3 Ds Are Too Many For Me

 Pages PREV 1 2

The movie industry feels it constantly has to do things to fight other industries. Years ago it was TV, so they introduced widescreen. If I remember correctly, Ben-Hur was one of the first, where the chariot racing was done in widescreen, to give it a grand feel. Today it's 3D, because the vast majority of people don't have it in their homes, so you have to go out and pay them to see it.

I don't see this trend going away, Hollywood will burn a genre/idea/technology into the ground if it wants too. Look at any successful genre (Sci-Fi being one of the easiest to see it in) and follow its ups and downs. A lot of them have huge ups and tremendous downs.

That cow picture gave me a fucking headache and a half in itself. @[email protected]

You wanna know why people would buy a 3D Camera?

I'll give you a hint. I sell video cameras and computers and stuff, and the only people I've sold a 3D camera to are young couples.


Out of all the 3d movies i've seen none that been that imprssive in terms of 3d'ness in fact itsy annoying because everyhting is darker, and the screen is narrower

Well said. 3D is enough to deal with when the movie is worth seeing. Making crap movies but in 3D just to make a 3D moving is so utterly stupid that it's not even funny.

Fortunately I don't get headaches from 3D (and I also have good enough vision to not need glasses- 20/25, thanks for asking), but it does irritate me to watch 3D for any real length of time. Why? Forced field of focus. In a 2D movie, my brain understands that I'm watching a flat image, and therefore something being out of focus doesn't bother me. But in 3D, if I instinctively try to focus on something that is not in focus in the shot, my eyes begin to strain in the attempt to shift my field of focus- only it can't, because the object itself is unfocused. It only tends to be an issue when the director decides that we absolutely have to focus on some object way in the foreground or background- but that seems to be a popular decision.

And why is this an issue? Well, go look at the trailer for the new Thor movie. What does it say at the end? "In 3D, and 2D in select theatres". More and more theatres are getting in on the 3D craze, and it's not at all a stretch of the imagination to see how 2D showings are going to start being difficult to get into. (Think about it from the theatre's perspective: One investment in the technology, then they can cash in on the popularity of 3D; plus it's not like 3D releases are nearly as widely pirated as 2D ones!) So it IS something to worry about for people who don't like the 3D technology, for whatever reason.

Excellent article.

I really enjoyed Avatar in IMAX 3D, but I don't want it for most of my movies.

I think the big draw about 3D for hollywood is that it makes movies harder to pirate.
But for the love of God, does TV really need to be 3D? No. No it does not. Why wear glasses to watch TV when you don't have to? What if you lose them, or they break...?

'If I can't enjoy 3D, no one can!'

I'm sorry for you that you get headaches, but I'm not willing to give up 3D for that.

But for the love of God, does TV really need to be 3D? No. No it does not.

It doesn't need to be in color either.

Well... I agree that the glasses make this current overhyped generation of 3D silly and doomed to fail. However, every time someone describes three dimensions as unnecessary or a gimmick I really kinda want to slap them. It's no more of a gimmick than color, let alone inane pointless garbage like increased resolution. It's only the glasses that make it not worth the effort. I don't know why I keep bothering to tell people this though, because you won't listen to me. Plus whenever 3D finally looses the glasses you'll all be telling me I'm a loser for not owning a 3DTV when I have better things to do with my money. Ah well.

I personally hate having to see a film in 3D - yeah it's great and all, but when you take those glasses off and go back into the normal world... Hello massive headache.

Edit: Oh and yeah I agree with that guy.. that posted two posts above me. TV's don't need to be 3D, but they don't need to be in colour. People managed fine without colour, and there are many great films in black&white.

It's just a phase, they'll get over it.

Wow...Only making movies in 3D? I hope this doesn't become the trend...I can't watch 3D movies. Well, I can, but it's migraine inducing.

This is such a non issue. I can not believe how much of a fuss is being made about something that no one is forcing anyone to partake in.

If you do not like 3D watch it in 2D. If 2D somehow isn't offered then wait for the DVD. No one is forcing anyone to watch this format. However the sales, and interest suggest many people enjoy it. Even people with glasses.

Exactly, sales are good, people seem to like it, yet you guys (and girls) moan about it at virtually every corner. For what other possible reason than to be pompous and 'different' I ask?

Until they get rid of the glasses, it will never be the norm. Not that I want it to be at all; the human eye is perfectly capable of extracting 3 dimensionality out of a flat image.

Also, I'm dissappointed in you guys; has no one thought of this when they saw the thread title?

