Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the insane nausea they cause   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 278
    More: Obvious, Life of Pi, Baz Luhrmann, Ang Lee, Werner Herzog, good directions  
•       •       •

17739 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 6:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



278 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-25 06:52:10 PM  

Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.


I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle
 
2012-12-25 06:52:12 PM  

fusillade762: It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.


... you do know they make clip-ons now don't you?

Link
 
2012-12-25 06:52:21 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D. The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D. I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all. I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming. Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey


Last year, I got a good deal on a Samsung 55" 8000 series and basically bought it for the panel quality, with the 3D as a bonus. If you aren't paying for the glasses, it probably doesn't add that much to the cost of the set. They just have to add a special mode into the display hardware that interleaved the left frames, and some sort of sync system for the glasses (either IR or Bluetooth) which isn't terribly expensive to implement. I'm more annoyed that every high end HDTV includes a terrible smart TV system that is crap compared to the media streaming on every box you'd expect to have plugged into that TV (Xbox, Wii U, PS3, Apple TV, Roku, Blu-ray player, etc), which I'm paying for but never use. At least the 3D is nice for games like Super Stardust, Wipeout, and Arkham City that use it to good effect.
 
2012-12-25 06:53:25 PM  
Um, we cut WAY back on movies in general because of the price. So many other things we can do for that much $ or less. Plus, I hate, hate, hate long movies. I don't have the patience, I hate sitting in an uncomfortable seat for that long, it makes me tired, bah!

The Hobbit? Not going to see it in theaters... will wait for it to come out on video and then break it into 2 nights.

/no I don't watch tv for more than 40-50 minutes at a time...
 
2012-12-25 06:54:34 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?

...and you've finally made your way to my ignore list. Just shut up about the 3D printing already. I'm pretty skeptical of it myself, but you're to the point where you're shiatting totally unrelated threads.

[www.threadbombing.com image 642x482]


Wait, what's wrong with 3D printing?

/must have missed a few threads
 
2012-12-25 06:55:00 PM  

neongoats: TuteTibiImperes: litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...

I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.

I mean, pretty much all the things you say about 4k or uHD were said nearly verbatim about 1080p 15 years ago. Yeah, getting a 4k set next week would probably be a waste, but it's the direction things will go. I think a tv sized retina display would be lovely to watch.


There are diminishing returns from higher resolution depending on screen size and viewing distance.  I recently bought an iPad with the retina display, and I love it, I picked it over the MS Surface mainly because of the better screen, but I hold the tablet relatively close to my face while using it, the same can't be said for a TV.  Here's a chart that shows the ability to discern resolution depending on screen size and viewing distance.  It won't hold absolutely true for everyone, as some people have better eyesight than others, but it's a good baseline:

www.blogcdn.com

Most homes seem to top off on screen size between 50"-60" and viewing distances of around 10' or so, which makes any additional resolution above 1080p essentially wasted.  Instead of packing in more pixels I'd like to see TV makers concentrate on improving black levels, reducing motion blur and SOE, improving color accuracy, and reducing input lag.
 
2012-12-25 06:55:03 PM  
I'm a huge film snob. I think when 3d reemerged a few years back in the form of Real3d beginning with Superman Returns that it was mostly a gimmick. And it mostly was.

Avatar made me think: Hmmm maybe this could be used for film improvement.

Prometheus (which sucked) and Life of Pi (which was good) made me realize that Real3d could be awesome if used subtly.

I think that IMAX is the best asset for filmmakers now but 3d is a becoming a legitimate option.
 
2012-12-25 06:57:13 PM  
People are done with 3D movies because, for a brief moment in time, 3D was the only thing that made going to the theater a unique experience. Once we had 50+ inch 1920x1080 displays and 5.1-7.1 channel sound in every household, there was no reason to go out to see a movie unless you just had to see it on opening day. You could have decent snacks and drink beer at home without having to put up with a crying baby in an R rated movie at 10pm. So the studios revived 3D and, for a couple years, had an edge again. But now we can get 3D at home for cheap so why bother going out?
 
2012-12-25 06:59:07 PM  

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


Nearly every new is 3d capable. It's not something special you buy.

