I'd love to see some surveys. I do not go to any 3D viewings and go to the 2D ones instead (of which there are less), but they always seem completely packed full. So presumably I'm not alone in hating the most recent 3D movie craze.
Hence the "Real" vs. "Fake" distinction. Although, a lot of natively shot 3D films don't have nowhere near as much stereographic thought as Cameron applied.
Sorry, but I'll never 'get' the 3D hype. I didn't get it in the 80s when it was massive either.
The glasses are so distracting, uncomfortable. The image is dim. The colors washed out. The 3D effects are so obvious and off-putting it's like watching a movie and being jabbed in the eye with sticks every so often.
Movies already contain all of the visual clues our brain need to understand the 3D within them. Stereoscopy is just an unnecessary addition.
Is Avatar a good enough story to stand up on its own without the special effects?
Having only seen two movies on this list (Avatar 'Real' and Alice in Wonderland 'Fake') my observation is hardly exhaustive, but there was a definite difference in the 3D experience.
With Avatar, the third dimension seem to come out at you from the screen - I even had a cliched duck for cover at one point. With Alice the third dimension seemed to be depth in the screen - many shots felt like you were figuratively looking down a rabbit hole, rather than being immersed within one.
And for what it's worth, I don't mind paying a few bucks extra for the 3D version, real or fake.
Just a little anecdotal evidence here, but I also saw Alice, Avatar and Clash of the Titans, and both Alice and Clash gave me headaches, but Avatar did not. Actually I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar's 3D experience.
This feeling of 3D "coming out" of the screen is caused by a thing called "negative parallax", and things receding into the screen caused by "positive parallax".
Avatar actually had a comparatively mild amount of negative parallax, compared against things like Jim Carrey's A Christmas Carol, which was LOADED with it.
Negative parallax can look really bad and cheap very easily. It takes a light touch to make it look good. Avatar did it really well and used it sparingly, so that when it DID happen, it surprised you - the "duck and cover" moment. Other, shitty movies use it everywhere, to the point where you no longer notice it - the maximum negative parallax becomes your 0-base (subjectively).
I've been to a lot of movies and I think this list is very accurate, every movie not originally intended for 3d was obvious on the big screen and the glasses just ended up being extra weight on your nose, wish I had this list earlier
That's a pretty good critique despite the inflammatory title. The MaxiVision48 process he mentions sounds pretty great as well. I definitely notice the jerkiness in some scenes when in the theatre and it always pulls my attention away from the film.
I predict that 'real' 3D movies will go the way 3D sound did years back. 'Fake' 3D will die out as the camera technology gets cheaper.
When Dolby surround first came onto the scene audiences were wowed by the immersiveness that the surround sound added to movies.
Studios responded by 'faking' 3D sound for movies originally recorded only in stereo.
These didn't sound anywhere near as good as true surround sound and audiences weren't impressed.
Eventually the equipment needed to shoot a movie in surround sound became cheap enough that every production could take advantage of it.
I think we're seeing the cycle repeat itself.
Lets not forget that when colour film first came out studios attempted to add colour to existing B&W films, this didn't work too well but eventually colour film became cheap enough that they all used it.
My advice for haters of 3D: try seeing Toy Story 3 in 3D. It was made for 3D and it doesn't use any of the usual cheap tricks associated with 3D (aka the cliche throwing things at the audience). It mostly just seemed to really enhance the depth of the picture and make it slightly more immersive. I agree that 3D is still mostly a gimmick now, but I think it will eventually be used mostly as a way to make the viewer feel like they're actually there, rather than for the spectacle. Think of it this way: we didn't need color movies, but they tend to look nicer (unless of course you just prefer that old timey look).
15 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 35.7 ms ] threadI'd love to see some surveys. I do not go to any 3D viewings and go to the 2D ones instead (of which there are less), but they always seem completely packed full. So presumably I'm not alone in hating the most recent 3D movie craze.
http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-films-helped-boost-the-box...
Also, watch Avatar in 3D. It made me a believer.
Sorry, but I'll never 'get' the 3D hype. I didn't get it in the 80s when it was massive either.
The glasses are so distracting, uncomfortable. The image is dim. The colors washed out. The 3D effects are so obvious and off-putting it's like watching a movie and being jabbed in the eye with sticks every so often.
Movies already contain all of the visual clues our brain need to understand the 3D within them. Stereoscopy is just an unnecessary addition.
Is Avatar a good enough story to stand up on its own without the special effects?
With Avatar, the third dimension seem to come out at you from the screen - I even had a cliched duck for cover at one point. With Alice the third dimension seemed to be depth in the screen - many shots felt like you were figuratively looking down a rabbit hole, rather than being immersed within one.
And for what it's worth, I don't mind paying a few bucks extra for the 3D version, real or fake.
Just my .02 cents
This feeling of 3D "coming out" of the screen is caused by a thing called "negative parallax", and things receding into the screen caused by "positive parallax".
Avatar actually had a comparatively mild amount of negative parallax, compared against things like Jim Carrey's A Christmas Carol, which was LOADED with it.
Negative parallax can look really bad and cheap very easily. It takes a light touch to make it look good. Avatar did it really well and used it sparingly, so that when it DID happen, it surprised you - the "duck and cover" moment. Other, shitty movies use it everywhere, to the point where you no longer notice it - the maximum negative parallax becomes your 0-base (subjectively).
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-sh...
When Dolby surround first came onto the scene audiences were wowed by the immersiveness that the surround sound added to movies.
Studios responded by 'faking' 3D sound for movies originally recorded only in stereo. These didn't sound anywhere near as good as true surround sound and audiences weren't impressed.
Eventually the equipment needed to shoot a movie in surround sound became cheap enough that every production could take advantage of it.
I think we're seeing the cycle repeat itself.
Lets not forget that when colour film first came out studios attempted to add colour to existing B&W films, this didn't work too well but eventually colour film became cheap enough that they all used it.