http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110
He is certainly right but after the success of Avatar we probably have to live with this crap anyway.
Spot on. I hope it passes just as the 3d fads of past decades did.
- Oshyan
The problem is that to get the 3D effect, the images your eyes see must be equal. Even slight sight imperfections (which are never balanced on both eyes) break hopelessly the image fusion in the brain. This means that the only way to see 3D movies is either to have a perfectly balanced sight or wear well graded contact lenses.
The problem is 3D won't go away because
1) movie makers hope that this format won't be copiable in the short/medium term;
2) TV set builders dream of replacing en-masse the whole installed base.
I am very pessimistic for the future because if this thing happens I can kiss goodbye to movie (not a great problem, I go out only 3/4 times a year) and to TV (and this will be bad, because I watch it 1/2 hours every evening).
Let's hope I die before.
Bye.
I totally disagree.
Don't get me wrong, but I have the vision of some grumpy old men sitting on a park bench grumbling about new things. "Who needs this stuff. I like silent movies! Colour TV? Crap! Blu-ray? I don't even need DVDs!"
Sometimes it really makes me a little bit angry when I read things like Roger Ebert's comments:
"It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches."
Hey, Mr. Ebert, for some it's the most fascinating cinematic experience they had for years!
2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they "need" 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargogain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?
Of course none of these movies need 3D! I don't even like b/w movies digitally colourized. Casablanca is black and white and good as it is. But that doesn't mean, that no one needs colour movies. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION. I bet someone said something like this about colour movies these days!
IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
Maybe. I didn't notice anything like that.
HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
No!
THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
Of course!! There's money to be made in selling every new technology!
WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
Yes, It has. So what? What do you want? Go back to black and white movies with no sound?
I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.
Why not? Maybe it's just a lack of your imagination?! Life is at least 3-dimensional. Why should a movie have less?
Latego wrote:
I am very pessimistic for the future because if this thing happens I can kiss goodbye to movie (not a great problem, I go out only 3/4 times a year) and to TV (and this will be bad, because I watch it 1/2 hours every evening).
Let's hope I die before.
I hope you don't! :)
I think you can watch TV in 2D even in ten years, so no need to commit suicide!
I just had a similar discussion in a german forum this morning. Let's just wait what happens. Maybe in a few years nobody complains about 3D stereo anymore, because it's the usual way of watching movies or it's been cancelled.
When I read some comments about 3D stereo it sounds as if it's the end of the world. It's just movies, so let's all calm down.
Hannes, I fully agree.
I think 3D is hyped a lot at the moment and is pushed a lot - and as a result we get useless stuff. But Avatar was one of my greatest cinema experiences ever! I am not talking about the story as such. The visuals were thrilling (they are in 2D already) and 3D added a lot. And most of the bad points that are mentioned - I didn´t notice them. To dark? For sure not (they made the 3D versions brighter to cope the darkening influence of the glasses). Colors not as good? I think they were striking. Headache? Me not. For me it took some minutes to understand one limitation - looking in a "virtual" 3D space, but not beeing able to choose my own focal plane. But after I understood that I simply have to follow the focus of the filmmaker, I had no problems. I remember probably two or three scenes where I thought, "that looks like a miniature", and few others which vwhere very fast and I almost couldn´t follow - but I have the same in 2D movies too.
I think there are several problems at the moment:
- not all cinemas are using latest technique
- most 3D movies are not real 3D movies (let it be because they were 3Dfied afterwards, or because the filmmaker didn´t realize that he has to film in a differen way)
- users have to get used. I am not sure if it is true, that for some people this won´t work, because of different eye distance and such factors
Of course you don´t need 3D for every film - many films never will work in 3D, simply because of the way they are shot and how the director filmed. But for sure there are movies where 3D can add a lot. As soon as the hype passes, filmmakers will start to use 3D when it makes sense - and I am looking forward to that.
Sound film is distracting, costly and causes nausea!
3D is just a tool. Like Spielberg with Schindler's List, directors will have to learn to decide whether a particular technology adds to the film.
