4 ms·
So far my main complain looking at 3D films have been: 1- They are darker and therefore you lose some details, simply because polarised glasses cut half of the
by nanairo 16y ago
So far my main complain looking at 3D films have been:
1- They are darker and therefore you lose some details, simply because polarised glasses cut half of the light
2- But most of all every time something is coming towards me in the film is impressive only until it reaches the edge of the screen... at which point I get one massive reminder that I am watching a film and not reality and it completely kills my suspension of disbelief. Maybe with time I'll get use to it, but so far I've been much more aware that I was in a cinema when watching 3D... ironically it was a lot less immersive. ;)
Where I do think it can have a positive effect is either where the film maker makes careful use not to go beyond the screen's size (for example "How to train a dragon" was quite nice in 3D because of all the dogfighting which was a lot clearer in 3D), or in sports where the director can be sure the ball and the players will stay within a certain area.
- mrtron 16y agoAvatar was brilliantly glowing and didn't feel dark at all. Am I the only one?
- nanairo 16y agoI am not sure since Avatar was one of the few films I had to watch in 2D. :D But I don't think there's any particular reason why a 3D film ends up being darker: the cinema people simply need to raise the brightness of the lamp.
- bd 16y agoIt's harder to tell when you watch just 3d because eyes can adapt pretty well to low light. I removed my 3d glasses while watching the Avatar to check how it looks. It was indeed much brighter and afterwards 3d felt quite dim (for some time, till my eyes didn't adapt again). Brighter 2d felt right and 3d was dim as opposed to 3d feeling normal and 2d being too bright. It's a bit like changing between good desktop LCD and notebook. If you work just on notebook, it feels perfectly ok, but if you have it side by side with a good monitor, it looks quite bad.