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  
•       •       •

17727 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 6:04 PM (1 year 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 08:07:59 PM

miniflea: I saw The Hobbit in 3D, not because I wanted to but because the theater I wanted to go to has only one screen and they were playing it in 3D. I'm generally not a fan, doubly so of the increased ticket price, but it didn't really bother me this time around. Other than a few glaring things flying out of the screen, after a few minutes I completely forgot about the 3D at all.

I also wear glasses and yes, it is a royal pain in the ass to wear a second, poor fitting pair over the first.



If you flick off your glasses during The Hobbit, you see how awfully dark and desaturated the viewing experience is. People who saw non-3D Hobbit saw a bright, kid-perfect palette. 3D folk saw a dark gloomy mess.
 
2012-12-25 08:09:36 PM
I have strabismus. This 3d movie crizznap is overrated.
 
2012-12-25 08:10:50 PM

themindiswatching: 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.


Will not happen. Until wireless data rates explode and become dirt cheap, there will still be the desire to have the movie on a unit that can be easily transported to devices that are not online or do not conform to other copy protections.. cases in point;.

a) there will be many people who simply do not want to mess with having movies brought to their home network and trying to get all networked devices to talk to each other in order to view said movies. The majority of players don't even support networked movie playback and the consoles require a lot of configurations and software to get it up and running. The software used has actually been around for many years now which gives a good example how we have not made much progress on networking movie playback through out the house at the PC level.

b) movies downloaded through legit means and thus copy protected are generally not going to be usable on more then the owners home network. Bluray ownership resides on the disc and so it can be played anywhere.

c) Some devices do not network well, or are in environments that are not networked. The majority of automobile setups are not online and play movies only through disc. There will also be situations where there are a lot of people, and a lot of players that share a library of media.

d) I would put forth a mediums life span ahead of any copyright protection methods life span any day. We have seen the death of vhs, and while dvd video may be on its way out, dvd as a disc medium will still continue to hang around. It is still my medium of choice for recordable media (admitedly player prices are good..media prices need to fall more). I can't remember how many DRM services have failed and the resulting drm protected medium has become unusable.

Also as someone noticed above, 3d is pretty much one many or most high end TV sets. Active shutter 3d is NOT hard to build into a set with a quality and fast LCD panel.

Like I said before, I am not really impressed with hollywood movies of which most convert 2d to 3d, but I have rarly failed to impress anyone when showing them my 3d image collection on my phone.
 
2012-12-25 08:11:42 PM

fusillade762: Jon iz teh kewl: what about 4D MOOVIES!!

I'm still waiting for Smell-o-Vision to make a comeback.


John Waters did it for "Polyester," and the smells were just as delightfully tasteless and rude as you can imagine.
farm1.static.flickr.com

/Has the same scratchcard from the NYC premiere, 70s era, and the odors are still just as stinky today.
 
2012-12-25 08:12:03 PM
The 3D attempt in Harry Potter annoyed me. I went to see it in 2D and there were (non-action) shots that were clearly designed only so that 3D could be used on them. I presume this is so audiences only felt 90% ripped off paying for 3D instead of 100% ripped off.

For example, one of the scenes in the bedroom of the cottage, where they pan around the bed at below head-height. Clearly that shot was set up by someone saying "crap, we need more 3D shots".

Gah.
 
2012-12-25 08:12:55 PM
Light 3D in animation: yes
Heavy 3D in a film: no


/watched Avatar on a flatscreen tv, loved it
 
2012-12-25 08:13:21 PM
Good 3D is good.

Bad 3D is bad.
 
2012-12-25 08:13:28 PM

verbaltoxin: Avatar suckedNickelback sucks.


ftfy

same argument..

see, it's a matter of taste really...
just because something makes a bajillion dollars doesn't make it good.

they sell billions of urinal pucks every day and you don't see people going on about that do you....wait...what i meant was....
 
