Wearing Glasses With 3D Movie Glasses?

[Mr Light]

Well the glasses worked fine. I definitely had a headache after 3 hours of watching through them though!

 

[Small White Car]

I still can't believe people pay money to go see 3D films in theaters.

Oh well, as long as they keep offering regular theaters I guess I don't care. I just hope it doesn't become so popular that they end up releasing some films in ONLY 3D.

 

[Trekker4747]

I still can't believe people pay money to go see 3D films in theaters.

Oh well, as long as they keep offering regular theaters I guess I don't care. I just hope it doesn't become so popular that they end up releasing some films in ONLY 3D.

The 3D in this movie is awesome and truely used the third dimension for everything it should be -depth. Watching this movie was less "jutting things into the camera and making it hover over the first few rows of seats" and far more "window into a new world."

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I still can't believe people pay money to go see 3D films in theaters.

Oh well, as long as they keep offering regular theaters I guess I don't care. I just hope it doesn't become so popular that they end up releasing some films in ONLY 3D.

The 3D in this movie and truely used the third dimension for everything it should be -depth. Watching this movie was less "jutting things into the camera and making it hover over the first few rows of seats" and far more "window into a new world."

Yeah, the 3D in Avatar didn't come off as gimmicky the way it usually does. For most of the movie it's pretty subtle and doesn't draw attention to itself. The few times they put things "up close," it's a great effect. Only a couple times did they actually have anything fly out of the screen, and it was appropriate when it happened. I think it was quite well-done.

 

[Goji]

The 3-D glasses fit over my regular glasses just fine, but having two pairs of glasses pressing against my nose got annoying about halfway through the movie. Fortunately I was enjoying it, so I tolerated the discomfort.

 

[Snaploud]

Avatar is the first case of "3D" in which I didn't feel the 3D hurt the movie experience. I normally prefer non-3D as 3D just seems unnecessary (with the picture darker and more dull). For Avatar, it actually worked quite well.

 

[Small White Car]

Yeah, the 3D in Avatar didn't come off as gimmicky the way it usually does. For most of the movie it's pretty subtle and doesn't draw attention to itself.

I'd have more faith if that wasn't exactly how people have described every single 3D movie for the past decade.

But you know what? That's really not the issue. I don't have a problem with the 3D effect itself. (Honest!) What I dislike are the side effects of it. 3D movies aren't as sharp. They're not as bright and they're not as vibrant. Everything's kind of cut down a notch and it's not something I enjoy.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, the 3D in Avatar didn't come off as gimmicky the way it usually does. For most of the movie it's pretty subtle and doesn't draw attention to itself.

I'd have more faith if that wasn't exactly how people have described every single 3D movie for the past decade.

But you know what? That's really not the issue. I don't have a problem with the 3D effect itself. (Honest!) What I dislike are the side effects of it. 3D movies aren't as sharp. They're not as bright and they're not as vibrant. Everything's kind of cut down a notch and it's not something I enjoy.

I didn't find Avatar to be lacking in color or vibrance at all. It's an extremely colorful movie.

 

[Trekker4747]

Yeah, the 3D in Avatar didn't come off as gimmicky the way it usually does. For most of the movie it's pretty subtle and doesn't draw attention to itself.

I'd have more faith if that wasn't exactly how people have described every single 3D movie for the past decade.

But you know what? That's really not the issue. I don't have a problem with the 3D effect itself. (Honest!) What I dislike are the side effects of it. 3D movies aren't as sharp. They're not as bright and they're not as vibrant. Everything's kind of cut down a notch and it's not something I enjoy.

For the most part the picture in this movie was very sharp -and I didn't see it in IMAX- other than a couple instances where some immediate foreground object was a bit blurry or out of focus but I shrugged it off as it either being an effect of where my seat was or that object just being "closer than where the camera was focusing."

I've seen severtal 3D movies myself and this movie I felt did the effect very, very well and is worth checking out.

 

[StolenThunder]

I still can't believe people pay money to go see 3D films in theaters.

Oh well, as long as they keep offering regular theaters I guess I don't care. I just hope it doesn't become so popular that they end up releasing some films in ONLY 3D.

I think it's worth doing once. Mr Light's fiancee hadn't done it before so now she knows one way or the other.

I think I'll use Avatar to see my first film in 3D as well.

 

[B.J.]

The last time I saw a movie in 3D was back in the early 80s, I think (small theater in Hartford was showing It Came From Outer Space and Creature From The Black Lagoon ) and they were still using the old red and blue cardboard kind. I was able to wear them with my glasses, but my eyes were watering uncomfortably by the end of the second movie.

What is it that theaters use now (you can tell I don't know anything about 3D movies anymore )?

J.

They are polarized lenses, one eye can see vertical wavelengths and the other eye can see horizontal ones. If you have two pairs you can hold the lenses in front of each other and rotate one pair of glasses and see the lenses change from transparent to opaque

Not entirely true anymore, and I think this is the reason for the recent surge in 3D movies. With the linearly polarized lenses as you describe, if you tilt your head slightly, the left and right images will start to bleed into each other. Now they mostly use circularly polarized lenses, which can maintain image separation even when you tilt your head.