Is all this 3-D stuff a phase?

[Robert Maxwell]

So, I wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses, and I haven't found that uncomfortable. Nor have I gotten headaches or experienced any kind of discomfort watching 3D movies.

Am I weird?

Evidently not, as there are more than enough of us to make 3D the choice of the studios for the foreseeable future.

You mean the people who gripe incessantly about it are just a loud minority? Who knew?!

 

[JarodRussell]

Nope, you'll still have the problem of the convergence plane not being the same as the focal plane.

Who said that's a problem?

The decent chunk of people who get headaches and sore eyes from their eyes being used in a way they're not designed to work. I'm not sure what the percentages are, but it can't be too small a percentage, because it always comes up in these threads.

I don't know any numbers, but it appears to me that there are about as many people who can't watch 3D as there are people who are colorblind or deaf on one ear. Should we ditch color movies and surround sound because there's a certain percentage that doesn't gain anything from it?

 

[BlobVanDam]

Who said that's a problem?

The decent chunk of people who get headaches and sore eyes from their eyes being used in a way they're not designed to work. I'm not sure what the percentages are, but it can't be too small a percentage, because it always comes up in these threads.

I don't know any numbers, but it appears to me that there are about as many people who can't watch 3D as there are people who are colorblind or deaf on one ear. Should we ditch color movies and surround sound because there's a certain percentage that doesn't gain anything from it?

That is a faulty comparison. It's not about gaining anything, it's about not physically being able to watch a movie without symptoms. Are the movie companies and television stations just going to say "screw 'em" if the time comes that everything switches to 3D? Unless they can come up with a real implementation of 3D, these people will probably just not be able to watch movies or television regularly, if at all. That doesn't sound like a good business move to me.

The BIG difference here is that a colourblind person can still happily watch a colour movie. They don't lose anything in the movie that they don't already lose in real life. Same goes for a half deaf person. They'll hear from one ear, just as they do in real life. There is nothing stopping these people from watching the movie and perceiving it as they would reality. They may not gain from it as other people do, but they also don't lose anything extra from the upgrade. The fair comparison for what you are describing would be someone who is blind in one eye (I could be wrong, but it would just look like a regular 2D movie to them if they still wore the glasses).

But as I explained before, the 3D of a movie does not work as 3D in real life does.
We're talking about people whose eyes cannot handle the way that 3D movies try to trick the eyes into perceiving 3D where there is none.

 

[Grid-Sec]

I think this is only a step a way from 4-D movies, where the audience gets involved.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I think this is only a step a way from 4-D movies, where the audience gets involved.

Lowest common denominator determination of how a plot evolves -- count me out.

 

[Checkmate]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a study was done where over 50% of the population had difficulty with this type of 3D technology, including a sizable number who can't perceive it at all.

What was worse is that it was a really smarmy article that I read it in, and the author basically said "go see an optometrist or get the fuck out of my theater."

3D is quickly turning into the Apple of movie technology; defended largely by smug, arrogant, and holier-than-thou types who think they're above everyone else. "Well if I don't have any trouble with it, so I care very little that you (or 50+% of the rest of you) do!" <scoffs while tossing hair back>

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I believe I read somewhere the number of people having physical problems with 3D is roughly 25%, 1 in 4. Don't remember where I read it though.

 

[Sparky]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a study was done where over 50% of the population had difficulty with this type of 3D technology, including a sizable number who can't perceive it at all.

What was worse is that it was a really smarmy article that I read it in, and the author basically said "go see an optometrist or get the fuck out of my theater."

3D is quickly turning into the Apple of movie technology; defended largely by smug, arrogant, and holier-than-thou types who think they're above everyone else. "Well if I don't have any trouble with it, so I care very little that you (or 50+% of the rest of you) do!" <scoffs while tossing hair back>

To be honest, I don't care if someone has a problem with it <tosses hair back while scoffing>. They can go see the 2D version, or wait for a home release for all I care.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think this is only a step a way from 4-D movies, where the audience gets involved.

Sign me up for the porn channel.

...arrogant, and holier-than-thou types who think they're above everyone else. "Well if I don't have any trouble with it, so I care very little that you (or 50+% of the rest of you) do!" <scoffs while tossing hair back>

What's your point?

So, basically now they're claiming that 3D is succeeding despite a 25 to 50 percent "failure rate?" Wow, this is something they need to stick with then - they're already making so much money with it, imagine how much they'll rake in as they perfect it.

 

[Starkers]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a study was done where over 50% of the population had difficulty with this type of 3D technology, including a sizable number who can't perceive it at all.

What was worse is that it was a really smarmy article that I read it in, and the author basically said "go see an optometrist or get the fuck out of my theater."