2012-12-25 08:15:09 PM

FitzShivering: Good 3D with guns is good.

Bad 3D with guns is bad.


now if only they had 3d in all the schools!
 
2012-12-25 08:15:12 PM

twiztedjustin: Light 3D in animation: yes
Heavy 3D in a film: no


/watched Avatar on a flatscreen tv, loved it



Avatar's the only film I've ever seen in 3D and thought it "worked", probably because it's massively over saturated and have huge light/dark contrast.
 
2012-12-25 08:16:26 PM

milsorgen: 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?


Not really, in my experience most films seem pretty bad when drunk. Since I figured that out I never get drunk before movies. A couple beers at the most now.

Now if you were stoned and said that, on the other hand..
 
2012-12-25 08:18:29 PM
3 D costs more and these days many of them aren't visually "popping" the images, instead 3 D seems to mean some kind of depth/contrast quality.

Journey to the Center of the earth was in image popping 3 D and totally worth it though.
 
2012-12-25 08:19:28 PM

jake_lex: From TFA:

"The next big test may be Baz Luhrman's version of The Great Gatsby, due for release in May and starring Leonardo DiCaprio. It doesn't seem like a natural fit for 3D, but Luhrmann's a very stylistic director and he may make it work."

That sounds like that could be the biggest disaster in film history.


Sounds like it, but if anyone can pull it off, DiCaprio probably can. Every film I thought would suck goat ass with him in it, actually hasn't been that bad.

The problem with 3D is that, as I understand it, it requires the viewer to use correctable binocular vision to experience the effects.

That's great.

What happens if you don't HAVE correctable binocular vision though?

I wouldn't pay to see a 3D flick now, let alone if I had FUBAR vision.
 
2012-12-25 08:20:23 PM
The Hobbit sucked.

it sucked more in 3D

Avatar also sucked.

Star Wars sucked and will suck more in 3D.

Jaws was great.
 
2012-12-25 08:23:03 PM
The only 3-D effect that I liked was from the Viewmaster toy stereoscopic viewer, where you inserted this disk of tiny slides and pushed a lever to rotate from image to image.

I recall being absolutely fascinated with the thing back when I was a kid. The images were usually cartoon characters, seemingly so real that you could reach out and pick them up. Later 3-D effects, used in comic books and films, requiring the wearing of the 'special' glasses was nothing like that darn little toy.

It's kind of like comparing a laser holographic image to those flat, plastic 'holograms' they stick on credit cards, key chains and everything else and actually aren't holograms.

BTW. If you look at a blank white wall and cover one eye and relax, then switch eyes, you'll notice that one eye see's predominately blue and the other, red. Kind of interesting, especially since we get our '3-D' vision from the position of our eyes, not necessary the colors.
 
2012-12-25 08:23:40 PM
Shaky cam flicks are the nausea makers.

/I puked so damned hard during Cloverfield.
//Got it all over the place.
 
2012-12-25 08:28:20 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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.


The scale of that graph was poorly chosen. 95% of the time you only need the information contained in the bottom left quarter, and scaling it to twice that size in both dimensions makes it more difficult to examine for the smaller numbers.
 
2012-12-25 08:29:34 PM
It's funny; I saw exactly what was good and bad with Avatar.  Yes the visuals were great, but that movie was trying to top  Casablanca for most cliches used in one film.

And as for the rest...Phantom Menace 3D says everything you need to know about 90% of 3D out there.  Making a movie 3D will never improve the storyline if the storyline sucks.  And it will never make me pay extra to see it, either.
 
2012-12-25 08:31:19 PM
The Hobbit looked pretty damn well in 3D, especially in 48 fps with little to no flicker. Almost purely atmospheric, with only a few things that jump at the audience. Like that pinecone. If you saw it, you know the one. Made me flinch.

3D in general doesn't bother me, nor does it give me a headache. I wonder if it affects those who are prone to migraines (which my family is, the gene luckily skipped over me). If that is the case, then maybe it's because of the flicker related to frame-rate, which 3D can magnify in a way.
 
