What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K?

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Taygan315

That Tupac hologram was FREAKING SWEET AS HELL!! I remember when this hit the web. They need to bring this tech into movies somehow. Imagine a new John Wayne with the benefit of today's script writing. Or music: MJ's last concert could be revived. They have PLENTY of video of Michael's performances that they could produce a great hologram with all his moves in tact.

I think that's a really good idea, that would be sweet if the studios were to ever possibly do this. A modern day John Wayne western or action movie using this same technology would be freaking sweet, Michael Jackson would be also. And i have to say a hologram using The Godfather Of Soul James Brown, would be sweet also. I would love to see one of Bruce Lee also.

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by reaper_234

I think that's a really good idea, that would be sweet if the studios were to ever possibly do this. A modern day John Wayne western or action movie using this same technology would be freaking sweet, Michael Jackson would be also. And i have to say a hologram using The Godfather Of Soul James Brown, would be sweet also. I would love to see one of Bruce Lee also.

Seeing a new Bruce Lee film would be so freaking cool.

Hollywood needs to read our posts reaper. This idea is gold.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Taygan315

Seeing a new Bruce Lee film would be so freaking cool.

Hollywood needs to read our posts reaper. This idea is gold.

Good luck dealing with the estates of the dead...

Why would anyone want a computer programer to create an digital re-representation of an actor? It's not like they can actually create anything new that will feel organic.

fitprod

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by fitprod

Good luck dealing with the estates of the dead...

Why would anyone want a computer programer to create an digital re-representation of an actor? It's not like they can actually create anything new that will feel organic.

fitprod

Motion Capture, combined with photo realistic computer animation modeling (see images from 3D Worlds Magazine or website for examples) are so close visually to a real person that if it wasn't in a computer animation book, most people would be fooled. But that is a still photo/image, not actual motion.

Motion Capture:
Gollum from Lord of the Rings, is a great example of how to bring a fictional character to life convincingly.

Tron Legacy, to defend your view, did attempt to bring the younger version of Jeff Bridge's Clu to life with motion capture of the face from Jeff Bridges himself, the body controlled by a real actor with the face mapped on, but the effect, as good as it looked at a quick glance, fell under scrutiny when they zoomed in for a close up. The skin had a sheen to it, or the muscles didn't quite move as naturally as a real human's would. It looks like him, and works most of the time except for close ups. Also a movie filmed in 3D and very successful worldwide. Sequel in the works.

An early attempt from Final Fantasy Spirits Within could also be considered as more "animation" than actual replication of a person in digital form.

It's getting close, despite the imperfections mentioned.

[RallyCat]

I don't like roller coasters, but at the same time I don't want them to go away just because I don't like them and I'm sure many others don't like them either. There's no need to wish for 3D to go away - when the 2D viewing option is and always be available for each film.

As for 3D glasses, I also don't recall people dreading sunny days and having to wear those pesky, awkward, dorky sunglasses. 3D glasses are not a big deal for the effect they create. I don't see how, 3D is a "gimmick" - when our everyday lives are viewed in 3D - why should movies not be in 3D as well? It's just the natural progression of cinema. In the beginning, many studios didn't think "talkies" would replace silent pictures.

For people getting dizzy or aching eyes, then stick to 2D. Easy. Both versions, 3D and 2D of a film will always be available.

I like 3D, but I also like 2D. I do not like 3D conversions of 2D filmed material. The Little Mermaid was cancelled to poor performances of other 3D re-releases. Not pictures filmed or animated in 3D.

Right now, I don't see 3D as a constant viewing option - but a nice entertainment break from 2D. 3D is my roller coaster. Don't like it, don't ride it.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

An early attempt from Final Fantasy Spirits Within could also be considered as more "animation" than actual replication of a person in digital form.

(And given that it could also be considered "crap", have to admit, it's the first time I've heard anyone refer to FF:TSW as a "technically groundbreaking" film since, well...before it came out.)

Originally Posted by RallyCat

I don't like roller coasters, but at the same time I don't want them to go away just because I don't like them and I'm sure many others don't like them either. There's no need to wish for 3D to go away - when the 2D viewing option is and always be available for each film.
3D is my roller coaster. Don't like it, don't ride it.

