3D movies that's not worth the 3D?

[Snow Queen]

The only time I've ever really loved the 3D is in Star Trek Into Darkness. Beyond that, I haven't seen one 3D movie worth the price.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Easy solution right?

Exactly. And I don't know what's with all of these "it's not around here" either. Where exactly is around here? Because I've lived in two small suburbs thus far and both have the option. I've also traveled around a lot, a nomad, and every place I've been they all have an option. Kinda unsure where there isn't one. Also if there truly isn't and that's not just an exaggeration, that'd be a problem with the theater rather than with the way Hollywood is working it because Hollywood gives you that option. As said that, happily not going anywhere because some people working in the biz love exploring and expanding upon the tech as well.

 

[zeroapoc]

No it's not easy.

I've avoided some movies in the theater because there was no 2d option.

But im also glad to report that in my country at least , it's definitely a fade that is losing strength.

The answer is obviously , all of them. Even the only one that's actually well made , Hugo , the 2d version is much better.

I've never once encountered a film not having the 2-D option. The answer is not obviously all of them. That's a knee jerk response.

 

[zeroapoc]

Exactly. And I don't know what's with all of these "it's not around here" either. Where exactly is around here? Because I've lived in two small suburbs thus far and both have the option. I've also traveled around a lot, a nomad, and every place I've been they all have an option. Kinda unsure where there isn't one. Also if there truly isn't and that's not just an exaggeration, that'd be a problem with the theater rather than with the way Hollywood is working it because Hollywood gives you that option. As said that, happily not going anywhere because some people working in the biz love exploring and expanding upon the tech as well.

Yeah it isn't going anywhere. Haters are just a vocal minority.

 

[Snow Queen]

My biggest problem with 3D is that, at least at my theater, they won't display 2D IMAX if there's 3D available. Just one 2D IMAX showing would be nice.

 

[Ultimatehero]

My biggest problem with 3D is that, at least at my theater, they won't display 2D IMAX if there's 3D available. Just one 2D IMAX showing would be nice.

I swear, my local IMAX had only two showings of 3D IMAX in the first week of MOS and all other showings were of 2d. Come second weekend, they've switched places - only two showings of 2D IMAX and the rest of 3D. I'm betting they switched it up because more people were going to the 3D than the 2D. So for IMAX, one particular screen, in those cases its which one will draw in the most money for that specific screen.

 

[dark_b]

we have a big problem. studios know that they will realese the movie in 3D 6 months before production. they shoot with 2D cameras and post convert it. i get a big movie in the theater with bad 3D. this is a problem.

 

[Tequilla]

Exactly. And I don't know what's with all of these "it's not around here" either. Where exactly is around here?

Outside of US.

Flying there just to watch a 2d ,is not an option.

But this was a problem a year ago. Not today. 3d is becoming completely irrelevant here.

 

[Ultimatehero]

we have a big problem. studios know that they will realese the movie in 3D 6 months before production. they shoot with 2D cameras and post convert it. i get a big movie in the theater with bad 3D. this is a problem.

It's bad 3D to you. Thus, it's a problem to you. Personally I saw much better 3D with Avengers than I did with Gatsby, and Gatsby was shot in 3D. That says something. Yet again, there is no truth other than there is no truth. The only truth is that 3D isn't going anywhere since the people in the biz also love to experiment with new technology. And as long as 3D keeps bringing in money and film makers keep on wanting to experiment (which isn't just going to suddenly stop), it's not going anywhere.

 

[Tequilla]

There is not 3d. That is the only truth. People shouldn't even call it that.

The 2d version and the Stereoscopy version.

 

[Ultimatehero]

There is not 3d. That is the only truth. People shouldn't even call it that.

The 2d version and the Stereoscopy version.

Actually not the only one by far. Truths - Hollywood is making money off 3D and 3D will stay because filmmakers love to experiment (this isn't only a truth, it's common sense to anyone who knows how a lot of filmmaker minds work, filmmakers have been experimenting with technology since the beginning of film that's not going to just suddenly stop now).

 

[Tequilla]

Stereoscopic photography is a 1950's invention. There is nothing to experiment. It was heavily used a long time ago. It was a neat gimmick experience . Now it's a stupid one to make a few bucks at the cost of the audiences.

Real 3d display will obviously be an immense step towards a different form of communicating visually. The possibilities will be insane. Until then we shouldn't turn back 60 years for what it was a stupid fade.

