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

[BleedOrange11]

Good 3D can make any movie better. 3D is only annoying if it makes the picture look less life-like than the 2D version. If the filmmakers can successfully make the viewer feel like he is there with the characters, the emotional connection with the movie will be stronger than when viewed in 2D. Sometimes that extra bit of emotion is enough to overcome weak performances by the actors or push a 'good' movie into the 'great' category.

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Visually there is a difference, though I'd imagine a slight advantage goes to those with depth perception. Ever wake up with one eye open and not being fully awake, certain objects seem aligned with others, yet they're far apart when both eyes open for depth perception?

Your statement described above is the result of losing stereopsis when one is closed, which is certainly a major component of good depth perception. I was just trying to make the point that humans still see some three-dimensional depth with just one eye.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Good 3D can make any movie better. 3D is only annoying if it makes the picture look less life-like than the 2D version. If the filmmakers can successfully make the viewer feel like he is there with the characters, the emotional connection with the movie will be stronger than when viewed in 2D. Sometimes that extra bit of emotion is enough to overcome weak performances by the actors or push a 'good' movie into the 'great' category.

Good explanation.
Being there can be fun if the visuals are interesting with strong 3D as you suggest. In that sense, one could "enter" the movie even if they didn't enjoy it, exploring the 3D dimensions in every shot. Eventually, they might learn to overlook their initial grievances with the movie, like the first listen of a new album, that eventually grows on the listener with each play.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Gae

Guys, just download Stereo PhotoMaker (Google it...it's free) and then you can view any SBS picture in various outputs....the easiest being anaglyph red/cyan glasses of course. Here we go...converted in Stereo PhotoMaker



Gae

Which place should I download it from? I don't want to get a virus

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Good explanation.
Being there can be fun if the visuals are interesting with strong 3D as you suggest. In that sense, one could "enter" the movie even if they didn't enjoy it, exploring the 3D dimensions in every shot. Eventually, they might learn to overlook their initial grievances with the movie, like the first listen of a new album, that eventually grows on the listener with each play.

I really like this sentiment. It's kind of fun to use movies as a cheap form of tourism to go places, both fictional and non-fictional, that you've never been before, and 3D can really take that idea to the next level.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I really like this sentiment. It's kind of fun to use movies as a cheap form of tourism to go places, both fictional and non-fictional, that you've never been before, and 3D can really take that idea to the next level.

Exactly: If you don't want to watch "Happy Feet Two" in 3-D, try an IMAX travelogue instead....They were around first, you know.

[Gae]

Originally Posted by mseeley

Which place should I download it from? I don't want to get a virus

From the official website just a couple of Google clicks away. Have faith...not every website wants to send a virus to your computer.

StereoPhoto Maker

Gae

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Gae

From the official website just a couple of Google clicks away. Have faith...not every website wants to send a virus to your computer.

StereoPhoto Maker

Gae

Thanks

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Relating to the topic: Can awesome, strong 3D save a bad movie? Or does it make the movie more annoying?

It did for Legend of the Guardians 3D, which isn't a "bad" movie but a very average one that IMO is worth a watch in 3D if anything.

It just looks THAT GOOD in 3D. I'm not the biggest fan of the film Avatar to be honest but I'll admit its truly a spectacle to be seen in 3D.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by amandadun

It seems there are many negative opinions about 3D movies being released these days, especially with the higher cost at the box office and how expensive the tvs and glasses are. I'm surprised to see so many people with 3D televisions on the forums.

What are your opinions on the matter? Are there really benefits to 3D versus regular movies, or is it an annoying gimmick?

Cheers - Amanda

Quite a provocative Opening Post, Amanda.
I hope you are reading each and every opinion offered.

In a nutshell, if I didn’t think 3D had the potential to be ‘awesome’, I wouldn’t have encouraged one of the owners to re-open a comprehensive forum totally dedicated to the subject.

I’d say the 3D forum is thriving, so there you have at least an indirect answer.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

That's true. A lot of stereographers are aware of comfort levels, and unfortunately, too many feel we all have wimpy eyes, so they keep the cameras/two offset images too close to each other and we end up with mostly subtle, flat looking 3D in a number of movies....

Actually *the look* is the result of a collaboration with the Director and cinematographer, with the stererographer, usually playing 2nd fiddle, at best. Tron: Legacy didn’t have a stereographer. I think that will prove to be an exception to standard practice moving forward with 3D producitons.

