Stereoscope: Why??? Holograms: Please!

I just want my 2D movies back.

 

These are my true feelings.

 

Then by all means, go watch them.


Glad to see fear of any sort of technological advancement is still thriving in modern society.

 

Fear? No. Dislike? Yes. It would technically be a "technological advancement" to have a laptop growing out of my back, but I wouldn't want that either.

 

BACKTOP?!?! THOSE ARE TWO SIDES AT ONCE



AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

granted, occasionally a 3D movie is cool but please for the love of God don't make it the standard.

 

Here's the thing, if it's a live-action movie (or mostly live-action movie) and it was NOT filmed with "3D cameras" (stereoscopic?) then it absolutely, in no way, should be converted into a 3D version. Sadly, over 90% of the movies coming out in 3D right now were actually filmed in 2D. This 2D to 3D gimmick is an abomination and it should be stopped... but the uninformed masses keep falling for it and paying for it which makes the studios keep doing it.

If the movie was filmed with "3D cameras", I'll watch it in 3D just for the experience. However, at some point in the future (probably more than 10 years from now, sigh) they really need to get rid of the "having to wear glasses" thing. It's quite annoying to me... and I haven't had to wear glasses for over 2 years now (thank you LASIK surgery) and as such don't have to wear glasses over glasses. Still annoying.

 

This I completely agree, those who are actually using the technology and using it properly are the ones who are advancing the technology (James Cameron actively springs to mind), once the industry starts to realize the advantage of properly using stereoscopic technology and once the technology advances to the point where it becomes financially plausible for studios to even consider it, that is when the big bucks are going to start being thrown at it. But for now we have to rely on single individuals (Ala Cameron) who actually see the advantage of it and try to push it forward.

We cannot simply jump this step of the evolution of a 3D medium simply because the glasses are annoying. We have to work through this technology before we can even begin to contemplate anything further.

 

QFT. That is also my personal belief, that stereoscopic is an art choice that needs to be decided upon early in the process of making a film, and creatively shot during production. Although maybe we wouldn't mind this "conversion process" so much if it was an art direction choice, not a last minute "hey guys, avatar made alot of money in 3D, lets make our almost complete movie 3D as well".

Call me weird though, but I don't mind the glasses. Maybe cause I wear glasses all the time, so a second pair just doesn't bother me. My friend Justin actually had a 3d camera with the lcd screen on the back being 3D without glasses, which was pretty cool. I think the problem with implementing that into a theatre or possible home TV is the various angles that an audience member can be viewing from. I was at a local stereoscopic meeting a few weeks back, and the guy running it was commenting about one of the TV's I believe that the image would start to distort as you moved your head, or something to that effect.

BruceM

 

Yah I'm with Bruce on this one, I have absolutely no issue with the glasses. And I have absolutely no sympathy for the people that would pay the extra 5 bucks to see the movie and then complain that they had to wear the glasses; or those who complain about the glasses and say that we need to implement some technology years beyond our grasp because that will be easier....oooooh waaait.

 

hehe...

First off, I believe I just read something interesting, "My friend Justin actually had a 3d camera with the lcd screen on the back being 3D without glasses, which was pretty cool."

SOOOooooo, the technology is obviously NOT "years beyond our grasp."

and fyi, I watched 1, that's "O-N-E" 3D movie. Thought the concept of seeing things as in real life was pretty cool. Hated having to refocus my eyes because of camera focus. It actually hurt my eyes. I promise you if people only watch 3D TV and movies, your eyes will go bad very quickly. I can put 10 years of my annual salary on that bet.

 

Lol, I was just texting Justin. Anyway, their is one problem with your "not 'years beyond our grasp'" theory. It worked perfectly on a 2.5" (or something like that) screen for one person to look at straight on. It is a different thing entirely to get a non-glasses 3d theatre or TV with viewers looking from multiple angles. Especially for a theatre. I don't even want to imagine the cost of a non-glasses 3D movie theatre. You think a $4 premium is bad, you just wait.

 

Last I checked that wasn't a hologram.

Well I have easily seen at least 15+ 3D movies and have never once had a headache or felt any strain on my eyes. And according to my last optometrist checkup my left eye has actually improved over the last year....so your move. Whattya got?


PS. I find the concept that you saw one, "O-N-E" 3D movie and saw fit to condemn the entire medium to damnation hilarious.

 

What movie was that? Just curious because I had the privilege of working at a theater for a year, so I got to see nearly every 3D film we got between Up and Toy Story 3 for free. I'll be willing to pay more attention to your thoughts on 3D films if you saw Avatar in 3D as opposed to Clash of the Titans.

Edit: maul expressed more accurately what I was wanting to spew out

 

Philips actually produced TV's with their new WOWvx technology. Those 3D tv's were glasses free.