I think we're going to see some nice new effects that make clever use of 3D. Of course, we'll also see some really bad 3D.
Quote from: Walli on May 02, 2010, 10:46:55 AMI am not sure if it is true, that for some people this won´t work, because of different eye distance and such factors
It is. For example most people who suffer from strabismus are unable to experience 3D movies because the binocular vision is limited.
Other opinions !
"The Problem With 3-D It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will."
http://www.slate.com/id/2215265
I have not read trough all the post so I'm sorry if this has already been said.
The only way 3D is ever going to work perfectly is to have the images physically pop out of the screen (in whatever way they can manage to do that).
This way we can focus on what we want so that those objects, or whatever you are looking at, will be in focus. Today the movie decides the focus for you and this becomes a little problem. Cause.... I can feel that it has a little more depth, but when I then try to focus on something that is not the focus in the movie my whole brain is struggling to make sense of this as it never becomes clear for my eyes.
But then again... if they ever manage to make something like this, it will probably become scary just to watch animal planet with lions and elephants walking around in your living room :o
- Terje
"The Problem With 3-D It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will."
Well, then I'm a freak. I felt so comfortable when I was watching Avatar (twice).
(It's an interesting report, but I really hate headlines like these! Not yours, Kadri! ;D)
Sounds a little like Charles Chaplin when he wondered why would anyone watch a movie with sound anyway!!!!
LOL
Quote from: Oshyan on May 02, 2010, 12:51:11 AM
Spot on. I hope it passes just as the 3d fads of past decades did.
- Oshyan
Why?!?!?? And, by the way, I WANT MY TG IN 3D!!!!!!!
Quote from: Hannes on May 02, 2010, 05:44:21 PM
"The Problem With 3-D It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will."
Well, then I'm a freak. I felt so comfortable when I was watching Avatar (twice).
(It's an interesting report, but I really hate headlines like these! Not yours, Kadri! ;D)
The same for me, Hannes!! And look, I use glasses!!! Isn't It marvelous?!?!
Guys just that you know : I didn't see any 3D movie so far . Thus i don't want to comment much.
But here are good thoughts from every side i think . I don't have much to say more .
And Hannes i hate such headlines too :D
I'm wearing glasses too!!! Maybe that's the trick! I also have a (subtle) strabismus which should cause problems when I'm watching 3D, but hey, it doesn't, because I have a good optician!
Btw, I want my TG in 3D too!!
I recently bought some cheap glasses for watching 3D images or movies in the "over/under" method:
http://www.pixelpartner.de/openKMQen.htm
Crazy, it works.
For those who are interested in 3D there's a software named "stereoscopic player" which is cool too, because it can transform stereo movies or images from one method to another (let's say from crosseyed view to over/under etc.):
http://www.3dtv.at/Index_en.aspx
Quote from: ro-nin on May 02, 2010, 06:21:50 PM
I WANT MY TG IN 3D!!!!!!!
You can do a render in 3D. Render the way you want it, then move the camera over a few inches, composite them together, do the "crosseye" thing and tada! 3D!
Quote from: TheBlackHole on May 02, 2010, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: ro-nin on May 02, 2010, 06:21:50 PM
I WANT MY TG IN 3D!!!!!!!
You can do a render in 3D. Render the way you want it, then move the camera over a few inches, composite them together, do the "crosseye" thing and tada! 3D!
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=9578.msg100897#msg100897
Quote from: ro-nin on May 02, 2010, 06:21:50 PM
Quote from: Oshyan on May 02, 2010, 12:51:11 AM
Spot on. I hope it passes just as the 3d fads of past decades did.
- Oshyan
Why?!?!?? And, by the way, I WANT MY TG IN 3D!!!!!!!
