Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55
  1. #1
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959

    3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches

    The nnew research has for the first time supposedly offered proof that 3D offers no measurable improvement in enjoyment for the vast majority of film audiences.

    According to a study of 400 filmgoers by L Mark Carrier, of California State University, 3D movies do not allow viewers to experience more intense emotional reactions, are no more immersive, and do not offer any advantage over their 2D counterparts in terms of enhancing the ability to recall a film's details.

    Carrier's study did, however, suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision.

    Participants in the research were asked to watch one of three films Ė Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and How to Train Your Dragon Ė in either 2D or 3D. They were then asked to detail their responses using a list of 60 words ranging from the mild, such as "enjoyment", to the more intense, such as "anger" and "rage". Carrier says there was very little difference between the response of those who watched in 2D and those who viewed in 3D, which surprised researchers.

    The research is just the latest suggestion that the tide might be turning against 3D. Many recent films shot in the format Ė a notable exception is Transformers: Dark of the Moon Ė have failed to offer a 3D box-office boost in the US, and film-makers are beginning to turn against studios that authorise cheap post-production conversions in the hope of achieving a short-term financial return.

    3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches, claims study | Film | guardian.co.uk

  2. #2
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey View Post
    The nnew research has for the first time supposedly offered proof that 3D offers no measurable improvement in enjoyment for the vast majority of film audiences.


    Carrier's study did, however, suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision.


    ]
    You will probably only get one response to say otherwise, but it's a no brainer at this time. Nowhere near enough studies to prove otherwise.

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    18
    I have a 3D tv - a Samsung. We got a 3D starter pack with it. My kids thought it was the coolest thing. For the first 10 minutes. Then even they lost interest. Useless!

    Eric

  4. #4
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    3D is a gimmick. It won't make a bad movie good and I doubt it'll make a good ovie better.

    It may be more "interesting" for a time but the basic flaws or goodness of the movie will still shine through the surface gimmickery. I've seen a few to see what it was all about but nowadays, I won't pay the premium for the glasses.

    Or, you can't polish a turd.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Home Of The Fighting Gamecocks
    Posts
    1,701
    Avitar in 3D was a near out of body experience for me on my Panasonic 55ST30 and so was The Ultimate Wave. ESPN3D is also very cool. 3D is here to stay but think of it as another entertaining feature. It's not an every day format.

  6. #6
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959

    Thanks everybody

    Quote Originally Posted by Poultrygeist View Post
    Avitar in 3D was a near out of body experience for me on my Panasonic 55ST30 and so was The Ultimate Wave.
    One reason Avatar might be exceptiion to this case might be that 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 due to cost-including Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans that were shown to research partcipants. So the results are a mix bag.

    Glassses are probably the most inconvenient feature of 3_d format.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Home Of The Fighting Gamecocks
    Posts
    1,701
    The glasses are inconvenient and not cheap at this point but mine came with two free pair. I wanted a good plasma at a good price and the one I bought happened to be 3D. It was cheaper than some of the lesser rated non 3D's so a no brainer for me. I do however appreciate the novelty of 3D and it's been a grandkid magnet.

  8. #8
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey View Post
    One reason Avatar might be exceptiion to this case might be that 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 due to cost-including Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans that were shown to research partcipants. So the results are a mix bag.

    Glassses are probably the most inconvenient feature of 3_d format.
    You would be really surprised about how much of those live 3D shots had to be redone in post production.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  9. #9
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey View Post
    The nnew research has for the first time supposedly offered proof that 3D offers no measurable improvement in enjoyment for the vast majority of film audiences.

    According to a study of 400 filmgoers by L Mark Carrier, of California State University, 3D movies do not allow viewers to experience more intense emotional reactions, are no more immersive, and do not offer any advantage over their 2D counterparts in terms of enhancing the ability to recall a film's details.

    Carrier's study did, however, suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision.

    Participants in the research were asked to watch one of three films Ė Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and How to Train Your Dragon Ė in either 2D or 3D. They were then asked to detail their responses using a list of 60 words ranging from the mild, such as "enjoyment", to the more intense, such as "anger" and "rage". Carrier says there was very little difference between the response of those who watched in 2D and those who viewed in 3D, which surprised researchers.

