereoscopic view as might be witnessed by a giant or supernatural being. I found I could adjust my mind to the use of exaggerated simulated 3D, in this way. I felt it added to the visual impact.

So I am not at all sure that I myself would "vastly prefer" #2 over #3 in Frank714's list that I've highlighted above in maroon. If the question put to a test subject is "which film sequence looks more realistic to you?" then #2 could be expected to be a popular answer. But if the question put were "which film sequence do you prefer the look of?" then the answer I suspect could easily be #3 , for many people.
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Top