Movies and TV Do you enjoy 3D movies? - Page 3

**DaFace** · 12-13-2017, 02:33 PM

I kind of feel like a luddite when it comes to movies. I've never seen a 3D movie and honestly don't care to. But I'm looking at show times for Star Wars this weekend, and it's almost easier to find 3D versions than non-3D versions.

So what gives? Am I missing something? Or is 3D just some weird fad that all the youths enjoy but I'd hate?

Amnorix · 12-13-2017, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frazod

I already wear glasses, and just put the 3D glasses over them, so I don't notice it at all.

Word.

So, I used to hate 3D. Headache every damn time, adn I thought the movies tried too hard to have that ONE 3D awesome moment, which usually was so out of place that it pulled me out of the movie.

I think both I and the studios have it right now. To avoid the headache, mostly I just need to sit up straight and keep my head straight. Better posture and I have no headaches at all.

The studios are definitely doing better at just just having good overall effects. No more gorilla swinging out DIRECTLY AT YOU HEY THIS IS 3D AIN'T IT SO COOL stupidity.

For all big blockbusters, Marvel,e tc., which is most of the movies I go to, we tend to prefer 3D now.

Amnorix · 12-13-2017, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I remember seeing Jaws 3D back in the 80's and it was awful.

I saw Avatar in 3D back in 2009. The glasses were heavy and uncomfortable and I had periodic headaches throughout the movie and had to keep removing them.

Not a fan.

Try it again. Seriously, you're a heavy duty movie guy, give it a shot. Glasses are alot less annoying now, and make sure you're mindful of your posture. Not "I've joined the Marines!" posture. Just don't slouch excessively or anything silly.

underEJ · 12-13-2017, 05:28 PM

3D is amazing if it is done right. Avatar set the pace, but it was live action so anything headache inducing either had to be cut from the movie or flattened (they copy the left eye to the right eye just for a bit so you see no stereo effect for the few objectionable frames.) They chose to leave some of it in, which bothered a few more people than expected.

Since then very few live action films that are in 3D were shot in 3D. They use a conversion process that can be done cheaply and suck, or can be done very expensively and not suck as much. Hugo was shot in 3D and looks lovely. Animated movies are generally fully rendered in stereo and alot of work goes into correcting the stuff that would cause pain. In general, you shouldn't have any issues in an animated film made by one of the major creators.

Gravity looks pretty great because while the live action stuff was a conversion, most of the frame was actually computer generated and therefore they were able to do it like an animated film would.

I would say we still haven't seen what 3D can do. My biggest issue with it is that no one is experimenting. 2D film aesthetics, composition, and aspect ratio are designed to give the illusion of immersion. With 3D, the immersion is inherent but film makers are just sticking with the same recipe, I have a theory that the correct aspect ratio for 3D to really enhance a story is more like IMAX, not necessarily huge, but nearly as tall as wide. I have strong opinions about high frame rates not being used right too.

Time will tell if someone gets a chance to really push the technology before the backlash exceeds the profit.

**DaFace** · 12-13-2017, 05:31 PM

I mostly just don't really understand the appeal of it. I wear glasses, so that's probably part of it. I don't really want to deal with awkwardly wearing the 3D glasses over my normal ones, and I prefer not to wear my contacts when I can avoid it.

I'll probably give it a try sometime, but given the poll results, I think I'm safe avoiding it for Star Wars this weekend.

Chiefs4TheWin · 12-13-2017, 05:36 PM

Never even tried it.

**Buehler445** · 12-13-2017, 05:39 PM

I actively avoid.

**Rain Man** · 12-13-2017, 05:46 PM

I've done it a couple of times just because that's what was available. I agree with others that it doesn't add anything and the glasses produce a slight net negative in my viewing experience.

Zebedee DuBois · 12-13-2017, 06:00 PM

Space movies kind of lend themselves to 3D. They get the best effect out of it.
I'm not a big fan of it though - I certainly do not seek them out.

RobBlake · 12-13-2017, 06:26 PM

In waitin not for a VR experience of possible

patteeu · 12-13-2017, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Completely unnecessary. Adds nothing. Gimmick.

This. I’m sure it will be worth something in the future, but for now, consider me another cosmo mult.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-13-2017, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underEJ

I have strong opinions about high frame rates not being used right too.

Is that the issue? I cannot handle watching the Peter Jackson movies at 60fps.

It doesn't look or "feel" cinematic.

Kiimo · 12-13-2017, 07:30 PM

Add me to the list of people who hate it because it's too dark.

It's like looking at your phone with the dimmer way down.

Also astigmatism affects me I think.

Deberg_1990 · 12-13-2017, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Is that the issue? I cannot handle watching the Peter Jackson movies at 60fps.

It doesn't look or "feel" cinematic.

I never got to experience that a few years ago. Wish i had.

Anyways, I thought the Hobbitt movies looked way too CGIsh compared to the LotR trilogy.

underEJ · 12-13-2017, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Is that the issue? I cannot handle watching the Peter Jackson movies at 60fps.