    The research is just the latest suggestion that the tide might be turning against 3D. Many recent films shot in the format Ė a notable exception is Transformers: Dark of the Moon Ė have failed to offer a 3D box-office boost in the US, and film-makers are beginning to turn against studios that authorise cheap post-production conversions in the hope of achieving a short-term financial return.

    3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches, claims study | Film | guardian.co.uk
    A study done without without testing the eyesight of the viewers, or taking into consideration if the bulbs in the projectors where calibrating with the proper level, or which 3D system the viewers where exposed to.

    This study is a pile of crap!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  10. #10
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    A study done without...
    Last weekend, the wife and I along with one of her friends saw the Harry Potter film at a recently built digital IMAX. From my perspective, the video quality was superb and I found myself totally immersed in the experience. That is also one of three places where I've seen Avatar in all of its glory.

    My wife enjoyed the movie and found the lighting better than the previous film, but is not a 3D fan. She and her friend also report getting headaches from watching 3D. Specifically, she commented to me (without prompting) that she should take some Aleve before watching. Bulb? Check. Vision? Minor corrected myopia. I think it is a form of motion sickness since she also doesn't like extreme G rides - which I thoroughly enjoy.

    rw

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    125
    I may be in the minority, but I have gone to the theaters for almost all of the 3D movies with the exception of Avatar and Thor, and am a fan of 3D. Its NOT something I would want to experience every single day, but nonetheless, its a thrill for me. I expect to see Captain America next week...... whenever I am working far from home, I prefer to spend my time dining and watching a good football match in a restaurant OR going to the movies, I just cannot sit in the hotel room and watch TV.

  12. #12
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I don't find that 3D adds anything to the experience - it detracts from it IME - but it could be that the movies sucked anyway. Clash of the Titans was really bad and Avatar to me was only okay. I didn't find the visual effects all that great either - sorry but watching half a cartoon and half people is not my idea of great special effects and adding 3D is just a gimmick to me.

    Another case of people in some board room saying "look at this technology we can use isn't it cool" and no one bothering to ask "but should we?"

    I think you go to the the people who teach film school at universities - arguably American's top film Critic Roger Ebert and I think he's right. I would argue that we don't need to suck all the imagination out of the viewer.

    Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
    Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - The Daily Beast

    His point 3 was a continuous annoyance in Avatar - Avatar in 3d looks absolutely fake all the time. I see the 2d screen and then I see a kind of overlay - 3d is just junk and I'm amazed so many people let all these obvious problems slip by. Avatar was also a mediocre movie with some horrible 2D cardboard characters - maybe they knew this so throw a bunch of visuals at the screen to make it seem better. ugh.

    Roger's 9th point mirrors an article that notes the movie theater industry may be in some big trouble and very soon. If people are like me and some of them at least are - I was a guy who went to 64 movies in the theaters in one year. This year I have seen maybe 4. Apparently viewership at the movies is down nearly 10% this year from last.
    Last edited by RGA; 08-29-2011 at 11:24 AM.

  13. #13
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA View Post
    I don't find that 3D adds anything to the experience - it detracts from it IME - but it could be that the movies sucked anyway. Clash of the Titans was really bad and Avatar to me was only okay. I didn't find the visual effects all that great either - sorry but watching half a cartoon and half people is not my idea of great special effects and adding 3D is just a gimmick to me.
    Clash of the Titans is one of the worst 3D conversions ever done, and it is followed closely by The Last Airbender which was actually not a bad movie. In both cases Warner waited to the last moment to make the decision to convert them which did not allow enough time to do it right. Neither movie during pre-production had any plans for a 3D conversion, so no shots were ever planned to support a good 3D conversion.

    Another case of people in some board room saying "look at this technology we can use isn't it cool" and no one bothering to ask "but should we?"
    The higher price for the tickets tells them they should, but the lower draw they are getting because of the higher price is telling them they are overselling this product.

    I think you go to the the people who teach film school at universities - arguably American's top film Critic Roger Ebert and I think he's right. I would argue that we don't need to suck all the imagination out of the viewer.

    Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
    Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - The Daily Beast

    His point 3 was a continuous annoyance in Avatar - Avatar in 3d looks absolutely fake all the time. I see the 2d screen and then I see a kind of overlay - 3d is just junk and I'm amazed so many people let all these obvious problems slip by. Avatar was also a mediocre movie with some horrible 2D cardboard characters - maybe they knew this so throw a bunch of visuals at the screen to make it seem better. ugh.