But i don't care that people enjoy seeing their photography completely degraded. Just allow me to watch the good version.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Are you honestly trying to say the 3D we have now a' days is like the 3D in the past with the red and blue tint and all? Really? Did you ever see a 3D movie before the new technology? And try telling James Cameron and the rest of the big time Hollywood players that all their experimenting is for nothing.

And no one is stopping you from seeing the 2D version, but yourself. Those who like 3D watch 3D, those who don't like 3D shouldn't watch 3D. And again, the only truth here is that it's degrading to you and may not be that way for others.

 

[Tequilla]

The visual language is exactly the same. You do know what is stereoscopy right ? And its limitations ? The only different thing is how we absorb it , because of the digital projections. Yes it's more practical. But the problems with stereoscopy photography remain exactly the same. And the advances of the practicability in the projection still bring huge problems in degrading the main photography.

No. I was stopped in the past from seeing the 2d version.

 

[zeroapoc]

Are you honestly trying to say the 3D we have now a' days is like the 3D in the past with the red and blue tint and all? Really? Did you ever see a 3D movie before the new technology? And try telling James Cameron and the rest of the big time Hollywood players that all their experimenting is for nothing.

And no one is stopping you from seeing the 2D version, but yourself. Those who like 3D watch 3D, those who don't like 3D shouldn't watch 3D. And again, the only truth here is that it's degrading to you and may not be that way for others.

What bugs me about this argument is that most of the 3-D haters don't seem to be ok with that. They don't like it so it shouldn't exist.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The visual language is exactly the same. You do know what is stereoscopy right ? And its limitations ? The only different thing is how we absorb it , because of the digital projections. Yes it's more practical. But the problems with stereoscopy photography remain exactly the same. And the advances of the practicability in the projection still bring huge problems in degrading the main photography.

Again, you are speaking only from your own opinion. Nothing you are saying is a fact. In my own experience I have always experienced crystal clear image quality with every 3D experience and no ghosting effects that some people talk about. In fact, for all 3D films I prefer it in 3D. And it has only gotten better throughout the years. But, that is my opinion and is not a fact either. So if this is just - do you like 3D or not like 3D it's going to go on forever.

There are only four truths to contend with:

1) Some people like 3D, other people hate 3D.
2) 3D is still bringing in the studio a LOT of money, around 52% of ticket sales for 'Avengers' for example was to see it in 3D. 3D makes money and studios have been increasing the number of 3D films per year for a reason. You don't just make an increasing number of films 3D if no one's buying 3D, then you'd be losing money.
3) Filmmakers such as James Cameron and the rest, granted here some don't, love experimenting and seeing how much further they can push it. They're not just going to up and stop just because some people don't like it.
4) Same technology at its core, just without the red and blue tint.

Everything else is a matter of opinion. And opinion is not fact.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

The last airbender. There was one specific shot where the buildings vaguely fluttered out at me...that was it.

 

[Tequilla]

Again, you are speaking only from your own opinion. Nothing you are saying is a fact. In my own experience I have always experienced crystal clear image quality with every 3D experience and no ghosting effects that some people talk about. In fact, for all 3D films I prefer it in 3D. And it has only gotten better throughout the years. But, that is my opinion and is not a fact either. So if this is just - do you like 3D or not like 3D it's going to go on forever.

Which facts i said you dont agree. Degraded photography ? That's the only one right ?

You know about the parallax limits right ? How it affects framing for instance ? This isnt an opinion. It's a fact , because of how our brain perceive things. You might like something bad , it doesn't mean it isnt bad. There is huge limitations with stereoscopy photography.

With any 3d projection you are adjusting , not only the polarization of photography , but especially you are destroying any brightness by projecting that stupid thing at 3-4-5 lumen's instead of the 15. This is a tremendous degradation to the real photography , whether you like it or not.And that's not the only problem. It then affects the contrasts.


Theres in an immense array of problems with the technique.

Now , you like a low quality product ? It's your choice. You even enjoy it more ? I can accept it. I don't like , and i hope i'm not stopped form seeing a 2d version...just like it happened in the past.

There is a reason this thing faded completely back then.

Now it come back. Hollywood doesnt give a rat's ass about quality. They are post converting everything. Quick buck for a lousy technique.

 

[Still Wynning]

I'm not the biggest 3D guy, but I won't pretend that there hasn't been any good films in that format in the last few years. When it's done really well, it's done really well.

