3 ms·

I've always really liked 3D movies when it's well done. I thought it really made Avatar more amazing and it gave Alice in Wonderland an even more other worldly

I've always really liked 3D movies when it's well done. I thought it really made Avatar more amazing and it gave Alice in Wonderland an even more other worldly effect. Most animated movies turn out really well too. Of course, most movies aren't filmed with 3D in mind and it is crappily added in post. Those suck.

EvilTrout 15y ago
Actually Alice in Wonderland's 3D was done in post.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  But was shot as a 3D movie apparently, Wikipedia: 'Sony Pictures Imageworks designed the visual effects sequences.[54] Burton felt 3D was appropriate to the story's environment.[11] Burton and Zanuck chose to film with conventional cameras, and convert the footage into 3D during post-production; Zanuck explained 3D cameras were too expensive and "clumsy" to use, and they felt that there was no difference between converted footage and those shot in the format.[55] James Cameron, who released his 3D film Avatar in December 2009, criticized the choice, stating, "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2-D and convert to 3-D".[56]'
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  Yes, but it was done very well.
tomjen3 15y ago
Agreed. Sometimes HN seems like a bunch of hipsters -- yes it can be done incorrectly, but by that token you shouldn't ever use color (and all movies should be silent). 3D is an enabling technology. It will not prevent bad films from being made, anymore than Ruby will prevent bad developers from creating a mess.
- gamble 15y ago
  Current 3D technology results in a dramatic loss of picture quality. In theory they're supposed to compensate for the brightness reduction by cranking up the projector, but I've yet to see a 3D film that wasn't dramatically murkier than the 2D version. You also get terrible judder. And, for people like myself that wear glasses, the fact that no movie theatre distributes polarized glasses designed to fit around a pair of glasses means that I usually have difficulty focusing and get awful eyestrain. I don't have a problem with the idea of 3D, per se, but its implementation has made watching films in a theatre very frustrating and uncomfortable.

EvilTrout 15y ago

Actually Alice in Wonderland's 3D was done in post.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
But was shot as a 3D movie apparently, Wikipedia: 'Sony Pictures Imageworks designed the visual effects sequences.[54] Burton felt 3D was appropriate to the story's environment.[11] Burton and Zanuck chose to film with conventional cameras, and convert the footage into 3D during post-production; Zanuck explained 3D cameras were too expensive and "clumsy" to use, and they felt that there was no difference between converted footage and those shot in the format.[55] James Cameron, who released his 3D film Avatar in December 2009, criticized the choice, stating, "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2-D and convert to 3-D".[56]'
RandallBrown 15y ago
Yes, but it was done very well.

tomjen3 15y ago

Agreed. Sometimes HN seems like a bunch of hipsters -- yes it can be done incorrectly, but by that token you shouldn't ever use color (and all movies should be silent). 3D is an enabling technology. It will not prevent bad films from being made, anymore than Ruby will prevent bad developers from creating a mess.

gamble 15y ago
Current 3D technology results in a dramatic loss of picture quality. In theory they're supposed to compensate for the brightness reduction by cranking up the projector, but I've yet to see a 3D film that wasn't dramatically murkier than the 2D version. You also get terrible judder. And, for people like myself that wear glasses, the fact that no movie theatre distributes polarized glasses designed to fit around a pair of glasses means that I usually have difficulty focusing and get awful eyestrain. I don't have a problem with the idea of 3D, per se, but its implementation has made watching films in a theatre very frustrating and uncomfortable.