    Roger's 9th point mirrors an article that notes the movie theater industry may be in some big trouble and very soon. If people are like me and some of them at least are - I was a guy who went to 64 movies in the theaters in one year. This year I have seen maybe 4. Apparently viewership at the movies is down nearly 10% this year from last.
    Roger Ebert's opinions are well past their prime. He is stuck in yesteryear, and is creating all of this opposition to get press, and remain relevant. When theaters went digital, he complained about the quality of the picture saying it had lost its soul when compared to film. A study of 2,000 viewers showed that overwhelmingly theater goers thought digital cinema looked as good as 35mm film. They do however look very different, but there is no "one is better than the other" to be found. He didn't like digital sound when it came on the scene in 1992. He just does not seem to like progress when it comes to the cinema. , and there is no proof whatsoever that film presentation has degraded in any way because of digital.

    I say boo to him. Retire.....
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  14. #14
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I think his points are valid when it comes to the mind seeing 3D on a 2D screen. The technology of 3D - including Avatar which is supposedly THE best film of the bunch and even Roger liked it more than me looks like a 3D overlay of 2D. In other words to me - it looks completely artificial and I can see something in the foreground a big gap and then something on a 2D screen behind it. It just looks so incredibly fake and has since Jaws 3D.

    I have no problem with technology - if it actually improves the movie going experience - it doesn't in my view - it makes it look fake. But that's my problem with a lot of the CGI affects and why Empire Strikes back looks more REAL than Lucas' new movies which look like video game cartoon effects. It's pretty sad that with all the money spent on CGI that a ship in Empire looks like it is made of real steel and has substance while the new movies look like computer made graphics - which of course they are.

    If you read Ebert's article - and I don't think you read all of the three pages he did note that he was impressed with Avatar's 3D:

    "Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for childrenís films, animation, and films such as James Cameronís Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameronís film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. Itís used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameronís Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.

    Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.../...

    9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that canít be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.

    What Hollywood needs is a ďpremiumĒ experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years Iíve been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, itís 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who havenít seen it have no idea how good it is. Iíve seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbullís Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D."

  15. #15
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    When theaters went digital, he complained about the quality of the picture saying it had lost its soul when compared to film. A study of 2,000 viewers showed that overwhelmingly theater goers thought digital cinema looked as good as 35mm film. They do however look very different, but there is no "one is better than the other" to be found.
    I think what he said about digital is that movies that have heavy computer-aided special-effects seem to look better on digital video, were movies that depict the real world look better on films (given that movies shot on digital shown on video projector, and that movies shot on film projected on film).

    Lucas demonstrates potential of digital video with 'Attack of the Clones' :: rogerebert.com :: News & comment

  16. #16
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I think the debate should be about traditional effects versus CGI - to me there is question whatsoever that Traditional effects look about a billion times better than the CGI in films like Avatar, and the new Star Wars movies. Some blending is ok.

    I'm curious to see the new The Thing will look which apparently will come out later this year. If they CGI it - it will look dumb - I can already bank on it.

    In fact looking at the trailer I can already see the terrible fake looking CGI in several scenes - It's already depressing me.

    The skill in movie making is gone - handed over to people who sit behind computer screens. They'll probably put it out in 3D cause it's "better" - geez - meanwhile the Thing 1982 is nearly 30 years old and the effects are still more believable than most of the crap being pumped out today. There was ACTUAL skill involved in those effects.

    And I won't even start on the whole prequel thing. I will give ti a shot because it was from the makers of the people who remade Dawn of the Dead. Though the original Dawn of the Dead was still miles better the remake was entertaining on a visceral level - just lost the mood, the satire, social commentary, intelligence, sense of doom - but hey it had better effects and audiences are much dumber so I guess it's good enough.

    Hollywood is complete crap. They need garbage like 3D because the films have zero merit.

  17. #17
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA View Post
    I think his points are valid when it comes to the mind seeing 3D on a 2D screen. The technology of 3D - including Avatar which is supposedly THE best film of the bunch and even Roger liked it more than me looks like a 3D overlay of 2D. In other words to me - it looks completely artificial and I can see something in the foreground a big gap and then something on a 2D screen behind it. It just looks so incredibly fake and has since Jaws 3D.
    RGA, his points are bullcrap. I watch 3D on a 180" screen, a 65" screen, and a 55" screen sitting at the proper distance for those screen widths, and I don't see what you are seeing at all. There is some very good 3D out there, and there is some very bad, but not all exhibit the qualities you state. Avatar certainly does not look like you describe.

