19 ms·
Yeah, if you can do away with it in the cinemas as well, that'd be great, thanks.
by akmarinov 10y ago
Yeah, if you can do away with it in the cinemas as well, that'd be great, thanks.
- douche 10y agoI'd be pretty happy to never see another terrible chase scene that has been crammed into a movie where it didn't need to be, just to justify showing the movie in 3D.
- mulletbum 10y agoThis. It pains me that they aren't just focused on higher and high quality of projection instead of 3d.
- dawnerd 10y agoTheaters are starting to get there. The laser projectors are just still way too expensive. I'm glad to see a lot of theaters finally upgrading their seats to be wider recliners. That's something I'll pay a premium for.
- a_c 10y agoI conjecture that 3D in movie is just an excuse to increase ticket price and lowering image quality at the same time
- baddox 10y agoI don't quite understand that argument. If people hadn't purchased enough of the higher prices 3D tickets, it wouldn't be profitable, and cinemas would have given up. If people "have no choice" because of a lack of sufficient competition, then the cinemas would have just raised the price without adding a new feature which costs them money.
- chrishacken 10y agoI think it more-or-less (at least for me) comes down to... Friend: "I can only make the movie after 8" Me: "The 2D one is at 7:40, but there's a 3D showing at 8:10" And thus, 8:10 it is. Then I have to stake the glasses off for 30 seconds every 5-10 minutes because the image makes me dizzy as all hell.
- m_st 10y agoYes, that. And selling you one more cheap piece of plastic each time you forget that thing at home.
- tantalor 10y agoHuh? Every cinema I've ever been to provides the 3d viewing glasses for free and collects them afterwards.
- Cthulhu_ 10y agoIt depends; the cheaper ones have passive 3d glasses (polarisation filters), the cinema nearby then sells them for €1 apiece. I have two of them at home. The fancier cinema, brand new etc, has Dolby Atmos and active 3D glasses - they hand those out and collect them when you enter and leave the room. The ticket price of those is higher though (€15 ish).
- rhinoceraptor 10y agoIt could have also have been a ploy to get theaters to upgrade their projection equipment to the new DRM-ed digital projectors.
- s_kilk 10y agoI happened to be working as a Projectionist around the time 3D and Digital Projection began to really take off, and yeah... pretty much this. [EDIT] Damn those early digital projectors were cool, basically huge light-bulbs wired up to a Centos box with some weirdo DRM shit baked-in. We would receive movies on ordinary hard-drives and plug them in to a central server rack to be ingested and then distributed out to each of the projectors. Pretty often in those days it would simply take too long to ingest and transfer to a screen, so we'd have to cancel early showings of new movies.
- givinguflac 10y agoI've certainly seen movies where that was the case, but The Martian in 3D was amazing. I also thoroughly enjoyed Doctor Strange 3D, though that was on IMAX laser projectors, which are amazing by themselves.
- puddintane 10y agoI saw Doctor Strange on IMAX 3D as well and I must say it was very impressive however there needs to be a good system for rating 3D movie experiences beforehand that way the consumer is not subject to wasting money on a horrible experience.
- teach 10y agoI've had luck with the "To 3D or Not To 3D" reviews at cinemablend.com. Here's a recent example: http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1600740/to-3d-or-not-to-3d-buy-the-right-rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-ticket http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1600740/to-3d-or-not-to-3d-b...
- WorldMaker 10y agoI find that I can often tell based on a baroque reading of the credits. Some of the 3D "upconversion" houses are better than others at their job. Some of the special effects houses have dedicated stereoscopic staff. Some of the studios themselves have dedicated stereoscopic departments. Obviously too, if there were stereoscopic cameras/film units involved in the main production crew of the film, that's usually a sign that the director cared about the stereoscopic output of the film.
- snuxoll 10y agoI'm stereo-blind, so 3D movies annoy me more than anything. It always annoys me when people want to go see a movie in 3D and I have to decline since it will give me a headache 15 minutes in.
- Twirrim 10y agoHank Green, of vlogbrothers fame, came up with "2D" glasses. http://www.2d-glasses.com/ http://www.2d-glasses.com/ Instead of different polarisation in each lens, like normal 3D glasses, it just uses identical polarisation in both lenses.
