Hate 3D? I will change your mind

[SandEagle]

i love 3D, esp. basketball in 3D. amazing. too bad i get disoriented watching it

 

[mmntech]

Avatar is the only 3D movie that sort of impressed me. It was shot in 3D though. I still think it's a gimmick to get people to pay more for movies. Especially when they do the conversions. Same goes for games. The only 3D game that really impressed me was Mario 3D Land.

The public is quickly losing taste for it. You don't see 3DTVs being advertised anywhere near as much as they were last year. I think you can tell its not real and it breaks down the suspension of disbelief in movies. Your brain just can't process it.

 

[Anubis]

Hate 3D? I will change your mind

no you wont

 

[SKORPI0]

3D movies are okay if done properly, no post converting 2D to 3D. It's not for everyone to watch though. Some people get disoriented/dizzy and some people enjoy it. Fortunately, I'm of the later group.

I have the Avatar 3D Blu-ray that was sold specially for use with the Panasonic Viera 3D Plasmas and it movie looks amazing using the Active shutter glasses.

 

[shortylickens]

#1 its not 3D. Its stereoscopy.
#2 when we have real 3D, I will be all over that shit.

 

[soulcougher73]

3D sucks. That is all i will contribute...

 

[Cattykit]

OP is not entirely wrong. The problem with his conclusion is that he jumped to conclusion with ignorance.
In order to overcome the shortcoming OP mentioned, movie industry is pushing higher fps films: 48fps or even higher fps. This has opened another can of worm and it is currently the hottest topic in the industry. Some thinks it's smooth and cool while some thinks it makes movies look like morning time soap operas. I agree with the latter. I can tolerate 3D, even enjoy it. But, higher fps movies look really, really shitty. Most of people who's seen 48fps Hobbit trailer voiced the same concern while those who's seen 24fps version of it said it looked fantastic.

If 3d becomes the norm, I'm positive 48+fps will also become the standard due to reasons OP mentioned. Even worse, it'll trickle down to 2d films. This, IMHO, is the worst case scenario. If so, you will not benefit but suffer more.

 

[irishScott]

Even if you never watch 3D it is a benefiting us viewers. How can that be? Well when you watch a movie filmed for 3D they do not change angles nearly as often during action scenes and avoid shaky cam. Although i am sure they could use shaky cam with 3D i imagine a lot of nausea in the audience. Could you imagine the last two Bourne films in 3D? it would never work when in action scenes they cut the angle so much you cannot tell who is who. Think of the fight with Jason Bourne and Jarda in The Bourne Supremacy.

What i am trying to say is that 3D does not work when you cut to different angles quickly. Therefore it is making hollywood show restraint and making movies better. Movies like Domino, Transformers 2, and The Bourne Supremacy or Ultimatum would never work in 3D because of all the quick cuts or shaky cam or both. Even if you do not watch a movie in 3D you will benefit.

1. I have never had any issue with shaky cam, I can watch it as well as non-shaky. If your eyes and brain aren't agile enough that's your problem.

2. Quick cuts can be done well in the right context, and aren't a problem in and of themselves.

3. You're an idiot.

 

[JimKiler]

I agree with you and you make a good point, as long as I can still watch the movie WITHOUT 3D.

Thank you, someone finally understand I am not advocating for more haters to start watching 3D, i am saying the finished product of movies in 2D is better because of 3D filming techniquies.

No way you or anyone else could change my mind about 3D. No interest whatsoever.

did you even read my post? See my first reply in this post.

OP is not entirely wrong. The problem with his conclusion is that he jumped to conclusion with ignorance.
In order to overcome the shortcoming OP mentioned, movie industry is pushing higher fps films: 48fps or even higher fps. This has opened another can of worm and it is currently the hottest topic in the industry. Some thinks it's smooth and cool while some thinks it makes movies look like morning time soap operas. I agree with the latter. I can tolerate 3D, even enjoy it. But, higher fps movies look really, really shitty. Most of people who's seen 48fps Hobbit trailer voiced the same concern while those who's seen 24fps version of it said it looked fantastic.

If 3d becomes the norm, I'm positive 48+fps will also become the standard due to reasons OP mentioned. Even worse, it'll trickle down to 2d films. This, IMHO, is the worst case scenario. If so, you will not benefit but suffer more.

Ugh, see my first reply in this specific post. I do not want you to see 3D, i want you to know your 2D movies are better because of 3D.

But yes I am curious to see how 48fps handles 3D despite the CinemaCon negative reactions. I suspect those reactions might change when forced to watch at 48fps for more than 10 minutes, say a full length movie.

 

[Aikouka]

In order to overcome the shortcoming OP mentioned, movie industry is pushing higher fps films: 48fps or even higher fps. This has opened another can of worm and it is currently the hottest topic in the industry. Some thinks it's smooth and cool while some thinks it makes movies look like morning time soap operas. I agree with the latter. I can tolerate 3D, even enjoy it. But, higher fps movies look really, really shitty. Most of people who's seen 48fps Hobbit trailer voiced the same concern while those who's seen 24fps version of it said it looked fantastic.

One thing that I didn't know is that movies are actually already projected at 48 frames per second. The difference is that the source material is actually 24 FPS (note: NTSC videos are commonly 23.976 FPS not 24) and they double each frame. At least from what I've read, it's just to make the movie a bit smoother for our eyes. I can understand that since I've put my HTPC into a 24Hz refresh rate (for video watching) and using the desktop like that is really awkward. It just feels so laggy!

In this case, they're testing the Hobbit with the source being 48 FPS (as you mentioned).

Thank you, someone finally understand I am not advocating for more haters to start watching 3D, i am saying the finished product of movies in 2D is better because of 3D filming techniquies.

I can see that you don't read my posts, because I said the same thing!