2012-12-25 08:32:40 PM

clutchcargo2002: LAWL. The movie sucked hard. Just because it made a money doesn't mean it is good. It just means people are stupid.


I never said it was good. It's ok, but it doesnt suck hard. It's a solid 3 out of 4 star movie. Ebert gave it 4 stars. I think its ok, about 30 min. too long. Its Dances with Wolves in space. No more hackneyed than that movie (also a four star movie according to Ebert.)

I am one of the people who tend to take the viewpoint that its a good movie because it made a billion dollars, because biatch all you want, that was the movie's purpose...which it fulfilled exquisitely.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-25 08:34:38 PM
3D is tough... Within months of cuts, closeups, irising in (today's zoom before zoom lenses existed), panning, changing focus areas, color, sound, widescreen, and other techincal innovations, the artists in the filmmaking community were creating films which, while they might have been great without the tech wizardry, became better because of the tech magic. Yet, even though 3D has been used in films for six decades, it remains a rare moment where the art overcomes the drawbacks. Eyes focussed on the fixed screen while the parallax gives a 3D effect give too many people massive headaches, the image is darker, the unpleasantness of the glasses, and other problems are difficult to justify the glories of 3D. I suspect that most 3D films will be special effects spectaculars, and it will not be used for many "art" films.

The technical advancements which have lasted the best are those which became unobtrusive while adding to the cinematic experience. 3D hasn't done it... and without the glasses, I suspect it never will.
 
2012-12-25 08:34:48 PM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Shaky cam flicks are the nausea makers.

/I puked so damned hard during Cloverfield.
//Got it all over the place.


next time aim for the producers desk
 
2012-12-25 08:36:05 PM

Haliburton Cummings:
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


Im in full lolwut mode. maybe its the really nice cheese I ate for lunch.
 
2012-12-25 08:37:06 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..


You're an idiot. Think about it for a while, and see if you can figure out why I think so.
 
2012-12-25 08:38:00 PM

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


We bought one. 65 inch. Have yet to watch a 3D movie on it though. The 3D technology makes the regular stuff look a *lot* better

As I recall, it didn't cost that much more. Maybe they had a sale on.
 
2012-12-25 08:39:31 PM
Man. A lot of people are wearing onions on their belt in this thread.

Most movies are shiat whether they're in 3D or not. So sucky movies are no reason to dump on a new format.

FTFA: "3D is antithetical to storytelling, where immersion in character is the goal. It constantly reminds you you're watching a screen - and it completely prevents emotional involvement. Natural human vision bears no resemblance to 3D in the cinema."

Of all the reasons to shiat on 3D, this is about the dumbest I've ever heard.
 
2012-12-25 08:43:26 PM
Maybe if HollyWEIRD would write, produce and deliver a good movie in 3d, people would pay the premium to see it? Just because you have things flying around toward you, and away from you just for the effect of 3d, if the story SUCKS, why bother? And, for a lot of people who are confined to wearing glasses, the current crop of 3d "sunglasses, doesn't cut it. I've seen one, and the others I've seen in regular mode, wouldn't be worth the EXTRA they charge for 3d.
 
2012-12-25 08:44:45 PM

GoodHomer: Man. A lot of people are wearing onions on their belt in this thread.


It's not like 3D is some newfangled technology.
 
2012-12-25 08:45:27 PM
p51d007: HollyWEIRD

Are you for real?
 
2012-12-25 08:47:39 PM
Pay money to get a migraine? BEST IDEA EVER!!

/still haven't seen Avatar
//or Titanic
 
2012-12-25 08:51:59 PM

Mad_Radhu: 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.


I have a front projection setup, since it was way cheaper than flatscreens. With a 100" screen and 20-20 vision the pixels cannot be seen from the couch even with my old 720p projector. For those of us who grew up with analogue TV the display also looks more natural than a flatscreen.