    I have no problem with technology - if it actually improves the movie going experience - it doesn't in my view - it makes it look fake. But that's my problem with a lot of the CGI affects and why Empire Strikes back looks more REAL than Lucas' new movies which look like video game cartoon effects. It's pretty sad that with all the money spent on CGI that a ship in Empire looks like it is made of real steel and has substance while the new movies look like computer made graphics - which of course they are.
    First, I don't agree with you that the ship on Empire looks like a real ship, it looks like a wire model to me. The later editions certainly look better better, but they have never been able to clean up the matte markings around the ship.

    If you read Ebert's article - and I don't think you read all of the three pages he did note that he was impressed with Avatar's 3D:
    I read all three pages ages ago. My problem with Ebert in general is his disdain for progress, and his one dimensional opinion to what he considers a good movie. His opinions when related to film making are outdated, and just because he agrees with you in this one respect does not mean a thing. An opinion is an opinion, and that is all he is forwarding here. His opinions does not make anything fact.

    "Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for childrenís films, animation, and films such as James Cameronís Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameronís film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. Itís used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameronís Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.
    Hitchcocks 3D is nothing like 3D today. To use that as a basis for an argument just shows how far you have to stretch to make a point.

    As far as the last comment, simply not true. Camaron, Bay, Nolan, Burton, and a host of other directors are embracing 3D without any encouragement from the marketing departments.

    Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.../...
    This crap is just plain wrong, and I know this first hand as I work at the studio that produced it. Burton shot Alice with 3D in mind, but could not get the budget to do live 3D. With the 3D cameras they had available at the time, it would have doubled the time to make the picture which would have increased costs dramatically. From the ground up, every shot and frame for Alice was designed with 3D in mind.

    Your characterization of events shows that you do not have a grasp of the real information surrounding this subject.

    9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that canít be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.
    Anything that does not evolve is destined for extinction. Film presentation has to evolve just like video does. It is your impression that the gap between theaters and the home has narrowed, but that is not reality. They have one more card up their sleeve that we may never be able to replicate at home.

    What Hollywood needs is a ďpremiumĒ experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years Iíve been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, itís 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who havenít seen it have no idea how good it is. Iíve seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbullís Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D."
    Showscan has been around for years, and it did not stop 3D from coming to theaters. Showscan is much too expensive to do because it involves film - whose cost is skyrocketing. It involves A LOT of film, more than twice as much as film shot at 24fps. The changeover to digital was done to reduce the cost of making the film, and distributing it as well. Those of us who have seen both showscan AND 4k video know the cost of showscan is not worth it when compared to what can be done at 4k resolution.

    Your trying to reach backwards to move forwards does not make logical sense. Everywhere you look, everyone is moving away from film because of the cost. They are not going to go back to film ever, so we need to embrace what we have now, and move forward from there.

    3D is not the devil you are trying to make it. Those of us that embrace it, enjoy it more than a 2D experience -at least when it is done well. Those like you who have issues with it don't need to demonize it as something that is awful, and does not add to the viewing experience. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to have it, and I am welcome to reject it. I have experience with 3D in both the theater, and in my home, and your comments on it are far to generalized to be taken seriously.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  18. #18
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA View Post
    I think the debate should be about traditional effects versus CGI - to me there is question whatsoever that Traditional effects look about a billion times better than the CGI in films like Avatar, and the new Star Wars movies. Some blending is ok.
    There is no debate here because traditional effects are just to expensive to do. They are trying to make movie making cheaper to do, not more expensive


    I'm curious to see the new The Thing will look which apparently will come out later this year. If they CGI it - it will look dumb - I can already bank on it.
    Until the movie comes out, there is nothing you can bank.

    In fact looking at the trailer I can already see the terrible fake looking CGI in several scenes - It's already depressing me.
    Trailers are often in a different resolution than the actual movie. They are usually played off a non-secured lower resolution server.