- bbarn 10y agoIf only so I don't need to hear "Why would you NOT want to see it in 3D?" again in my life.
- Kiro 10y agoSo what is your answer?
- Zenst 10y agoOne reply to that is "I ain't got 4D for that fad" 4D==time :).
- msluyter 10y agoNot that you asked me, but here's one reason: I have keratoconus and even with glasses and multiple eye surgeries don't see 20-20. Moreover, my right eye is considerably worse than my left, which means that I can't quite get binocular vision to work, making 3d viewing impossible for me. I realize folks like me are a tiny minority, however. Perhaps a broader reason is that 3d seems to encourage filmmakers to go for visual spectacle over good storytelling.
- jessaustin 10y agoI lost my right eye when I was very young, so for me as well 3D is just a way to make a movie look worse.
- shawabawa3 10y agoPersonally I find that even when it's well done it creates moments that draw me out of the movie and make me very aware that I'm in a cinema When it's badly done it makes my eyes hurt after a while and I find it tends to make everything look blurry
- metafunctor 10y agoThe 3D movies I've seen were just too dark. Add to that fingerprints on ill-fitting glasses and the faintly cross-eyed feeling I get watching scenes where the 3D is pronounced, and I'll much rather watch a nice, bright, 2D version.
- nateguchi 10y agoIt seems ridiculous now that you can get 4K TV sets for a reasonable price now and yet all the cinemas are touting their "New" 4K projection technology. Either bring back film or start projecting at 8K+.
- dickbasedregex 10y agoTheaters can't die soon enough. They have all the charm of public transit but with laughable pricing.
- dpark 10y agoSo don't go to the theater. Complaining that some other people do a thing that you aren't interested in and are not compelled to participate in is petty and obnoxious.
- coldtea 10y agoFrom the viewing distance of movie theaters 8K wont do anything at all. Actually it wont just be diminishing returns, but it will give movies the over-sharpened, soap-opera/sports-coverage style image (and even worse if paired with higher frame rates).
- freeone3000 10y agoAccurate picture reproduction is now somehow a negative?
- mikeash 10y agoAccurate reproduction has always been seen as a negative among a certain set of people used to what came before. Other examples include higher framerates for movies, digital photography, and compact discs. If you live with a technology for long enough, you can start to see its flaws as advantages instead.
- mtanski 10y ago
- DannyB2 10y agoYes, that! 3D is and has always been a gimmic. It doesn't improve the story telling. It doesn't contribute to the plot in any way. But then, some movie makers remark, 'story' ? 'plot ? what strange words you use.
- burkaman 10y agoI know you've heard this argument before, but isn't that the same thing people said about color movies? This sort of reminds me of arguments about Snapchat. A lot of people really enjoy 3D, trying to logically convince them that they actually shouldn't like it is not going to work.
- coldtea 10y ago>I know you've heard this argument before, but isn't that the same thing people said about color movies? No in any large numbers. Besides, 3D cinema has been coming and going as a fad for 6 decades now. But even if it was true that people said that about color movies, people can say the same thing about different inventions and be wrong in one case and right in another. >A lot of people really enjoy 3D, trying to logically convince them that they actually shouldn't like it is not going to work. Well, they are not that many to sustain 3D TVs (as TFA tells us), and they have never been that many to make it not be a fad in the cinema either. In which case, whether some enjoy it is a moot point.
- baddox 10y ago> No in any large numbers. This implies that "large numbers" of people complain about 3D. I suspect this isn't true, and that it's really a very loud very small minority. > But even if it was true that people said that about color movies, people can say the same thing about different inventions and be wrong in one case and right in another. Yes, but the point is that some evidence needs to be provided. Since some statements are wrong and some are right, the argument needs to be more than "it's true because I said it." > and they have never been that many to make it not be a fad in the cinema either. What does this mean? At what point do you concede that it's not a fad in the cinema?
