Polsnulspace
Sr Member
Ive seen Up and Avatar in 3D and whilst it was a decent enough gimmick, I'd happily say goodbye to 3D forever. It was impressive....I'm just not hooked at all.
Just saw my first 3D movie...what a scam
- Thread starter Deric
- Start date
CustomCreations
Sr Member
I'll join you here, esp after my wife and her folks all thought Avatars 3d was amazing, and for me it just seemed a bit hazy and :confused.
I was quite worried that I might have problems with my eyesight .
Apparently I don't, they are fine, but I do work with things very close to me and sometimes distances become hard to 'pull' back into focus- despite what I see always being sharp- so I put it down to this.
I too have never been able to see those posters.
I was thankfully very relieved to see Avatar clips in a different cinema just recently, also using a different brand of glasses- and it was far, far better than my first go.
I'm not sure of the technology used to project the 3d image, but it might be that the cinema hadn't quite tweaked the system.
Avatar 3d was recorded with a left and a right eye lense- so it was produced with two separate film recordings. If Alice was only shot with a single lense then I would not be surprised that the 3d was pretty poor in comparison.
Darth Lars
Master Member
No, there is a significant amount of the population who have the same issues with 3D movies. I don't remember the exact figure, but I think that it was in the 20 - 30 % range or so.
blownhemi
Well-Known Member
I haven't seen it since they reopened it, but I did see it again right before they closed it. Maybe it was because it had been awhile, but the 3D was terrible and kind of out of focus. I just assumed it was because of the age of the attraction.
Ttaskmaster
Well-Known Member
OK... I'm no expert, but:
Headaches - Most of the time, this is due either to the way it was filmed in the first place, or more commonly to the crappy minimum-wage projectionist.
The two images (left eye, right eye) are projected at once onto a screen. They MUST be correctly aligned (vertically, horizontally and rotationally). If they are off by as little as 1" on the screen, then you will suffer eyestrain and headaches.
This poor approach to projecting is what sank the 80s 3-D revival.
Stupid Glasses - Until the Mk 1 Eyeball evolves, we must control what each eye independently sees in order to effect 3-D. The easiest way is with those glasses. The newer Circular Polarisation (as used in things like Real 3-D) works rather well, if everything else is done properly.
3-D is a Gimmick - Yes, but only because the audience still regards it so. You see "3-D" announced, you expect everything to jump off the screen at you... when in reality, it's a background effect like Dolby 5.1 über-über-über-fancy surround sound.
Initially, yes, you should notice it, especially as its still relatively 'new'. After a few minutes, if everything just looks 'normal' to you, then the 3-D has been done properly.
You don't notice when sound seems to come from right behind you any more... so too you will eventually regard the 3-D look to be normal.
Progress has been made since the abysmal 80s attempts and we're heading back toward properly done 3-D like the '50s used to have.
Even Avatar had some small mistakes - They need some kind of 'infinite focus', rather than trying to force the audience to focus on something. That wrecks the 3-D illusion. They also need to add depth perception to aspects of items, rather than making the whole item a specific 'depth'. This will make round items look properly round, rather than the current view where it looks like flat pieces of cardboard cut-out moving in front of one another - The items look at different 'depths', but they have no 'depth' to themselves.
Headaches - Most of the time, this is due either to the way it was filmed in the first place, or more commonly to the crappy minimum-wage projectionist.
The two images (left eye, right eye) are projected at once onto a screen. They MUST be correctly aligned (vertically, horizontally and rotationally). If they are off by as little as 1" on the screen, then you will suffer eyestrain and headaches.
This poor approach to projecting is what sank the 80s 3-D revival.
Stupid Glasses - Until the Mk 1 Eyeball evolves, we must control what each eye independently sees in order to effect 3-D. The easiest way is with those glasses. The newer Circular Polarisation (as used in things like Real 3-D) works rather well, if everything else is done properly.
3-D is a Gimmick - Yes, but only because the audience still regards it so. You see "3-D" announced, you expect everything to jump off the screen at you... when in reality, it's a background effect like Dolby 5.1 über-über-über-fancy surround sound.
Initially, yes, you should notice it, especially as its still relatively 'new'. After a few minutes, if everything just looks 'normal' to you, then the 3-D has been done properly.
You don't notice when sound seems to come from right behind you any more... so too you will eventually regard the 3-D look to be normal.
Progress has been made since the abysmal 80s attempts and we're heading back toward properly done 3-D like the '50s used to have.
Even Avatar had some small mistakes - They need some kind of 'infinite focus', rather than trying to force the audience to focus on something. That wrecks the 3-D illusion. They also need to add depth perception to aspects of items, rather than making the whole item a specific 'depth'. This will make round items look properly round, rather than the current view where it looks like flat pieces of cardboard cut-out moving in front of one another - The items look at different 'depths', but they have no 'depth' to themselves.
Ttaskmaster
Well-Known Member
Nope - You should have been looking at the part of the screen that was in focus. That way, you'd not have noticed the blurriness, where they hadn't applied the 3-D properly.