And even though, when I go with the kids to the local Six Flags, there isn't much there nowadays that isn't a hi-thrills coaster, I don't go into paranoiac disgruntled anti-corporate activist mode and scream that big Warner is "forcing" me to ride thrill coasters because they're greedy about big attractions, and want all their parks to be big coasters nowadays because they don't care if they keep chickens like me out of the park.
There's individual taste, and then there's just acting like a selfish spoiled kid crying that the Mean People are Unfair because they're Bad.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by RallyCat

I don't like roller coasters, but at the same time I don't want them to go away just because I don't like them and I'm sure many others don't like them either. There's no need to wish for 3D to go away - when the 2D viewing option is and always be available for each film.

As for 3D glasses, I also don't recall people dreading sunny days and having to wear those pesky, awkward, dorky sunglasses. 3D glasses are not a big deal for the effect they create. I don't see how, 3D is a "gimmick" - when our everyday lives are viewed in 3D - why should movies not be in 3D as well? It's just the natural progression of cinema. In the beginning, many studios didn't think "talkies" would replace silent pictures.

For people getting dizzy or aching eyes, then stick to 2D. Easy. Both versions, 3D and 2D of a film will always be available.

I like 3D, but I also like 2D. I do not like 3D conversions of 2D filmed material. The Little Mermaid was cancelled to poor performances of other 3D re-releases. Not pictures filmed or animated in 3D.

Right now, I don't see 3D as a constant viewing option - but a nice entertainment break from 2D. 3D is my roller coaster. Don't like it, don't ride it.

Wow!

I once said that a 3D hater is like a dude in the front of a roller coaster line stopping people from entering because he didn't like it.

We must have similar thought patterns on these kind of matters.

[Solo man]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

That is a really cute story about your kid. She may be almost old enough to watch and enjoy 3D with you.

From the American Optometric Association:


http://3deyehealth.org/faq.html

If you ever decide to try out 3D viewing with her, ask her questions and make sure that she is seeing the 3D properly and comfortably. 3D can sometimes be used to catch amblyopia early.

Hi, thanks for the nice comments but unfortunately my kids will not be watching 3D. Its a decision my wife and I made together but they don't really complain. They are great kids and IMO, watching movies on a 106 inch screen isn't too bad of an experience.

When I was growing up, I was treated with a 19 inch RCA and thought that was huge. One thing I do, is I let all my friends kids come over and watch movies. All my friends think I am crazy letting little ones near my equipment but I don't care, its only stuff. As long as they get an enjoyable experience than I am happy for the kids.

I really appreciate those links to read and was quite interesting. Thanks again for sharing.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Taygan315

Seeing a new Bruce Lee film would be so freaking cool.

Hollywood needs to read our posts reaper. This idea is gold.

I really hope the exec in Hollywood do read these, I keep trying to think of action stars they should do also. but all the ones i love are still alive, and the only one that comes to mind is they should do Steve Mcqueen & Brandon Lee holograms.

[scorpiontail60]

Originally Posted by BigJayJay

I agree. It's a very weak argument since wearing glasses in some form is pretty common. Either for prescriptions or style, glasses are not unusual. Some ppl act like the 3d glasses requirement is like wearing a gas mask or something. Please, gimme a break with the lame excuses.

If you don't like something, fine, who cares. But let the ppl that do enjoy it. If you don't like then don't watch. Real easy to do.

Have 3D viewers never heard of prescription glasses?

The glasses thing is a legitimate complaint because around half the population already has a pair of glasses that they have to wear all the time. Wearing two pairs of glasses at the same time is rather obnoxious.

A single pair of glasses is easy enough to get used to, but when you have to start stacking them on it is an issue.

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by reaper_234

I really hope the exec in Hollywood do read these, I keep trying to think of action stars they should do also. but all the ones i love are still alive, and the only one that comes to mind is they should do Steve Mcqueen & Brandon Lee holograms.

Would love to see Brandon Lee in another film. Gone before his time sadly. James Dean would be cool as well. Elvis doing another concert would be HUGE!!

[pug1]

Originally Posted by sokrman14

Why is Hollywood pushing 3D so much? Disney finally figured it out by cancelling its re-release of Little Mermaid on 3D. Haven't they figured out that 3D is purely a gimmick that "almost" no one likes. I haven't posted on this forum in a really long time; but I couldnt help myself with this little rant.

