2D vs. 3D at the theaters

6 replies [Last post]
Matt Barton
Matt Barton's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/16/2006

I enjoyed this blog post from my favorite movie critic: They Just Don't Get It. It's mostly about 2D vs. 3D and why B. thinks the latter is a fad on the way out. The gist is that multiplexes just aren't pleasant places to be, and that's the problem studios should be tackling.

n/a
clok1966
Offline
Joined: 01/21/2009
I have yet to see one in the

I have yet to see one in the theater (well since the late 80's when I went ot a cartoon one in 3D.. Orion:Star Chasser?) But I have a 3D TV and glasses and a couple movies. I think they look ok.. so far a movie or so never bothers me much, in fact I dont notice much at all.. but the glasses do annoy me ( as I already wear them and my ears get sore from haveing 2 pairs on). My biggest complaint is... nothing to watch. When i got my TV there was like 10 movies total. Now there are alot more.. but almot all of its kiddy stuff (which does look good). But like the 3D movies of old.. using pointy stuff in wierd camera views to show it off is so ..WRONG... liek the motion contols in vidoe games.. doing stuff you show it off that doesnt make the movie better (or game). I was kinda looking forward to it, but so far i have seen no reason for it.

I think the new CONAN is going ot be 3D... as my childhood hero I htink I am goign to go to it.. I have very little hope it will be good, but one can hope.

Bill Loguidice
Bill Loguidice's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Holography is... close.
Matt Barton wrote:

But anyway, back to the 3D discussion...I don't think anyone is truly happy with the current state of the technology. I read Physics of the Impossible a few years ago that had a chapter on what we really want, holograms, and IIRC we're a long ways from developing the theory behind it, much less the application. The current crop of 3D stuff seems very crude; a kludge at best. Then again, maybe it's just something you have to get used to.

I know you listen to/watch the TwiT podcast, but you should check out the recent Home Theater Geeks episode where they had the guy with that 3D company who is developing the holography stuff. Fascinating and it seems like it's only about 10 years away from being practical. Naturally, in that time regular types of 3D will become commodities, people will get used to the stuff, then we'll have the "proper" way to do it.

n/a
Matt Barton
Matt Barton's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/16/2006
Haha, great post, S. I

Haha, great post, S. I haven't bothered to consult any medical journals to see if these things are causing real damage or if it's all just psycho-somatic (I think that's the term, right?), but what you say about the focus I can verify. My home theater is so bad it's a disgrace to the community. To give you an example: There are two exits in each theater on either side of the screen. They are topped by bright red Exit signs--bright enough to flood the sides of the screen. So anytime there's a dark scene you have to look at red glows to the left and right. I might excuse this at the aforementioned House of Pancakes Theater, but there's just no excuse for it here. I suspect they're required by law or some misguided policy to have the signs, so the problem is probably a fault of the architecture and cannot be corrected.

But anyway, back to the 3D discussion...I don't think anyone is truly happy with the current state of the technology. I read Physics of the Impossible a few years ago that had a chapter on what we really want, holograms, and IIRC we're a long ways from developing the theory behind it, much less the application. The current crop of 3D stuff seems very crude; a kludge at best. Then again, maybe it's just something you have to get used to.

Let's not forget that many people complained about film and TV when it first came out. I read once that when directors first starting showing close-ups, a lot of people felt scared or nauseated because they thought it was a disembodied head. I imagine when sound came out, some folks must have complained about "hearing voices" or the like. Of course all this starts to sound silly after the tech becomes taken for granted and is no longer viewed as a suspicious gimmick.

n/a
Shawn Delahunty
Shawn Delahunty's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2011
Reasons 3D Cinema is NOT "There" yet

I realize this is an older set of posts, but as this issue is actually becoming a problem when my wife and I consider attending the cinema, I had to weigh in.

