That terribly affects darker movies, but in the case of Up the movie is very colorful and I wasn't bothered by slightly darker picture. Though I do need to see it in 2D I repeat. But still, it's one of the 3D experiences that suited me the most.

I also think you can easily adjust for brightness, but they didn't do it. Which is beyond me.

I dont mind 3D for animated films (TS3 looked good) and the one or two films a year like Avatar (which is kind of animated anyway) but no more. Hopefully the popularity will decrease.

Because i think it's a pretty good analogy.


Yeah, the reason is technology. In decades past 3D was difficult to film, expensive to show and the results weren't nearly as good as today's. Did they have 3D theaters pretty much everywhere back then? No. Did they have the highest grossing movie being a 3D movie back then? No. It's a wholly different situation today, there's no question that it has broken into mainstream and it's here to stay.


How?


I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. People that get real headaches are few and far between, glasses are paperweight, at least the passive ones that are being used most of the time and they cannot not work coz there's no electronics in them (again, for passive glasses). The minor loss in brightness is really not that big of a deal. As for the rare occasions when something does not work, yeah, well, sometimes they fuck up projection or a speaker gets blown, too, should we stop going to theaters?


Yeah and you always know that before something happens you hear some strange sounds in the background or when something explodes the subwoofer gets a lot to do. Same shit.


Why? It's fact. As for how they look, why don't you wait and see them before judging? Again (and again), all you really got for basing your opinions on are the rush jobs from last year. Wait till the movies in native 3D are coming out in the 2nd half of this year.


Tell me exactly what's the difference. From where i stand, you're reaching. As i said a while back, i bet people would have accused 3D for those scenes in movies like LOTR or Matrix where stuff is coming at you.

This holidays we have а russian animated movie with a big tagline "NOT in 3-D". People liked it and most of them just smiled about that obsession. And it worked pretty good and the film already a big hit here.

What a surprise...

Probably coz you got boobs jumping at you.

Avatar didn't break out for 3D only. LOL. There's not a single movie released which was made a hit solely based on 3D. 3D help with the final gross, but it's not a deal-breaker for success.


Because you could then argue that every conversion is better than the original because of the added depth (which according to you automatically makes things better).


http://www.xpandcinema.com/ These are the ones they use in my theater. I have no idea which ones they will use in the new cinema. But these are anything but paperweight. And judging by their list these are very much spread across Germany (and Slovenia where you formerly lived if I remember correctly). The loss of brightness isn't that minor. It gets progressively worse in darker scenes.


Obviously sound equals only background noises to you. So I see no point in arguing there.


It's really tiresome that you need to be told everything. Commons sense and some ability to make conclusions can go a long way in a conversation. But whatever I tell your main argument is - oh but we haven't seen films filmed in 3D yet. And I tell you - from the type of the movies announced in 3D I don't see that 3D will soon evolve into anything that a seasonal gimmick factor. Now, if you say why you think those movies could change the current image of 3D in general public this conversation might become something other than running in circles. But it's not like there haven't been movies filmed in 3D in theaters already. And they haven't made a good case for movies filmed in 3D vs ones that are converted.

That 37% is probably people who don't think that 3D is an better than 2D, or actually find it worse.

What I would like to see is some statistics on people who:

a) Get nausea, headache and disorientation from 3D. Roughly 25% of my friends are like this.

b) Think that 2D simply looks better than 3D. Roughly 40% of my friends are like this.

c) Are completely indifferent to whether a film is in 3D or 2D.

Obviously my friends are a too small group of people to draw any conclusions. Which is why it would be nice to see proper statistics.

Of course not! That's what the haterz are trying to tell us, i'm a fan. Just pointing out that 3D is ubiquitous.


What? No! Conversion means fake, fake sucks! Well, granted, if you take your time (and money) you CAN get pretty close to real.


Yes, these are active shutter glasses, they are heavier but again, it baffles me that that could bother someone, it's not like they are really that heavy.


Because my counter question was, why using surround sound (plus subwoofer) when you could just put every sound to the two front speakers. Answer: it adds immersion. Same with 3D.


Or maybe you can't really tell me.


Wrong. Native 3D looks better than fake 3D. Check out feedback from films like Titans or Airbender and compare that to the feedback films like My Bloody Valentine got. The former two movies hurt 3D's image.

Roger Ebert's Journal entry this week is titled:

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.

It's based on a letter he received from academy award winning film editor Walter Murch, which Ebert quotes in full in his essay.

Needless to say, Murch concludes it is yet another brief rise of the fad and that it will soon die.

I've just got a letter from Academy award winning filmmaker James Cameron and he thinks that dude Walter is full of shit.

I imagine that for those who believe Avatar is a better film than Apocalypse Now that must offer a glimmer of hope.

However, any true film lover who reads Murch's technical argument against 3D surely must at least be slightly wavered in their unwavering love of 3D.