No one wants to wear glasses!
No one wants to get dizzy!
No one wants aching eyes!

The only reason people buy 3D TV's is because it happens to be included in the TV they want. I bet if you put identical TV's in 3D and non 3D on the market and charged a little less for the other identical TV, practically no one would pay for it, hence the low penetration rate of 3D blurays.

Sorry for my rant, but thanks for reading. Go ahead and bash for those few who enjoy 3D.

Disagree on most everything. 3D is less popular in theaters because theaters gouge on the premium ticket prices. I have a perfectly good 52" LED LCD Sony TV but bought a 55" 240Hz model Black Friday 2011. I own 28 BD 3D movies and love 3D. I know of no one getting headaches from 3D screenings at the theaters.

[Blu-Dog]

More than likely, Disney and other studios are looking at public perception and demographics, and are not in some "hater" mode.

There is a very real question about very young kids and 3D eyewear. Some adults have problems with it, and eyestrain may be a very real problem for small kids.

I wouldn't put 3D glasses on a kid that's under 10 or 11 years old, and certainly not one that's 5 or 6. 2D is fine for them.

Adults who want 3D content do so of their own volition, and take their own risks, if any. Disney could go the multiple type packaging, but I don't think there are that many mature adults who are obsessed with seeing The Little Mermaid, with 3D or not.

[tigermoth]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Have 3D viewers never heard of prescription glasses?

The glasses thing is a legitimate complaint because around half the population already has a pair of glasses that they have to wear all the time. Wearing two pairs of glasses at the same time is rather obnoxious.

A single pair of glasses is easy enough to get used to, but when you have to start stacking them on it is an issue.

I wear glasses and it has never been a comfort issue ever. To me this complaint reeks of drama-queen-ness.

The only person this would be a legit issue for is Dame Edna, possum.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

More than likely, Disney and other studios are looking at public perception and demographics, and are not in some "hater" mode.

Disney?...Ohh, DISNEY! The, the Little Mermaid thing, that Troll-boy was hopping onto like a failed late-nite comic.
Heh, that was almost a week ago, forgot about that. That was so way back before the Net community dropped the bomb that they were doing the Star Wars 3D's in the same fall slots instead, had to switch gears back to the early naive "Does Disney hate 3D? " part of the discussion.

...Evidently not.

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Have 3D viewers never heard of prescription glasses?

The glasses thing is a legitimate complaint because around half the population already has a pair of glasses that they have to wear all the time. Wearing two pairs of glasses at the same time is rather obnoxious.

A single pair of glasses is easy enough to get used to, but when you have to start stacking them on it is an issue.

I dont get this argument.
I wear clip-ons over my prescription and it feels glasses free if you understand what I mean,

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

I dont get this argument.
I wear clip-ons over my prescription and it feels glasses free if you understand what I mean,

I second this, a friend of mine has a 55in 3D television and prescription glasses - they sell polarized clip-ons for passive 3D sets, not glasses over glasses, just a clip that is the same as a sunglass clip. Causes no strain or problem for him whatsoever. Relatively cheap too.

[scorpiontail60]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

I dont get this argument.
I wear clip-ons over my prescription and it feels glasses free if you understand what I mean,

Some of us don't like having giant black bars in our field of view from poorly designed clip on glasses that clip onto the lens itself instead of the frame. I've yet to see a set of passive clip-ons which don't have a stupid vertical bar that clips right on to the lens you are trying to look through. Stupid design.

Also, passive 3D is shit technology in the home. I'd rather suffer from having to wear a second set of glasses just to get active 3D.

Watching a passive 3D set is like looking out a window with blinds on it... the **** is with those horizontal black lines that cover half the screen? And the resolution loss is horrifying.

[keb33509]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Some of us don't like having giant black bars in our field of view from poorly designed clip on glasses that clip onto the lens itself instead of the frame. I've yet to see a set of passive clip-ons which don't have a stupid vertical bar that clips right on to the lens you are trying to look through. Stupid design.

Also, passive 3D is shit technology in the home. I'd rather suffer from having to wear a second set of glasses just to get active 3D.

Watching a passive 3D set is like looking out a window with blinds on it... the **** is with those horizontal black lines that cover half the screen? And the resolution loss is horrifying.

Hahahaha.....

[Show spoiler]Laughing at you, not with