Just saw my first 3D film......
- Thread starter Pate
- Start date
Yea,its pretty awesomesauce.
Avatar was v.good visually,story wise wasnt epic mind.
Did ya get dizzy? Hehe
Normally takes a couple visits to adjust.
Not sure about home 3d but uh...i wouldnt wanna wear glasses,(over my glasses lol) at home :-\
Oh and cgi is far better than live action but guess thats obvious.
How was tron? Love the original but remakes always put me off.
*self realization* im a grumpy g*t on these forums ha!
Avatar was v.good visually,story wise wasnt epic mind.
Did ya get dizzy? Hehe
Normally takes a couple visits to adjust.
Not sure about home 3d but uh...i wouldnt wanna wear glasses,(over my glasses lol) at home :-\
Oh and cgi is far better than live action but guess thats obvious.
How was tron? Love the original but remakes always put me off.
*self realization* im a grumpy g*t on these forums ha!
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 12,954
I was given a demonstration of 3D television by some sales guy in a popular high street store. He started telling me how amazing it was and how you feel as if you're in the movie itself.
When I tried it I was underwhelmed
When I tried it I was underwhelmed
Last edited:
i also went to cinema to see avatar in 3d. amazing expierence, but movie was letdown.
i didnt get dizzy, but i kept flipping up the glasses, the screen does look fuzzy with none on.
as for home 3d, i dont think that will catch on too well imo
Ditto.
Maybe its just the uh, visual impaired that gets dizzy then?
Fine now even after a few months.
Oh ps. Hope you kept your glasses :-\ and look after them,total pain buying more and then finding your old ones lol.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 798
- Location
- Dover, Kent
3d at home would work if you had a projector setup, but for tvs... naa.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 12,540
- Location
- London
Home 3D works better as a 'depth' thing from what I've seen of it. The screens are generally too small for the 'pop out' to have the same effect as it does in the cinema (like in Avatar with the falling illuminated seed things that seemed to be raining down inside the theater) given the typical viewing distance. Things like sports seem to work better in this regard since there's a tendency with 3D films to do the 'out' thing more than the 'in'. It's probably why Avatar is still regarded as the best film for 3D given that they used it more as a window to look into rather than stuff coming out the window all the time. If you can afford a 1080p 3D projector it might be good but that's only going to be a very small % of people at the moment.
3D gaming I'd imagine would offer a better experience since the proximity to the screen means it fills your field of view more and like wearing headphones, the glasses are less of an issue since it's not as much of a social activity as watching the TV.
I'm still waiting for a better delivery system though. I think active glasses are gash, passive dim the image too much and there's little to no cross-brand compatibility. Once there's a standard delivery system that works I'd be more interested since even a subtle sense of depth like Toy Story 3 employed did look great (bar the picture quality hit taken from wearing cheap cinema specs).
3D gaming I'd imagine would offer a better experience since the proximity to the screen means it fills your field of view more and like wearing headphones, the glasses are less of an issue since it's not as much of a social activity as watching the TV.
I'm still waiting for a better delivery system though. I think active glasses are gash, passive dim the image too much and there's little to no cross-brand compatibility. Once there's a standard delivery system that works I'd be more interested since even a subtle sense of depth like Toy Story 3 employed did look great (bar the picture quality hit taken from wearing cheap cinema specs).
Projector or wallsized display is good, sub 50" TV is nothing like the experience of a wallsize or cinema display and a lot depends on the quality of the 3D in the movie too - way too many are rubbish post-processing effects and nothing like as good as a movie properly shot in 3D with thought going into each scene as to how to make it work best for 3D.
Still haven't seen anything in 3d missed all the films i wanted to see. however disagree with avatar, whatched it on blu ray. wasnt expecting much as everyone said it was all about 3d. but tge story line was really good, all of us wwho saw it in 2d say the same thing, where the people who saw it in 3d say the opposite, quite odd.
I have seen Avatar, Resident Evil: Afterlife and Tron in 3D. For me Avatar was the best all round cinema experience I have ever had and was my first 3D film in the cinema. The 3D worked for me as it was subtle rather than 'in your face', the subtitles didn't look attached the screen and the burning embers and ash (following a huge explosion) appeared to be falling from the ceiling onto the heads of all those in front of me.
Resident Evil: Afterlife made the best use of the 3D, most notably there during a scene where the protagonists are escaping through a dark underground tunnel, the depth perception was amazing. It had a few gimmicky moments but was all part and parcel of the film.
Tron in places looked the best but wasn't fully 3D not a bad thing but compared to the other two films felt lacking a wee bit. But when it was in 3D it looked just glorious.
Love 3D, it has really refreshed my cinema experiences!
Resident Evil: Afterlife made the best use of the 3D, most notably there during a scene where the protagonists are escaping through a dark underground tunnel, the depth perception was amazing. It had a few gimmicky moments but was all part and parcel of the film.
Tron in places looked the best but wasn't fully 3D not a bad thing but compared to the other two films felt lacking a wee bit. But when it was in 3D it looked just glorious.
Love 3D, it has really refreshed my cinema experiences!