3D is quickly turning into the Apple of movie technology; defended largely by smug, arrogant, and holier-than-thou types who think they're above everyone else. "Well if I don't have any trouble with it, so I care very little that you (or 50+% of the rest of you) do!" <scoffs while tossing hair back>

To be honest, I don't care if someone has a problem with it <tosses hair back while scoffing>. They can go see the 2D version, or wait for a home release for all I care.

2 problems spring to mind, firstly there are fewer 2D showings (or none at all) secondly is how well these films actually work in 2D on the screen or DVD. Cameron had the smarts to realise that you use 3D best when it isn't about things shooting out the screen at you (I even recall an interview when he said that doing that was pointless until they make the ability to watch 3D films at home) but most film makers aren't anywhere near as clever as him. I mean Resident Evil had something flying out of the screen every minute! That's surely going to look really obvious on DVD?

My main gripes with 3D (aside from the price and the glasses) are A/ The colour loss, and B/ the blurring of much of the screen not in 3D. Seriously, if that's what most people's vision's actually like I must have superman's eyes or something...`

 

[Alidar Jarok]

3D is quickly turning into the Apple of movie technology; defended largely by smug, arrogant, and holier-than-thou types who think they're above everyone else. "Well if I don't have any trouble with it, so I care very little that you (or 50+% of the rest of you) do!" <scoffs while tossing hair back>

Ouch, I've been compared to Apple fans. Under movie business rationales, it makes sense to have 3D movies, since it'll draw people into theaters for things they can't get at home. In that regard, I enjoy it a lot. I have nothing against having 2D movies (The Dark Knight Rises is one). From my perspective, it's not so much proponents of 3D movies that come off as arrogant, but opponents of 3D movies (note, I didn't say proponents of 2D movies, the focus of their goal and the focus of this thread is about getting rid of 3D movies).

Until the technological flaws of 3D are fixed, 2D movies should always have a place (and most reasonably sized theaters offer both, with the smaller theaters actually leaning 2D). But I think a properly made 3D movie has a proper place as well.

 

[Small White Car]

It's a tool that directors will get better at using, and eventually you won't even need glasses to view it.

But doesn't it bother you that 3D takes tools away from directors?

Doesn't it bother you that they're limited by this technology? Doesn't it bother you that when you see a 3D movie in 2D you're being double-punished...that film has lost many things a 2D movie can do when it was directed and then it lost the 3D effect as well?

Seeing 3D-made movies in 2D is pretty lame and it's, sadly, where we seem to be headed.

And yet the general masses don't seem to care. When you point it out they say "Well, what's wrong with us liking what we like?" Well, when what you like starts to alter what directors are able to do in their films...well that kind of bugs me.

3D movies are making 2D movies worse. I can't choose to 'just not watch it.' It's affecting me even if I don't buy the damn glasses.

ugh

 

[Holdfast]

Seeing 3D-made movies in 2D is pretty lame and it's, sadly, where we seem to be headed.

I'm not sure this is true. 3D technology is getting pretty accessible in new TVs now. And not just at the higher end of the range. Lots of new TVs are 3D-ready, and then it's just the cost of the transmitter and glasses.

3D movies are making 2D movies worse.

This is a separate argument to the above and I don't know enough about filming to comment. But with technological advances (and glasses-less 3D is one of these) on the way in the future, I don't think it will necessarily be a zero-sum game here.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But doesn't it bother you that 3D takes tools away from directors?

Doesn't it bother you that they're limited by this technology? Doesn't it bother you that when you see a 3D movie in 2D you're being double-punished...that film has lost many things a 2D movie can do when it was directed and then it lost the 3D effect as well?

Don't care, dude. Don't care, don't care, don't care.

Right now 3D is being most heavily used in summer blockbusters.

Does it bother me that the directors of these things might be constrained not to do some things in favor of others? Not in the least - not one blockbuster in 100 is notable enough for directorial vision for it to matter one whit. So if they're being denied some camera trick or angle that they particularly like, the history of western art has been denied very little.

OTOH, someone with vision who really knows what they're doing - yeah, like Cameron - makes great use of the old tools and the new ones.

Of all the commercial pressures and demands that are "making movies worse" 3D doesn't rank in the top twenty.

 

[Small White Car]

This is a separate argument to the above and I don't know enough about filming to comment. But with technological advances (and glasses-less 3D is one of these) on the way in the future, I don't think it will necessarily be a zero-sum game here.

The problem is that photographers have built up 100 years worth of tricks for dealing with a 2-dimentional plane. A lot of that stuff has to get thrown out. Stuff such as:

* Fast cuts with wildly different focal points. Did'ja like the big space battles in Star Wars? Directors of the future will have to make a choice when making stuff like this: Either slow the cuts down or stick to similar shots (so, not close ups of little ships and then big shots with lots of ships right next to each other). The human eye isn't good at jumping between different focus points very quickly. Directors will have to decide which thing is more important to them at any given point in the film.