/TMYK
 
2012-12-25 06:59:16 PM  
Shadow Blasko: The dreams of the future? A hot glue gun on the end of an old XY plotter? Dream big, champ.

themindiswatching: It's the breathless, uncritical gee-whiz hype I can't stand. And the tossing of every single machining process of the last few decades into the "3D printing" bin, and then thinking that the 300$ toy you bought is going to print a car or an Airbus in just a few weeks. Other than that, it's great.
 
2012-12-25 06:59:28 PM  

gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle


Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.
 
2012-12-25 07:01:05 PM  

People_are_Idiots: fusillade762: It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.

... you do know they make clip-ons now don't you?

Link


If they don't provide them at the theater what good are they?
 
2012-12-25 07:01:53 PM  

skinink: People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the jacked up prices of the tickets and the poor use of the technology.


I wholeheartedly agree. If the movie's in 3D I want to feel like I'm part of the action. My fave of the "new" 3D movies was (surprisingly) Piranha 3D. It had a funny plot (I think it was made to sort of make fun of the original), and the 3D made it feel more realistic, despite the fantastic setting. The worst 3D movie? Avatar. Sure the movie was pretty, but the 3D was kinda wasted.
 
2012-12-25 07:01:55 PM  

Nemo's Brother: But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book.


Which is why it made 2.8 billion.
 
2012-12-25 07:04:18 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: themindiswatching: It's the breathless, uncritical gee-whiz hype I can't stand. And the tossing of every single machining process of the last few decades into the "3D printing" bin, and then thinking that the 300$ toy you bought is going to print a car or an Airbus in just a few weeks. Other than that, it's great.


Printing your own gun is possible now.
 
2012-12-25 07:04:32 PM  

fusillade762: People_are_Idiots: fusillade762: It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.

... you do know they make clip-ons now don't you?

Link

If they don't provide them at the theater what good are they?


They don't because RealD doesn't provide them. Of course, RealD also wants you "recycle" your glasses. I recycle by taking them home, and reusing them when I watch another 3D movie.

I also typically by my own 3D glasses. I hate the "old-school" design, and have better pairs at home...

/so wish that could be a discount on the price.
 
2012-12-25 07:05:17 PM  
I just downloaded 3dtv.stl and am about to 3d print my first 3d tv.
 
2012-12-25 07:05:43 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Here's a chart that shows the ability to discern resolution depending on screen size and viewing distance.  It won't hold absolutely true for everyone, as some people have better eyesight than others, but it's a good baseline:


Holy crap.  By that graph's logic, I need about a 80" diagonal tv for 1080 to matter.  (Our living room is awkwardly shaped, something like 12x24.)
 
2012-12-25 07:05:59 PM  
You're both right.
 
2012-12-25 07:06:28 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


This ^

However as stated, not every movie should be done in 3D - the formula is not "Lets release it in 3D and automatically see a 30%+ increase in ticket sales!" - Avatar was groundbreaking, but I think 3 years later, everybody has learned that "doing it in 3D" doesn't mean its better.

The quip about never seeing a Quinten Tarantino movie in 3D is spot on - his movies honestly would not be any better done in 3D than they already are.
 
2012-12-25 07:06:44 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


I'm having trouble computing Avatar and awesome in the same sentence.


/Seriously
//that movie was literally garbage
///yes i was drunk when i watched, shouldn't that reinforce my point?
 
2012-12-25 07:11:12 PM  
The Hobbit in HFR (48fps) 3D was pretty incredible. Seen it twice in that format. I did have issues with the characters looking like they were walking a little quickly, a problem with the new tech. It was better on the 2nd viewing though.

I was also on LSD for my second HFR 3D screening, so that increased the awe factor by about ten.
 
2012-12-25 07:12:36 PM  
I haven't been to the movies since LOTR. What's the point?

I am surprised 3d porn isn't bigger. My husband couldn't find anything decent to watch free on my Evo!
 
2012-12-25 07:13:35 PM  

S23: same old story..
inny versus outie

Only in this case the outie is the freak.


Freaky, Outtie!
 
2012-12-25 07:19:29 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Nemo's Brother: But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book.

Which is why it made 2.8 billion.


because people are sheep and must see the new big thing? it was a tired plot with cardboard characters. deal with it.
 
