Joined
·
3,362 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.
In my opinion, this anti-3D article was put together in a slapdash way. It includes the following assertion and rhetorical question:
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.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 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 activeI 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.
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.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,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.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.
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.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.
+1 bigtimeIt 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.
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: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.
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.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
So here's the proof 3Dis not dead and improvements are in the works. So 3D haters...chill!!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.
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.]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'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: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:
I'm pretty confident that unsuspecting test subjects would prefer # 2 vastly over # 3.
- a film sequence with close-up and distant shots in "2D"
- a film sequence with close-up shots in 3D and distant shots in 2D
- a film sequence with close-up and distant shots in 3D
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".