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

[Captain Jack]

Strong 3D for me.

Subtle 3D gives me the shits, if I am going to the effort to wear 3D glasses, I don't want to forget I'm watching a 3D film otherwise what's the point.

[mseeley]

Strong and normal 3D for me all the way!

I think Tron should be put in the normal 3d range. While I admit watching it at home recently, the 3d felt a little subtler to me at home than it did when I saw it in the theaters at Imax 3d and real d 3d formats. I hope I didn't get a bad copy lol.

It could just be that I just need to let it soak in rather than constantly making sure I'm seeing 3d. I tried doing it while watching part of it during of the recent watches I mentioned and it seemed much more 3d I think in some ways.

I'd have to say though that Clash of the Titans is my 3d guilty pleasure. While you can tell that the conversion still needs more work, I really appreciate it still for what they were able to pull off. There's a shot during the Medusa scene where Perseus and the Djin are hanging over the edge and just as the shot cuts and shows Perseus start to swing and try to lift his friend to safety is a perfect and dazzling sense of 3d for me. Feels like you are looking precariously over into the abyss. Amazing stuff!: Alot of the Kraken stuff is good too.

[UFAlien]

As long as it's done well, I'm usually fine with any of these. It's an artistic decision, unless the conversion company just screwed it up. I WILL say, however, there are times when the actual usage of 3D is underwhelming.

Case in point, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. It was converted, sure, but it was planned for 3D the whole way through. With the inherent absurdity of the script, character, and directors, I was really expecting a lot of pop-out. Unfortunately, there was very little. That said, I'd debate its status as "conservative/weak 3D" - there was usually a lot of clear depth and some very substantial doubling without glasses. It was really just the cinematography that didn't take advantage of it.

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.

[americanamberg]

Got to be strong.

I'm a movie buff like a lot of people here. I like watching 2d movies.

If I do choose to watch 3d, and I love the format, I want it living out of the screen amap.

Let's be clear just because things are coming out of the screen doesn't mean it's cheesy imo. It doesn't feel cheesy unless it's used poorly. Pop out alone doesn't = cheesy for me. In the future I envision movies coming alive in your living room all around you.
Sort of like art house theater, or that room aboard the enterprise where you can go into a fantasy world. When I aim for 3d I want it to come alive, and live outside the screen. Otherwise stay in 2d. Just more depth, which is nice, isn't enough to make me spend more money on a 3d release.

More pop can and should be used. If used correctly it takes nothing away. It just makes the movie come to life, and it's more enjoyable to watch(if im in the mood for 3d). That is up to the film makers. They have to make it better, and when done it's a true joy to watch.

[Richard--W]

I prefer STRONG 3-D at all times with EXTREME moments as needed in the service of a straightforward but subtle story shot on 35mm film with fixed lenses in the service of a layered blocking in a long distance set-up requiring infinite depth of field and no cgi. So there.

For example, SECOND CHANCE and INFERNO from the 1953.

[bavanut]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

For example, SECOND CHANCE and INFERNO from the 1953.

I think Inferno is absolutely beautiful to look at. I have mentioned that my fiancée cannot typically abide 3-D films, but she has told me a number of times that Inferno is her favorite vintage 3-D film. She really likes it.

It's been, gee, nine years now since I last saw Second Chance. I seem to remember it doing its best to avoid negative parallax, not unlike Dangerous Mission from the same studio. But Dangerous Mission is a special favorite of mine, in spite of its restraint. I trust your good judgment implicitly, Richard, and I do hope I get another chance to see Second Chance.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by bavanut

I think Inferno is absolutely beautiful to look at. I have mentioned that my fiancée cannot typically abide 3-D films, but she has told me a number of times that Inferno is her favorite vintage 3-D film. She really likes it.

It's been, gee, nine years now since I last saw Second Chance. I seem to remember it doing its best to avoid negative parallax, not unlike Dangerous Mission from the same studio. But Dangerous Mission is a special favorite of mine, in spite of its restraint. I trust your good judgment implicitly, Richard, and I do hope I get another chance to see Second Chance.

I'm eager to see it again myself, Mike. Your memory with regard to the negative parallax is probably correct, but I think Second Chance has more going for it than Dangerous Mission. There is some unfortunate process, but the landscapes and city streets were chosen for their dimensionality. There is more awareness for the possibilities of natural depth within the frame. The film has a pictorial sensibility that rises above its B-level production, being directed by photographer Rudolph Maté. Besides, I like 1950s travelogues south of the border in rich Technicolor.

Your fiancée would probably enjoy Miss Sadie Thompson and perhaps even Arena, if only somebody would release them.

[bavanut]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Your fiancée would probably enjoy Miss Sadie Thompson and perhaps even Arena, if only somebody would release them.

Oh, I know for a fact she would like Miss Sadie Thompson, if she could just manage to see it. I tried to get her to check it out at the last Expo in Hollywood two years ago. She wouldn't go. Tried to get her to check it out at the Aero 3-D retrospective about three months ago. This time she couldn't go-- had to work. I swan, I think she's resistant to seeing it. My hunch is she just doesn't want to like another vintage 3-D film, for fear of getting drawn a little too deep into this odd world of mine.

[Richard--W]

I didn't know there was a 3-D retrospective at the Aero three months ago. I'm so out of the loop, it isn't funny. I would have been there had I known.

[EVERRET]

The best 3D for me is when your screen no longer looks like a movie is "on it"...... the movie "screen" disappears.

Its like.... you are actually there.

[nycomet]

The one movie that comes to mind that falls into the EXTREME 3D category is Amityville Horror 3D. I actually "felt" the muscles in my eyeballs flexing to focus on the 3D in many parts of the movie.

There is one particular scene in which that dreadful actress Tess Harper goes down to the basement after the power goes out.

[Show spoiler]She carries a sizeable flashlight and points it toward the camera. The pop out is fun, but it practically made me cross-eyed for a few moments.

[silentbob]

I like a strong 3D experience. If you are making something in 3D, use it to your advantage for the movie. Didn't think the 3D was strong in Amazing Spider-Man but I liked the adjustment they did for the sequel. Although i thought Kung Fu Panda 2 (theatre viewing) was actually pretty strong.

[Blastcage]

Give me more Alice in Wonderland quality 3D, and I'll be happy.