3D Depth: Do you prefer strong 3D or conservative 3D?

[Zivouhr]

Assuming you have two normal functioning eyes that can regularly see three dimensions in your every day life, consider the following: (keep in mind, there are shades of 3D that are tough to categorize)

Putting the story of the movie aside and the type of movies you prefer to watch, do you prefer STRONG 3D, NORMAL 3D, or SUBTLE 3D? The following is all up for debate... (not counting errors, cardboard cutouts, etc)

EXTREME 3D
This is the farthest end of the 3D spectrum and is very rare, but this is when 3D is actually TOO strong most of the time, and it takes every last muscle in your eyes to barely be able to adjust to the 3D onscreen. In these cases, everything is almost popping off the screen to some degree, possibly intentional, but other times because the film wasn't converged post process during those moments. Best to sit far back, away from the screen to be able to view this more comfortably. A challenge to watch.
The only example I've seen so far is Blood of Ohma 3D, which is an independent side by side 3D movie. The 3D in the latter half tapers down to "strong 3D", but many shots in the first half fall into the extreme category. (up for debate)


STRONG 3D:
If you're a fan of 3D, I'm curious to find out how many of us prefer 3D that is STRONG, where there is a clear and unmistakable distinction between the layers of depth, so there is no mistake you're watching 3D. At the same time, it's not SO strong that it hurts your eyes trying to adjust. As long as they converged the 3D when editing it so most of the screen is "inside" your TV, your eyes will be able to handle it without a problem, despite the "Pop out" moments.
Great examples include Avatar 3D, Hugo 3D, Sammy's Adventures 3D, Open Season 3D, My Bloody Valentine 3D, many IMAX 3D titles, etc... (If you have more examples, feel free to list more) (up for debate)


NORMAL 3D (in the middle ground):
Yes, there is plenty of 3D that is between Strong and Conservative. These movies aren't stunning examples of 3D, but they're good enough to see depth so there is a sense of 3D present.
Some examples might include: Transformers 3D, Gnomeo and Juliet 3D, Kung Fu Panda 2 3D, Priest 3D, Captain America 3D, Green Lantern 3D, Monster House 3D, etc... (up for debate)


SUBTLE, CONSERVATIVE 3D:
On the other hand, there are movies where the 3D seems "more 2D than 3D". These are the movies where you flip up your glasses to make sure everything's working properly, because you can't tell if it's 2D or very subtle 3D. Some stereographers (the guys who create/edit the 3D) prefer to make the 3D reflective of the emotion in the scene, so if it's not an important scene, they artistically CHOOSE to make the 3D very subtle on purpose, even though the scene clearly could've had strong 3D. You know you're watching SUBTLE 3D when you take off your 3D glasses (if your set needs them...) and the screen looks nearly 2D, with very little double image onscreen.
Some examples of Conservative 3D (flat/subtle) include Clash of the Titans 3D, Tron Legacy 3D, Ghost Rider 2 3D, Conan 3D, Star Wars Episode I 3D, etc. (up for debate)

ARTISTIC 3D
Artistic choice, as considered here, is when the stereographer decides some scenes deserve "more 3D than others" instead of the entire movie having an even level of three dimensions, as we see in every day life, irrelevant of the emotional impact of the moment. Lion King, Star Wars I 3D, Up 3D are examples. One could argue that all 3D in a movie is an artistic choice, even if the goal is to make every scene have strong 3D, but another could argue it's more of a technical choice depending on the foreground, mid ground, background shots and balancing the 3D within that shot so the foreground is converged properly, like a mechanic fixing a car as a rough metaphor, and then depending on the film being filmed or converted post process into 3D.
In this poll, I'm not considering artistic choice because this poll is based on basic three dimensions APART FROM THE CONTENT/FILM/STORY/GENRE. With our own two functioning eyes, we can't choose which real world objects in real life, get more 3D and which deserve less. The poll is only about what level of strength you prefer to see your 3D, and is not about the movie itself.


If you haven't seen the BEST 3D has to offer, be honest about it before commenting.

