3d headaches

Nah, it's not that - I've got 20/20 vision too, and it hurt my eyes.

As above, the issue is a lack of deep focus in the films. 3D gives the illusion of depth, but if you tend to look beyond what the director expects you to look at, your eyes try to focus on that which can't be focused upon.

I'm sure the technology will grow into it some day, but it's still pretty flawed at this juncture.

Great link, Rebelscum.
 
3D is a gimmick. Always has been and always will be with regarRAB cinema and TV. If you want 3D drama, then you go to the theatre.

Citizen Kane, The Godfather, The Exorcist, The Shawshank Redemption, Star Wars Trilogy... All amazing films which use the 2D medium that is television and cinema to full effect to create an artistic, emotional and fully realised experience.

The current glut of 3D movies simply use the idea of 'ooh, that thing looks like it's going to stick in your eye' and milk it endlessly. Just as 3D movies have done every time the fad takes hold.

3D movies have been around for many, many years and still haven't become a crucial part of the movie experience. They are, as they always have been, merely a 'gimmick' that enhances a first viewing experience, but has no long-lasting appeal. Audiences have never embraced the medium outside the novelty factor.
That should really tell us that the 3D effect should always, always remain merely a gimmick and never become a natural part of cinema.
 
Avatar isn't a new 3D film form, its just like all the other ones in the cinemas (just more visually advanced).

Unless you mean they filmed it in a certain way using the same technology?
 
Don't watch them then, and let the millions of people who do want to watch it in 3D do so.

Of course 3D films translate ok. All of the 3D films are also shown in 2D at my local cinema. Even 2D films have depth, just not the "jump out of the screen" depth 3D has. As such, 3D films look fine in 2D.
 
Like you I 'saved' myself from seeing 3D until Avatar. I think I still agree with Kermode. Some of the 3D was nice but it really didn't add to the enjoyment of the film, quite the opposite a couple of times. As I watched the film I thought that it would be just as good without the gimmicks of having things like ash flying by you.

There are some things in development like Project Natal which look like coming up with good uses for 3D (for 1 person only though and without the need for glasses) but 3D in movies is another more than a gimmick to me.
 
3D has really polarised (excuse the pun:D) people's interest in it hasn't it? It all comes down to personal taste in the end then I guess. The only thing that bugs me is when people make their opinions without actually having experienced the current 3D technology in the Cinemas. They are still basing their opinions on the old anaglyph method which is a poorer distant cousin to today's RealD experience.
Of course, over the years 3D has been used as a gimmick and exploited by film makers who had little or no other method or budget to attract audiences. 3D actually was a huge success back in the 50's running for several years and even back then some Cinemas could even display polarised 3D in their cinemas. There were technical problems with the 3D alignment though and that fact, coupled with the introduction of something called Cinemascope, meant a premature death for 3D. Cinemascope become more popular than 3D because back then, the size and scope of the screen was enough to draw people away from their small television sets. Now that the technology is finally here and now that respected film-makers are utilising 3D, it finally seems to have come of age. At the moment, I think it does have "novelty" value of course and because of that, some nay sayers still see it as a gimmick. Personally, I have watched enough stereoscopic content over the past couple of years to see that 3D is a much more natural way of looking at an image. The important feature for me is the depth of field. I find it very difficult to accept a 2D image after I have viewed a 3D movie on my system. One day in the future, more and more people will see it as a more natural looking image than 2D.

Old habits die hard though. :)

Gae41
 
Until the technology reaches a point that it works comfortably for pretty much all patrons, it won't reach reasonable market penetration and will be considered gimmickery. Real-D is far from ready to be the norm for cinema releases, IMO.
 
The depth of field thing really does it for me.

Not give me a headache, I mean, lol.

The 3D films I've seen the past couple of years, some have had the novelty thing going for them (My Bloody Valentine, The Final Destination) and you know what, I enjoyed them for what they were there to deliver, silly throwaway things coming at you type of films, I did see Beowolf too though a couple of years back and that film was sheer escapism, the 3D definitely added to the experience as the camera flowed over mountains and lanRABcapes and through forests, it was actually really lovely so overall I don't think it's just gimmicky, it definitely has potential.

I haven't seen Avatar yet but I'm looking forward to soon (I'll wait till the crowRAB have died down).

As far as headaches go though, I have experienced them but only with the red + blue stuff on TV (on a few dvRAB I've seen), that Channel 4 season with the different colour glasses I was fine with even though that was still "coloured" glasses. Weird! The cinema 3D films I've seen I've never had a headache with, they've all been RealD films so far although the first 3D film I ever saw at the cinema was Jaws 3D and that was similar glasses (not coloured ones) but I don't know whether it was called RealD back then.

You need a degree in all this stuff to fathom it all out!
 
I read somewhere that the 3D versions of films outsold the 2D versions by quite a wide margin in the past year. I'd say that's a sign of market penetration.

It'll be interesting to see what the 3D Vs. 2D figures are like for Avatar. I'd imagine that it'll sway wildly in the favour of 3D.
 
I heard from 'Click' on BBC that says something along the lines that the older we get, our eye muscles struggle more with the technology - this could be the reason why I got a major headache.
Damn the ageing process.
 
My thoughts exactly, ultimatley the audience will decide as they have done with all the other attempts to bring in 3D, but this version is far superior even though it can cause a headache/eye strain in some.

If it can find it's niche/genre then I cannot see why these two formats cannot co-exist, it's not as if the bigger cinemas are short of screens.

Technology is moving at such a fast pace, I don't see why the film going public should not be apart of experiencing new techology to view films. By pushing, eventually we may end up with 3d cinema without the need for specs.
 
Back
Top