[Closed] I don't like 3d Films - am I weird??

I find the 3d stuff just makes it hard for me to concentrate on the film. And those stupid glasses are uncoomfortable.

another reason to pirate films perhaps?

I agree.

They're totally rubbish and irritating to watch. The fad might hang around for a while though. The film industry likes them because its harder to pirate (for now) and means they can charge more for a cinema seat, and people like TV manufacturers or Sky like it because its another toy to sell to the gullible.

Maybe we're both weird, but I can't think of a single film that I've ever enjoyed watching that would have been made more enjoyable by 3D.

They're certainly nowhere near as good as the hype suggests.
I remember watching Avatar (with a coat behind my head because the laid-back seats meant the glasses' frame was in my field of vision otherwise), waiting for a bit of 3D that would make me go "wow". The only bit was when the petal things were falling off the tree.
I guess with Avatar the "waiting for the wow" distraction was enough to put me off the cheesy storyline.

artical in New Scientist about the problems that cause headaches and such like.

long and short of it is, long term use will give everyone problems - the reason being, our eyes are designed to move AND the lens focus in unison

the 3d effect requires our eyes to move, but the lens stays focused on the 2d plain (ie: screen)

as for the actual effect, through work i've been involved with 3D in various guises for the last couple of years, I don't find it particually great, and think peole will quickly get over the novelty

Another no here.

I work with 3d and VR. I think for designing and training it's excellent, but for watching movies it's not going to add anything worthwhile. HD is a miles better value add.

Oh and your headaches are because the sync is off.

I dislike 3d films, so does t'hubby. We'll always go and see it in 2d if the option's available. A lot of the time, it just looks weird - I don't know if my brain isn't quite wired up to my eyes correctly. Remember those Magic Eye pictures? I could kind of see them, but instead of the image leaping out in glorious 3d, I could only see the shape of the image, as if it had been cut out of a sheet of paper - kind of inverted from what you're supposed to see. :/

Long story short, for me a lot of the time it looks rubbish, is distracting, gives me a headache and I have to remember to put contacts in because 3d glasses over my normal glasses is less than comfortable.

Still, not as bad for me as it is for a bloke at work, he's blind in one eye so 3d is completely out of the window for him...

I don't like em either.

I get severe dizzyness sometimes (related to Menieres)...I watched a film a few months ago in the cinema and it made me feel queazy.

Well be spared the expense as Mrs FB has poor vision in one eye, renderng the goggles useless. My beef is that its just an excuse to bung scenes in with stuff flying at you. What does it add to the story?

I love the 3D effects. Think they are brilliant when used as a novelty & will become the norm very quickly once that novelty has worn off.

So when will this FAD pass??

Same time as stereo is replaced by mono for audio, it is mostly an engineered effect after all.

I saw a couple that were rubbish and hurt my head (Animated Christmas Carol thing last year, Harry Potter) but Avatar blew me away. Rather than being used to make you duck when things fly at you, it was used to give depth and scope to the scenes.

i think the problem is that it's still a relatively new technique and directors/animators/DOPs are yet to really learn how to use it

Tron 3D was pretty good as the extra dimension was used almost exclusively behind the field of the screen (ie nothing coming out of the screen towards you)

this makes for a far more comfortable and enjoyable viewing experience

Having watched Piranha on my laptop screen it's obvious that certain scenes have been created purely to gross people out in 3D (throwing up over the audience for instance) and that's evident despite the 2D rendering i viewed.

I'm sure people said the same thing about stereo audio when it started to become common place after the Beatle began to champion it. If you listen to early stereo recording there is a fairly brutal and naive amount of panning going on, it's not until engineers and producers got used to it that it became more than a 'special' effect in recordings.

I'm happy to give 3D a chance to mature before condemning it, if used correctly it has the chance (on the big screen at least) of enhancing the overall experience

I don't [i]dislike[/i] them as such, but I haven't seen any yet where it's added anything to the film except to the price of the ticket. I wouldn't go out of my way to see a 3D version if 2D was available

You don't have to wear stupid glasses to listen to stereo audio though...

Glad it is not just me then - I work with a bunch of tech heads - who think it is the only way to see films these days. They look at me blankly when I talk about storylines - it's all about the effects apparently!

They were all exicited about 3d projectors yesterday - so they can get a really big picture at home. Exept I know that they live in pokey little flats, with rubbish everywhere - so unless they could find a nice flat piece of wall, the projector would be wasted.

In the future - Will a real 3d imiage be able to be produced instead of fooling our eyes?

pypdjl - at the time you needed a stupid stereo audio system though......

Ashley - Holographic TV is probably a fair way off yet

I don't think it adds anything to the story, if anything it detracts from the film.

