[Closed] 3d films,

The 3-D glasses are huge and will sit over the top of a regualr pair of glasses I'm affraid!

It's the people with no ears to hold them up you have to feel sorry for 😛

they fit over my glasses fine

take a lens cloth and some glasses cleaner with you, they are generally pretty clean though

sit dead centre and far enough forward that the screen fills the majority of your field of vision or at worst as far away as the screen is wide

3D is cool when done well

failing that you could buy 2 camera polarizing filters and glue them over your glasses, that's all they are

you'd look a bit of a spoon though

I just wear contact lenses when going to see 3D films 🙂
Avatar on IMAX 3D was brilliant. Alice In Wonderland less so.

Top tip 1: don't tip your head to one side, you'll mess up the effect and end up feeling a bit sick.

Top tip 2: don't sit with your glasses on through all the 2D trailers complaining loudly that it doesn't work.

3D in AIW wasn't terribly good as fast moving objects were very blurred. I think it might be something to do with the film not being shot in 3D but just post processed. Going to see Avatar tonight and hopefully that should be better as it was shot in 3D from the start.

Cinema 3D isn't really 3D as if it was properly 3D you would be able to shift the focus of your eyes to focus on both the foreground and background. Try that in a 3D film and if the the background was shot out of focus stays blurred.

Avatar is great, but you cant sit still as you end up dodging arrows and trying to catch the floating objects that seem only inches away.

Going to see Avatar tonight and hopefully that should be better as it was shot in 3D from the start.

Awesome amount of 3D detail in that film (plot is a bit thin, but that's okay). Highly recommend you see it on a big IMAX screen and try to sit back a bit, near the middle.

Cinema 3D isn't really 3D as if it was properly 3D you would be able to shift the focus of your eyes to focus on both the foreground and background. Try that in a 3D film and if the the background was shot out of focus stays blurred.

Yeah, I found it took a little bit of time to learn to relax and passively focus on what the director wants to be in focus, rather than struggling to resolve detail that you can't focus on.

I wore contacts
Mixed feelings on Avatar - only certain bits seemd to work
Maybe it was the cinema
Considering AIW
J.

Cinema 3D isn't really 3D

Mixed feelings on Avatar - only certain bits seemd to work
Maybe it was the cinema

I thought it worked very well.

It wasn't always IN-YOUR-FACE-3D-AXE-FLYING-STRAIGHT-TOWARDS-YOUR-GODDAM-HEAD style 3D.
There are some sequences like that (battles etc) but at other times it was really quite subtle, but it was always there.

i like it 🙂

alice in wonderland was awesome, loads better than avatar i thought (though avatar was pretty awesome too)

just remember to look where the director wants you to look. if you try and resist, and look around, it all goes wrong as its all out of focus.

also, on avatar, the filmed 3d bits, and the rendered CGI 3d bits were a bit "out" so i found i could see the joins (or at least it didnt sit comfortably), however there are scenes in Avatar, where there is no CGI at all, like the bit in the jail cell, and thats incredible to look at as there are no discontinuities in the image.
i know a few people who have said they would rather see the films in 2d though.

i think its a personal experience thing.
just give it a go and see!

alice in wonderland was awesome, loads better than avatar i thought

As a film I thought the plot was even thinner than Avatars.

The 3d in Avatar reminded me of old home made puppet theatres where you had a backdrop, puppets in the middle ground then some other stuff at the front. Not so much 3 dimensions as 3 layers.

3D was the only reason i stayed in Avatar til the end

I nearly left when the identical to Titanic love theme kicked in. I was expecting a ship to come out of the screen

it was an awesome spectacle but if it hadn't been IMAX 3D i'd have wanted my money back!

I watched a download of Avatar 3D and it was rubbish.

Not so much 3 dimensions as 3 layers.

I didn't get that effect with Avatar. There was loads of depth, e.g. the bits in the jungle or all the floaty stuff from the Soul Tree.

I nearly left when the identical to Titanic love theme kicked in. I was expecting a ship to come out of the screen

Well they got most of the plot from Pocahontas so I guess they had to get the theme from somewhere too.

I watched a download of Avatar 3D and it was rubbish.

🙄

if you sit off axis then the 3D effect isn't quite so good, especially on a smaller screen, this can make it look a bit layered as can trying to change your focus point as stated above

It's such a simple technology as well, i've used it a few times amd it's simplicity never ceases to astound. Where it falls down is having to have two machines and projectors able to play the content in frame sync, this isn't that easy to do and leads to the weird double image effect you see when it breaks down

Thanks GrahamS. Best response I could've hoped for really.

Does make me wonder about the future of this.

The studios are apparently adopting 3D and IMAX as they are worried about reduced cinema numbers being caused by people having huge HD tellies and BlueRay players at home, so they are trying to offer something unique at the cinema.

But won't that then subsequently hit DVD/BlueRay sales?

Avatar would be gash on a home telly without the 3Dness.

cinemas are slowly catching on to the fact that they have been pretty crap for years. Our local one has reclining seats and room to stretch out which is great. 3D is a good way to increase bums on seats but it'll no doubt be to the detriment of the 'art' of film making. I think it's probably here to stay and will be pushed by manufacturers of projection equipment as a driver for replacing 35mm with all digital systems.

3D at home won't really be a realistic proposition until the concept of the 'TV' is done away with altogether. It may even have to wait until projection is superseded by large scale display surfaces that can be disguised as a wall etc

I saw UP in 3D...supposedly. Great fun film, but the 3D effect was rubbish. It would have been much better in 2D without the silly glasses. It was so poor that I did wonder if it was just me

I really really liked Avatar 3D, thoughfilm was great and 3D just made it more betterer. Alice was a bit sh1t though, but the White Queen is HOT !

3D is a good way to increase bums on seats but it'll no doubt be to the detriment of the 'art' of film making.

not sure why that should be so. Plays have always been 3D.

ah but plays require one to suspend your concept of reality and create the frame yourself, films do this for you with far less need to concentrate 🙂

anyway i can't see Avatar 2 - 'blue is back' going down too well as a play

until they catch up with the techniques, i'd imagine that cinematographers in the classic sense will struggle to relate there skills to 3D

3D at home won't really be a realistic proposition until the concept of the 'TV' is done away with altogether. It may even have to wait until projection is superseded by large scale display surfaces that can be disguised as a wall etc

3d TVs (with glasses) will be out later this year or early next year.

Using active wireless shutter glasses, where one side is on and the other is off per frame is pretty technologically easy, especially with modern HDTVs that are 100 or 200 frames a second. I had a computer graphics card that did this in 2001. It will probably be standard on high end large HDTVs, as the extra cost is pretty minimal.

I believe there is already support in blu-ray for 3d.

Joe

have you seen one though?

they are rubbish. They don't fill enough of your frame of vision to be effective. The concept of TVs as a unit is not going to be around for much longer in my opinion.

anyway i can't see Avatar 2 - 'blue is back' going down too well as a play

No, but I don't think that being 3D forces it to be "mind gum".

Once the initial "Oooh it's in 3D" is over with, there is no reason why proper, serious and art house films can't also use it.

But I do take your point about directors needing to learn the new techniques of 3D