2012-12-25 07:19:32 PM  
Avatar in 3d was pretty good at showing the tech and its limitations..I felt like there were two layers on the screen : one 3D popping out, and another stale one in the background. The apparent difference of "framerate"/chopiness did bother me since it forced my view point towards the popping out instead of having my eyes wander...Kind of a focus issue.
Brought my dad to see it and the last time i ever went to the movies with him was during Jurassic park 1!
I gather it's the way to go. Needs improvement for complete immersion.
 
2012-12-25 07:21:40 PM  
The Avengers used 3D perfectly: to give depth to the action without beating you over the head with THREE DIMENSIONS and of course to make ScarJo's boobs more enjoyable as well.
 
2012-12-25 07:22:36 PM  
what about 4D MOOVIES!!
 
2012-12-25 07:26:41 PM  
Dredd 3D was the best use of 3D ive seen so far, foreground background seperation, and mostly slow-mos.

Looked fkin brilliant.

Avatar might have made alot of money, but it is complete crap.

If you like Avatar, you are pathetic. shiat story, way too long, and all round bad.
I get it you like crap predictable stories that explain every plot device to come in the first 30 mins.

Just one big CGI 3D ad.


Unobtanium. Please.
 
2012-12-25 07:29:26 PM  
what bothers me is that when there is a trailer on TV for the latest lame crap hollywood has decided to gift us with it seems to have a "in 3D" tag. watching grass grow IN 3D. some lame sequel cartoon number 8 IN 3D. it's a gimmick.

read this thread and count how many movies folks say are enhanced by 3D. now how many movies came out in 3D? yeah i thought so. plus not mentioned much is the poor projection problems 2D vs 3D.
 
2012-12-25 07:31:22 PM  

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


because you were buying books?
 
2012-12-25 07:31:31 PM  
Just because some movie made the most money doesn't mean it's good. From what I take from everything I read about Avatar is that seeing the 3D effects is amazing but the story was nothing special, if not cliched. And the price of the 3D tickets is part of the reason it made big box office: I kept reading you would waste your time if you didn't see Avatar in 3D.

I finally saw Avatar on a flight and I thought it was just an okay film; it's not even one of the better sci-fi films ever made. I can't believe it's the top grossing film ever. And saying a movie must be good if it makes a ton of money proves to be stupid when you see the fifth biggest gross of all time belongs to "Transformers: Dark of the Moon". That movie was bad.
 
2012-12-25 07:34:25 PM  

Mugato: Ang Lee is adamant that used intelligently 3D has now earned its place in drama: "Maybe because the 3D experience is still new, it does confuse some audiences

3D movies have been around since the '50s. And they're annoying.


3d porn form the '70s is farking hilarious. I can't say I've ever found any use for it in any other context.

Maybe Dredd 3D. Maybe.
 
2012-12-25 07:34:37 PM  
Anyone who thinks 3d suck and hope it dies prolly thought the same of bluray, dvd.
 
2012-12-25 07:37:06 PM  

JeffMD: Anyone who thinks 3d suck and hope it dies prolly thought the same of bluray, dvd.


BluRay and DVD are dying, though. See: iTunes Store, Google Play.
 
2012-12-25 07:37:34 PM  
I saw The Hobbit in 3D IMAX and regret that, to some extent. The movie was terrific, but the 3D aspect was a big distraction. It's especially odd during a dramatic sequence, when Gandalf or Bilbo is protruding like something out of a pop-up book.

IMAX is great (saw TDKR in that format as well), but I'm avoiding 3D in the future.
 
2012-12-25 07:37:37 PM  
I am just sick of paying an extra $5 for "the experience."
 
2012-12-25 07:41:33 PM  

spidermilk: Um, we cut WAY back on movies in general because of the price. So many other things we can do for that much $ or less. Plus, I hate, hate, hate long movies. I don't have the patience, I hate sitting in an uncomfortable seat for that long, it makes me tired, bah!

The Hobbit? Not going to see it in theaters... will wait for it to come out on video and then break it into 2 nights.

/no I don't watch tv for more than 40-50 minutes at a time...


Why? I don't watch any TV except for very occasionally on the Internet, and don't see many movies either, but (either despite or because of that) I have no problem with long movies. 3 hours is more than fine if it's done well.
 
