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

[RichUK]

I have not been impressed with 3D in cinemas and actually find it ruins the experience, so would initially be swayed to 2D, but what say you?

 

[JackBurton]

The more important question is, The Hobbit, 24 fps or 48 fps?

 

[zerocool84]

48fps 3D is supposed to eliminate the current problems we have with 3D so I'm definitely going to see it in 3D.

 

[Sixguns]

Ive only seen one movie in 3D and didnt care for it. Ill be sticking to plain 2D.

 

[bigrash]

Go with 3D.

 

[Anubis]

2d

 

[kache]

48fps.

 

[destrekor]

I saw a trailer on a 120hz tv - I thought it looked like junk.

Then I saw it on a regular TV, and thought "it looks like an ordinary movie"

At the time, I hadn't known the first TV was actually 120hz, or if it was even on that setting.

If 48fps is remotely akin to seeing regular film on 120hz, I'd avoid it like the plague.
But in 3D, it might not be too bad.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Yeah I'm wondering the same thing. I do not want the presentation decision to ruin my enjoyment of this film so I'm thinking I may just play it safe and go with 2D.

 

[ch33zw1z]

2d here

 

[coldmeat]

Ive only seen one movie in 3D and didnt care for it. Ill be sticking to plain 2D.

This. It was Avatar. I haven't wanted to see a 3D movie since.

 

[destrekor]

I still haven't watched anything on a 120hz TV in 3D, so I don't know if it's as bad as watching 2D content in 120hz. I imagine it's not nearly as bad, due to the concept of alternating frames for each individual eye.

If that is true for 48fps 3D, then you essentially get 24fps for each eye. Which, ideally, means you get the ideal film-like feeling for each eye, you get the 3D effect, and yet you get none of the perceived negatives of 3D.

 

[kache]

This. It was Avatar. I haven't wanted to see a 3D movie since.

Complete opposite for me. Avatar 3D was the thing that made me love 3D.
Sadly no other movie did it right after Avatar.

 

[Jaskalas]

2d

 

[zerocool84]

I saw a trailer on a 120hz tv - I thought it looked like junk.

Then I saw it on a regular TV, and thought "it looks like an ordinary movie"

At the time, I hadn't known the first TV was actually 120hz, or if it was even on that setting.

If 48fps is remotely akin to seeing regular film on 120hz, I'd avoid it like the plague.
But in 3D, it might not be too bad.

No it's not like watching regular films on a 120hz TV because those TV's put in fake frames to make it look like that, with 48fps, those are real information so it's much more lifelike.

 

[Triumph]

48 fps trailer looked weird to me, so no thanks, maybe on a matinee or something but I don't really care.

But 2d versus 3d is not even a question. 3d is garbage. It makes terrible movies like Avatar even worse and detracts from what would otherwise be good movies. If it's overdone it's annoying and if it's subtle I have to ask, what was the point in the first place?

 

[amdhunter]

Got my ticket already for HFR 3D in Imax for Friday 7PM. I can't wait.

 

[destrekor]

48 fps trailer looked weird to me, so no thanks, maybe on a matinee or something but I don't really care.

But 2d versus 3d is not even a question. 3d is garbage. It makes terrible movies like Avatar even worse and detracts from what would otherwise be good movies. If it's overdone it's annoying and if it's subtle I have to ask, what was the point in the first place?

So if it's not throwing it in your face, it's pointless?

Subtle 3D is the best 3D. Like Avatar's 3D. It wasn't a spectacular movie by any other means, but it is a landmark 3D film. Why? Because it was entirely about the subtle 3D effect, with in your face moments simply there to demonstrate 3D for the feeble ones among us.

Subtle 3D is entirely about the presentation of added depth to scenes. It helps presents a spatial foreground, focal point, and background. If you are in a good position in relation to the screen, it literally looks like one is staring out a very real window. While you can't control the focal point of the lens (like in real life with your eye), you still get the effect of that screen seemingly melting away, and being presented with a tangible foreground and background of the scene. Instead of puzzling your mind to see depth displayed on a 2D projection screen, you instead see a realized scene that extends in front of and beyond the flat screen.

Subtle is best, imho. I don't need "oh wow it just jumped out at me!" 3D, that's just gimmicky. But added immersion with a very real sense of depth? Yes please.

Is it perfect? Hell no. But I'll take it, at least until we can get visuals pumped directly into our brain/optic nerve and skip the whole "looking at a screen in front of our eyes" thing. True 3D holographic visuals might be the next stop-gap measure toward my personal dream, but we're still a little ways out from that even, let alone doing anything that skips the retina (or at least does a new trick in regards to presenting visuals to the retina, unlike anything we have at this time).

 

[xSauronx]

ive enjoyed a couple of 3d animated movies with the kids...but i saw one of the harry potter movies in 3d and that was a mistake. looked horrible. ill probably shoot for 2d

 

[Dedpuhl]

I'm going to see it in IMAX 3D HFR on 12/16.

 

[ioni]

It's supposed to be a trilogy. So you can try 3D on the 1st one and if you don't like it, see the rest in 2D.

 

[SKORPI0]

3D for me. It's not for everybody. Some get dizzy, some don't. :\

Just make sure you're in middle section (not too near the screen) and center (if possible) if you intend to watch the movie in 3D. Technology hasn't been perfected yet, but it's leaps and bounds to the ones they had during the '70s.

My 3D Blu-ray collection is growing and I enjoy watching them every time. Same thing with the shows/sports they have at Comcast 3D.

 

[Imp]

2D... cheaper and glasses are annoying, I find.

Then again, maybe Avatar 3D screwed it up for me because I was in the front row.

 

[JackBurton]

No it's not like watching regular films on a 120hz TV because those TV's put in fake frames to make it look like that, with 48fps, those are real information so it's much more lifelike.

Fake frames or not, it produces a similar effect, which is why most of the test audiences didn't like it.

 

[dud]

I have not been impressed with 3D in cinemas and actually find it ruins the experience, so would initially be swayed to 2D, but what say you?

OP, you should have started a poll and included "neither". Not everyone falls for the hype.