3-D
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Poll: 3-D
Just too expensive of a luxury. There's only 3 movies that I'd watch again in 3D, and even then, they don't rank among my absolute favorites. Beyond that, I just have no use for it - not interested in seeing any sports in 3D.
- Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
Re: Poll: 3-D
Not only am I really not that interested, but as is mentioned in other threads, I have so many 2D movies that are sitting unwatched/I haven't bought yet/need to get to, that I imagine it'd be a very long time between seeing something in 3-D is at the top of my priority list.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Poll: 3-D
Non-mods can start polls? Also, there is no option for "I only believe in 3D to the extent that directors I respect and who should know better make 3D films anyway and I feel moderately obligated to find out why" or "I intend to spend $2000 to see Dial M for Murder in 3D and then never use that capability again." Therefore, I cannot vote.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Poll: 3-D
This is not exactly the hotbed of intended 3-D consumers on the Internet
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: Poll: 3-D
Although I cannot be the only one here who has a copy of Piranha 3DD (I do find it amusing that my usual reaction to 3D of "aargh, they're coming right at me!!" works well in response to both horrific and sexy moments)domino harvey wrote:This is not exactly the hotbed of intended 3-D consumers on the Internet
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Poll: 3-D
I've never quite understood, even when it works well, the implication that 3D is actually a three-dimensional 'coming right at me' display of images. It's more like a pop-up book than an actual three-dimensional experience, even if something's jumping out from the screen. I've seen a few films that I've enjoyed in the format, but I think it's billed as more exciting than it actually is.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Poll: 3-D
I think the only one I have is Drive Angry, since the combo cost like 75 cents more than the regular Blu, but obv Dial 'M' For Murder and Pina are soon to make a quorum
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: Poll: 3-D
No, I made it a poll after the fact.swo17 wrote:Non-mods can start polls?
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Poll: 3-D
I have a 3-D player, but more by accident than design. Same with the half-dozen or so 3-D discs that I own. But I have no intention of buying a 3-D monitor, so that's pretty much where it ends.
-
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Poll: 3-D
I'm 3D capable and have been for a while but the only 3D Blu-Ray I've bought so far is Hugo. I will be picking up Dial M for Murder though.
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: Poll: 3-D
I'm always someone who wants to see films in their intended and original form. Hence, were I to watch Hugo or Pina, I'd only want to see them in 3D. As the cinemas I frequent don't have 3D-capability and I have no 3D setup, I probably won't see these films for a long time. The same would apply for something like Dial M for Murder.
The number of films that I want to see, that are intended to be seen primarily in 3D, is pretty low, however, hence why I voted for "I don't have it and am not interested in it." There's not a single film out there that I want to see any more than I otherwise would because it was made in 3D either.
The number of films that I want to see, that are intended to be seen primarily in 3D, is pretty low, however, hence why I voted for "I don't have it and am not interested in it." There's not a single film out there that I want to see any more than I otherwise would because it was made in 3D either.
- Gregory
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
Re: Poll: 3-D
I believe the intention for all those films was that they can be, and would be, enjoyed in 2D or 3D. There was not one "original form." A director may prefer the 3D presentation but that certainly doesn't necessarily mean that any given viewer will have a better experience of it that way.
-
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm
Re: Poll: 3-D
My BD player and my Plasma display (my secondary screen) are 3D capable. I have no intention of watching movies on TV, so it ends there.
My projection setup is from a 2D era. I'm not replacing it yet. Also, my HDMI amp will not pass a 3D signal. That makes it annoying to even get a 3D image from the BD player to the TV.
I like 3D for video games, and in a few instances. But as a video lover and a film lover, it doesn't satisfy my requirements. There is little good content and the picture quality in 3D display mode on both LCD and Plasma are poorer compared to 2D.
My projection setup is from a 2D era. I'm not replacing it yet. Also, my HDMI amp will not pass a 3D signal. That makes it annoying to even get a 3D image from the BD player to the TV.
I like 3D for video games, and in a few instances. But as a video lover and a film lover, it doesn't satisfy my requirements. There is little good content and the picture quality in 3D display mode on both LCD and Plasma are poorer compared to 2D.
- cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: Poll: 3-D
Everything I have is 3D capable except for the most important item: my TV. And I'm not in a hurry to upgrade it since 3D in general, whether in theaters or on a TV, gives me a fairly brutal headache.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Poll: 3-D
Ditto. My optometrist told me when I was a teenager that my eyes weren't quite aligned horizontally. From what I understood at the time (I don't make it to the eye doctor much), one eye is a little higher than the other. I can see fine, and in fact I still have 20/20 vision, but they have to work unusually hard, and that leads to eye strain headaches after awhile. I'm supposed to wear reading glasses to balance the workload, although I haven't had a functional pair for a few years.cdnchris wrote:Everything I have is 3D capable except for the most important item: my TV. And I'm not in a hurry to upgrade it since 3D in general, whether in theaters or on a TV, gives me a fairly brutal headache.