3D Examples where the majority of the film contains: (Subject to change)

STRONG 3D: (no particular order)
Avatar 3D, Hugo 3D, Open Season 3D, My Bloody Valentine 3D, many IMAX 3D titles, Drive Angry 3D, Resident Evil 3D, Alice in Wonderland 3D, Sammy's Adventures 3D, Tangled 3D, Underworld Awakening 3D, Three Musketeers 3D, Step Up 3D, Final Destination 5 3D, (more added later)


NORMAL 3D: (no particular order)
Gnomeo and Juliet 3D, Kung Fu Panda 2 3D, Priest 3D, Captain America 3D, Green Lantern 3D, Thor 3D, Monster House 3D, Piranha 3D, Legends of the Guardians 3D, Beowulf 3D, Pirates of the Caribbean: Stranger Tides 3D, Cars 2 3D, Bolt 3D, Puss 'n Boots 3D, Adventures of Tin Tin 3D, Cloudy w/Chance of Meatballs 3D, Beauty and the Beast 3D, Polar Express 3D, Rio 3D, Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D, Journey 2 3D, Christmas Carol 3D, Despicable Me 3D, A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas 3D, Ice Age 3D, Green Hornet 3D, Smurfs 3D, Fright Night 3D, Yogi Bear 3D, Dolphin Tale 3D, How to Train Your Dragon 3D, Happy Feet 2 3D, Toy Story 3D, Coraline 3D, (more added later)


SUBTLE 3D: (no particular order)
Clash of the Titans 3D, Tron Legacy 3D, Ghost Rider 2 3D, Conan 3D, Star Wars Episode I 3D, Lion King 3D, Nightmare Before Christmas 3D, The Last Airbender 3D, (more added later)


UNDETERMINED: (Titles that I haven't seen or heard about the 3D quality)
Narnia 3D, Harry Potter 3D, Sanctum 3D,


Make your own list if you like.

[ObiWanShinobi]

I prefer strong to normal. Though I would consider Legend of the Guardians strong...I thought it had some of the best 3D in terms of depth and a satisfying amount of pop-out while still maintaining a strong of amount of detail throughout. It, like Avatar, was damn near reference quality for the format IMO.

I'd rate Thor 3D as very weak. It had very little depth/natural depth. The characters stood out like cardboard cutouts.

[Nommag]

I think when you pay a premium for 3d you should expect/get strong 3d. Any less then strong and it probably means that you will enjoy the cheaper 2d version.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

I prefer strong to normal. Though I would consider Legend of the Guardians strong... It, like Avatar, was damn near reference quality for the format IMO.

I'd rate Thor 3D as very weak. It had very little depth/natural depth. The characters stood out like cardboard cutouts.

I see what you're saying about Thor 3D. Even though the characters appear as cardboard props as in Alice in Wonderland, I still can see some nice depth there, so in that sense, it's not subtle during that scene in particular.

I'll have to watch Legends again. It's a great looking movie, but we're not counting the movie itself, just the 3D strength.

Originally Posted by Nommag

I think when you pay a premium for 3d you should expect/get strong 3d. Any less then strong and it probably means that you will enjoy the cheaper 2d version.

I agree. It makes 3D fans wonder why so many studios are putting out conservative 3D efforts like Ghost Rider 2 and even Star Wars The Phantom Menace I 3D (just to spark a debate) when they could've made the 3D a lot stronger with more time and money (I guess that's maybe one reason other than "artistic" choice)... If Avatar 3D was the original standard for Strong 3D, why are so many studios not reaching that level of depth? Not skilled enough? Afraid it might hurt people's eyes? Too much money and time needed to convert it properly from 2D?

[steelerik]

I have to say its STRONG for me all the way ... Gimme pop any day over subtlety. It's what I think I have paid for .. everyone has their own preference, but if I don't get pop I feel kinda short changed.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by steelerik

I have to say its STRONG for me all the way ... Gimme pop any day over subtlety. It's what I think I have paid for .. everyone has their own preference, but if I don't get pop I feel kinda short changed.