It doesn't look or "feel" cinematic.

I believe so. He was so sure that people would get used to it by the end of a single film, but I think we only get used to the lower motion blur. I don't think traditional lighting setups and cinematic principles hold up. People have been tolerant of stop motion and other low motion blur techniques forever so I don't think that makes people say it looks bad. It looks bad because the aesthetics (mainly the lighting and contrast ratio) are overly precise and it makes reality look cg, sort of the opposite of the uncanny valley. VR has alot of similar aesthetic questions to answer before it can deliver an experience as visually satisfying as what we have always called cinematic.

**Rain Man** · 12-13-2017, 08:09 PM

On the other hand, watching movies in 4D is great because you can watch the whole movie in about three seconds.

View Poll Results: Do you like to see movies in 3D?
Yeh. 3D movies are awesome!	2	3.28%
Eh. They're pretty neat. I'll do it for movies I'm excited about.	7	11.48%
Meh. I'll do it if the time works out, but I don't actively aim for 3D movies.	22	36.07%
Bleh. I've done it and hate it.	25	40.98%
Heh. I've never even tried it.	5	8.20%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

12-13-2017, 02:33 PM
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $1566899	Do you enjoy 3D movies? I kind of feel like a luddite when it comes to movies. I've never seen a 3D movie and honestly don't care to. But I'm looking at show times for Star Wars this weekend, and it's almost easier to find 3D versions than non-3D versions. So what gives? Am I missing something? Or is 3D just some weird fad that all the youths enjoy but I'd hate?
Posts: 52,030

12-13-2017, 05:28 PM	#33
underEJ Veteran Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Los Angeles Casino cash: $6813141	3D is amazing if it is done right. Avatar set the pace, but it was live action so anything headache inducing either had to be cut from the movie or flattened (they copy the left eye to the right eye just for a bit so you see no stereo effect for the few objectionable frames.) They chose to leave some of it in, which bothered a few more people than expected. Since then very few live action films that are in 3D were shot in 3D. They use a conversion process that can be done cheaply and suck, or can be done very expensively and not suck as much. Hugo was shot in 3D and looks lovely. Animated movies are generally fully rendered in stereo and alot of work goes into correcting the stuff that would cause pain. In general, you shouldn't have any issues in an animated film made by one of the major creators. Gravity looks pretty great because while the live action stuff was a conversion, most of the frame was actually computer generated and therefore they were able to do it like an animated film would. I would say we still haven't seen what 3D can do. My biggest issue with it is that no one is experimenting. 2D film aesthetics, composition, and aspect ratio are designed to give the illusion of immersion. With 3D, the immersion is inherent but film makers are just sticking with the same recipe, I have a theory that the correct aspect ratio for 3D to really enhance a story is more like IMAX, not necessarily huge, but nearly as tall as wide. I have strong opinions about high frame rates not being used right too. Time will tell if someone gets a chance to really push the technology before the backlash exceeds the profit. Last edited by underEJ; 12-13-2017 at 05:42 PM.. Reason: spelling
Posts: 1,231	1 0

12-13-2017, 05:31 PM	#34
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $1566899	I mostly just don't really understand the appeal of it. I wear glasses, so that's probably part of it. I don't really want to deal with awkwardly wearing the 3D glasses over my normal ones, and I prefer not to wear my contacts when I can avoid it. I'll probably give it a try sometime, but given the poll results, I think I'm safe avoiding it for Star Wars this weekend.
Posts: 52,030

12-13-2017, 05:36 PM	#35
Chiefs4TheWin Veteran Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hollidaysburg, PA Casino cash: $3332783	Never even tried it.
Posts: 4,018

12-13-2017, 05:39 PM	#36
Buehler445 Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Scott City KS Casino cash: $1854734	I actively avoid.
Posts: 56,997

12-13-2017, 05:46 PM	#37
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $2858491 VARSITY	I've done it a couple of times just because that's what was available. I agree with others that it doesn't add anything and the glasses produce a slight net negative in my viewing experience. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,824

12-13-2017, 06:00 PM	#38
Zebedee DuBois Veteran Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: floating in a tin can Casino cash: $1445199	Space movies kind of lend themselves to 3D. They get the best effect out of it. I'm not a big fan of it though - I certainly do not seek them out. __________________ What am I even doing here?
Posts: 3,782

12-13-2017, 06:26 PM	#39
RobBlake Banned Join Date: Aug 2013 Casino cash: $10011127	In waitin not for a VR experience of possible
Posts: 7,127

12-13-2017, 07:30 PM	#42
Kiimo MVP Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Studio City, CA Casino cash: $3658742	Add me to the list of people who hate it because it's too dark. It's like looking at your phone with the dimmer way down. Also astigmatism affects me I think.
Posts: 12,857

12-13-2017, 08:09 PM	#45
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $2858491 VARSITY	On the other hand, watching movies in 4D is great because you can watch the whole movie in about three seconds. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,824