- WouterSpaak 10y ago3D films give me a headache. I think it's something to do with a slightly lazy right eye. I've not actually been to a blockbuster theatrical release in the better part of a decade. There were plenty of films I would have gladly payed a ticket for, if only they were released in 2D.
- Tenhundfeld 10y agoMaybe it's different in different markets, but in my area, every movie released in 3D is also released in 2D. They're usually released simultaneously for blockbusters, e.g., 1-2 IMAX screens showing 3D and 1-2 screens showing 2D. For others, they might start out only showing 3D on opening weekend and then transition to 2D as the movies age and move to smaller screens, e.g., Rogue One is still playing in my area but only available in 2D now.
- the_af 10y agoSame here. I went to see Rogue One to the only IMAX cinema in my city. First time I went to an IMAX and I didn't like it at all. This surprised me because IMAX is supposed to be such a big deal, but the picture quality was awful: only the center of the screen was in focus, everything else was awfully blurry and dark. It really ruined the movie. Is this supposed to be a premium experience? I can't wait for the 3D fad to die. It will probably outlast me, however.
- sangnoir 10y agoFYI: There is IMAX, and there is "IMAX". The brand has been diluted to hell with screens that previously wouldn't have qualified.
- snuxoll 10y agoPeople with amblyopia (lazy eye) are much more prone to stereo-blindness than people without, since your eyes aren't properly aligned stereoscopic 3D not only "doesn't work" for many but the tricks your brain normally uses to compensate don't work correctly and can cause headaches. In fact, you can test this yourself. Go look up "split-depth GIF", then compare the experience you get from those to a traditional 3D image (either in theaters or from a 3DS or something else that uses parallax to fake 3D). This was the first time in my life I've ever actually experienced the '3D' effect coming from any 2D plane. Another fun thing to try: go try and hit a baseball, catch a ball, whatever. You may notice you are not very good at this, even with a fair amount of practice. These small objects don't give off depth cues your brain normally uses since it can't rely on stereoscopic vision, the lack of shadows, small change in relative size and a lack of other objects to use for depth positioning can make this a difficult if not almost impossible task for someone with amblyopia. Want to know how I know all of this? Because I've done all of this, my left eye is horrifically bad and has been since the day I was born (80/20 in the left eye, 40/20 in the right), and even after TWO strabismus surgeries it decided to misalign itself again and I've suffered from occasional double vision ever since. If you're still relatively young (20's or early 30's) you can check out vision therapy, there's been a lot of great success rates on retraining the brain to properly integrate the information from both eyes that will allow you to see "normally" and likely remove these issues. Personally I've opted not to because at 25 years old I really have no desire to change how I perceive the world (it's not a comforting thought, especially since once you've retrained your brain you can't exactly undo it).
- bbayer 10y agoIt contributes to story if movie designed ground up for 3D specifically. Actually, the only movie I have seen in this category was Avatar. The environment, colors, action scenes are all designed to look better in 3D. Other movies I watched have always ended up with poor experience.
- giancarlostoro 10y agoI agree. I watched Transformers in 3D and it made sense to me.
- protomyth 10y agoI went to the IMAX at the zoo in MN and watched Jurassic World in 3D. It was amazing, and actually made me want to see more movies like that. It was much nicer than the standard IMAX. They had a preview for The Walk and that preview showed the true depth of 3D.
- dawnerd 10y agoThe first Jurassic Park in special release IMAX 3D was pretty good as well. The larger screen helps a lot, as well as them not going crazy with the post 3D
- TeMPOraL 10y ago3D != 3D. If they can do away with non-IMAX 3D, I'd be happy. The typical cinema experience is just crap - especially because the brightness being usually cut in half compared to the regular, flat movie. But IMAX screens I actually enjoy (even though I wear prescription glasses, which makes watching 3D movies a tricky problem in general).
- acqq 10y agoI remember hugely enjoying a traditional film-based IMAX 3D, but there isn't such anymore close to me. The quality of projections in all the theaters that I visited is year to year worse. Somehow they switch to constantly worse technologies for 3D? I suspect the older ones but only on a few places had higher FPS than these done now? Now is watching the movements annoying, I see the objects move like in the strobolight -- not smooth at all.
