To watch 'The Hobbit' in 2D or 3D, that is the question?

[disappoint]

3D is like anything else. If it's done right, it's great. If it isn't done right, it sucks. I once had a girl tell me she hates violin. I told her if you hate violins you just haven't heard a great orchestra play a good piece with violins in it. I once had another girl tell me she hates beer. I was like, how many beers have you tasted? You hated A beer. I hate some beers too, but there are those few gems that are delicious. You just have to find the right one to your liking.

 

[epidemis]

48 fps 2d. Because i'm a sickler for new things

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

3D is like anything else. If it's done right, it's great. If it isn't done right, it sucks. I once had a girl tell me she hates violin. I told her if you hate violins you just haven't heard a great orchestra play a good piece with violins in it. I once had another girl tell me she hates beer. I was like, how many beers have you tasted? You hated A beer. I hate some beers too, but there are those few gems that are delicious. You just have to find the right one to your liking.

I've tried lots of beers and I never found one I honestly liked. Found a few that were at least drinkable.

I'd go see the 2d personally. I have enormous problems with migraines though so anything that can mess with my vision I really don't want to gamble on.

 

[soulcougher73]

2D all day, everyday. The faster they realize 3D is not lifelike the faster we can move away from that shit.

 

[TJCS]

If you sitting in the first 3 to 5 rows then 2D only. Otherwise, it's just what you like.

 

[JackBurton]

I've tried lots of beers and I never found one I honestly liked. Found a few that were at least drinkable.

I'd go see the 2d personally. I have enormous problems with migraines though so anything that can mess with my vision I really don't want to gamble on.

Yep, I do not like beer.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

the movie is constructed specifically for 48fps 3D

its not some shoddy post processing to add it in, the movie was actually filmed with two cameras

they even ended up having to do crazy stuff like use overly vivid colored props to help compensate for the lack of exposure time for each frame

I really think this movie is going to be legit for high frame rate and 3D

 

[Geosurface]

I have tickets already and am not sure what version it is, but I'm hoping it's 24 fps 2D

 

[blurredvision]

It always blows my mind when people say they hate 3D, I can't comprehend that. I fucking love 3D, I can't imagine how it deters from anyone's experience at all, unless they just can't get the effect and the glasses are uncomfortable. I'm slowly building my home Blu-ray 3D collection and watch in 3D whenever I can. Granted, 3D isn't necessary at all but I love the effect.

To each their own, keep on keepin' on 2D lovers!

 

[Leros]

It always blows my mind when people say they hate 3D, I can't comprehend that. I fucking love 3D, I can't imagine how it deters from anyone's experience at all, unless they just can't get the effect and the glasses are uncomfortable. I'm slowly building my home Blu-ray 3D collection and watch in 3D whenever I can. Granted, 3D isn't necessary at all but I love the effect.

To each their own, keep on keepin' on 2D lovers!

It reduces the strength of colors and gives me a headache.

 

[Triumph]

It always blows my mind when people say they hate 3D, I can't comprehend that. I fucking love 3D, I can't imagine how it deters from anyone's experience at all, unless they just can't get the effect and the glasses are uncomfortable. I'm slowly building my home Blu-ray 3D collection and watch in 3D whenever I can. Granted, 3D isn't necessary at all but I love the effect.

To each their own, keep on keepin' on 2D lovers!

Maybe it has something to do with your username?

 

[preslove]

I've never been that impressed with 3d. Life of Pi was supposed to be one of the best 3d movies ever, and I didn't particularly enjoy the 3d when I saw it last week. I'll probably see the Hobbit in 2d.

 

[destrekor]

It reduces the strength of colors and gives me a headache.

It reduces brightness.

Headache is one thing, and something that could/should be eliminated with future tech. As it stands, it's an individual reaction. I was personally not bothered with theater 3D, using polarized glasses. I haven't seen anything else, haven't used a 3D TV. I would love the opportunity to at least check it out, but as of now I can't say for sure how I will react to home-use 3D.

Polarization filters will reduce overall image brightness, but shouldn't be cutting down color intensity in relation to the rest of the image (in a ratio-measured fashion). Overall, it probably appears that way.

But for me, the mind's eye compensates for that, and the increased visuals offsets the disadvantage.

Of course, this is assuming a film is shot with a dual-CCD, or dual-reel, or to sum it up a dual-lens camera rig. If it's post-processed, I wouldn't even bother.
Directors will start finding better ways to compensate with increased exposures or other processing to bring the brightness and color balance of a film viewed with 3D glasses into line with the 2D variant.

 

[Newbian]

Will do 2d as I notice my eyes hurting sometimes after watching it for awhile and it's a very common issue and if it's anything like lotr it will be long enough to make it even worse.