When it died I ended up getting a 3d one since I like the extra power for daytime viewing but I hate gimmicky 3d.

The issue with it is that it doesn't allow for the way our vision system is vertically integrated: our 3d processing uses parallax and focal distance, whereas the image is on a flat surface.

True 3d will require direct retina beaming which is at least 5 years from being ready for mass production.
 
2012-12-25 08:52:15 PM
Madbassist1: I am one of the people who tend to take the viewpoint that its a good movie because it made a billion dollars, billion dollars, because biatch all you want, that was the movie's purpose

Something that completes it's purpose is known as "successful", it's a successful movie, doesn't mean it's a "good" movie.

// I don't even know what movie is being discussed, I just don't like the connotations of linguistics getting perverted to suit someone's agenda.

// "Good" is too generic of an adjective to stand by itself without giving it a context.
 
2012-12-25 08:57:01 PM
Tron in IMAX 3D cured my hangover.
 
2012-12-25 08:59:34 PM

lordargent: Madbassist1: I am one of the people who tend to take the viewpoint that its a good movie because it made a billion dollars, billion dollars, because biatch all you want, that was the movie's purpose

Something that completes it's purpose is known as "successful", it's a successful movie, doesn't mean it's a "good" movie.

// I don't even know what movie is being discussed, I just don't like the connotations of linguistics getting perverted to suit someone's agenda.

// "Good" is too generic of an adjective to stand by itself without giving it a context.


you're a poopyhead.


and correct, of course
 
2012-12-25 09:01:09 PM
Intelligently used or not, the most common forms of 3D glasses give me a terrible headache.
 
2012-12-25 09:02:26 PM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Shaky cam flicks are the nausea makers.

/I puked so damned hard during Cloverfield.
//Got it all over the place.


Lol...only film I've come close to puking in, I had to go out to the lobby and walk around for five minutes halfway through.
 
2012-12-25 09:06:55 PM
I loved the use of 3D in Avatar, Prometheus, and The Hobbit; environments look amazing. The other ones I've seen I would have rather watched in 2D. But I will continue to support it when done well, my only gripe is that seeing the frames of the glasses in my peripheral vision can occasionally be annoying.
 
2012-12-25 09:08:29 PM

Madbassist1: Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more

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


Can you quote it at all?
 
2012-12-25 09:09:40 PM

Madbassist1:

You're an idiot. Think about it for a while, and see if you can figure out why I think so.


I'm far too lazy for that. If you were trolling or made some devastatingly clever meta-joke or something then I hope you enjoyed it.
 
2012-12-25 09:12:28 PM

gaspode: Madbassist1:

You're an idiot. Think about it for a while, and see if you can figure out why I think so.

I'm far too lazy for that. If you were trolling or made some devastatingly clever meta-joke or something then I hope you enjoyed it.


nah you just jumped in in the middle of a comment wherein I was referring to (and quoting) someone else. I don't know what a meta-joke is. I like the word though. I may try to work it into a conversation. Meta-joke. Oh, i see. You were making a meta-joke.
 
2012-12-25 09:13:32 PM

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


If you don't think every home is going to have a 3-D printer in twenty years, you're farking retarded.
 
2012-12-25 09:15:04 PM

DrGunsforHands: Can you quote it at all?


"Nature good. Military bad."
 
2012-12-25 09:17:02 PM
Three Dees and seven years ago...before it was cool

api.ning.com
 
2012-12-25 09:19:07 PM
Maybe it's a warning. We should slow down. The Holy Father has already admonished us that technology and science are interfering in our relationship with God. We should stop all this nonsense and go back to trusting and believing it Him. He will show us the way.
 
2012-12-25 09:19:07 PM

Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

You're an idiot. Think about it for a while, and see if you can figure out why I think so.