Don’t be too critical of those with ‘wimpy’ eyes. Many folks will suffer this *affliction* to varying degrees when they get to middle age. It’s known as presbyopia. My recommendation to the more *seasoned* crowd or, to those individuals of any age who are predisposed to developing eyestrain more so than others , is to move further back from the screen to reduce the risk of eyestrain from vergence-accomodation decoupling, extreme convergence, divergence.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I was just trying to make the point that humans still see some three-dimensional depth with just one eye.

So true, just visit the Ophthalmology dept. in a hospital (the retina suite, glaucoma suite, etc.) on the day solely devoted to patients coming in for a check-up on their Post-Op Day #1 and notice how many drove themselves to work….without getting into an accident on the way to their appointment.

Back in the day, I suffered a serious acute eye problem in which I needed to wear a protective patch for about a week. I still rode my mountain bike in gnarly terrain (like the risk-taker I am)…..albeit, MUCH slower than my normal pace. My greatest fear was not crashing from the lack of good depth perception but rather this…

direct tv - roadside ditch.mp4 - YouTube

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

My greatest fear was not crashing from the lack of good depth perception but rather this…

Nicely played.

[alioke]

3D is awesome and we love watching it. It puts 2D to shame in most cases. Hugo was filmed in 3D and is a pleasure to watch at home. I refuse to pay the expensive prices being charged so I source out 3D movies as cheap as possible. Under $20 total is the target price.

[3Dfan]

[QUOTE=Zivouhr;5908576]Well said.

I personally love seeing things in strong, unmistakable 3D.
For those who dismiss 3D as a gimmick, close one eye if you see with two eyes, and keep it closed the rest of your life. Then come back and say three dimensional sight is a gimmick. As my signature suggests, the glasses are the only gimmick. Just as if you had to put on special lenses to see a movie in color instead of black and white,

reminds me of that Happy Days episode where the Cunninghams get that piece of plastic with green on the bottom and blue on thee top to cover the screen with to turn their black and white tv into a color tv.

[3Dfan]

Originally Posted by Gae

Yes Zivouhr. After reading this I just did another test with my eyes...try it everyone.

1) Hold an object (say a pencil) in front of your eyes and close one eye.
2) Take note of where the object is in relation to a background object.
3) Keeping the object still, close that eye and open the other one.
4) Take note of where the object is in relation to the same background object.
Now quickly switch between each eye and note the difference of the position of the object. The separation between each eye is huge isn't it?

Now compare that type of separation with the type we are seeing in a lot of current 3D films and you can see why a lot of the 3D films fail to wow us.

Gae

I've always liked 3D since I first saw it. Anyway, I just tried the above sitting right in front of my computer and the difference was two keys over to several keys over depending on how close the object was to me.

The closer it was to me, the further apart the single-eye views looked to me. (several keys over from the other eye-view at the same distance).

[pug1]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

To me, 3D films with pop-out effects are fun and can add a sense of immersion. Avatar 3D, A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas 3D, and Legend of the Guardians 3D are not only fun to watch in 3D but at times jaw dropping in the way things pop off the screen in incredible "reach out and touch" detail.

Then there are some 3D films that have zero pop-out effects and focus more on added a sense of depth. Some do it well and handle the sense of depth perfectly given whats being seen up close and off in the distance and when done right it makes the movie interesting to watch/look at. Its a more modest form of immersion in my opinion but i enjoy it. When its handled wrong its a disaster though...it can make some movies look downright awful. One film that I constantly refer to when it comes to "bad 3D" is Thor 3D. Its not only awful use of 3D but it makes the ENTIRE picture look like crap save for some daylight scenes.

If I were to rate 3D as whole right now, given what movies are out that use it on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd rate it a strong 7 with tons of future potential.

Agree totally on Thor. To add insult to injury, I coughed up $17 to see Thor on a fake midget IMAX screen (it was letterboxed). Got a refund; coughed up $14.50 in same multiplex and saw it in Real D regular screen and walked out. It was dark, dreary, with minimal depth.

[pug1]

I love native 3D, especially when it's well done! Got my TV in December and have 15 3D BD titles. I've noticed that prices are more discounted now for 3D BD than they were in December, where the average 3D BD was about $39.99. Now it's close to $27.99. Favorites are Avatar (of course), The Polar Express (when the train goes out of control and seems like a roller coaster, it is 3D at its best), Hugo, Legends of the Guardians.