 

[Newbian]

It reduces brightness.

Headache is one thing, and something that could/should be eliminated with future tech. As it stands, it's an individual reaction. I was personally not bothered with theater 3D, using polarized glasses. I haven't seen anything else, haven't used a 3D TV. I would love the opportunity to at least check it out, but as of now I can't say for sure how I will react to home-use 3D.

Polarization filters will reduce overall image brightness, but shouldn't be cutting down color intensity in relation to the rest of the image (in a ratio-measured fashion). Overall, it probably appears that way.

How would the glasses help in this case?

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/who-could-have-guessed-3d-hurts-your-eyes/

For me it's not so much as a headache as my eyes hurting and I noticed it in the last 15 minutes or so when I watched wreck it ralph in 3d.

 

[destrekor]

How would the glasses help in this case?

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/who-could-have-guessed-3d-hurts-your-eyes/

For me it's not so much as a headache as my eyes hurting and I noticed it in the last 15 minutes or so when I watched wreck it ralph in 3d.

I wasn't saying any particular type of glasses help; I merely stated my experience, with what type of glasses I had used.

At home, you'll more likely find active-shutter glasses. I believe some theaters may utilize this, but most theaters use some form of polarized glasses. That is, they are similar in application to the red/blue filter glasses, except the glasses tend to be a little more sturdy, and the filter both more effective and a better material that doesn't introduce visual distortions.
I know there, at one point (and probably still today), there were two types of polarized glasses in use in theaters. One was circular polarization, one was a straight directional polarization I think. I don't believe one could cause problems for an individual but not the other, but it is possible. I do believe it could be possible that passive glasses, using polarized filters, might be problem free, or even cause problems, whereas active-shutter glasses at home might produce the opposite result for an individual. I can't say for sure.


As for physical discomfort, again, that's a per-individual issue. Some will experience discomfort, as has been noted frequently, but others experience no ill effects (such as myself).
Part of the issue is proper seating location. Some seats are a) going to have diminished 3D effect, and b) increase chances of the eyes struggling to comfortably take it all in.
But other than that, if one does experience discomfort, I imagine a good bit of advice is be mindful of what your eyes are focusing on in any given scene. I think a good film is going to keep the ideal focal point at a neutral distance, with the scene enveloping said focal point. Of course, we like to let our eyes wander, look at various details and pieces of action occurring elsewhere in a scene. But if it appears blurry, it's probably not in focus during filming, and that means something else is in focus (the subject). If you don't wander and remain with what's in focus, you may experience less discomfort.

It's hit and miss - some people just won't experience discomfort. Or they may possibly have just a small bout, relax the eyes a bit, and they're good to continue on for another hour.
I've experienced discomfort just looking at a computer screen during gaming for long hours - it's not restricted to only 3D stereo viewing that's displayed on a 2D plane. It can be any 2D plane with moving imagery. Hell, it can even be the fully 3D world out there - it's less likely you'll find yourself darting your eyes all over the place, constantly changing focal point to and fro, close and far, so often that it introduces discomfort, but it can happen.

Don't take such articles as "omg 3D is bad for us!" - everyone has different capabilities, and 3D stereo can just bring out the discomfort faster in some individuals.

 

[zinfamous]

2D. fuck 3D in the ass.


and I also don't care for this "vaselined," fake-ass 48fps mumbo jumbo.

 

[zinfamous]

It always blows my mind when people say they hate 3D, I can't comprehend that. I fucking love 3D, I can't imagine how it deters from anyone's experience at all, unless they just can't get the effect and the glasses are uncomfortable. I'm slowly building my home Blu-ray 3D collection and watch in 3D whenever I can. Granted, 3D isn't necessary at all but I love the effect.

To each their own, keep on keepin' on 2D lovers!

life is 3D. what's the point?

film, being photography, is not a 3D medium.

granted, this is the strongest entrenchment for the technology yet, but it is merely the 4th attempt for this broken misplaced tech to gain any traction in film.

Hell, it's been tried in photography since the 19th century, and still few people have any need for it.

 

[destrekor]

life is 3D. what's the point?

film, being photography, is not a 3D medium.

granted, this is the strongest entrenchment for the technology yet, but it is merely the 4th attempt for this broken misplaced tech to gain any traction in film.

Hell, it's been tried in photography since the 19th century, and still few people have any need for it.

Nobody needs visual entertainment, period.
Your point?



Society has been trying so hard because it's trying to bring life and visual entertainment into the same conversation. There's a major disconnect between 2D film and 3D life, and the aim is to resolve that.
Sure, film by default is not a 3D medium. It can be hacked by using two lenses/capture devices (like a set of eyes), and doing some trickery to get that visual feed to our eyes in the same fashion as we'd see anything else.