- stronglikedan 10y agoYeah, no - it wouldn't be great. I love seeing movies in 3D. Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it. This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with.
- 0xffff2 10y agoI really wanted to see Rogue One in IMAX, but there were no 2D IMAX showings in my area.
- snuxoll 10y agoOh man, this drives me nuts to no end. I'd gladly pay the extra ticket price for an IMAX showing if I didn't have to get a headache 15 minutes in.
- the_af 10y agoOut of curiosity, did you end up watching 3D IMAX? There is a single IMAX cinema in my city (so I cannot do a comparison), and Rogue One was awful in it. Blurry, dark, slightly out of focus. I wonder whether this is a flaw in all 3D IMAX showings, or maybe this particular cinema had some technical problem? My experience was that 3D IMAX is way worse than regular 3D (which I'd also rather not watch).
- phil21 10y agoThe only passable 3D experience I've ever had was in a 3D Laser IMAX. The brightness was leaps and bounds better than any other 3D screen I've seen, and it wasn't constantly distracting like most are. The laser imax experience blew away any other 3D movie on a regular screen I've ever seen and it wasn't remotely close. That said I'd still prefer 2D.
- khedoros1 10y agoAt my local theater, the IMAX movies I've seen have all been incredibly bright and sharp, both 3D and 2D. I don't think it's something inherent to the format.
- kurthr 10y agoYou know... if you take 2 of those 3D glasses (you criminal!) and swap out the left lens for the right lens between them, you can make 2D glasses. That way when you go to the movies, you and a friend can share different views during the film... one with the right view and one the left. If you have friends with differing viewpoints, it might help... as long as they don't like 3D either.
- chx 10y agoOr if you don't want to fiddle with very fragile things just buy 2D glasses, I won't link because I do not want to spam but they exist and they do the job. As an aside, this reminds of the prime example of "people are so stupid you can't even imagine": I checked some epilepsy forum when Avatar came out because I suspected it's dangerous and yes, people said it is not advisable and some got auras and some even seizures from the movie so I decided 3D movies are not for me. Not everyone though -- there was someone who posted "yeah, I saw the warnings here and went to see Avatar 3D and got a seizure" and I am like "you can't be real".
- felipemnoa 10y agoThe real question here is what is so special about the visual input that it causes a seizure?
- chx 10y agoWell, many people get headaches. It's not a stretch to say whatever causes a headache in a sensitive person might cause worse. Edit: to whoever downvotes this, I had seizures when I was 20 years old. Despite numerous examinations including sleep deprived EKG, CT, MRI they never found out what causes them. So if you are downvoting this because I sound like we do not know what causes seizures then you are either ignorant (because we indeed do not know and I am the damned walking example) or have knowledge I really badly need. If the latter then please share links to new neuro research which will help me and my neurologist to decide whether I need to stay on medication or not. I would be glad to stop after two decades.
- BlackjackCF 10y agoI think 3D is so much more of an effective gimmick in movie theaters than at home. It's kind of a "special" thing to go out to a movie, etc. so I think the effect kind of works there. 3D at home... on a smaller screen... just doesn't work as well as a spectacle.
- kej 10y agoI wish more movies would be done like Superman Returns. It was plain old 2D except for a handful of scenes where they flashed an icon in the corner to tell you to put on your glasses. You put them on for a minute, saw some cool 3D effect in an action scene, and then you took them off before you got a headache and before it affected the rest of the movie.
- arcosdev 10y agoAgreed. Can we get over the 3D fad again please? It was a misguided idea in the 50s and it is just as misguided now.
- ClassyJacket 10y agoThanks for trying to take it away from me because you don't like it.
- DKnoll 10y agoOutside of IMAX cinemas, it seems ticket sales for 3D movies are lackluster as well (compared to 2D showings of the same film at the same location). Not sure if it's the actual format or just the 3D surcharge. I imagine smaller chains opening new locations may pass on adding 3D capability to their theatres in future, however many may continue showing 3D films on the equipped screens if only to justify the extra $15k/cinema in equipment they were hustled into buying while making their mandatory 3D conversion.