Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 11500821)

Maybe some CP egghead scientician can elaborate on this or make this sound better, but my take is that despite a movie screen being a 2-D image, we are in effect "seeing" it as a 3-D image. Or brains are interpreting it as a 3-D world and we then essentially see it that way, with length, width and appropriate depth.

Originally Posted by jjjayb (Post 11500884)

It depends on if the movie was filmed in 3d or just converted afterwards. Real 3d is awesome. Converted 3d is stupid. I usually check before I watch a movie. If it's fake 3d I don't bother.

http://www.realorfake3d.com/

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 11500780)

Avatar and Gravity are the only movies that were worth watching in 3D. Sadly, the movies themselves sucked.

I avoid 3d like the plague now. Its just not necessary for my enjoyment of a movie.

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 11500821)

Maybe some CP egghead scientician can elaborate on this or make this sound better, but my take is that despite a movie screen being a 2-D image, we are in effect "seeing" it as a 3-D image. Or brains are interpreting it as a 3-D world and we then essentially see it that way, with length, width and appropriate depth.

With perhaps a rare exception, the 3D images presented in a movie seem exaggerated and unnecessary. While the goal is realism, it actually generally comes across as more phony and distracting.

I do recall seeing Gravity in 3D and thinking it worked pretty well. Maybe that was because of the relative simplicity of the setting. A ship, a couple people, the earth below, and the vastness of space.

Originally Posted by Coochie liquor (Post 11500885)

They're underutilizing 3D until they start making pornos in 3D.

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 11501690)

I can certainly see this as being true.



I'd have to buy a 3D tv the day this happened.