As folks have no doubt read, there are significant issues being debated concerning the tech used in 3D movies. There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of complaints posted all over the Net, ranging from headaches, to eye-strain, and even physical disorientation and induced balance problems. The fundamental issue is that 3-D is _not_ truly 3-D. The parallax views being presented by the left-eye/right-eye polarized display doesn't match up to the _focal-depth_ our eyes expect. The result is a fight between multiple centers in our brains; the depth-perception cues of parallax/triangulation don't match up with what our eye-focusing muscles are doing and sensing. Add extreme motion in a scene to the mix of stimulii, and now you've included inner-ear and balance functionality in the free-for-all.

Lot's of good stuff on Google if you care to research the technical and medical tidbits.

Now for my personal perspective and anecdotal report:
- My wife gets a severe headache after more than a few minutes of viewing
- My eyes start to wig out after about an hour, as they keep trying to focus "too deeply" into the screen on certain bits of the background image

And the doozy, which has happened 3 of the 4 times I viewed a 3D movie in the past year:
- I feel as though there's something wrong with my vision, like bad blurry spots from astigmatism, most of the time. This is not an effect of the 3D polarized view of the film. This one is a direct result of CRAP quality control in the theaters! Many theaters have serious issues with focus--one corner or side of the film is slightly out of focus on-screen. They don't check or verify the focussing lens adjustments on the projectors. Now, with 2 separate projectors required for the 3D films, you've got an even trickier issue.

And before anyone asks, "No, we are not going to Bob's House of Pancakes, Car-Repair, and Cheap-O Cinema. In every instance, my wife and I forked over at some RITZY theaters, in a ridiculously affluent community not far from our home.

It's gotten so frustrating for us, that we actually have to struggle to find theatres that _only_ show the 'Digital Cinema' 2D versions of the new-release films. We basically have given up, and wait several weeks for them to near the end of the theater rotation when they show the 2D version. Frankly, I'm just as happy, since the effect isn't "Gee Whizzery" enough to warrant double the pricing.

My 2-pence worth,
-Bitsweep (aka, The Mysterious 'S')

n/a
clok1966
Offline
Joined: 01/21/2009
Im not sure what to think, no

Im not sure what to think, no medium lasts without change. Books, while not a dead product do not enjoy the succes they did (example, look how many fewer book stores there are) Kindle type readers have revieved it some, sales are UP. Dvd and blu_ray are slowing and Media streaming is growing. Movie theaters are actually doing ok, sales are so close year to year... But they have to grab something to pull us in.. $15 movie tickets when you can buy it for that price at Walmart is pretty tough pill to swallow. 3D has actually done good (ok) everywhere but the US, and while its not doing much its doing ok. The US is a$$ backwords on tech.. we genreally follow no "logic" ever, the better product seldom wins, easy cuz we are such lazy a$$es wins most times. While I think 3D is kinda waste of time, what else do they have to push?
matt mentioned makeing the theaters better, but i cant see that changing, space and land values in metro areas being what they are they just cant expand in any meaningfull way.

The real deal would be better prices. tell me Sernity wasnt a good enouhg movie (like Firefly or hate it) teh specail effect where not lacking.. nothing looked cheap in that movei really... and it had a budget of 60 mill... tell me why transformers at 200 million (plus) is better visually? Maybe in effect shots, more of them.. but it sure didnt make it a good movie.. I enjoyed it, but there are 100,0000 of great stories to be told with 40,-600000 budgets... hecek there are some incredible low budget (shoestring CC budget) movies on netflix now that tell some pretty great stories.

check this one out
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hunter-Prey/70130137?trkid=438403
its no blockbuster.. but the story is not to bad, (no its not great) and the effects are not wonderful, but Im amazed at it, its basicly one guy and no budget making a watchable sci fi film.

davyK
davyK's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/21/2006
3d in cinema is a tedious

3d in cinema is a tedious waste of time. the sooner we are rid of it the better.

better fllms - that's what we need. The Hangover was actually a move in the right direction - as was Sideways.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.