Anyway, I don't know if this is why I have so much trouble with 3D, but I can't ever quite get the picture to resolve properly. I'm constantly seeing double of whatever's on screen, and it doesn't take very long for me to start feeling my eye muscles tense up. As a result, I really hate the experience of 3D, and haven't bothered since Cave of Forgotten Dreams and probably won't bother ever again. Even if I bought a 3D TV for some reason (which is plausible as prices come down and they become more or less the same as 2D TVs), I'd never in a million years actually want to use it to watch 3D content.
- Caligula
- Carthago delenda est
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:32 am
- Location: George, South Africa
Re: Poll: 3-D
I am in the process of upgrading my entire system to HD and anticipate completing the final phase, being the screen (my 10-year old Panny is SD-only), sometime next year. Due to 3D coming pretty much as standard with a decent screen nowadays, I'd probably end up with full 3D-cpability.
That said, I can count the films that interest me as far as 3D goes on one hand - Dial M For Murder, House of Wax, Creature From The Black Lagoon, Hondo (if it ever gets released in 3D) and more recently, Hugo. That's it.
That said, I can count the films that interest me as far as 3D goes on one hand - Dial M For Murder, House of Wax, Creature From The Black Lagoon, Hondo (if it ever gets released in 3D) and more recently, Hugo. That's it.
- feihong
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm
Re: Poll: 3-D
To me the depth-of-field afforded by a good blu-ray presentation is thrilling...and just about enough. Any more depth just seems excessive to me. Every 3-d film I have seen in a theater (including the iMax one about sea life, Starchaser: The Legend of Orin, Captain Eo, and a couple of others I don't remember so well) I ended up removing the 3d glasses about 20 minutes in and watching the rest without the glasses.
It's very conflicting for me, because i feel that some of my favorite filmmakers, like Johnnie To and Jean-Pierre Melville, use depth-of-field rather purposefully, to convey meaning and pictorial dynamism--and I love that seeing their work on blu-ray or in a theater gives me the opportunity to get really deep into that level of visual filmmaking. But when I take off my 3-d glasses at some theater and watch everybody else in the theater reaching out to touch an image that isn't there, I think they're all idiots and that this 3-d is all a load of carp shoved at us just to humiliate us with our own credulity. And while I love horror films, I have never appreciated the type where people leap out from behind a bush and terrorize people--and I think that's remained the level at which people engage 3-d moviemaking. As if it will make you feel inside the world of the picture. If the shot is composed well--if the atmosphere of the film supports it--I can already be transported into any kind of narrative. I love kung-fu movies, but last night I saw Dodsworth, with Walter Huston and Mary Astor, and I was completely immersed in it from beginning to end. Neither the kung-fu nor the wealthy American industrialist engaging a more sophisticated space than he has ever trod before needs any benefit 3-d has so far offered. I have yet to see a reason 3-d is at all important.
But then, most of my film collection is made up of films with monaural soundtracks, as well. So like Domino said, this isn't precisely the target audience for modern 3-d.
It's very conflicting for me, because i feel that some of my favorite filmmakers, like Johnnie To and Jean-Pierre Melville, use depth-of-field rather purposefully, to convey meaning and pictorial dynamism--and I love that seeing their work on blu-ray or in a theater gives me the opportunity to get really deep into that level of visual filmmaking. But when I take off my 3-d glasses at some theater and watch everybody else in the theater reaching out to touch an image that isn't there, I think they're all idiots and that this 3-d is all a load of carp shoved at us just to humiliate us with our own credulity. And while I love horror films, I have never appreciated the type where people leap out from behind a bush and terrorize people--and I think that's remained the level at which people engage 3-d moviemaking. As if it will make you feel inside the world of the picture. If the shot is composed well--if the atmosphere of the film supports it--I can already be transported into any kind of narrative. I love kung-fu movies, but last night I saw Dodsworth, with Walter Huston and Mary Astor, and I was completely immersed in it from beginning to end. Neither the kung-fu nor the wealthy American industrialist engaging a more sophisticated space than he has ever trod before needs any benefit 3-d has so far offered. I have yet to see a reason 3-d is at all important.
But then, most of my film collection is made up of films with monaural soundtracks, as well. So like Domino said, this isn't precisely the target audience for modern 3-d.
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: Poll: 3-D
Really? Outside of post-coversion stuff, which often has ten or twenty minutes go by without actually using the 3d process, most of the movies I've seen that use it are completely impossible to watch without the glasses, as the image is split up and looks unbearably blurry that way.feihong wrote:To me the depth-of-field afforded by a good blu-ray presentation is thrilling...and just about enough. Any more depth just seems excessive to me. Every 3-d film I have seen in a theater (including the iMax one about sea life, Starchaser: The Legend of Orin, Captain Eo, and a couple of others I don't remember so well) I ended up removing the 3d glasses about 20 minutes in and watching the rest without the glasses.