Plus the fact that subtle 3D is not going to convince anyone sitting on the fence, deciding whether or not to buy a 3D HDTV or a standard HDTV. Let's pretend the only example in the store was Clash of the Titans 3D for lack of a better example, and they never saw another 3D movie out there to compare it to...

The more Strong 3D movies that are made, the better the 3DTV market will be. (though Normal 3D is acceptable, but they could've pushed the cameras/2D images apart just a bit more to get strong 3D).

[DavidGQ]

Originally Posted by Nommag

I think when you pay a premium for 3d you should expect/get strong 3d. Any less then strong and it probably means that you will enjoy the cheaper 2d version.

Agree with ya. Isn't that why we pay more for our 3D TV or watch 3D in the theater?

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I know a lot of people had similar expectations of Star Wars, but that seems misguided and silly to me. It was shot in and planned for 2D over a decade ago. Anyone who saw it in 2D should've realized there were very few places to apply pop-out without creating awful window violations or completely redoing the effects. Much of the depth was conservative but I felt it worked well, though I can understand how some people could be disappointed.

I guess I just... can't vote in the poll since there's no option to match.

I agree with you regarding the expectations for SW. There really was no particular need for "pop-out", imho.

Originally Posted by DavidGQ

Agree with ya. Isn't that why we pay more for our 3D TV or watch 3D in the theater?

Um, no, it is not. Or, it might be for you, but it definitely isn't for everybody. I was very happy with the 3-D in movies like TPM or even Toy Story 3. It didn't need to be cheesy or needlessly call attention to itself every other shot. And I got my money's worth - in the case of TPM, all 4 times.

[joenostalgia23]

I actually think Tron had really strong 3D. I think it'd very dependent on the brightness of the image.

I can understand if it looked flat, because the image is pretty dark. My TV has pretty good black levels, and I raised the brightness a bit and the depth looked really great. The light around the sets and costumes really stand out too. There's a lot of dimensionality.

I wouldn't call it conservative, especially the IMAX sequences(I still think those scenes look better than any 2.35-2.40 3D film on Blu-ray). It just doesn't have a lot of pop-out.

Again it's all really subjective. We get very different experiences from different hardware. And we all want different things from 3D.

Some people go crazy over pop-out.
Others just want to see the deepest image possible.
And there are those who like dimensionality and textures(multiple objects on different planes)

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

I prefer strong to normal. Though I would consider Legend of the Guardians strong...I thought it had some of the best 3D in terms of depth and a satisfying amount of pop-out while still maintaining a strong of amount of detail throughout. It, like Avatar, was damn near reference quality for the format IMO.

It's no surprise that my vote is always for strong 3D.

3D that doesn't use the negative parallax isn't real 3D to me, it's more like 2.5D. It makes me constantly aware that what I'm watching could have looked so much better.

They do look nice but I don't consider Avatar or Legend of The Guardians as having particularly strong 3D and certainly wouldn't say they were reference quality like Sammy's Adventures: A Turtles Tale (my best 3D experience at home) or Hugo (my best 3D experience theatrically).

Avatar does have it's strong moments in the first half (mainly foliage) but at exactly the point when the 3D ought to ramp up, it dials back and stays almost entirely behind the screen. I find it frustratingly inconsistent.

I can't say I noticed any satisfying pop-out in Legend Of The Guardians either, though the 3D certainly made the slow motion and battle scenes look more impressive...

[Jbug]

I absolutely like 3D but am always wondering if it's use in movies has reached it's limits. Is depth and out of screen it? I once posted a thread on the possiblity of doing a scene of varying length totally outside of the screen and got some interesting responses but are there are some untouched avenues for 3D.

[Jack_Ryder_2012]

I think glasses free will be the next big thing and maybe even eventually 3d movies/games will look like holograms in our living rooms, i think that would be pretty awesome

[Nighteyes]

Glasses-free displays exist already. Altough they're terribly expensive and don't offer a really convincing 3D-perception yet.

The holodeck might still be a little ways off.