    The skill in movie making is gone - handed over to people who sit behind computer screens. They'll probably put it out in 3D cause it's "better" - geez - meanwhile the Thing 1982 is nearly 30 years old and the effects are still more believable than most of the crap being pumped out today. There was ACTUAL skill involved in those effects.
    RGA, how many movies have you written, produced, or directed? Nil, so how do you know the skills are gone? Please, you are blowing smoke here, and you really don't have the experience to make comments such as this. The profoundness of your comments can only be measured by your experience in the field - of which you have none.

    And I won't even start on the whole prequel thing. I will give ti a shot because it was from the makers of the people who remade Dawn of the Dead. Though the original Dawn of the Dead was still miles better the remake was entertaining on a visceral level - just lost the mood, the satire, social commentary, intelligence, sense of doom - but hey it had better effects and audiences are much dumber so I guess it's good enough.

    Hollywood is complete crap. They need garbage like 3D because the films have zero merit.
    If you really think Hollywood is crap, stop buying movies, stop going to the theater, and get Hollywood out of your mind altogether. At this point I have grown tired of your uniformed BS in regards to this subject. Put your action where your mouth is, give up on filmmaking and video, and there is no need for your negative comments going forward. Whatever you do, please stop framing your comments like you are a veteran filmmaker unhappy with the way things are going.

    They have been making bad movies as long as film has been in existence, so don't try and act like this is a new occurance. This Hollywood is no worse than Hollywood of the 40's and 50's
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    125
    I go to a movie every chance I get, and usually it has to have body count, special effects and whatever else ( OK, I will say it, gratuitous sex and violence ) to take my mind off my customer problems with the machines I repair. And, the screen is BIG and the sound LOUD, nothing at all like what my good neighbors are used to by now!!
    So bring on 4D ( Spy Kids movie with 3D glasses and a smell card, from what I gather ..... ) and entertain me please!!
    Conan the Barbarian was better presented in 3D than Captain America, but being the holiday season, the queues are much bigger then my patience, otherwise it would have probably been a new world record of watching three 3D movies in 3 days!!!
    I am not a movie critic, but some films just take your breath away, and compel one to comment to people about it, for me they are just a way to block out the world for a couple of hours, just like going to the gym ( where I spend the best part of an hour in the sauna/jacuzzi/turkish bath ).

  20. #20
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    I think you've got the right idea, Nasir.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nasir View Post
    I go to a movie every chance I get, and usually it has to have body count, special effects and whatever else ( OK, I will say it, gratuitous sex and violence ) to take my mind off my customer problems with the machines I repair. And, the screen is BIG and the sound LOUD, nothing at all like what my good neighbors are used to by now!!
    So bring on 4D ( Spy Kids movie with 3D glasses and a smell card, from what I gather ..... ) and entertain me please!!
    This is all entertainment, cotton candy for the mind. If it takes you away from the harsh realities of everyday life, then more power to it.

    After all, this isn't brain surgery where someones life is resting on it. It exists to give us a few giggles and/or thrills and if one cannot extend them some literary license and suspend belief for two hours, well, then they deserve to be dissatisfied. IF finding flaws in life is their biggest turh-on, well, I'd rather spend my time enjoying life than spend all my time trying to find every flaw in it.

    Unless one deals with this as a profession, all this nit-picking and sneering at a less-than-perfect simulation is not unlike debating which nudie magazine provides the most realistic simulation of a sexual experience. It may show a lot of dedicated effort, but to what avail? It still ain't real, and it never will be!

    While I'm no fan of 3D, I have no problem with those who like it. And as long as they don't stop releasing 2D in favor of 3D, I have no problem, but I really think 4D will be easier to implement in the home.

    BTW, my favorite 3D scene was the one in "The A-Team" where the inmates were watching the movie with the red/blue glasses. That was one heckuva effect. (Pssssst... I saw it in 2D.)

  21. #21
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    .................
    ........................................
    .................................................. .............
    .................................................. ..................................
    It is your impression that the gap between theaters and the home has narrowed, but that is not reality. They have one more card up their sleeve that we may never be able to replicate at home. .......
    .................................................. ............................
    .............................................
    .........................
    ..........

    Sticky floors?
    The guy behind you who won't stop talking?
    The girl in front of you who won't take her hat off?
    The two in the back row making grunting sounds?

    Sorry. I had-ta do it.....
    Still friends?
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  22. #22
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Blockbuster video canada is going out of business - reason - digital downloads have killed their business.