Cameron is apparently good at this. Good for him, he has a lot of patience. But outside of the superstars I don't like the idea of directors saying "let's try this shot" and a technician telling them "sorry, the eyes won't have time to adjust to this shot that quickly. We'll have to use this shot instead."

* Movie previews that don't drive your brain crazy. No matter how well a director plans his shots, they're gonna get all mixed up in the trailers. I thought 3D 'Tangled' was fine. I thought the 3D trailers before it were horrible for exactly this reason. I really don't see any good way out of this one.

* No more rack-focuses. This is a very 2-dimentional effect used to draw the audience's attention to certain places in a controlled way. Now, yes, we do gain ways of doing that with 3D, so it's a wash, right? Well, except for all those poor schmucks I talked about who are stuck watching the 2D version. They don't get rack-focuses AND they can't see the 3D effects that replaced them.

This is the kind of thing I mean when I say it's ruining 2D films. The guy watching in 2D gets slower cuts (or less varied shots) and less lens effects, but he doesn't see any of the 3D effects that replaced them. So now you either have to buy a 3D TV or get used to movies being more visually dull than they were before. Great. What a wonderful choice.

Incidentally, this is why I don't have much problem with 3D cartoons like Toy Story or Tangled. Animators have much more control over their world and can get around many of these problems. They can even create 2D versions with different shots or set pieces than the 3D versions if they want to. But it's when you move to real-world shooting that directors have to make compromises. Then you go home and watch the normal 2D DVD and you get the downsides without the fancy 3D effects. Your 2D movie is now worse than it otherwise would have been because of the 3D version.

Right now 3D is being most heavily used in summer blockbusters.

It's pretty easy to see the future.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Why do we need another Gatsby movie?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Cameron is apparently good at this. Good for him, he has a lot of patience. But outside of the superstars I don't like the idea of directors saying "let's try this shot" and a technician telling them "sorry, the eyes won't have time to adjust to this shot that quickly. We'll have to use this shot instead."

You have further described why I don't care. Patience is good. Outside of really brilliant directors I'm not that interested in what "constrains" them, and frankly more of them should probably do whatever their directors of photography suggest.

Or they might consider learning new tricks instead of going back to the cookbook. Gosh, changes in the business might force directors to innovate.

When I see 3D making blockbuster action films less impressive than they have been for years I may be mildly concerned. So far, nothin'.

 

[Small White Car]

When I see 3D making blockbuster action films less impressive than they have been for years I may be mildly concerned. So far, nothin'.

Ok, can you tell me why it doesn't bother you that 3D directors have to drop old effects and then you buy the 2D DVD and you don't get the old effects or the new effects?

It doesn't bother you that you're being forced to choose between 'buy a 3D TV' or 'watch a movie stripped of both old and new?'

I don't mind 3D movies seen in 3D. I like the IMAX 3D films at museums because that's how you have to see them.

But I hate 3D movies being sold in 2D forms.

 

[Reverend]

I'm sure when/if 3D TVs become more affordable and common place (probably around when they figure out a way to ditch the glasses and live TV starts being broadcast in 3D) then all the "old" 3D movies will get a re-release. It's early days yet and frankly, if a film's any good then it won't matter if you view it in 2D or 3D.

I can only speak for myself but I enjoyed Avatar just as much on DVD as I did seeing it at the cinema. I can't speak for any other films of course sice so far I've only seen 2 films in 3D and Tron Legacy isn't out on DVD yet.

 

[Holdfast]

I'm sure when/if 3D TVs become more affordable and common place (probably around when they figure out a way to ditch the glasses and live TV starts being broadcast in 3D)....

Well, some major live TV is already being broadcast in 3D (like sports), so that's certainly not far away. And the 3D transmitter/glasses aren't that expensive at the moment anyway. And lots of TVs are 3D-ready. So that's all pretty close.

I haven't researched the market, but it strikes me that 3D TV market penetration is increasing at a MUCH faster rate than Blu-ray or HD did at the start of their cycles, for instance.

This is a separate argument to the above and I don't know enough about filming to comment. But with technological advances (and glasses-less 3D is one of these) on the way in the future, I don't think it will necessarily be a zero-sum game here.

The problem is that photographers have built up 100 years worth of tricks for dealing with a 2-dimentional plane. A lot of that stuff has to get thrown out.

I see... but doesn't that just mean that they have to learn new techniques to make things compelling to watch? If 3D really takes off, innovation will kick in. It probably already is.

There's no inherent reason why 3D (or 2D, for that matter) is a better medium for creating a compelling message. It's about acquiring the skill to create the message using the tools you have. Whichever medium the consumers support and the producers feel is more commercially viable will be mainstream. The one that loses out can still survive as a less popular niche artform with its passionate adherents. Black & White cinema still lives on, despite it being relatively uncommercial, for example. I don't see this change being a loss, really. Both 2D and 3D can survive, but neither has an intrinsic right to survive. Just like watercolours vs oils, or sculpture vs poetry.