[Jack_Ryder_2012]

Yeah its not something you can go buy at walmart yet, i would upgrade as soon as a vizio brand comes out since those are very nicely priced i just hope its not like 3ds tech where you have to be in a certain position to notice it

[keb33509]

Originally Posted by Jack_Ryder_2012

Yeah its not something you can go buy at walmart yet, i would upgrade as soon as a vizio brand comes out since those are very nicely priced i just hope its not like 3ds tech where you have to be in a certain position to notice it

At CES 2013, they said Vizio had the best 4K glasses free panel. It had UNLIMITED viewing angles! Well, they said if you got out of a viewing space it would just appear 2D. It wouldn't give you that weird broken window effect like the 3DS. Now that I think of it, they may have said they are working on an unlimited viewing angle set.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Jbug

I absolutely like 3D but am always wondering if it's use in movies has reached it's limits.

Definitely not. There's just not a huge interest on the part of filmmakers for creatively using 3D as part of their story-telling because most of them are trained for 2D. Being generous, there's maybe 10-12 films a year that make 3D an integral part of the visuals for the entire movie. Around half of those have a story worth talking about, and at least two belong to DreamWorks.

Avatar --> Hugo --> Life of Pi

Monster vs Aliens --> How to Train Your Dragon --> Megamind --> Kung Fu Panda 2 --> Puss in Boots --> Madagascar 3 --> Rise of the Guardians

We are still exploring!

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Definitely not. There's just not a huge interest on the part of filmmakers for creatively using 3D as part of their story-telling because most of them are trained for 2D. Being generous, there's maybe 10-12 films a year that make 3D an integral part of the visuals for the entire movie. Around half of those have a story worth talking about, and at least two belong to DreamWorks.

Avatar --> Hugo --> Life of Pi

Monster vs Aliens --> How to Train Your Dragon --> Megamind --> Kung Fu Panda 2 --> Puss in Boots --> Madagascar 3 --> Rise of the Guardians

We are still exploring!

I agree. As awful as Silent Hill was the way it used 3D was every bit as good as the way Hugo did IMHO.

They need to stop forcing it on directors who aren't interested in using the tech properly and start giving those who want to explore the medium & develop it's use more of a go.

[formula_nebula]

I'm very curious and anxious to see how JC is gonna up the par, for 3D in the next 2 Avatar films.

[Zivouhr]

3D Range: Determined by how far the 3D cameras are separated when filming and editing:
Extreme 3D: Too much eye strain for most viewers means the 3D has gone TOO far.
Strong 3D: Great amount of layer dimension as with Imax 3D's best.
Medium 3D: Good layer dimension.
Weak 3D: Poor layer separation, nearly 2D and defeats the point of "3D".
Flat 2D: Single image with zero layer dimension.

When most films offer 3D on par with the best 3D shots in Avatar and the strongest IMAX 3D, that really is the visual goal/limit of how far 3D can go, excluding future technology display advances such as glasses free and holographic 3D.

With IMAX's best 3D efforts, the viewing is comfortable yet looks amazing for the 3D for layer dimension and pop outs, to the point the object is 2" in front of your face in an IMax Theme Park Theater that wraps halfway around the room (not the flat square Imax screens), while avoiding eye strain.

Being too conservative with 3D doesn't help the 3D industry if that was the first 3D film a new viewer saw, they might walk away thinking "Eh, this 3D stuff is a waste". Medium to Strong 3D can be a goal for 3D filmmakers, eliminating weak 3D whenever possible along with including weak 3D as part of their "3D storytelling" (unless it was only for a minute at the most IMO).

Inside the Screen vs Outside the Screen 3D: Parallel Camera Rig:
If you want stuff sticking out of the screen, as a filmmaker, don't post edit converge the two images and film with a wider interaxial distance as with IMAX 3D, when filming with a parallel 3D rig.
If you want everything inside the screen, converge the two images as much as possible, when filming with a parallel 3D rig.
(not accounting for "window violations" where the pop out's missing it's lower torso, which is a matter of preference IMO, as long as the top of the head is not cut off and pops out).

[xyscaling]

Originally Posted by formula_nebula

I'm very curious and anxious to see how JC is gonna up the par, for 3D in the next 2 Avatar films.

Me too.