Because even Avatar, the supposed pinnacle of 3D technology, wasn't very impressive to me in IMAX 3D, and IMHO was not particularly enhanced by the 3D effect. Dimmer? Absofriggenlutely. And Hannes, you may not have noticed it or think "they brighted it up to compensate", but in fact that's simply not possible because the actual physical technology that is used is incapable of being as bright as traditional cinema projection because of how it needs to split viewing for each eye. Ebert explains some of this I believe. So yes, it's dimmer and that sucks. All the more so depending on the 3D technology used.
The bottom line is I just don't see much benefit in 3D, same with Ebert. It is interesting and cool looking for a minority of non-realistic films, and other than that I see little use for it. I'm certainly never going to pay a price premium again to view in 3D. I have done so by now 5 or 6 times and have been disappointed almost every time. The one that was the best for me, believe it or not, was Beowulf (terribly movie, but decent 3D and not too dim), not Avatar. But I could have done without the 3D and the extra cost on the ticket. Theater movies are already too expensive.
Anyway, it seems to be a matter of personal preference, and that's fine. Quite honestly I'm glad that I am one of the ones who prefers the apparently less expensive technology, so I can avoid paying the $2-5 ticket premium. If I actually was as thrilled about it as some of you seem to be, I'd have to pay. ;)
- Oshyan
This is really strange. I didn't even think for a second that it may be dimmer than ususal.
What I heard is that there are different methods of projecting and viewing in different theaters. Oshyan, you said you were in an Imax theater. I read about some people who saw Avatar in Imax theaters and in regular 3D cinemas as well.
Some reported that the effect was a lot better in regular theaters.
I don't understand why a lot of people think that 3D is only good for some non realistic movies. In my opinion every movie could benefit from the third dimension. Imagine documentary films. Wide shots, nature... I have seen some small (crosseyed stereo) films on youtube, one of them is a travelogue of a journey to Italy. The third dimension adds a lot to the feeling of being there (OK, I agree, when you're watching a film more than three minutes with your eyes crossed, you GET a headache! ;D).
After we had seen Avatar, my wife was really blown away from the 3D-effect. But she also said that this may be something for action movies or scifi movies. But I told her why not a Jane Austen movie in 3D? (SHE likes Jane Austen movies. SHE! ;)) I could imagine the depth would perfectly enhance the (admittedly) beautiful landscapes and also the interior shots.
All in all I think most of the arguments against 3D are the result of technical inadequacies. Luckily I didn't realise any of them. But I hope that there will be a further development in 3D.
Some people are happy with 3D because some people have either perfect eyesight or perfectly balanced defects in both eyes or defects which are not harmful for the process of fusing images. I (shortsight+astigmatism, glasses, wildly different eyes) could check the thing with a 3D TV set in a mall and the image I saw with 3D glasses was even worse than without.
I believe in a different kind of 3D: the one you get out of holographic systems. With such "displays" you see the object in 3D because the image is really created in a volume of space (you can actually walk around the unit and watch the object from behind). The real breakthru would be something like the setup you see in Halo Wars trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azKfYQXGI_M&hd=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azKfYQXGI_M&hd=1) ;D.
I just try to imagine how this would be in cinema. People standing up and running to the other side of the room to watch behind something ;-)
Quote from: Walli on May 03, 2010, 08:45:10 AM
I just try to imagine how this would be in cinema. People standing up and running to the other side of the room to watch behind something ;-)
Actually they should not be able to do this:
People could look a movie in "real" 3D holographic projects, look around, see the characters etc. etc....all in 360 degrees full 3D.
The effect could be that people will go even two or three times to the same movie to see the same scene from another angle, like "oh damn...that scene I looked to the right, but actually the coolest part was on the left I'm told" etc. etc.
Now that would be awesome ;D and 2050 :(
I thought there is no need for a new topic...
" Why Do 3-D Movies Make Some People Hurl? "
http://www.livescience.com/technology/why-3D-makes-us-sick-100527.html
Movies are evil. Go get a book !
seriously, 3D in Avatar was just great and I saw the movie 2D on Bluray , it was not as good as in 3D... 3D added a lot to the mood and the "realism".
I think the future is something more in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp1000FSqiU) direction.