Some movies it does improve. However, Toy Story 3 for example, was a film that with 3D made no difference whatsoever.
Avatar is probably the only 3D film I've seen that was worth seeing it in that format.
Alice in Wonderland 3D wasn't that special either (as in, it would be just as visually impressive in 2D for me.)
Meh, don't really understand the love for 3D myself I guess. A good film is a good film.
It certainly won't make or break your enjoyment in my eyes.
Avatar is probably the only 3D film I've seen that was worth seeing it in that format.
Alice in Wonderland 3D wasn't that special either (as in, it would be just as visually impressive in 2D for me.)
Meh, don't really understand the love for 3D myself I guess. A good film is a good film.
It certainly won't make or break your enjoyment in my eyes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 12,540
- Location
- London
The trailer for AiW made me feel sick (this was at the Avatar IMAX show I went to). Look forward to seeing these 3D films done with the newer camera, although we'll still have to wear cheapo passives to view the films on.
I thought Toy Story 3 was good because it was subtle, and it's the kind of thing where if you didn't need to use glasses and the image quality was equal between 2D and 3D, the 3D would look better since it had that sense of depth without it being like that opening shot in Avatar where you're looking down the length of the cryo bay and it feels longcat long.
I thought Toy Story 3 was good because it was subtle, and it's the kind of thing where if you didn't need to use glasses and the image quality was equal between 2D and 3D, the 3D would look better since it had that sense of depth without it being like that opening shot in Avatar where you're looking down the length of the cryo bay and it feels longcat long.
It's all right. I don't see myself as a Luddite but I find 3D very underwhelming for what it's hyped to do. While some effects are undoubtedly cool, I can live without it until the glasses are rid of and the price comes down. I see it as a nice extra, not a whole new branch of technology.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,543
- Location
- Derby
I had a few minutes spare yesterday on my way to work and I popped into a big name retailer just to browse for a little while. They had a Panasonic TV and it was showing some Avatar clips and some other random 3D demos they had a pair of glasses set up on a stand and so I took a peek.
I admit at first I was a little "oh, is this it.
" then after 10 seconds or so once my eyes adjusted (I wear glasses) I managed to see everything. I thought Wow this is great. Then as I watched more, roughly 10 minutes, I just decided in my own way it all looked a little cardboard cut out for my liking. Yeah good depth of field etc but the foreground images just looked 'flat' and superimposed 'B' Movie style. I think I will wait.
Like someone mentioned, a Projector with 3D will be the best bet for in home use.
Over all, even though I only viewed 3D demos, I would not go see a movie in the cinema.
Picture quality 10/10 (BluRay need I say more)
Effect 3/10 (Flat cardboard cut outs, no real sense of 3D on the 3D images if you follow me!!!)
I admit at first I was a little "oh, is this it.
" then after 10 seconds or so once my eyes adjusted (I wear glasses) I managed to see everything. I thought Wow this is great. Then as I watched more, roughly 10 minutes, I just decided in my own way it all looked a little cardboard cut out for my liking. Yeah good depth of field etc but the foreground images just looked 'flat' and superimposed 'B' Movie style. I think I will wait.Like someone mentioned, a Projector with 3D will be the best bet for in home use.
Over all, even though I only viewed 3D demos, I would not go see a movie in the cinema.
Picture quality 10/10 (BluRay need I say more)
Effect 3/10 (Flat cardboard cut outs, no real sense of 3D on the 3D images if you follow me!!!)
I thought Tron's 3D implementation was crap to compared to other films I have seen, like Avatar.
However I'm not sold on 3D at all. Colours look too washed out. I'd rather watch in 2D with a crystal clear picture.
3D is still a gimmick for me that I don't really see any need for personally. Doesn't add much to films for me.
However I'm not sold on 3D at all. Colours look too washed out. I'd rather watch in 2D with a crystal clear picture.
3D is still a gimmick for me that I don't really see any need for personally. Doesn't add much to films for me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,315
- Location
- Southampton
tron in 3d was pretty good, I like the 3d effect best when it subtly adds depth to the shot rather than the poke you in the eye gimmick stuff
it does add something to the experience but until someone perfects 3D without glasses its just going to stay gimmicky I think.
people keep asking me if they should get sky3d thing but I dont see the point with so little 3d content?
it does add something to the experience but until someone perfects 3D without glasses its just going to stay gimmicky I think.
people keep asking me if they should get sky3d thing but I dont see the point with so little 3d content?
Tron in 3D actually made me go cross eyed on a few occasions, I think it was partly due to how only some parts were in 3D and those parts tended to be VERY 3D.
Tron's 3D however was not a patch on Avatar, I think that's why I am reluctant to go to more 3D movies (Tron was only on in 3D at my cinema when I saw it).
Also one think that really bugs me is that you have to watch the film at a slightly darker tint because of the bloody glasses.
Tron's 3D however was not a patch on Avatar, I think that's why I am reluctant to go to more 3D movies (Tron was only on in 3D at my cinema when I saw it).
Also one think that really bugs me is that you have to watch the film at a slightly darker tint because of the bloody glasses.
You've obviously not experienced Avatar on a large IMAX (BFI) screen. The experience is breathtaking.