Is it any good? I’m going to watch that film on dinosaurs and I’ve seen there is a 3d option. Is it worth the extra or will it give me a headache?

Some films work really well other don’t.

I’ve never had a headache due the 3D cinema.

Ditto people.

If done well 3d movies are awesome. Dinosaur movie didn’t really gain much imo

Generally seems to still be a gimmick. When you watch in 2d and see the filler/check out the 3d scenes you know it was pointless

I think its a gimmick. The only film I saw which is better in 3D is Gravity – but I did see it on iMax so that might have added further to the effect. I saw Avatar in 3D and 2D on the cinema and it is definitely better in 2D. The problem with 3D I think is that when you look around the screen the focal point doesn’t change, so in Avatar in the scene at the start when they’re all waking up from hyper sleep and floating around the background is not in focus 3D so when you look at the background it’s just a blur, but in 2D its full of nice detail so adds much more to the scene. When they invent the technology where the focal point changes for the individual it might work, but not now.

Also the glasses are usually uncomfortable and sometimes quite slim, so it feels like you’re watching the movie though narrow slits.

It’s not much better on a 3D TV. I’ve got active glasses for my TV and they can give you a bit of a thick head and you sometimes get a noticeable flicker effect, so I’ve only used them a couple of times when I first got the TV just to test it out.

in Avatar in the scene at the start when they’re all waking up from hyper sleep and floating around the background is not in focus 3D so when you look at the background it’s just a blur, but in 2D its full of nice detail so adds much more to the scene

I’m confused by this statement. I know what you are saying about the forced focal point ruining the 3Dness, but why does it affect the detail level? i.e. why would the background in a 3D scene be softer than the same scene in standard 2D? Do they artificially increase background blur to heighten the depth of field effect or something?

in Avatar in the scene at the start when they’re all waking up from hyper sleep and floating around the background is

So mind numbingly dull once you get beyond the water droplet crap that you see it’s only there for a oooo look at the 3d.

They are never awesome, they vary between ‘it works’ and one of those 3D postcards that are made from layers of image.

It would have been better if they had spent their time working on higher definition and, in particular, frame rates.

As it is most 3D films seem to use the effect as an excuse for actual content.

It’s fun, but it makes the effects look fake somehow so you are very aware that you’re watching a film.

It would have been better if they had spent their time working on higher definition and, in particular, frame rates.

In most cases I’d settle for the plot and the script

My tuppence:

Have you ever left a film and thought, “Was great, but was just a little too flat?”. Our minds are so used to the idea of a screen and 2D representation of 3D images that we just get on with it.

Also – nasty colour/light loss 🙁

EDIT: Another vote for HFR please.

All I can ever see when watching films in 2D are the sequences clearly shot to give the 3D ‘wow!’.

For example, the barrels down the stream in ‘The Hobbit – Desolation of Smaug’ obviously shot for 3D and it actually spoils my enjoyment of the film because they are shooting to satisfy the 3D audience rather than create a film that works in a traditional way as stated above

Our minds are so used to the idea of a screen and 2D representation of 3D images that we just get on with it.

Jackass: 3D is utterly epic.

Probably* not the best film ever made. Arguably the best 3D film ever made.

*99% sure on this.

Watched the Dinosaur film in 2D – enjoyed it (I was with my kid, ok?!) and saw no need to watch in 3D wearing a stupid pair of glasses that intrude on peripheral vision throughout the film.
2D every time for me (Except Jackass: 3D, natch)

nice summary of the issues with 3d films

nice summary of the issues with 3d films

Good stuff, from someone who knows what they’re talking about! Kind of explains why the only bits that really look good are multiple little things floating around (eg. the “pollen” scene in Avatar), cos you don’t have to focus on one thing to get the effect.

Graham, I say that precicely because on the 3D version the background is blurred whereas on the 2D version it is full of detail. The 3D version is unrealistic as a result as in real life if you look to the background you focus in on it and the foreground becomes blurred. Maybe it was some poor 3D cinematography on the film-makers behalf, but it looked crap. I just don’t think 3D for 3D sake adds anything to a film. Having a few things pop out of the screen at you, once the initial novelty factor wears off, just becomes boring and you start focussing on all the other downsides to 3D, like wearing stupid uncomfortable glasses and not being able to see half the scene because its out of focus.

Gravity in 3D worked for me on iMax, but I think that was due to the sheer size of the screen, it fills your full field of vision, wraps around you and immerses you in the 3D effect with space debris apparently surrounding you – but on your 3D telly at home, or a more conventional cinema screen it just doesn’t work as the 3D effect is limited to the frame of the screen, pops out of the screen only so far and just fails to give the same effect.

Graham, I say that precicely because on the 3D version the background is blurred whereas on the 2D version it is full of detail. #

Plus the fact that it’s (the background) darker in 3D, so harder to see.

It would have been better if they had spent their time working on higher definition and, in particular, frame rates.

not for the shareholders and execs it isn’t. a friend works in digital cinema distribution technology for the biggest digital cinema/film processing company and he said it costs about 1millioUSD to convert an old film into 3D, the income on dvd/blu-ray/cinema release makes it a no brainer for any action movie sitting in an archive.
not everyone wants high frame rates as it can make filmic imagery look like video, o.k for action not for drama.

Graham, I say that precicely because on the 3D version the background is blurred whereas on the 2D version it is full of detail.

I didn’t word that question very well. I’m not doubting you, I’m just wondering whether the blur was a physically unavoidable artefact of it being in 3D or if it was an artistic decision added as an effect?

Say I was filming something for 2D and 3D. Then the easiest way to do it would be with two camera lenses side-by-side about pupil distance apart.

The 2D film would just use the video from one camera as normal. And the 3D film would use the video from both cameras overlaid using whatever 3D tech they choose (red/green specs, polarisation, alternate flickering glasses etc).

But if the 2D and 3D version were both filmed with the same lens on the same aperture setting then why would the background of the 3D version be more out of focus? Shouldn’t it be the same as they are subject to the same depth of field?

Obviously Avatar is slightly different because it is all CGI rendered, so I was wondering if they actually added in some extra blur to the 3D renders to “enhance” the 3D-ness at the expense of all the nice background detail.

The 3D version is unrealistic as a result as in real life if you look to the background you focus in on it and the foreground becomes blurred.

Yeah but you can’t focus on the background in 2D film either – it’s just that 3D film makes you want to and then you get frustrated when you can’t.

not everyone wants high frame rates as it can make filmic imagery look like video, o.k for action not for drama.

you mean that not everyone knows they want high frame rates…

Basically 24fps isn’t high enough for smooth motion.

It’s like a lot of people who work in offices and get headaches from eye strain don’t realise that they really want 100Hz florescent lighting and not 50Hz…

60FPS locked on my gaming rig isn’t enough! The more the merrier.

Meh, 3D doesn’t work if you only have one functioning eye. If you do go (to appease the other half) you have to sit there wearing daft glasses anyway just to watch a 2D normal film.

Having seen the film about the dinosaurs, having it in 3d couldn’t make it any worse.