2012-12-25 07:42:02 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Nemo's Brother: But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book.

Which is why it made 2.8 billion.


P.T. Barnum was correct: there's once born every minute and you can never go wrong underestimating the poor taste of the American public.

/Pro-tip: Not every object's actual worth can be reduced to monetary value.
//Or do you contend Look Who's Talking 2 (Gross: $47,789,074) was a substantially better, more culturally-impactful movie than Resevoir Dogs (Gross: $2,832,029)?
 
2012-12-25 07:43:34 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: what about 4D MOOVIES!!


I'm still waiting for Smell-o-Vision to make a comeback.
 
2012-12-25 07:46:19 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz?

Romeo and Juliet? The Crucifixion of Christ? Buddha? The Pyramids? Cavemen?

www.thirdwayblog.com
 
2012-12-25 07:48:50 PM  
www.5yaks.com
Because 4D is the future, duh...
 
2012-12-25 07:49:21 PM  
The only use of 3D I've liked was Prometheus. It was generally subtle, enhancing the sense of depth -- so it worked in tandem with the photography and choice of lenses. Often you didn't even notice it.

I was not impressed with Avatar in 3D. To much of shoving objects in the foreground to accentuate a sense of depth.

As for repertoire films converted to 3D, I had a free ticket for Phantom Menace last year and thought it was terrible (the movie as well). With the exception of the pod race, the conversion seemed to screw with the brightness and contrast, and all of the digital backgrounds came out looking flat.
 
2012-12-25 07:51:40 PM  

Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle

Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.


qu? havent been to rotten tomatoes in years, therefore not sure what you are gibbering about..
 
2012-12-25 07:57:24 PM  

gaspode: Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle

Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.

qu? havent been to rotten tomatoes in years, therefore not sure what you are gibbering about..


ahh the homeless have wifi at the shelter and they are running it hard on fark
 
2012-12-25 07:58:53 PM  

neongoats: TuteTibiImperes: litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...

I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.

I mean, pretty much all the things you say about 4k or uHD were said nearly verbatim about 1080p 15 years ago. Yeah, getting a 4k set next week would probably be a waste, but it's the direction things will go. I think a tv sized retina display would be lovely to watch.


4k on a 50" TV is going to be a waste; on 80+" you'll notice a difference.

But there are several issues with 80+" TVs and 4k.

1) Price: the cheapest is $20k. It's going to be years until these things drop under $5k. Flat screen TV prices have fallen so low that consumers expect 40" to 50" to cost under $1k. So even when these 4k TVs drop to sub $2.5k, they're going to have to compete with dirt cheap 1080p.
2) Practically speaking, how many people really have space for an 80" TV?
3) Content: Cable TV and Satellite bandwidth can barely handle 1080p -- a lot of compression is applied. Accommodating 4k data is a huge jump. This is the same deal with removable media. A feature length film in 4k *with compression* is going to be hundreds of gigabytes. Someone is going to need to figure out a way to add a bunch of additional layers to a blu-ray disc, movies will have to be split across multiple discs, or a new optical storage medium will need to be invented.
 
2012-12-25 08:03:38 PM  

Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle

Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.


LAWL. The movie sucked hard. Just because it made a money doesn't mean it is good. It just means people are stupid.
 
2012-12-25 08:05:06 PM  
Current 3D cinema tech:

1) Looks nothing like natural human-vision 3D, but like a pop-up book.

2) Is too dark and desaturated.

3) Makes people who don't wear glassed think about nothing but that they don't wear glasses for 2 hours.


3D is the future of film, but in 20 years when all this points are solved.


(we're like 1950/60s films were with magenta/cyan 3D ... a fad, because it's not ready yet)
 
2012-12-25 08:05:36 PM  
neongoats: The current tech isn't fundamentally different from cheesy 70s and 80s 3d.

IMO, the current tech (on the TV side) has a better home in the gaming industry.

Double the refresh rate, and show each person the opposite frames == co-op or vs gaming on one TV set where each person sees the entire television.

// hell, back when my buds and I were all in the same state, we were playing 4 people on two xboxes networked together. I was a PC gamer back then, but halo brought together the PC and non PC folks.
 
2012-12-25 08:06:14 PM  
Avatar sucked.
 
Displayed 50 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report