3D cinema - Why is everyone so up at arms against it?

[Foxbat]

It's probably worth keeping in mind that what we call 3D is not 3D at all, merely an illusion of 3D. If it were true 3D, you'd be able to walk around the image and not be constrained to looking at a flat screen with specs.

 

[TK-421]

I'm not in arms about it.

 

[Dave]

But are you up about it?

 

[CyBeR]

I will not quote since my eyes are a bit stingy at this moment and am in no shape to search for the exact comments.
But, I would like to ask: what is up with "it detracts from watching the story"?

I understand people being upset with cinemas about how they force 3D upon them, or with the price ticket or simply having bad eye sight. But how can 3D influence you paying attention to the story of the film?
It's mostly just extra depth to the image that's added and the odd special effect where things fly at you shouldn't be that distracting to a viewer.

I remember when I watched Avatar in 3D, I was really engrossed in all that Pandora was. I felt so sucked into everything on screen, that when a piece of pollen flew past the screen, right in front of the viewer, I actually flinched for it...and I don't mostly flinch at anything in films. That's immersion and I always felt that it adds a lot to any story, no matter how drab. And a bit more depth to the image I found to help a great deal with that...
So I'm at a loss here...I honestly can't see how the 3D would interfere with following the story in a film.

 

[Star Girl]

Yes some films look pretty in 3D... but I really don't like it. It hurts my eyes and it's to expensive.

 

[Foxbat]

I will not quote since my eyes are a bit stingy at this moment and am in no shape to search for the exact comments.
But, I would like to ask: what is up with "it detracts from watching the story"?

I can only speak for myself here but what it means for me is that if I'm going to sit through a 2 or 3 hour movie, I need to feel comfortable to be able to focus and get the best I can from the movie. 3D specs are extremely uncomfortable on the eyes and generally irritating as a whole.

I won't tolerate spending my hard earned cash to get sore eyes and a headache for anybody.

As I said - merely my own view.

 

[Dozmonic]

I've seen a few things in 3D, and in most it did little to add to the experience. The 3D just doesn't work very well except for adding a minor depth perception to scenes. A lot of the time it's overdone - like photoshop lens flares - and doesn't add much to the movies. I enjoyed Avatar in 3D, and the latest Jackass movie. Most of the others have done little for me to the point that, unless I really feel that I have to, I watch the 2D versions.

 

[j d worthington]

Currently, even given the best it has ever achieved, I think it is a technique which is being overused. Ideally, it should be used where it would really enhance the effect of the story, not simply be a gimmick on the level of William Castle. And, yes, 3-D has seldom (though not never) been used wisely or well.

That said, I can't say I'm against it; theoretically, at least, I am for it, if used properly. This may be because I have had the experience of seeing The House of Wax (with Vincent Price) in 3-D in a theatre many years ago; as well as both The Creature from the Black Lagoon and It Came from Outer Space (along with a few other films, the majority of which were quite forgettable). These three, I think, did make some good use of the technique (especially Creature, where I felt it did add to the looming menace of the action sequences), but even in them there were plenty of spots where it was simply superfluous.

So, while I have enjoyed some of my experiences with 3-D films... and in fact, would not at all mind seeing these again, as well as others I haven't seen... I'm still waiting for it to be used to its best potential. If you have a screenwriter, director, and cinematographer who keep in mind the impact the technique can have when creating the thing, you at least have the potential for one hell of a good moviegoing experience; something which would be well worth the trouble of going to the theater to see it.

As an analogy... I saw Abel Gance's Napoleon when it was on tour with a live orchestra, using the three screens for certain sequences, etc. This was back in the early 1980s, and it cost my wife and myself over $50 to see this film... and I consider that to be money well spent. That is the sort of experience 3-D is theoretically capable of producing if used wisely. I would just like to see that kind of intelligence brought to bear when making the film, rather than indulging into more gimmicks and gewgaws....

 

[Connavar]

When used fully,well it can be amazing but 99% its a tag they put on movies that arent really made in 3D. Just another money spinner people are tricked into following like they were sheep.

I have no interest in it. I like to see good movies i dont care how they look.

But then i havent even seen Avatar so im not easy to trick.

 

[Dave]

3D cinema - Why is everyone so up at arms against it?

Maybe because it's dangerous?

Yes, 3D can damage your health:
BBC News - Could 3D television be dangerous to watch?

 

[J Riff]

Not good for very young children.

This started when an Ontario mayor tried to rent out Piranha 3D,
which can cause brain damage even in 2D.

'An LG spokesperson said that there has been no issue with people drinking and watching 3D TV in pubs.' Whew.

 

[Metryq]

Almost all 3D systems up to now are parallax 3D — meaning they feed a slightly different angle of view to each eye. Real 3D environments cause our eyes to "track" closer together for nearer objects, as well as vary focus. The problem with parallax 3D is that everything is really at the same distance, yet our eyes automatically try to track and focus based on parallax cues. Hence, eye strain.

The circular polarization used in RealD 3D does not darken the image as much as older systems (anaglyphic, Pulfrich, linear polarization, etc.), but it is still a parallax system.

There are truly "whole image" (holographic) technologies, like transmission or reflection holograms, and newer systems that project onto smoke or mist, but they are not practical for cinematic purposes — at least not yet. Until such a system is worked out, it is my opinion that 3D will remain nothing more than a gimmick. To put it another way, watching picture and audio out-of-synch is unnatural and pushes one "out of the movie." Until 3D systems are subtle enough for a sense as discriminating as sight, they will be unnatural gimmicks.

