Re: Has the community here discussed the failures of the latest iteration of 3D?
DomA Send a noteboard - 21/12/2011 04:41:17 AM
What's to add, he's right.
Another major problem is that 3D is a huge setback in picture quality (which with its darkness are the two main reasons why dir. of photography and VFX artists/postprod people are prominent among the detractors of 3D in the filed). The way the technique works, there are two copies of each frame (we call them the left-right "eyes" in a single picture frame, the differences between the two pictures creates the pseudo 3d effect. Of course, the size of the full frame is exactly the same you get in traditional cinema, so 2048 pixels wide in traditional 35 mm (almost abandoned at this point) and 1920 in digital cinema, thus when you watch the 3D version, you actually watch the movie at half the horizontal definition it was shot and postproduced in: 960 pixels., another factor that increases strobbing. It's closer to the horizontal def of old standard definition TV, 720 pixels, than it is to full HD, at 1920 px or even 1280 px Hd TV. Except considering how huge the screens are compared to a TV, the picture quality is basically shit. People are lining up to go watch a movie of marginally better quality than if it had been shot in video and printed on film before HD, when they could see the movie at full resolution, twice the quality and much better contrats, in a 2D theater.
It doesn't look like it will die soon. As gimmicky and poor quality as it is, it's helping theaters to stay afloat at the moment, and studios are still investing (and asking their providers to do the same) to produce a greater percentage of 3D movies in the next years. The whole technique behind it is flawed, but there's no major change in the way 3D will be envisioned technically in sight for the near future.
Another major problem is that 3D is a huge setback in picture quality (which with its darkness are the two main reasons why dir. of photography and VFX artists/postprod people are prominent among the detractors of 3D in the filed). The way the technique works, there are two copies of each frame (we call them the left-right "eyes" in a single picture frame, the differences between the two pictures creates the pseudo 3d effect. Of course, the size of the full frame is exactly the same you get in traditional cinema, so 2048 pixels wide in traditional 35 mm (almost abandoned at this point) and 1920 in digital cinema, thus when you watch the 3D version, you actually watch the movie at half the horizontal definition it was shot and postproduced in: 960 pixels., another factor that increases strobbing. It's closer to the horizontal def of old standard definition TV, 720 pixels, than it is to full HD, at 1920 px or even 1280 px Hd TV. Except considering how huge the screens are compared to a TV, the picture quality is basically shit. People are lining up to go watch a movie of marginally better quality than if it had been shot in video and printed on film before HD, when they could see the movie at full resolution, twice the quality and much better contrats, in a 2D theater.
It doesn't look like it will die soon. As gimmicky and poor quality as it is, it's helping theaters to stay afloat at the moment, and studios are still investing (and asking their providers to do the same) to produce a greater percentage of 3D movies in the next years. The whole technique behind it is flawed, but there's no major change in the way 3D will be envisioned technically in sight for the near future.
Has the community here discussed the failures of the latest iteration of 3D?
21/12/2011 12:16:38 AM
- 1353 Views
I'm not sure if it's dead, but I wish it would die. I refuse to see any movies in "3D." *NM*
21/12/2011 12:42:31 AM
- 307 Views
Re: Has the community here discussed the failures of the latest iteration of 3D?
21/12/2011 04:41:17 AM
- 670 Views
The good news is that 3D seems to be bombing in a lot of theatres.
23/12/2011 02:15:34 AM
- 620 Views
I hate it. It gives me headaches and makes my eyes water. And adds nothing to the films.
21/12/2011 11:59:34 AM
- 840 Views
Not only does it add nothing, in many cases it detracts.
22/12/2011 03:50:04 AM
- 717 Views
Those guys who put spinning hubcaps on their car are going to come after you for that.
23/12/2011 02:12:13 AM
- 671 Views
Re: Those guys who put spinning hubcaps on their car are going to come after you for that.
29/12/2011 04:11:13 AM
- 719 Views
I like 3D just fine. Not in all movies, but in some it really adds an extra dimension (pun intended)
21/12/2011 12:34:39 PM
- 600 Views
No, it's not dead. It's not been created yet. Not real 3D, anyway. *NM*
21/12/2011 05:24:04 PM
- 318 Views
I'm gonna go with no
21/12/2011 06:40:04 PM
- 678 Views
The day they come out with Citizen Kane in 3D is the day I start firebombing theatres. *NM*
23/12/2011 02:13:14 AM
- 309 Views
I saw Immortals in 3D and I didn't wear the glasses most of the time.
23/12/2011 08:54:43 PM
- 738 Views
Saw Tintin in 3D and didn't notice any "3D effects". Reinforces my opinion they're a waste of $. *NM*
28/12/2011 05:09:32 PM
- 306 Views
Then there's either something wrong with you, or you walked into the wrong theater.
29/12/2011 08:42:01 AM
- 836 Views
I know right?
29/12/2011 12:25:59 PM
- 740 Views
Yeah. And it should look different even without the glasses. All double-image-ish and stuff.
29/12/2011 04:58:34 PM
- 596 Views