For example, whether you liked the film or not, Tron Legacy's 3D was spectacular. One of the of few times where the use of the 3D actually added to the whole immersive experience of being in the world of Tron.

I can understand people's problem's with it, whether it's bad, post-converted 3D or tacked on to justify the higher cost of tickets so the movies themselves can make more money, but to say it's bad altogether just because they personally don't like it is wrong.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Actually, I like a little something known as 'depth,' you know how we see things in the real world and seeing where objects are in relationship to each other. And if that is available over something that is flat and has all of the dimensionality sucked out of it - I want that. I want that dimensionality, I don't want some random flat image that deletes that.

One thing I've never understood is how people can say "that film had no 3D" for some of these films. Sometimes it's okay and it works to have things pop out at you. But the main usage of 3D now should be to present depth like looking through a window. Just because somebody doesn't reach his hand out to try to touch you doesn't make it bad 3D. 3D should be a testament to the depth a film has and 2D does that bad.

 

[Tequilla]

That is called 3d display. Sorry but its still not available.

But it will be awesome

 

[Ultimatehero]

That is called 3d display. Sorry but its still not available.

But it will be awesome

Again that is only your opinion. Or do you truly think your opinions are facts and the opinions of others are just opinions? I and others see depth, you and others don't.

See --

You say it cheapens the image thereby 3D is bad, that is your opinion from not liking 3D.

I say 2D deletes all and every sense of depth perception therefore it's bad, again that's my opinion of preferring 3D.

If 3D adds nothing -- guess what? Nobody would be paying to see 3D and studios wouldn't be shelling money to make films 3D and have crews whose job it is to judge depth perception because evidently they're exactly the same to you... right...

 

[Tequilla]

You do know the concept of a photography ? How it is defined ? What is a polarizing filter ? You know these basic concepts ?

Im genuinely asking. A lot of people dont like the subject , dont care , dont enjoy it , whatever.

If you know this , and how stereoscopy photography works , then you understand why it degrades a photo.

You wrote this "you know how we see things in the real world and seeing where objects are in relationship to each other". This is 3d display.

Stereoscopy Photography has major problems regarding image distortion , from plane curvatures , non-linearity of depth , depth magnification , the effect of the lenses , etc , etc , etc.

Ýou might love it was much as you want to. You can even prefer it to the so called flat imagery. But its still a heavily limited technique. Just like a small children book that pops out.

This is not an opinion , a fact , whatever you called it. It's G-E-O-M-E-T-R-Y

 

[Ultimatehero]

You wrote this "you know how we see things in the real world and seeing where objects are in relationship to each other". This is 3d display.

This is what crews are hired to do for 3D films. To take measurements on set and to have them accounted for so they can later go back in digitally and assign the same set of parameters. Or do you know nothing about the kind of work that crews do in order to make that image 3D these days? Which it seems like you don't. There is a lot more that goes into it than just going back in with a computer. A lot more.

Ýou might love it was much as you want to. You can even prefer it to the so called flat imagery. But its still a heavily limited technique. Just like a small children book that pops out.

Hey, I'm all for holograms where you can walk around to see it from many different angles, but no we are not at that level yet and I welcome it.

This is not an opinion , a fact , whatever you called it. It's G-E-O-M-E-T-R-Y

The way you're presenting it is. You're not just presenting information on the images themselves. You are completely putting your opinion into what you say. For example calling an image bad, well it's bad to you. It may distort it in order to accomplish it, but that doesn't make it bad - it just makes it open to subjective opinion. It's like asking someone if they like black and white or color photography more in terms of how it comes off. Also it's you completely neglecting the kind of work these teams put in. For instance, I say spatial distances between objects. You say that's not there. Yet this crew is putting time in to measure things right there on set so that they can use that for future reference when going back in and making it accurate to the spacial depth which you're acting like isn't there at all. It's a little thing called know how the process of those rendering these images into 3D works - it's not just a post-production step, it's a lot more involved than that.

 

[Tequilla]

No, its bad to me. I already understood you love it. Ok.

The facts that i was trying to present were pure aspects of geometry and photography degradation. 3d affects and is affected immensely. Because of that to me is a low quality product. Nobody should accept to see movies in such a bad condition.

And i never said there isn't spatial distances in objects. Where did i said anything remotely like that ? Off course there is.