I'm a analog film diehard, but I don't get the dislike of trying to turn 2D film into 3D motion for our eyes. It doesn't have to be gimmicky. If it produces visuals with a greater sense of depth to a scene, I call that a win. You can visually imagine perceived depth in 2D film, but without 3D techniques, you can never truly SEE said depth. It's a trick of the eyes/brain at this point, but it's better than simply filling in the details without any tricks.

If it causes discomfort, I understand the reason to dislike it. But short of that, it's either some "we shan't do this! This turning 2D into 3D, it's a sin! Blasphemy" thing, or it's "it's been tried before and failed. why bother trying again? it's just gonna fail again" pessimism.

We have the technology to do it today like never before. We have the ability to view it just about anywhere, not only in theaters. The actual visuals provided are superior to any other method presented before.
There are mild evolution-like changes that we can develop to make it slightly better, possibly inducing discomfort for far fewer individuals, but the actual visuals probably won't change much. Perhaps smoothness of panning, color saturation and brightness, those can be improved with new filming and processing techniques, but the basic concept itself is like never before. We're actually using stereo capture devices, in of itself a landmark achievement.

The only revolutionary changes to the 3D format we have left to bring about are holographic mediums, and some kind of VR-type hack. Either glasses displaying the the content directly (like VR headsets of lore), some kind of device beaming the visuals directly into your retina (an advanced version of such VR headsets), or some kind of device sending the visual data directly into your brain in some far-off sci-fi technology, using wireless waves to beam either into the visual center of the brain itself, or into the optic nerves.

 

[videogames101]

2D. fuck 3D in the ass.


and I also don't care for this "vaselined," fake-ass 48fps mumbo jumbo.

2d for sure, but why do you say the 48fps is fake?

i cannot stand the 24fps of tv or movies, not watching it on a real 120hz monitor anyways

 

[K1052]

I'll see it in 3D but on a screen that achieves a minimum 6 foot lamberts during 3D presentation. 4fl or less presentations drive me nuts.

 

[Meractik]

I got a question about this.... I read the book... and I remember detailed specifics about the storyline that do not match up with the theatrical preview that I saw when going to see skyfall....

So my question is, the ending title on the preview said "The Hobbit - An adaptation of J.R. Tolkein's book" or something to that affect... so are they not focusing on the storyline from the book? are they just using the characters and making a whole new story?

If they go with the latter I won't even bother to go see it, ill wait for it on dvd... and from the preview I saw it doesn't look like its the same story as the book, a mere adaptation which I think would be cheap and crappy.....

 

[Leros]

I got a question about this.... I read the book... and I remember detailed specifics about the storyline that do not match up with the theatrical preview that I saw when going to see skyfall....

So my question is, the ending title on the preview said "The Hobbit - An adaptation of J.R. Tolkein's book" or something to that affect... so are they not focusing on the storyline from the book? are they just using the characters and making a whole new story?

If they go with the latter I won't even bother to go see it, ill wait for it on dvd... and from the preview I saw it doesn't look like its the same story as the book, a mere adaptation which I think would be cheap and crappy.....

It's being made by Peter Jackson and the rest of the LOTR crew. It's going to be a badass movie even it doesn't follow Tolkien's story. I'd see it theaters just for the cinematic.

 

[Meractik]

It's being made by Peter Jackson and the rest of the LOTR crew. It's going to be a badass movie even it doesn't follow Tolkien's story. I'd see it theaters just for the cinematic.

I don't know about that... peter jackson made the king kong 3d ride at universal hollywood as well... and it completely sucked (I was fortunate to have only waited 15-20min for the ride during their halloween night) and after it was over I wanted my minute and thirty seconds back.

I absolutely love the first three LOTR movies but mostly for the story being followed on the big screen... If they're not going to follow the story then they shouldn't call the movie "The Hobbit" just seems like giving people false hope to me a marketing scheme to sell more tickets, I have a feeling im not the only one who shares this opinion.

 

[zerocool84]

I don't know about that... peter jackson made the king kong 3d ride at universal hollywood as well... and it completely sucked (I was fortunate to have only waited 15-20min for the ride during their halloween night) and after it was over I wanted my minute and thirty seconds back.

I absolutely love the first three LOTR movies but mostly for the story being followed on the big screen... If they're not going to follow the story then they shouldn't call the movie "The Hobbit" just seems like giving people false hope to me a marketing scheme to sell more tickets, I have a feeling im not the only one who shares this opinion.

Of course Peter Jackson didn't make the ride, they just use his name.