You're correct Magnus - - I believe that 3D will continue as a gimmick for kid's 3D roller coaster-style entertainment movies for quite some time. And as much as I wish 3D would disappear altogether, I fear that PT Barnum's slogan, "There's a sucker born every minute." is all too true and that if anything, the sucker gene has become even more dominant in those born since 1980. So it's possible we might yet live in a dystopian world of these faux 3D films.

That's my main problem - - this "3D" technology isn't even really 3D - - it's the same old stereoscopic illusion that's been trotted out for 120 years now. Once full holographic HD 3D becomes available, I'll be ready to take another look. Imagine a stadium with a full theatrical style holographic movie playing that the audience can watch from 360° - - full FX, the greatest actors, etc - - that's 3D. Even smaller venues with this technology will be able to present intimate dramas.

Ask yourself the question posed by Murch:


Don't be a sucker.

Murch's letter is awesome, and points out EXACTLY the problems I have with 3D.

Mind you, I don't get headache or nausea, but like I mentioned earlier, roughly 1/4 of my friends do.

The strobing effect - or tracing-effect, like I usually call it - is the worst. Anytime there is fast movement on the frame, the strobing sets in. It looks like shit. And it's the same thing regardless of the 3D setup.

The focusing problem is another crucial flaw, although I can live with it better than the strobing effect. It often takes me out of the film when some shots require me to calibrate the distances in my eyes and brains, and I become aware of the process. It doesn't happen with every shot, but it happens way too often.

One problem he didn't mention is the cropping of elements that are closer than the theatre screen. It looks totally unnatural and often extremely distracting.

Instead of comparing 3D to surround sound, I would compare it to smell-a-vision, which also brought a whole new dimension to movie viewing. And the new dimension sucked.

Obviously not all people notice these problems. We have different ways to interpret visual information in our brains. But if for example 25% of the movie-going audiences suffer of these problems, then Hollywood is currently doing a good job of driving a big percentage of their audience away.

Now, there is a possibility that moviegoers simply adapt to 3D. They "learn" to watch it in proper way and ignore it's flaws. Brain is more flexible than Murch suggests, and it actively tries to make sense of visual information, and actively ignores things that are distracting. But nobody knows whether this will happen.

As long as there is a 2D option, I don't find 3D problematic. But there seems to be some intention to take away the 2D option entirely.

It's worse with slow pans and 2D has the same problem. Granted, though, it's more noticeable in 3D. When they start shooting with higher framerates, this problem will go away. Cameron has talked about wishing to shoot his next movies in 48 frames per second.


Or they notice but don't make such a huge a fuss over it because the pros outweigh the cons big-time.

I don't need some dude to tell me why 3D works or doesn't work, i have seen Avatar with my own eyes, it worked, not only for me but a hell of a lot of other people, too, apparently. All those cartoons in 3D are not too shabby either.

What are the cons of a 2d movie that a 3d movie does not also share? Whereas there are a lot of cons that a 3d film has that 2d a film does not.

3d cons:
Price
Blurryness (This is the number one factor for me).
Gimmicky (Meaning it is used to excuse poorly done aspects, like story, in a film)
Annoyance (Meaning the clunky, dirty, and cheap glasses).

2d pros
Price
Sharpness

Just because Avatar made a ton of money does not mean that 3d is somehow vindicated. Jake Sully was still a one dimensional character in both 2d and 3d.

being only in 2D

LOL. Just LOL Nazgul...

Yes, 2D not offering the immersive depth perception of 3D is a con, dunno what's so funny about that...

It is a good thing in my book as long as it's high quality and not some rushed conversion.

I agree with this. I don't want to see a rushed 3D movie, but movies like Avatar, and hopefully Sanctum, as well as many animated movies, can be helped by the 3D.

Regal to double number of RealD 3-D screens
January 27, 2011 | 1:45 pm
Beverly Hills movie technology company RealD Inc. is getting a big boost from the nation's largest theater operator.

In an agreement announced Thursday, Regal Entertainment Group said it will double the number of RealD 3-D screens, to 3,000 from 1,500, or about 40% of its 6,698 screens in the U.S. The rollout is expected to be completed by June. Financial terms were not disclosed.

"We continue to see high demand from moviegoers for RealD's premium 3-D viewing experience,'' Amy Miles, chief executive of Regal Entertainment, said in a statement.

RealD's equipment -- adapters that fit onto digital projectors and convert images to stereoscopic viewing -- is licensed to about 9,300 theater screens worldwide.

The company, which had a public stock offering last summer, has been expanding rapidly in response to growing demand for 3-D films. Hollywood is releasing about 35 3-D films this year, compared with 22 last year.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/

Anybody know of a nice chart that breaks down each 3D movie by % of gross from 3D?

Perhaps the young folk will pay heed to their hero Christopher Nolan on the ills of 3D:

Oops!

(Please point out where this was quoted in this thread or on KJ, so I can correct this mistake in future. Thank-you in advance.)