Suppose such a holographic system is introduced next year — what happens to filmmaking? Movies become more "realistic," more immersive, right? If the system delivers a fully holographic image, then blocking a movie becomes more like a stage play, and all the 2D techniques are lost (more on that in a moment). But suppose a "point-of-view" holographic system is developed; the image might be true 3D (and not parallax), yet still restricted to the camera position. This would insure that everyone in a cinema sees the same thing, rather than radically different views, as in a stage theater.

POV-holography might still destroy much of the movie makers' toolbox. 2D photography allows the director to juxtapose objects within a scene, for example the sun directly behind a character's head to create a halo effect, or antlers from a stuffed animal head on a wall appearing to come out of a character's head. (There is such a shot in the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and I'm guessing it was done on purpose.) 2D cinematographers can also control depth-of-field and many other variables. With any kind of a holographic system, all that "language" will be lost, and movie makers will have to invent something new.

 

[J Riff]

Nice explanation Metryq, it looks like a long way off then, holo-flix?
I don't see 'movie makers' inventing anything other than a way to make a cheaper movie, but some genius scientist could revolutionize the industry.... but would it be cool to go to a movie and have a different POV than folks on the other side, like in theatre? Hadn't thought of that.

 

[Metryq]

A single image parallax system may not be that far off — as paradoxical as the name sounds. For example, while watching Cameron's Avatar on video, I noticed the constant camera motion. If the camera was not craning, dollying, or trucking, then there was a constant "rowboat-like" rocking. This helped push the multiple planes of the scenery — and the filmmakers were very conscientious about filling every scene with multiple planes of action, whether it be control rooms with lots of screens and people moving about, or jungle scenes with flora and fauna everywhere. The lesson here is simple: 3D is more than a twin lens on the camera.

Anyway, back to the single plane "parallax" system. Perhaps you have seen the many 3D head-tracking videos on YouTube? While the computer screen is only 2D, a 3D model on the screen reacts to the user's head movement and shifts the point-of-view. Despite the 2D image, the user can still "look around" the edges of foreground objects just by shifting his head. I've read that Apple, Inc. is developing a similar system that will work for multiple viewers — face tracking coupled with some kind of micro-lensing setup, rather than a lenticular screen. Meanwhile, there exist parallax video screens that do not require glasses of any kind. Everything is still single plane (the same distance away), but the techniques are getting more and more subtle. POV-holographic may not be that far away.

(CAUTION: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye!)

 

[Lemmy]

I might read the whole thread later, but for now, here's my 2 cents.

It's not the technology itself I don't like. Movies used to be silent and black and white, so it was a big deal when got sound. A lot people hated it, and several actors and actresses either quit or lost their jobs because of the sound. Then we got technicolor, and once again it was a huge thing. Some hated it, a lot of people loved it. Then there was "true" color, and some hated it, some loved it. And now we have 3D.

Except... we don't. As a random example, Friday 13th Part 3 was released in 3D back in 1982. If you think that's a long time ago, think again. Most people say the first 3D movie was Bwana Devil from 1952, but that's not entirely correct. The real first 3D movie was actually The Power of Love, from 1922. And that was a long time ago.

My point is 3D isn't new. It has been around for a very long time, and we have had a lot of movies made in 3D. Some are good, some not so much. The first 3D movie I watched was Journey to the center of the eart, starring Brendan Fraser. It was actually pretty good, too. But unlike modern 3D movies, I had to wear those ugly red and green glasses. Still, it worked. Modern 3D is much better, and you get the colors much better. Not only that, but I'm a proud owner of a Nintendo 3DS, the very first handheld concole with real 3D that doesn't require you to wear stupid glasses. True, the picture blurs easily if you look at it from the side, but that's why it's perfect for a handheld concole. And you can watch movies on it, too. So all in all, I love 3D.

What I don't like is what most people do with it. Avatar had a pretty nice 3D effect, but I hated the movie. Good 3D can't save a crappy movie. But other than that, most movies I've seen care too much about throwing stuff at the camera to show off the 3D effect. I think the worst one was Piranha 3D, that even showed a woman throwing up on the camera in 3D. Huzzah for technology. It took six years to develop the technology, and we use it to throw up towards the screen? Is that what the human race has come to? God help us all...

The problem is While I had no hopes for Piranha 3D to begin with, it's not exactly unique. Far too many movies do the same thing. We got 3D now, so they feel they have to throw stuff at the camera to show it off. If this had been part of the story, that would be fine. But I've seen several movie-sequels in 3D, and every single one of them were far worse than any of their 2D installments. So if you look at it like that, 3D has been quite damaging to most movies. It could be the next big thing, and yet it's mostly used to throw stuff at the camera for no better reason than it's 3D. What they should do instead is film it in 3D, but focus on the story like they used to.

Bottom line is 3D isn't exactly new, but the reason it's kicked off now is because Avatar got so popular and people want to cash in on the success. I hope it won't last. If it doesn't, it means we can get more great, normal 2D movies, and some movies in 3D that doesn't focus on throwing stuff at the camera. Or throwing up on it. 3D should be something you can take advantage of, not something you feel you have to use to be taken seriously.

 

[Metryq]

Gamers complain 3D Nintendo leaves them feeling ill

Thousands of customers have reported suffering headaches and dizziness after playing the three-dimensional machine, which works by flashing separate images into each eye, creating the illusion of depth.

But some are angry that they are only being offered partial refunds if they return the console to some retailers.

 

[Lemmy]

You don't say. There's a reason why scientists say kids under six years old shouldn't use them. As for me, I'm past thirty and have played on one for seven hours non-stop (damn you, Ghost Recon) and didn't feel anything other than getting tired. But then again I started just after midnight, so...

 

[CyBeR]

It varies with people from what I've read. The sweet spot for holding the device is as well varied from person to person.