Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

3D is dying, thank god!

zioxide said:
hahaha, 3d isn't going anywhere. :p

you sound like everyone who two years ago was saying blu-ray was dead just because it wasn't widely adopted yet
Click to expand...

No, the big difference is Blu-Ray was/is desirable. 3D isn't. I've watched 3D in theaters and watch 3D on those fancy new TVs. It was gimmicky (theater version) at best and headache inducing rubbish (TV variant) at worst. Not desirable at all.
 
Mousse said:
No, the big difference is Blu-Ray was/is desirable. 3D isn't. I've watched 3D in theaters and watch 3D on those fancy new TVs. It was gimmicky (theater version) at best and headache inducing rubbish (TV variant) at worst. Not desirable at all.
Click to expand...

Also 3D is widely adopted when it comes to movies, especially summer films. And people are slowly shying away from them and just seeing the 2d versions.
 
cube said:
Avatar 3D is not gimmicky.
Click to expand...

You're right. It was great 3D; the scene when the head bad guy jumps into his big robotic fighting machine thingee and his ship is exploding around him was fantastic. However, converting all animated films and crap like Thor to 3D is. And its killing people's taste for 3D.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Not a fan of any 3D.
 
cube said:
Avatar 3D is not gimmicky.
Click to expand...

But Avatar was designed to be in 3d for the filming. A lot of 3d movies out there put 3D in as an after thought. So it is filmed and designed with 2D in mind and then they add 3D as a gimic. Avatar on the other hand was filmed with 3D in mind. It makes a very big difference on the out come.
 
I saw TS3 in IMAX 3D. I've always liked the size of the Imax screen but it 3D made the corners blurry. I hate the glasses too. When it bought TS3 on BluRay it was so crisp and bright. Nothing like at the theater. 3D may seem at first like it ads to the experience but the gimmick is not worth the loss in clarity and brightness.
 
I'll be the one to say it I didn't like Avatar. It was stupid like Star Wars. (Though the Star Wars video games are usually good).
 
I like watching 3D occasionally depending on the movie, but I don't want it on my phone, nintendo DS or computer ... please!
 
I usually pay the bit extra to see the IMAX version of a film, but other than Avatar I haven't seen any in 3D.

Although I haven't seen any, the impression that I get as other posters have said, if the film is designed with 3D in mind then it will probably be used to good effect. However, there seem to be a lot o films which are filmed in 2D then have the 3D effects added on "artificially" later. I suppose with 3D animations (such as Pixar) you can re-render the film, so it's probably impressive.

Back when I first moved to Manchester (about 8 years ago) I remember going to the IMAX for the first time and wanting to watch something in 3D. They had a lot of small 3D pictures showing at the time (roller coaster/flight simulation type films). We decided that "Ghosts of the Deep" sounded like it might be fun. It turned out to be a documentary about the Titanic. The only part in 3D was when they put text over the top and the occasional rope thrown towards camera! Worst £10 I ever spent! haha
 
I hoping it goes by the way side also. Never liked 3D. Avatar being one of the few exceptions, except the movie itself freaking sucked.

I have no intention of upgrading my tv to 3D..........
 
Macky-Mac said:
I finds 3D adds a bit for animated movies but not so much otherwise
Click to expand...

I actually found the opposite in some respects - I made the mistake of seeing Pixar's "Up" for the first time in 3D, and really wish I hadn't. The colors were muted and the picture wasn't as sharp as it could have been. I much prefer the Blu-Ray, but even the normal cinematic presentation was better.

I guess those negatives could apply to most films with the 3D technology we have so far - but yeah, if 3D goes away, I'm cool with that.
 
gkarris said:
LOL at the posts here.

That's what people used to say with sound, then again with color... :eek:
Click to expand...

Really? People thought color movies were a fad? It annoyed them and they wanted to go back to black and white films? And sound added nothing to the experience of seeing movies? They complainEd about it and wanted to go back to reading the dialogue cards inserted into the movie? I dont think so.
 
gkarris said:
LOL at the posts here.

That's what people used to say with sound, then again with color... :eek:
Click to expand...

Surround sound never caught on because you have to be sat right in the centre of all the speaker locations otherwise you hear minute delays in the sound which causes elite brain cancer and spontaneous combustion?
 
Mac'nCheese said:
Really? People thought color movies were a fad? It annoyed them and they wanted to go back to black and white films? And sound added nothing to the experience of seeing movies? They complainEd about it and wanted to go back to reading the dialogue cards inserted into the movie? I dont think so.
Click to expand...

My grandfather still says he hates TV in colour. 85 years old with a Bravia with the saturation turned to 0.
A lot of people used to hate widescreen monitors too. I conducted a survey in 2003-4 for a game studio. Back then few PC gamers had a widescreen display, called them "gimmicky" and listed a few valid reasons, saying they'd never buy one... now you have work hard to hunt down 4:3 displays.
Progress. I guess.
 
The issue I see (no pun) - to watch a color film didn't require special glasses, same with the inclusion of audio.

Surround sound - I personally use it and like it - but many of my friends live in apartments, or have children sleeping - tend not to. So that's likely less of an issue with sound stage - more of an environmental one.

As for 3D - launch it without the need for glasses - and I'll show interest. I'd much rather have it with games and even with a computer UI. Pipe dream on that latter part, I know. But if you could get a decent 3D display that wasn't tough on the eyes, didn't split up frame rates, and didn't require glasses - I'd gladly move on.

The other bit is timing: Economy still in the crapper everywhere I'm looking, and people are still "upgrading" to their first HDTV - many people keep TVs until they die, no longer interface, or they finally move to a bigger place. A lot of those people don't feel like shelling out more $ just for 3D. Especially with the lack of offerings / justification in the first place.

My 25c.
 
Some of the problems with 3D are:

  • Uncomfortable glasses
  • Poor registration between left and right images
  • Tiring to watch for a long period
  • Big loss in brightness
  • Big loss in colour fidelity
  • Unrealistic 3D effect in postprocessed films
  • Some motion artefacts in 24fps movies
  • Socially inconvenient to wear 3D glasses in domestic setting
  • Additional cost of 3D movies in movie theatres
  • 3D movies overemphasise front to back movement (treat 3D as a gimmick - eg: arrows flying out of the screen)
  • Movies use front to back sharpness in image - loss of low depth-of-field effects and loss of atmosphere
  • Large cameras limit the type of movie to more big budget/studio based

Apart from the whole inconvenience thing, the high depth of field cinematography (for me) seems to make it less easy to produce atmospheric movies in 3D. Whether this is a limitation of the medium, I don't know - I can't imagine 3D being as suitable for film noir or arthouse productions - but that may change.

All these disadvantages have turned me against 3D movies at this time.
 
3D Movies cost more to see, and I haven't seen one that actually impressed me. Everyone says Avatar was great but I didn't see that in theaters.

It might be misguided but I tend to take movies which come in 3D less seriously. If they were good in the first place they wouldn't need to be in 3D.

EDIT: And they give me headaches....
 
I'm glad it's going away. I hate 3d the couple films I've seen with it bothered my eyes, and the 3d added nothing to the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back