REVscene Automotive Forum

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - 3D Movies (https://www.revscene.net/forums/610769-3d-movies.html)

Does anyone else think this is a stupid fucking trend, and we'll be laughing about it in 3 years? Even funnier is that they are trying to push it on home viewers too... This is sure to be on several "failures of the 2010 decade" lists...

I think it's cool for goofy theme rides and whacky Imax shows, but for movies it is just stupid. It's not even 3D, it's more like one of these

http://crabfisher.files.wordpress.co..._with_reel.jpg

Those were fun when I was 5, but it's just stupid in normal movies.

I just saw Alice in Wonderland, and thought pretty much the same as everyone else.. Cool visuals, stupid action at the end, etc. But the 3D really made it less enjoyable for me. Especially the fast-moving parts, which the 3D couldn't keep up with. This made all fast-moving object blurry. Also gave my wife a headache for the rest of the day.

3D Movies = FAIL

I watched my very first 3D movie - avatar a couple of months ago. It was amazing. Then I watched alice in wonderland in 3D. Effect for the latter was horrid. The blurs was very distracting.

i think you problem is not with 3d movie its with alice in wonderland.

Avatar til now is by far the best use of the 3d technology because the whole movie was built with 3d in mind. If only more movie maker take 3d seriously and treat it as a technology not a gimmick it would really take movie to a whole other level.

I agree and want to add another trend that'll make people look stupid in three years:

3D Television.

Name one television network broadcasting in 3D. Name one movie that is coming that'll need a 3D TV to play?

None.

Samsung (the ones "ahead of the curve" and making 3D tvs right now) are making chumps out of a lot of trend followers.

^^ its not stupid because the porn industry havn't pick it up yet. wait till you can see jizz flying at yall in 3d right in you living room ;)

^^ And video game industry. Hopefully the 3D tv will be like blueray - slow start but picks up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by threezero (Post 6891217)

^^ its not stupid because the porn industry havn't pick it up yet. wait till you can see jizz flying at yall in 3d right in you living room ;)

actually porn industry picked up on it already cuz buddy has a few in 3d and they are awesome hahaha:thumbsup::haha::haha::haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Bastardo (Post 6891215)

apparently the world cup is broadcast in 3D by TSN i think.

i love the concept of 3d movies, it adds a whole new element that i much enjoy. They recently broadcasted a Man U vs Arsenal game in 3d, i wish i could of experienced that.

If you don't like 3d skinnypup, don't watch it, you can still watch it in the original form. You can think it's stupid all you want, no one is forcing it down your throat. For those that enjoy it, we'll pay extra, simple as that

like ive said before, during the olympics i tried all three of panasonics setups at their pavailion

all 3 were completely underwhelming and looked less 3D than any new 240hz setup ive seen with non-3d BR's

im kind of undecided on it.
when i saw avatar i didnt like the 3d part.
i found it distracting.
then i saw alice, and it was slightly easier as i was used to the 3d effect after seeing avatar.
i dont hate or love it... prob need to see a few more 3d movies first.

you're married? LoL

I think it depends on the movie for 3d,
I agree that 3d in Alice in wonderland was unnecessary but I think it will be more than suitable in Tron 2. Again, depends on the type of movie. As for 3d tv's, I think its just a waste of money.

avatar started it all

anyone going to shell out 3-4 grand on an LED 3D TV?

I hope Toy Story 3 in 3D won't be disappointing.

Whats the diff between these new 3d tv's and 3d blu-ray players than the ones now. I've seen blu-ray discs what come with glasses in the box. So whats the major diff besides the glasses being paper ones?

3d is a very cool concept but some movies dont need it...they are just jumpng the bandwagon and try and make an extra few bucks...just watched Clash Of The Titans...and i could have watched it regular...no need IMO...

3D is just the movie industry trying to get people not to pirate movies and go back to the theatres

the Television industry is trying to well... sell TVs they need... well WANT to have people constantly buying the latest televisions etc they were/are hoping Blu-Ray would drive customers to buy more HDTVs and now 3D to buy 3D tvs

i think its retarded too
the Odd 3-D movie is somewhat of a treat.. especially if its a horror movie... but now... when EVERYTHING is 3D its just stupid

The current problem with 3D is the movie studios holding back on innovation due to limitations of cinemas. 35mm film reel movies in cinemas are shown at 24 frames per second. Digital projection theatres could provide faster frame rates, but movie studios still cling to 24fps because they believe the greater importance is higher resolution, not frame rates. They're afraid of HD resolution being adopted on TV's at home and want to make theatres even higher in resolution. James Cameron has said that faster frame rates are needed in 3D movies to reduce strobing effects of action sequences. Here's a part of an interview with James Cameron:

Quote:

I'm hearing that there are already calls to increase the frame rate to at least 30 fps for digital 3-D because certain camera moves, especially pans, look jumpy in 3-D. I saw that in the Imax 3-D "Beowulf." You've been an advocate for both 3-D and higher frame rates. Have you seen the problem and do you have any thoughts on it?

For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem.

The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed.

Increasing the data-handling capacity of the projectors and servers is not a big deal, if there is demand. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry?

Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.

If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself? Something you can't get at home. An aspect of the film that you can't pirate.

The biggest difference between Avatar and almost every other 3D live-action movie out there is that Avatar was filmed in 3D, but the others had 3D added in post production.

Films which are designed to work with 3D (and not just as a gimmick, having something jump out at you), may be the future. But only if people can follow Cameron's lead and realize that you need a better framerate for balance, and that 3D doesn't have to be a gimmick.

I wasn't blown away with Avatar's 3D... Especially with how everyone was raving about it... It gave me a freaking headache.

I just don't want to pay the 3D price to watch it. LOL