3 ms·

Having only seen two movies on this list (Avatar 'Real' and Alice in Wonderland 'Fake') my observation is hardly exhaustive, but there was a definite difference

Having only seen two movies on this list (Avatar 'Real' and Alice in Wonderland 'Fake') my observation is hardly exhaustive, but there was a definite difference in the 3D experience. With Avatar, the third dimension seem to come out at you from the screen - I even had a cliched duck for cover at one point. With Alice the third dimension seemed to be depth in the screen - many shots felt like you were figuratively looking down a rabbit hole, rather than being immersed within one. And for what it's worth, I don't mind paying a few bucks extra for the 3D version, real or fake.

joshd 16y ago
I think different 3D technologies could account for the in-ness and out-ness. Where you at the same cinema both times?
- JacobAldridge 16y ago
  Actually, it was - same specific cinema. But weeks / months apart which could impact things - good thinking.
bshep 16y ago
Just a little anecdotal evidence here, but I also saw Alice, Avatar and Clash of the Titans, and both Alice and Clash gave me headaches, but Avatar did not. Actually I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar's 3D experience. Just my .02 cents
DanHulton 16y ago
Actually, this is super-weird. This feeling of 3D "coming out" of the screen is caused by a thing called "negative parallax", and things receding into the screen caused by "positive parallax". Avatar actually had a comparatively mild amount of negative parallax, compared against things like Jim Carrey's A Christmas Carol, which was LOADED with it. Negative parallax can look really bad and cheap very easily. It takes a light touch to make it look good. Avatar did it really well and used it sparingly, so that when it DID happen, it surprised you - the "duck and cover" moment. Other, shitty movies use it everywhere, to the point where you no longer notice it - the maximum negative parallax becomes your 0-base (subjectively).

joshd 16y ago

I think different 3D technologies could account for the in-ness and out-ness. Where you at the same cinema both times?

JacobAldridge 16y ago
Actually, it was - same specific cinema. But weeks / months apart which could impact things - good thinking.

bshep 16y ago

Just a little anecdotal evidence here, but I also saw Alice, Avatar and Clash of the Titans, and both Alice and Clash gave me headaches, but Avatar did not. Actually I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar's 3D experience. Just my .02 cents

DanHulton 16y ago

Actually, this is super-weird. This feeling of 3D "coming out" of the screen is caused by a thing called "negative parallax", and things receding into the screen caused by "positive parallax". Avatar actually had a comparatively mild amount of negative parallax, compared against things like Jim Carrey's A Christmas Carol, which was LOADED with it. Negative parallax can look really bad and cheap very easily. It takes a light touch to make it look good. Avatar did it really well and used it sparingly, so that when it DID happen, it surprised you - the "duck and cover" moment. Other, shitty movies use it everywhere, to the point where you no longer notice it - the maximum negative parallax becomes your 0-base (subjectively).