    Movie theaters in Canada are in trouble. Might be in trouble everywhere but they're definitely in trouble in Canada. MPAA BETRAYS THEATERS: Asks FCC To Let Studios Transmit First-Run Films Directly To Consumers – Deadline.com

  23. #23
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    RGA, his points are bullcrap. I watch 3D on a 180" screen, a 65" screen, and a 55" screen sitting at the proper distance for those screen widths, and I don't see what you are seeing at all. There is some very good 3D out there, and there is some very bad, but not all exhibit the qualities you state. Avatar certainly does not look like you describe.
    ...
    To me Avatar looked very good when I saw it in theatre. A few days ago I say Conan the Barbarian and it was terrrible -- kind of like RGA describes: 2D objects floating about a 2D background. I suppose it has something to do with the respecitive technologies.l

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    ......
    My problem with Ebert in general is his disdain for progress, and his one dimensional opinion to what he considers a good movie. His opinions when related to film making are outdated, and just because he agrees with you in this one respect does not mean a thing. An opinion is an opinion, and that is all he is forwarding here. His opinions does not make anything fact.
    ...
    Well, I was always more likely to agree with Siskel -- a big loss there.

    But RGA has that problem with critics: he picks those who agree with him and presents their views as Gospel.

  24. #24
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    No Question Avatar is FAR better than anything else I have seen on 3D. Perhaps it would have helped if I though Avatar was a good movie. I am not fooled by effects into thinking crap stories are good.

    Avatar to me looked good compared to Clash of the Titans and there were less issues with what I call overlay - to me when you walk down the street you and are looking at a car coming toward you, you get a smooth transition as the car approaches you - this is LIFE - this is 3D life. In the movies it seems staggered in a series of points (at best) and at worst it seems to jump and you can see it almost as a series of planes. It simply does not look natural either in the theater or on the top of the line Sony I saw it on. It does not look as natural as "Real Life" and anyone who says it delusional.

    As for Ebert - He gave Avatar four stars and raved about the 3D - I gave the movie a marginal thumbs down due to stupid writing, formula story, idiotic bad guys, forgettable good guys (cute blue cat lady though) and overrated 3D - I was expecting too much perhaps from all the hype.

    I like Ebert - but I don't agree with him too much - he also gave 4 stars to Episode 1 of the new Star Wars with Jar Jar - I shut it off half way through and it was on my list as the worst film of the year. It was an epic fail on pretty much every level and IMO the effects stunk because effects are supposed to aid the story not replace it.

    Sir T thinks people who do not have background in film making are not suppose to critique movies. I have a degree in English literature, studied acting, took acting classes - So I am allowed to judge those but I can't say one thing looks more real than another thing. I think the effects in American Werewolf in London look more real than the CGI in American Werewolf in Paris. But I can't say that because I am not a visual effects worker for Universal?

    You're talking to a guy who likes the original Doctor Who series which has to have some of the worst effects going. I can see past the effects for the story every time. Take Jurassic Park which was on TV the other day. Holds up pretty well but there are obvious weaknesses with the effects and obvious strengths - it looked great when it came out - and a lot of it was CGI. And because it was a good movie for what it is you can forgive some of the weaker CGI effects.

    I enjoy a lot of movies that have obvious CGI effects because the movie is good. What is bothersome to me is a movie that "relies" on CGI is touted as being one of if not the best - costs 200 million plus to make and then because it's a weak movie - I will focus more on the visual effects (after all it's supposed to be great).

    With Avatar plenty of people dislike the effects (Ebert's not one of them) - I hope Siskel would have called it out. The Navi look completely fake - cartoons - and no amount of 3D or good effects elsewhere can fix that. Sure it has terrific visual effects for large segments of the movie but they get let down enough to be off putting - and I still don't see the 3D being any sort of aid - several scenes look like a 3D effect - unnatural.

    Maybe if there was ONE good movie that came out in 3D it might help - when all of them SUCK it's hard to get into it. Scorcese is making one in 3D so I have hope. But why buy a 3D TV when every movie filmed in 3D is unwatchable crap.

    This is my new favorite critic and he is bang on with Avatar Avatar Review (Part 1 of 2) - YouTube
    Last edited by RGA; 09-02-2011 at 08:16 AM.

  25. #25
    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

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

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
  •