Let me guess - Something was moving in the foreground, possibly quickly?
The film-makers draw focus on one place, usually the main actors, so you look there (ie the bit that's in focus) and won't notice the bits they didn't bother treating.
Didn't work for me, either - My eyes are naturally drawn to fast movement, so I saw the blurs too. Especially those foreground leaves in the top-down shots of Jake and Neytiri in that soul tree place.
Film-makers' fault, not yours
cayman shen
Master Member
I've only seen two 3d movies of late: one at Hershey's Chocolate World, which was great. Really impressive little show, very crisp 3D. The other was the IMAX whales movie. With that one, I had some eye strain from trying to hold my focus in a particular way to prevent a ghost image. Whenever the motion was at all fast, I got a blur. A few times, I had to close one eye just to relax my vision. Both these shows were under an hour. Not sure I'm up to seeing a full film. I LOVED the 3D effect, but it was hard on the eyes in the IMAX, even if you could all but reach out and touch the image, it seemed. If I do see another one, I'll likely do it on a smaller screen.
PHArchivist
Master Member
And what's up with that? You'd think they could boost the color or something to compensate.
Ttaskmaster
Well-Known Member
You shoudn't have had to alter your focus at all.
Sounds like a projectionist fault, on that one.
Sounds like a projectionist fault, on that one.
This is somewhat related. I bought a DVD copy of Friday the 13th part three. It comes with the normal version and the 3D version which uses those red/blue glasses. I've watched 3D in the theater before with no problems. I've watched broadcast TV in 3d a few times with no problems. The 3D effect in my DVD was unwatchable. I tried the glasses on a few 3D sites on the net, and they worked fine. I decided maybe I was using an old TV and put the disc in my PC with the flatscreen but it still sucked. Did I get a bad disc or was this screwed up from the beginning on the whole production run?
Capn_Jack_Savvy
Sr Member
I too am not a big fan of 3D. I saw Up in 3D and was not impressed. I enjoyed the DVD/Blu Ray version better.
Alice In Wonderland was not bad at all. There were a few gimmicky shots but most of the 3D was depth of field. Things that were in the foreground really appeared to be right infront of you and things in the distance had a certain clarity that you cannot achieve with a normal shot unless you set up the shot carefully. This worked really well when most of the items off in the distance were CGI such as castles, houses, etc.
The 3D effect down the hole worked well but it went by too fast so you really didn't get a good feel for what was whizzing past at light speed!
3D for Underland was great since it gave you a better view of size and volume of the locations considering they were all make believe. The flyby with the Tweedles was great!
If you want TRUE 3D without any loss of light the theater will need to support two alternating cameras projecting on a single screen. This way you won't lose 50% of the light before it hits your eyes!
Alice In Wonderland was not bad at all. There were a few gimmicky shots but most of the 3D was depth of field. Things that were in the foreground really appeared to be right infront of you and things in the distance had a certain clarity that you cannot achieve with a normal shot unless you set up the shot carefully. This worked really well when most of the items off in the distance were CGI such as castles, houses, etc.
The 3D effect down the hole worked well but it went by too fast so you really didn't get a good feel for what was whizzing past at light speed!
3D for Underland was great since it gave you a better view of size and volume of the locations considering they were all make believe. The flyby with the Tweedles was great!
If you want TRUE 3D without any loss of light the theater will need to support two alternating cameras projecting on a single screen. This way you won't lose 50% of the light before it hits your eyes!
CTF
Sr Member
Capn_Jack_Savvy
Sr Member
/\ Back it up! Just saying it was total ass doesn't really tell us why you feel that way. Break it down in detail.
jlee562
Sr Member
Actually, I just saw a news report about this on the local news. Apparently there's a good segment of the population for which the 3D thing just doesn't work. It had something to do with eyes tracking at different speeds...the headache was the common symptom between the people who just won't see the 3D effect.
Ttaskmaster
Well-Known Member
Mistake number one. :lol
It was noted by industry professionals for being badly shot.
Two possibles:
Red/Blue anaglyph requires precise colouring to work properly.
Most anaglyph 3-D features need you to alter your TV's colour balance. Sometimes there's a test screen on the menu.
However, since the production itself was poorly done, I guess this is just one of those that wasn't pulled off correctly.
3-D usually has to be shot in infinite focus, otherwise the backgrounds look very wrong. However, for the foreground to be so far out of place, it sounds like another production feckup.
You get a lot of "3-D Experts" out there, who have little or no idea what they're doing. They helped kill the 80's 3-D revival and they're doing it now.
Yep. Everyone is different and there are usually small anomalies that mean our eyes focus and/or are set at slightly different distances than the 'norm'.
Nothing can be done, I'm afraid... at least not with current tech.
The industry works to a majority standard of 2 1/2", because "The mean interpupillary distance (IPD) is 63 mm (about 2.5 inches), but varies with age, race and gender".
Similar threads