[3Dfan]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

I love it, pop out effects are fun and all however it's the depth that really seems to add a new sensation to movies for me. A good example would be Sanctum, the scene where they come up on the cave. In 2d, that shot was beautiful and colorful. In 3D, it was still beautiful and colorful but you really got an idea of how big and deep that cave was.

This was for another topic but I captured this image using my cell phone by pausing a movie, holding the phone steady on a book, then taking 2 pictures of the screen - one through each lens of a pair of 3d glasses. This to me was an example of tasteful 3d pop out (cross your eyes and bring the images together):



All in all it is still a growing technology but I love it, so does my wife - once we finish out our basement we're planning on buying a 3D projector to up the anty, figure by that time my son will be 4-5 years old so I'm sure he'll love it. Comes down to personal preference, and I just can't get enough.

The best part and what "it's black or it's white" crowds fail to mention when they start bashing the format is this: You don't have to have it if you don't want it. Don't like 3D? Don't buy 3D!

well, the haters like to claim that the movie theatres only ever show the 3d versions in the locations they're at (and they have claimed this for every cityh all over the country) and never show the 2D versions at all.

However,I have never seen a theatre yet not playing both versions (with the exception of certain titles (for obviois reasons) listed below) what I noticed is that the theatres usually always show both versions, just not always at the same time. Sometimes they show both versions the opening weeks, the other times they will show only one version the opening weeks, both versions the next weeks, and only the other version the final weeks.

so if they wanted to see the 3D version, they need to go the weeks they are showing it, otherwise either the mov ie you want to see is not out yet or it isn't playing because you already missed it.

As for the cases of Toy Story 1, Toy Story 2, The Lion King, and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, if all you 3D haters wanted to see the 2D versions of those at the theatre, then you should have went and seen them years ago when they were playing at the movie theatres.

You missed them by several years.

[3Dfan]

The best part and what "it's black or it's white" crowds fail to mention when they start bashing the format is this: You don't have to have it if you don't want it. Don't like 3D? Don't buy 3D! [/QUOTE]

Another thing which iskind of funny, imo, is all the 3D haters complaining that glasses-free technology is better because with glasses you have to focus on objects other than where they really are (focusing on the screen place while percieving the object behind of or in front of the screen plane) which is "bad for your eyes" and that problem doesn't exist with glasses-free 3d displays which is why 3D glasses-free displays are better, you don't have to focus on objects other than where they really are .

Well, I don't know where they get their information from, but I have a small glasses-free 3d display, and you do still have to focus on objects other than where they really are to see the picture correctly. Objects filmed behind the screen plane still appear behind the flat screen, and what I had always wondered about before getting one, objects filmed in front of the screen still appear in front of the screen, even without wearing any glasses.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by 3Dfan

well, the haters like to claim that the movie theatres only ever show the 3d versions in the locations they're at (and they have claimed this for every cityh all over the country) and never show the 2D versions at all.

However,I have never seen a theatre yet not playing both versions (with the exception of certain titles (for obviois reasons) listed below) what I noticed is that the theatres usually always show both versions, just not always at the same time. Sometimes they show both versions the opening weeks, the other times they will show only one version the opening weeks, both versions the next weeks, and only the other version the final weeks.

so if they wanted to see the 3D version, they need to go the weeks they are showing it, otherwise either the mov ie you want to see is not out yet or it isn't playing because you already missed it.

As for the cases of Toy Story 1, Toy Story 2, The Lion King, and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, if all you 3D haters wanted to see the 2D versions of those at the theatre, then you should have went and seen them years ago when they were playing at the movie theatres.

You missed them by several years.

That might be right for some places, but the 3 closest local cinema's to where I live here in Australia don't work that way. All 3 of the cinema's close to me, show 1 2d session during the day and 1 2d session during the evening, and all of the other 5-10 daily screenings are in 3d only. That's how it is for the entire 4-8 weeks a movie is showing. With most people working during the day, then that only leaves the night 2d session as an option for many people, and even then the evening 2d session usually screens quite early, at approximately 6:30pm, which many people are still travelling home from work at that time. With that being the case, I don't think it's all that unreasonable for many to complain about how 3d dominates the best preferred and most convenient session times of the day.