Even tho this is from 2005, it's a lot better then what the cinemas are using today. I guess this requires the whole movie to be CG, but I don't think thats the biggest problem today.
Edit: This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_gnMOom7kE) is with Madonna on the stage and with better quality.
Edit again: I just read that the Madonna we saw on the stage with Gorillaz was virtual as well, but not the rappers.
Regards,
Terje
Quote from: sjefen on May 30, 2010, 01:24:28 PM
I think the future is something more in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp1000FSqiU) direction.
Even tho this is from 2005, it's a lot better then what the cinemas are using today. I guess this requires the whole movie to be CG, but I don't think thats the biggest problem today.
Edit: This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_gnMOom7kE) is with Madonna on the stage and with better quality.
Edit again: I just read that the Madonna we saw on the stage with Gorillaz was virtual as well, but not the rappers.
Regards,
Terje
Terje , this is interesting and nice !
Is this really a 3D Hologram ? They say 1 camera is enough...
This looks more lıke a clever projection technique then 3D ?
http://www.musion.co.uk/watch_setup_video.html
http://www.musion.co.uk/index.html
(the video there is funny)
I believe this is a real working 3D Hologram.
You can walk to the other side of the room and look at the characters from a different angle.
I don't remember how they did it, but it is still awesome :P
Regards,
Terje
Quote from: sjefen on May 30, 2010, 04:42:48 PM
I believe this is a real working 3D Hologram.
You can walk to the other side of the room and look at the characters from a different angle.
...
Then it must be real Hologram !
It is really awesome! Even more so if you like Gorillaz (I like them) :)
I like them too ;)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1282604/Hologram-TVs-IN-action-development.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1282604/Hologram-TVs-IN-action-development.html) this is way better than stupid eyeglasses!
Bye!!!
P.S.: a couple of days ago I tried again in one mall to see whether I could use glasses (there was a 3D TV monitor on show) and I did manage to fuse images. Well, that kind of snake was almost touching my face but... so what? actually the thing was somewhat amusing because the 3D effect of most pronounced in the middle of the screen, going to 0 at border (obvious) so it looked like things pouring out from the center of the image. No, thanks; either the full thing or nothing.
Quote from: latego on May 31, 2010, 02:12:55 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1282604/Hologram-TVs-IN-action-development.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1282604/Hologram-TVs-IN-action-development.html) this is way better than stupid eyeglasses!
Bye!!!
P.S.: a couple of days ago I tried again in one mall to see whether I could use glasses (there was a 3D TV monitor on show) and I did manage to fuse images. Well, that kind of snake was almost touching my face but... so what? actually the thing was somewhat amusing because the 3D effect of most pronounced in the middle of the screen, going to 0 at border (obvious) so it looked like things pouring out from the center of the image. No, thanks; either the full thing or nothing.
2020 seems reasonable from a technological standpoint ! It will maybe to expensive at first , but they all are so at first !
Even now many country's have not HD broadcasting ! I doubt that there will be such a rapid transition !
Maybe not in 2020 . But more to 2030.
Who knows... Ordinary man can not see sometimes the difference between normal broadcast and HD.
But with HD and 3D there will be a gigantic difference . So the transition will maybe much faster driven.
Thanks for the link Latego :)
I remember that I almost always agreed more with Siskal than I did with Ebert before Siskal passed away. Because of that, I guess I am too ready to automatically disagree with Ebert just because I know who he is.
Count me as another one who can't see 3D because of eyes problems... For me it's amblyopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amblyopia) (both eyes are good but my brain "ignores" one of them).
So no stereoscopic images, 3D or other things like this for me. And believe me, as a photographer and "beauty-of-nature-lover", it's very frustrating -_-
Mark me as another one with inperfect eyes,
I have an astigmatism, this prevents me from
seeing the old sterio graphic (red/green glasses)
3d movies, but for some reason the tech they
uses with the polarized 3d glasses seems to work
on me, so I was able to see Avatar ok, but it
gave me a wicked headake for the first 1/2 hour
untill my eyes got used to the forced perspective.