Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I only enjoy 3-D movies when they are CG films which can be done RIGHT as every pixel can be controlled to give the full effect. Filming live action with 3 cameras just gives you a few "layers" making a crappy pseudo-3D effect.
Given the choice, I'll almost always pick 2-D over 3-D even for CG films, though. Those glasses are a pain and it's just not worth the extra cost.
Your first paragraph shows your bias (which is fine, whatever) but it is entirely wrong. I say that as someone who has worked with 3D photography for more years than most posters here have been alive, and as someone who has written major articles on the subject.
First, to get live action 3-D, you do not use "3 cameras." If we had three eyes, then that might be correct. Two synched cameras are used. One takes the image that the left eye would see, one takes the image for the right eye.
Second, in CG films most pixels are interpolated. The smooth skin you see on characters and objects is a give-away that a thin datastream is being used.
Third, the "layering" effect you misunderstand applies both to CG and live action. If you want to start to get technical, most people get eyestrain when there is significant divergence of images - the paddleball scene in the classic "House of Wax" is an example. Eyes are lazy and muscle strain can create headaches. For various reasons, that means that the majority of 3D photography and movies (both CG and live action) actually have only about twenty distinguishable layers of depth.
If the two cameras or CG points of view are set at the normal 64 mm interocular, you cannot "see" 3D more than 50' into a scene, and anything beyond 30' starts to look flat. In real life, we move our heads and use other cues to find depth beyond that.
What photographers and cinematographers do to compensate is to vary the interocular distance between cameras, forcing the stereo effect to coincide with the scene being photographed. Cameras can be only a couple millimeters apart in close-ups of tiny objects, and many yards apart in some landscape images.
3D in the movies suffers from a couple of major flaws - first, it requires a different style of cinematography than has been commonly used. Cinematographers have resisted this and audiences are generally clueless. Second - 3D in a movie theatre has very few seats that are correctly aligned for a proper effect. The aftermarket of home viewing, the forcing of theatre owners to digital projection, and the chance to increase pricing are the primary driving forces of this push. 3D won't likely go away this time, especailly once sports and news are broadcast in 3D regularly.
The problem with mainstream film has always been to get away from the novelty effects and get into serious storytelling. In its current state, the analogy to 3D would be Gutenberg coming out with bibles and books that wallowed in different typefaces and ink colors rather than focusing on the subject of the book.
I don't remember the last time I saw a 3D movie. I've always thought they were kinda "faddish" and never had much of an interest in them. I much prefer a regular 2D movie.
the "layering" effect you misunderstand applies both to CG and live action. If you want to start to get technical, most people get eyestrain when there is significant divergence of images - the paddleball scene in the classic "House of Wax" is an example. Eyes are lazy and muscle strain can create headaches. For various reasons, that means that the majority of 3D photography and movies (both CG and live action) actually have only about twenty distinguishable layers of depth.
3D in a movie theatre has very few seats that are correctly aligned for a proper effect.
We chose our usual "good" seats for IMAX when we saw Avatar 3-D at IMAX. IMAX alone isn't the "aha" experience for me it is for some people. The 3D IMAX seemed not properly aligned for me and left me feeling "oogy" in my head, tummy, and mood - ended up closing my eyes during the movie for a while. The best way I can describe the parts that did "work" is to say the images had a sort of "flat, or inverted, depth" to them. Maybe that ties in with what you're describing. No more 3D movies for me.
Eff 3-D movies! I hate that EVERYTHING is coming out in 3-D but thankfully (at least for now) there's always a print or two on 35mm so I can watch it.
...and yes, I'm biased. I have no depth perception so I can't EVER see 3-D. Not even in normal everyday life. I'm bummed everytime something that looks great comes out and I know I can't even watch it. Sigh.
It's dying because the majority of 3D movies suck. Instead of focusing on actual character development, storyline, creativity and other things that actually matters. Most of their time is put into special effects. Seriously, Step up in 3D????? FAIL.
I laughed my head off the first time I saw that trailer. I guess dancing in the rain is more exciting in 3D because water drops come flying out at you.
It really is amazing that they keep trying to bring 3D back and it fades out as a fad each time. Now, of course, they are trying it with TVs. I will say that I am excited for Piranha 3D. Mainly to see how bad it is.
We chose our usual "good" seats for IMAX when we saw Avatar 3-D at IMAX. IMAX alone isn't the "aha" experience for me it is for some people. The 3D IMAX seemed not properly aligned for me and left me feeling "oogy" in my head, tummy, and mood - ended up closing my eyes during the movie for a while. The best way I can describe the parts that did "work" is to say the images had a sort of "flat, or inverted, depth" to them. Maybe that ties in with what you're describing. No more 3D movies for me.
You are describing a VERY poor presentation. If it had an inverted depth, the system was set so your right eye was seeing what the left eye should, and visa versa. Do everyone a favor and report the location, so others can avoid it.
The made for IMAX 3D presentations often had the shooting lenses close together, with the idea that it would minimize eyestrain. What it did instead was make the people in the films look like midgets or big puppets.
While I love 3D and make 3D images all the time, I can't be bothered with going to see the tripe that is being released as 3D movies.
FORTUNE -- Back in the day, the knock on Hollywood was that it produced too many two-dimensional characters. Now moviegoers are beginning to grumble about paying up to see them in the third dimension as well.
We already tried that fad back in the 80's, and it didn't last. So, I imagine the current incarnation of 3D will go away soon too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hate that EVERYTHING is coming out in 3-D but thankfully (at least for now) there's always a print or two on 35mm so I can watch it.
