Results 1 to 25 of 55

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4
    I think that if it's done right, 3D can look good. It doesn't always look fake either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    ...one of the worst 3D conversions ever done, and it is followed closely by The Last Airbender which was actually not a bad movie...
    Even "The Last Airbender" (not a great movie but still OK) had some parts where the 3D was better than others. But yes, most of the 3D conversion did suck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    ...no shots were ever planned to support a good 3D conversion.
    And that's when 3D begins to suck. When they don't plan for it or don't think it through.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey View Post
    ...live action was filmed using digital 3-D cameras. So the effects are kind of "real". But majority of 3-D movies these days use post production 3-D effects...
    I agree. 3D looks better when special cameras and equipment are used instead of post-production editing. It's better to do shots in 3D than to take the 2D shots, make a copy, and do some cheap editing. And the effects are "real" because of how your brain interprets the images when they are taken by 2 cameras at the same time and focused into one image.

    If the motion picture industry would spend more money on this equipment than maybe more people would want to see it and actually enjoy it. And yes, some films do look good in 3D.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poultrygeist View Post
    The glasses are inconvenient and not cheap at this point...
    Actually you don't need 3D glasses. Some mobile devices support 3D because they have something similar to the glasses built into the screen. I'm not saying you're wrong. We have yet to see something like that on a full size TV or in a theater. However, my point it that I'm sure you will see it eventually (maybe then I'll buy a 3D TV). My best guess it that it won't go past the point of TVs though (it would cost the theaters too much).
    Last edited by TheSmartIdiot95; 09-02-2011 at 09:48 AM. Reason: Just to make one more point

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    11
    For me 3D seems to be like a fashion trend these days abd each second film ends with "3D"-tail. Personally I do not see any great difference between 2D and 3D, so the latter seems to be waste of time except for some really excellent examples of using this technique (like Avatar mentioned above).
    If you want to become part of the action and perceive everything that a movie hero does then you should use 5D. That is the thing you will hardly be able to stand for more than 30 min)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •