The 3D Movement

[manasecret]

Yeah, but that red-blue shit they did before doesn't match the polarized lens stuff they're doing now.

To be fair, there are still some issues with eye strain for some, and for about 10% of the population the polarized lens do not work. But those problems are nothing compared to watching a movie with a red and blue tint just to get it into 3D. Sure, 3D will never take over 2D completely, just like black and white movies are still made. But I don't think it's going anywhere this time.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

3D is gay.

That's 3 DICKS. Seriously, think about it.

Haha but 2 dicks is A-OK straight as a whistle!

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Sure, 3D will never take over 2D completely, just like black and white movies are still made. But I don't think it's going anywhere this time.

I'd compare it more to a pop-up book vs. a 'real' picture-book. It'll catch on for a little bit, but ultimately wind up being for little kids.

[Angrist]

Yesterday I saw Clash of the Titans in 3D. It was entertaining, but the 3D didn't add as much as it did for Avatar.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Angrist

Yesterday I saw Clash of the Titans in 3D. It was entertaining, but the 3D didn't add as much as it did for Avatar.

This is one of the examples I spoke about initially, the movie wasn't done in 3D. It was added in post-production after they saw how well Avatar did. The same thing is happening with The Last Airbender.

Which I think would hurt the 3D movement more than anything else, when there are big movies coming out that half-arse the effects.

[Angrist]

I heard about it, but I wondered how it worked. They shot in 2D (just one camera instead of 2), and later added 3D layers??

They had lots of action scenes with a lot of different camera shots/positions. In 3D, that's very confusing. I can't remmber Avatar having that...

[BreakABone]

Never one to shy away from his opinion Roger Ebert gives his two cents on 3d, which means we should soon hear from Moogle.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

That's my position. I know it's heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year's top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they're only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O's you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics' case, point by point:

[manasecret]

Yeah but with all his blowharding, here's his conclusion:

I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy.

I'm on the same page. I don't want 3D forced into films that weren't meant for it, but I'm all for it as an option. And as an option, I don't think it's going anywhere soon.

He also asked if you can imagine the great films being in 3D --

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?

And I think he's missing the point. Those films were not meant for 3D, so no, there's no reason for them to be in 3D. But to say or hint at saying that a great film can not be in 3D lacks imagination, and IMO harkens to his lack of imagination with video games being art.

Not to mention he mentions black-and-white Casablana and color Fargo and Precious in the same breath. I know one might have asked sometime ago and maybe even still today, "can you imagine the great films like Casablanca in color?" No, but that doesn't forego color films (such as Fargo and Precious) from being great.

On another note in his conclusion, something that I was talking about with Automotion plus and how I thought if films were filmed in more than 24 fps that they would probably look like their Automotion counterparts:

What Hollywood needs is a "premium" experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I've been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it's 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven't seen it have no idea how good it is. I've seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull's Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D.

This sounds like exactly what I'm talking about, and films should be made in 48 fps or more. But, again, that doesn't preclude using 3D.

[Angrist]

I saw Avatar in 3D on Bluray on a HD tv in a store. Still looked pretty good, even without the 3D.

But I still want to see it in cinemas again, which will probably never happen.