I'm far too lazy for that. If you were trolling or made some devastatingly clever meta-joke or something then I hope you enjoyed it.

nah you just jumped in in the middle of a comment wherein I was referring to (and quoting) someone else. I don't know what a meta-joke is. I like the word though. I may try to work it into a conversation. Meta-joke. Oh, i see. You were making a meta-joke.


Oh hey if I answered someone else's post by answering yours then I genuinely feel like a fool. Ill take your word for it as the scroll-bar is a loooong mouse-movement away over there.
 
2012-12-25 09:22:07 PM

assjuice: I just downloaded 3dtv.stl and am about to 3d print my first 3d tv.


Yeah well, I still jerk off manually.
 
2012-12-25 09:23:26 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Summer Glau's Love Slave: Shaky cam flicks are the nausea makers.

/I puked so damned hard during Cloverfield.
//Got it all over the place.

Lol...only film I've come close to puking in, I had to go out to the lobby and walk around for five minutes halfway through.


Yea I go suckered into seeing it on the big screen and about yarfed all over the first 3 rows, almost wished I had. Just absolutely worthless and puke inducing crap.
and dont even get me started on the shakey cam aspect of it either....


There are no good 3d movies. Only movies some of you are trying to justify wasting your time on that you secretly deeply regret.
 
2012-12-25 09:25:25 PM

thornhill: 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 ...


Again, you are citing things that were the exact "problems" with 1080p when it was being conceived and first hitting the market. Then sports jumped in because football fans will pay anything to see grass stains on a 7 foot tall guys ass in higher detail, and porn saw that and thought it was cool and went full bore HD.

All the little formulas and charts about room size and viewing distance, seriously? The tech will progress until displays are photorealistic at any viewing distance. I think the angst about this is silly, like people thought 1080p is some kind of plateau that can never be surmounted, so now you can stop buying TVs forever.
 
2012-12-25 09:30:31 PM

miniflea: I saw The Hobbit in 3D, not because I wanted to but because the theater I wanted to go to has only one screen and they were playing it in 3D. I'm generally not a fan, doubly so of the increased ticket price, but it didn't really bother me this time around. Other than a few glaring things flying out of the screen, after a few minutes I completely forgot about the 3D at all.

I also wear glasses and yes, it is a royal pain in the ass to wear a second, poor fitting pair over the first.


I saw The Hobbit in 3D HFR, and I was actually impressed. There were a few gimmicky bits (especially in the "falling bridge" segment everyone biatches about), but for the most part I found the 3D actually helped tell the story.

I also hate wearing the 3D glasses over my own prescription lenses, but I can deal. What REALLY impressed me about the 3D in The Hobbit was the simple fact that I left the theater without a headache. Normally, a 3D movie gives me a decent start on a migraine. The Hobbit? Not even a twinge. I don't know how they did it, but I hope P.J. teaches the trick to some other filmmakers.

Before that, the last 3D movie I went to see was Avatar. While I did enjoy it, I was regretting it by the time I got home. HFR was the only reason I went with 3D on The Hobbit... After all the hype on both sides of that issue, I wanted to see and decide for myself. If it had been possible to watch 2D HFR, that's what I would have done.

/IMO, big thumbs up on the HFR
//though it does need some work in up-close action sequences
///amazing for distance shots, even those including action
 
2012-12-25 09:34:03 PM
3D in general doesn't bother me, nor does it give me a headache. I wonder if it affects those who are prone to migraines (which my family is, the gene luckily skipped over me). If that is the case, then maybe it's because of the flicker related to frame-rate, which 3D can magnify in a way.

I get headaches from 3D and I don't get migraine. The issue is more of the amount of work needed by some viewers to keep things in focus. Look at the end of your nose, now consider doing it for 2 1/2 hours. Also, only the area directly in front of me is in focus, the rest is blurry.

Movies will evolve into 3D experiences when:
a) no glasses are needed
b) they can figure out how to do it without giving people headaches
 
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 »






Report