Jacob Haggarty:
Umm no offence, but what that boils down to is "3D isnt real"

Well, obviously. Of course its an illusion, or else theyd actually have something flying out of the screen. And actually, im fairly certain 3D works without sound or touch. Just look at those red and blue pictures, no sounds, no feeling, but still the illusion remains.

The 3D you get in cinemas (polarisation imagery) works solely with the eyes, by creating two seperate images. One of these images is in full colour, while the other is monochromatic. Different Polarising filters in the lense block one image, but not the other, and its this that creates the "jump out at you" effect. Like you said, its an illusion, simply a mis-marriage of information from the eyes.

I understand that you're new. Please, in the future, try not to grossly misread and oversimplify someone else's argument. Has anyone in this thread indicated 3D should "be real?" I know I haven't.

I know that, in fact, I expressly stated it is an illusion. This is different from just being an "effect." Flashing lights would be an effect--they draw attention and make a big old show. 3D Imaging, as an illusion, is about tricking the mind into thinking there is depth to a flat image--basically, that the world behind the screen goes further.

I'm fully aware of how it works, having worked with it myself. And there are several ways to accomplish the effect, anyhow. That's not the least bit what my post was about. My post was about how, for now, 3D is "new" (to those that didn't already have it growing up)... but as it stands it won't last beyond the "newness."

Because in order to be a truly effective illusion, one that can outlast the novelty of the process, you need to fully engage the field of view (otherwise people will get used to differentiating the 3D screen from the 3D periphery) and you need to ensure that other sensory data (particularly audio) backs up the "false message" that the illusion is sending.

Otherwise, it'll go from being an illusion to simply being another bland effect. It'll go from giving you a sense of depth within the movie... to basically being about as "effective" as watching a movie under a blacklight. Yeah, it changes how it looks, but not in any meaningful way.

I like my movies in 2d and I like my video games with out gimmicky motion controls.

I like my life in 3D but my entertainment media in 2D. The only thing I have ever seen in 3D is the Terminator attraction at Orlando Parks. It gave me such a headache and the glasses were so uncomfortable over my own glasses that I swore off of 3D for good.

need to switch to contacts. Them 3D glasses dont fit with me regular glases :(

I for one appreciate the message in the article that yes not all things need to be in 3D but im also one who really enjoy movies in 3D. But being some1 who doesnt suffer from headaches watching them i can say that easier than most so hah! :P

I honestly believe the push for 3D comes not off the back of Avater but of the BlueRay vs. DVD-HD battles a few years ago. Obviously, BlueRay won, but the market for BlueRay players hasn't been as high as originally expected: people don't really care all that much between DVD quality and BlueRay quality when buying a film; DVD is good enough and BlueRay is too expensive. However, if 3D becomes popular, then the extra storage space of BlueRay discs all of a sudden become useful, and DVD will finally die. The problem is that 3D isn't that great for all the reasons already mentioned.


Already done, for the Avatar "parody".

OT: Thor adding a "and 2D" tag on the trailer just makes me all the more excited for it. I was sold when I saw Kenneth Branagh was directing it, and that line smacks of his sense of humour.

I don't get it, we live in 3d all the time already, why would we need even more?!

3-D Movies makes my eyes hurt and gives me migrants. I did not like it in the 80s as a kid.
Rad Racer (For the NES) in 3-D gets tiresome quickly (Google it if you have no clue). So did the other 1oo Zillion 3D Products of its day.

Worst is the "new" 3-D "solutions" for Home Entertainment are ass-backwards and overly complex.
Each pair of 3-D glasses for a home system cost $100+. each pair of so called 3-D glasses have mini LCD screens whose only job is to flicker at same rate as the TV is flashing alternate Right and Left eye Images, so views for the right eye is viewed only from the right side and the same for the left. Each lens flicker at (apparently) 60hz, and the TV set operates at 120 Hz or more. These Glasses have to synch up with the TV for order to make this happen, usually via Infra Red. Worst Each brand of TV or Monitor is only compatible with their own brand of glasses. And for a pair of glasses, they are unnecessarily heavy. What happen to the old Red and Blue Glasses, or even the Polarized glasses used in movies theaters.

I think I'm disappointed in myself that no one else in the comments seems to have immediately gone '3ds? Too many. Now double ds...' I suppose that says something about my sense of humor. Of course darksakul's typo above me that it hurts his eyes and gives him 'migrants' also amuses me on a level I cannot easily explain.