I had the pleasure of watching a demonstration at the Dutch "GamePlay 07" and I must say that it looked verry promising and 3D. That presentation is also the reason I don't understand the industry is going with glasses.

Yes the technology wasn't perfect, but it showed that the same amount of 3D can be pulled without glasses. I really thought that Warhammer would slam into me between the eyes....

Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3tEdVaGkFA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-PMN3aK8g

 

Because with glasses they can have an entire audience watch a 3D for more than 10 minutes without throwing up, and they have that technology now, so that is what they're going with.

 

Altough I can agree that the technology is not perfect yet (and it will not be in the coming years as because of the global recession Philips closed down the research dep. for the WOWvx)I do agree with BDP that having those glasses isn't that great either. You indeed do have to follow the focus... the flickering of the screen and the "slow FPS" effect is getting me a headache too...

 

But as I have said on many many an occasion, that is simply a matter of us (audience members) having to relearn how to watch movies (Specifically, how to watch movies in this new medium). The best analogy I can make is like when the focus pull was invented. Just because you want to keep looking at the part that was in focus but now isn't doesn't mean that their should never be a focus pull. It just means that you have to teach yourself to look at the area in focus (As that will be the area that the director is wanting you to look, because he/she put it there for a reason).

As far as the flickering or slow FPS goes, I can't speak on it, because I've never noticed any difference.

 

I'm convinced that the only reason Cameron had the forest light up at night in Avatar was to counteract the glasses making everything darker.

What I wanna know is if I took the RealD glasses home from the cinema and tried to watch 3DTV with them, would it work? Because spending over a hundred bucks on a pair of glasses (not to mention pairs for other people in the house) on top of paying a couple of grand for the TV itself isn't gonna fly. Sony have been pushing their 3DTV's for the last year but given how Sony overprice everything it could be a decade before 3DTV becomes affordable. And if everything becomes 3D, a percentage of the population who are unable to register the 3D effect will be left behind. What we really need is the Brain Box from Batman Forever

 

No, I'm pretty sure he did that because it's awesome and fantastic and would mesmerize anyone from earth in its beauty. I believe they made the entire film a little brighter to counteract the darkness from the glasses (weren't there people complaining that the trailer was too bright and colorful?). Also the silver screen installed with these systems helps reflect the light so it's brighter than usual 35mm projection.

Crap, we shouldn't have sound in movies either, because a percentage of the population is deaf. Also some people are color blind, so why spend so much time and money shooting in color and doing all this grading? Bah!

 

Probably not with how it is done now. Currently, realD glasses work by polarization, where the left eye is played horizontally, and the right eye vertical. 3D televisions are normally 120 Hz, where regular TV is 60 Hz. The home TV uses glasses that can read half of those Hz in each eye.

 

I have a question. To those who find the glasses "ridiculous:" Do you wear glasses normally? I've worn glasses all my life and never had a problem with the idea of wearing them for 3D. It seems there are some people who curse them up and down though and I suspect they just aren't used to them.

 

Well I've never had glasses and find the idea to wear them (I've actually worn them several times in the cinema) to see a movie completely ridiculous. Maybe because I've seen a demo of this awesome other technique which gave the same effect without glasses so maybe I'm a bit sided already. The point is that I don't fully enjoy the film anymore as I feel less free then I used to.

True, isn't that technique also the technique used in 3D cinema? The glasses you can use at home (like the Nvidia ones) are synced to the movie playback.

I did experience flickering, as if the movie was played in a non standard and slower framerate. I experienced it on more 3D movies. But maybe that is just me... after all, I can also still hear frequencies which some people under my age can't even hear anymore...

 

I actually just started wearing glasses last year. Plus I wear sunglasses everytime I'm outside (sunny or cloudy) because I sit in a dark editing room all day. So I wear glasses basically whenever I'm not sleeping. But I still despise the 3D glasses.


And NATE, to answer your question it was actually the last Shrek. (terrible movie anyway)
I noticed flickerings, had to refocus my eyes whenever the camera focus moved... so yes, Shrek in 3D was an all around eye-sore lol!

 

I've had to wear glasses all my waking hours for over ten years and I hate wearing 3D glasses over them. One pair is more than enough.

And people can accuse me of "fear of technological advancement" all they want, but I just feel like 3D is completely unnecessary. I'm perfectly satisfied with film staying a 2D medium. Paintings have been 2D for thousands of years, nobody accuses painters of fearing the advance of technology. 3D doesn't feel anymore immersive to me, if anything it brings me out of the experience. Because it's making me even more aware of the fact that I'm watching a movie. I'm sitting down with my special movie-watching glasses so that I can watch a movie.

Though honestly, it doesn't really bother me if studios want to pursue the 3D thing, as long as they offer up a 2D option. But for the first time ever with Toy Story 3, the theater that's most convenient for me to travel to is ONLY showing the 3D version. And that DOES bother me.