I was thinking of seeing Avatar and I see there is a "real d 3D" option to see the movie in 3-D and was wondering if it was worth it for the extra cost? There si a $3.50 difference in cost between the regular and 3-d movies. So far I've been unimpressed with any 3-d movies I have ever seen but this is supposedly new technological stuff that is way better than previous 3-d movies. Anyone seen the movie with this technology and can say that they were really impresse with the technology and worth the cost? This is not IMAX but a 3-d tech.
Avatar 3D worth the extra money?
- Thread starter Othello
- Start date
Yes. It is worth it. Not only are you getting 3D, but it is also digital projection for sure.
I've always had a problem with 3D too (the 3D "Up" wore me out after awhile and left me with a headache), but I saw Avatar in Real 3D and thought it was absolutely phenomenal.
The picture was nice and bright and the objects were all as sharp as can be.
It's definitely worth the extra money.
The picture was nice and bright and the objects were all as sharp as can be.
It's definitely worth the extra money.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Definitely worth seeing in 3D -- as long as you are going purely for the visual spectacle.
Long answer: Definitely worth seeing in 3D -- as long as you are going purely for the visual spectacle.
Nope, nothing new. Some people like 3d, some don't. If you don't then Avatar isn't going to change your mind.
That's hardly true. Avatar implements 3D a whole lot better than any previous 3D film.
Does 3D still cause some people headaches and irritation? Sure... But that is a tiny minority.
Best to go ... and then make up your own mind about how good it was. Basically, if you come out of this one underwhelmed by 3D, you've at least given the technology its best chance to impress you.
3D!!!!!!!!
This was my first time ever seeing a movie in 3D, and I was blown away. WELL worth the price, I don't even know why others would bother if money wasn't a factor. But even so, skip the next movie you were gonna see and use that money for this.
It's very worth it.
yes I thought it was worth it. I saw the movie in 2d first & didnt know if I was going to see it in 3d. I hadnt seen a 3d film since Body Wars at Epcot in the early 90's & I didnt think I would enjoy it as much as i did as a kid. Also the movie being 2 hours 40 minutes long i wondered if Id get sick. But this week my sis & her husband wanted to watch the film & I went along since they were going to see it in Imax 3d & Im glad I did, it was really cool!
some advice- if you think youll get dizzy or tired, try removing your glasses during any talking head scenes (like when theyre in the lab or the military briefing room). I did that & I think it helped me be able to sit throught the whole thing and enjoy it more without any discomfort.
some advice- if you think youll get dizzy or tired, try removing your glasses during any talking head scenes (like when theyre in the lab or the military briefing room). I did that & I think it helped me be able to sit throught the whole thing and enjoy it more without any discomfort.
I dont like 3D movies.
^Good question. I saw a few instances of 3D - guns or spears pointed at the camera, things floating between screen and audience, so to speak - but those were only a few. Did I miss anything breathtaking or original that's not in the 2D version?
And yes, I did watch the entire movie. Enjoyed it too, but felt the 3.5 euros extra for a clumsy pair of glasses was a bit of a waste of cash.
And yes, I did watch the entire movie. Enjoyed it too, but felt the 3.5 euros extra for a clumsy pair of glasses was a bit of a waste of cash.
It uses 3d not as a specticle but as just another tool.
So instead of gimmicks like the axe or other thing thrown at you for a jump in a 3d horror, or similar joke moments in 3d kids or comedy movies, it treats it as a natural extension of the film.
The use of 3d depth of field is new, and a good example of this... But it's subtle enough that a lot of people didn't notice it.
So instead of gimmicks like the axe or other thing thrown at you for a jump in a 3d horror, or similar joke moments in 3d kids or comedy movies, it treats it as a natural extension of the film.
The use of 3d depth of field is new, and a good example of this... But it's subtle enough that a lot of people didn't notice it.
Similar threads
