6 ms·
It's not a gimmick, it increases immersiveness when done right. The problem is the technology isn't quite there and directors haven't been trained in it (and us
by rm999 10y ago
It's not a gimmick, it increases immersiveness when done right. The problem is the technology isn't quite there and directors haven't been trained in it (and usually don't make the effort) - so it's basically never done right.
3D as we know it is probably never going to happen. Most movies don't gain much from more immersiveness, and the tech may always be clunky. I've seen some VR movies lately, and I predict they will supercede 3d entirely. Whether they'll end up being the next fad is an open question.
- throwaway91111 10y agoIt only increases immersiveness if it doesn't make you throw up. This is only going to get worse with VR.
- teach 10y agoThere's a huge difference between immersiveness (you feel surrounded by the image) and presence. Good modern VR gives you a sense of presence, which tricks the body at a level below conscious awareness that you are somewhere else. And presence is characterized by lack of nausea. If your only experience with VR is cell phones or the Playstation 4, then you probably have never experienced presence.
- NTripleOne 10y agoYeah, if you want to experience presence you basically have to use a Vive - a Rift might just about do it but you'll probably run into a whole lotta tracking issues thanks to their (awful) tracking solution.
- ehsanu1 10y agoWow, even HN has been infected! JK, but Rift tracking is great too. For "room-scale" with good tracking you basically need 3 sensors (you can buy additional sensors). For some games that cause heavy occlusion due to needing to lie on the floor or whatever, you would have to put the sensors in ceiling mounts to get the full volume tracked accurately. And the tracking volume will be smaller for the Rift compared to the Vive, but very few people have a bigger than 2.5m by 2.5m space, which the Rift can track just fine. I just got my third sensor a couple days ago, and it has made a night and day difference (there is also an option for 360 tracking with two sensors, but I didn't set that up). But even when I had two sensors the tracking was fine except under certain situations where my body would occlude the controllers. Not a problem anymore after the third sensor.
- josho 10y agoWhat's a movie you can suggest that should be seen in 3D? Preferably one in theatres so that us nay sayers can give it another try.
- drivers99 10y agoDoctor Strange is, but unfortunately at least in my town it's only showing in 2D at the cheap ($1) theaters now. I was blown away by the appropriate use of 3D and visuals in 3D IMAX for that movie. I saw Rogue One in 2D and then IMAX 3D and hated it in 3D. Article about it: http://www.thisisinsider.com/doctor-strange-how-you-should-see-it-2016-10 http://www.thisisinsider.com/doctor-strange-how-you-should-s... When new movies come out, google "should I see it in 3D $moviename" type articles. Unfortunately it's January now; not many good movies coming out.
- Gracana 10y agoOhhhhhh. I saw Dr Strange in 2D and thought the rippling building effects and hurling of bodies and such was kind of goofy. Didn't think of 3D at the time, but now it makes sense.
- NTripleOne 10y agoAnything that's 3D animated IMO, your pixar or dreamworks kinda stuff - they all work far better than camera-3D stuff as the '3D gimmick' fits with the fact that it's animated, as well as the nature of 3D CG allows for the stereoscopy to be tweaked and perfected far easier.
- rosege 10y agoI agree - the best, by far, 3D movie I have seen is Pixar's Up
- dood 10y agoAvatar and Gravity are the standout examples.
- 10y ago