If you watch a good film, i find i'll be engrossed in the story and totally oblivious to any peripheral sights or sounds. Personally, I think you can watch a good film on an iPhone, a 40in TV, or in the cinema and the effect is the same.

HD for example, I watched Horton Hears a Who the other day (not my fault, my wife insisted), and I ended up focusing on the fur or water and how clear it is. Now if this was a film that really got my attention I probably wouldn't have noticed, but with 3D and things flying out at you that are designed to get your attention, it would distract you from enjoying the story and stop you being completely absorbed in the film itself.

Anyway...maybe I've convinced myself of that because I can't watch 3D films without wanting to shut my eyes and throw up!

It's not like it's the first time, 3d has come and gone a number of times before. It'll be gone again soon, and will proably resurface again in another fifteen years or so to irritate a new generation of cinemagoers

not now sky have got behind it for broadcast it wont

Cant say i was that wowed by it. Watched avatar and like the poster above the petal effects and the ash effest stood out. The other scenes confused me a bit, the only part that was 3D was what the director wanted to be 3D, so when i focused on something else and it wasn't 3D it seemed wrong. There was a bit where the Heroes were in jail, the bars were 3D, but the rest of the scene wasn't. Just looked like a pop up book.

It will probably improve as time goes by, hopefully the glasses will go by the wayside too.

My beef is that its just an excuse to bung scenes in with stuff flying at you. What does it add to the story?

er, visuals?? Isn't that the point of a film as opposed to a book? I thought Avatar was more enjoyable for the 3D element, but it is true that the others I've seen aren't very well done.

Just looked like a pop up book.

That's a great way of putting it and exactly how I find it. I've seen Alice in Wonderland and Avatar in 3D and the 3D was more of a distraction than making it a more immersive experience. I found my eyes trying to focus on things out of the plane of focus of the camera and of course unlike real 3D they can't because its not real 3D just a 3D projection on a 2D screen.

Maybe when we get holography projections cinema 3D will be properly realised.

It will probably improve as time goes by, hopefully the glasses will go by the wayside too.

It's already there but it costs a bajillion pounds, the resolution is pretty low and you have to keep your head in the sweet spot. If you're going to watch it glasses are best way so far.

3D was the ONLY reason I didn't walk out half way through Avatar

Had it been in 2D I'd have walked out when the love theme started and i expected an iceberg to appear through the screen

I see.... 44sec

Near far.... 56 sec

I could forgive the childishly simple plot ripped off for every other film about an indigenous population in trouble but for that much money he could at least have commissioned some new music

I took my son to see Avatar and although the film was awful, I found the 3D experience quite absorbing. But...

I found my eyes trying to focus on things out of the plane of focus of the camera and of course unlike real 3D they can't because its not real 3D just a 3D projection on a 2D screen.

Me too. I wanted to explore this space that had opened up in front of me but felt frustrated because of the fuzzy parts. (I have previously used the second part of that sentence in a completely different context).

I wonder what might be achievable with a whole space in focus that you can let your eyes wander around. For that, I don't necessarily think that 3D has to serve only action films. I wonder if Gaspar Noe could have used it for Enter The Void. That film was all about taking the viewer through a space - viewed from above going in and out of buildings and rooms and across a vibrant city scape.

3D is overrated IMO although watching Fergie from BlackEyed Peas on a 3D TV in currys was an eye opener so to speak.

I've never seen a 3D film, am I?

The best 3d film I've seen is Up - I thought it worked best as it gave depth to it rather then chucking things into the cinema.

Just watched Tron in 3d - reminded of the wizard of oz in the resepct that the real real world was in B&W (normal technology of the time) & Oz was in colour (the future of films).

I still think for the time being it's mostly a gimmick to try & cut down piracy - when it becomes possible to have 3d tv in the home when you don't have to put silly glasses & watch square on it'll catch on mainstream.

There haven't been any good 3D films.

Because it's superfluous to a good film.

Saw Toy story in 3D at the cinema and we have the DVD in glorious 2D (in my defence we have a 4 1/2 year old).

2D is the future.

There haven't been any good 3D films.
Because it's superfluous to a good film.

Saw Tron 3D today. I was more impressed by the recreation of a young jeff bridges than any of the 3D effects to be honest.

Last one I saw was jaws 3D, have things moved on in 27 years?

[i]have things moved on in 27 years? [/i]

Massively. A few problems aside, most people clearly latch onto it very quickly and seriously enjoy it. Yes, you have to focus on the point that the director wants you to and as a result they do tend to create the visuals in a certain way but apart from that it's a very engaging experience.

Avatar in particular while being a fairly bland film was astounding visually. When they jump off the trees on the dragon's backs it's awesome.

edit: to clarify, the 3D effects are produced differently nowadays, it's no longer a blue and red split but a polarised one. It works a lot better.