On topic, however, I have to agree with the article overall. I've been lucky that the 3d movies I have seen haven't caused me any motion sickness or headaches, but nor have they added any real value to the films. Avatar is probably the closest I can come to for something that was improved by 3d and thats simply because it was such a visual movie and the 3d was done tastefully enough to enhance that with the appearance of depth rather than to have stuff look like it was jumping out of the screen at you.

3d can be a benefit to a film designed with it in mind and which needs that feeling, but while it is simply serving as something that is tacked on to any given movie they can it is going to remain a gimmick.

The problem I see is one of costs. 3d projectors are expensive and theaters use the additional cost of seeing a 3d movie to pay for them. If only the one or two movies a year that could actually be enhanced by 3d was made that way, then those projectors would not be paying for themselves. This means that theaters are going to be putting a lot of pressure on studios to shoot as many movies in 3d as possible.

That is even before the consideration that theaters are struggling to find a way to hold on to a dwindling audience and as long as 3d tvs remain so expensive and rare showing movies this way is seen as a way to offer a service that most people cannot get at home which will hopefully attract more customers.

3d doesn't look like its going to go away or be just a fad, the only way theaters are going to stop pushing for it is if the technology becomes cheap enough that most home users have access to it and the projectors aren't greatly more expensive than a standard one and the only way that is going to happen is if it becomes prevalent and thus is already the standard. Either way we are stuck with it.

I can only think of a few films where the 3D actually enhanced the experience for me:
i) Coraline (to show off the detail in those sets)
ii) How to Train Your Dragon (to show off the flying sequences)
iii) Avatar (for all its other faults, I was impressed by the 3D)
iv) Up! (again--flying sequences)

What's the common denominator? They're all some kind of animation (even Avatar). Animation doesn't come off too badly in 3D, probably because there's not as much detail. I have yet to see a mostly live-action 3D film that worked for me. I sincerely doubt Star Wars (originally filmed 35 years ago, for 2D screens) is going to be it.

You wanna know why people would buy a 3D Camera?

I'll give you a hint. I sell video cameras and computers and stuff, and the only people I've sold a 3D camera to are young couples.


The camera adds 10-15 pounds. I don't even want to know how much the 3D camera adds.

I like 3D. It looks better (if done right) and I don't feel bad for liking something more because it has a gimmick.
btw, where do they stil use those awful red and blue 3D glasses? I though they all looked like sunglasses now (and they don't give me a headache)

No sir, I don't like it. Of course, my opinion doesn't matter much, seeing as how the last movie I saw in the theater was Sherlock Holmes, and the next will be Thor, as long as one of those select theaters is within an hour's drive of Nowhere, East Texas. It takes rather a lot to get me to watch a movie with a crowd.

One question: Are those cows small, or far away?

Well said!

I hate 3D cause I have to wear them over my normal glasses, not to mention it doesnt really add all that much to the movie.

Same here. Plus with me it gives me headaches and makes me nauseous.

The only movies I'm willing to put up with the pain of 3D for are Pixar movies. Everything else I'll see it 2D.

Or I would, if theaters near me didn't jump on the 3D bandwagon by offering all movies in 3D. And only in 3D.

Kiss my ass Hollywood.

I agree that the majority of 3d movies today use it as an unnecessary distraction, but I truly believe that, sooner or later, through some form of technology, 3d viewing will become the norm. The only movie I've seen in 3d is Toy Story 3, and I can safely say that it added to the experience as a whole. It wasn't shoved in my face, but it wasn't absent either. The only reason I didn't forget that it was there was because I couldn't stop admiring every toy model and environment that was presented. I believe that video games will benefit even more from stereoscopic displays due to their nature. On top of adding to immersion, it will also add situational awareness similar to how high definition did. While I can't see myself obtaining a 3d tv anytime in the next few years, I'll be picking up a 3ds on day one and can't wait to look across Hyrule Field in an all new way.

Yep, I had to see Avatar again in 2D because of the fuzzy image through the glasses and the general feeling that you are fighting for control over the len focus. If it's 3D, you want to look at the objects before you. However, film is still a 2D medium. Focus is still decided by the film makers. The 3D in films just makes me feel like I have cataracts. I want to look around the scene but I'm forced to look at what the film wants me to be looking at. Until a film can react to my own eyes, then it's simply a useless gimmick.

Agreed. Two pairs of glasses do me no good at all. They're just...pesky...beyond that, the most I want from 3D is at amusement parks or in the 3DS. And that's only because they're promising games I like, and also promising glasses-free. Color me intrigued, but a gimmick for the sake of fun ceases to be just that when it's not supposed to be a gimmick.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.