- feihong
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm
Re: Poll: 3-D
I know, but that's the way it's always played for me. The actual 3-d with the glasses gives me such a headache that I'd rather watch the blurry, doubled image than put the glasses back on. Personal quirk, I guess? I remember watching Starchaser that way for what seemed like forever.
- cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: Poll: 3-D
I took my daughter to see Finding Nemo after I promised her I would and unfortunately the only showings were in 3D. I thought she might at least get a kick out of the 3D. The 3D actually wasn't too bad and I was impressed with the use of it. But part way through I felt the headache coming on so I had to keep taking the glasses off. I've had to do this with every 3D film I've seen. I don't understand why this is as I don't seem to have trouble "processing" it. It never doubles and I don't feel like I'm straining or working hard to watch it. I feel like I'm watching it naturally. But it just doesn't work for me.Brian C wrote:Ditto. My optometrist told me when I was a teenager that my eyes weren't quite aligned horizontally. From what I understood at the time (I don't make it to the eye doctor much), one eye is a little higher than the other. I can see fine, and in fact I still have 20/20 vision, but they have to work unusually hard, and that leads to eye strain headaches after awhile. I'm supposed to wear reading glasses to balance the workload, although I haven't had a functional pair for a few years.
Anyway, I don't know if this is why I have so much trouble with 3D, but I can't ever quite get the picture to resolve properly. I'm constantly seeing double of whatever's on screen, and it doesn't take very long for me to start feeling my eye muscles tense up. As a result, I really hate the experience of 3D, and haven't bothered since Cave of Forgotten Dreams and probably won't bother ever again. Even if I bought a 3D TV for some reason (which is plausible as prices come down and they become more or less the same as 2D TVs), I'd never in a million years actually want to use it to watch 3D content.
My daughter kept her glasses on the whole way through, which impressed me. I asked her afterwards whether she liked it and she did but then informed me she didn't want to see another one "with the glasses." When I asked her why she said her eyes hurt. Maybe she's too young but at least I know when I take her to see Monsters Inc. in December I won't have to take her to the 3D one now, which was a bit of a relief.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Poll: 3-D
The interesting thing about 3D to me is that relatively few people really seem to like it all that much. I'm not talking about just the unrepresentative sample here on this board, either - I've been working at a big multiplex the last couple months and I've seen firsthand how audiences respond to this. When we have 3D and 2D showings of the same movie, the 2D showings do at least as well in terms of attendance. For family movies, most people treat 3D like it's a concession they have to make to their kids, who mostly seem to like playing with the glasses, but whatever. And enthusiasm for non-family movies is tepid at best. A very typical response: "Oh, Dredd is only in 3D? OK, I guess."
Most telling to me, though, is that we never get complaints about 2D-only movies not being in 3D, but we get complaints about 3D movies being in 3D all the time. Seriously, when a movie is released 2D only, no one seems to care that it's not in 3D. I know that studios have been patting themselves on the back for figuring out the whole 3D surcharge thing, enabling them essentially to make more money with the same (or less) attendance, but it's just hard to see it as the wave of the future when the public response is so underwhelming.
Most telling to me, though, is that we never get complaints about 2D-only movies not being in 3D, but we get complaints about 3D movies being in 3D all the time. Seriously, when a movie is released 2D only, no one seems to care that it's not in 3D. I know that studios have been patting themselves on the back for figuring out the whole 3D surcharge thing, enabling them essentially to make more money with the same (or less) attendance, but it's just hard to see it as the wave of the future when the public response is so underwhelming.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Poll: 3-D
Our local cinema charges half as much again for 3-D films, which if you're a family of four is a big deal. I made a point of seeing Tintin and Hugo in 3-D because I was curious about how Spielberg and Scorsese would approach the medium, but I go out of my way to see kids' films in 2-D now. And I didn't think I was missing anything at all when I saw Puss in Boots, Ice Age 4 and Paranorman flat, and would have preferred to see Brave that way too - it was far too dark in 3-D.
-
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:26 pm
- Location: Somewhere in England
Re: Poll: 3-D
Earlier this year, my local cinema had emblazoned on its marquee: The Amazing Spider-Man, in Amazing 2-D.
- Roger Ryan
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Re: Poll: 3-D
I think 3-D is great fun...when presented in short bursts as with amusement park attractions (Disney's STAR TOURS is a good example). Seven or ten minutes is about enough for the novelty to remain fresh. Watching 3-D features is simply burdensome. The brain already processes a 2-D live action film as taking place in three dimensions and when an action scene is well-directed and shot, I find myself involuntarily ducking to avoid an object hurtling towards the camera. The 3-D format only emphasizes the artificiality of what I'm watching even when done well. As much as I thought that Scorsese did an admirable job with HUGO, I enjoyed watching it a second time in standard 2-D more than my initial viewing with the added dimension. The reason: I was better able to tune into the characters' interaction when their spatial relation was not accentuated by the 3-D process. The added eye strain and surcharges makes going with standard 2-D an easy choice for me.