Why does 3D look worse than 2D?

Associate
Joined
22 Oct 2012
Posts
120
Just saw Jurassic World at the cinema in 3D with the 3D glasses. Looked like crap. The picture quality was blurry and the framerate was juddery. I wasn't particularly amazed by the 3D effect. It added nothing to the film. For starters most scenes did not look 3D, they looked 2D.

For the "3D" parts, it doesn't really look 3D. I just looks like part of the image is in the foreground while the other parts are in the background. Didn't really add to my enjoyment of the film. In future I'll be watching in 2D only.
 
3d is a gimmick. It seems to be sticking around in the cinemas for some reason but nobody is buying 3d on disc, nobody's watching 3d on their home TVs.

Cinemas must have spent too much on the technology to ditch it straight away.
 
There are a few movies that have been produced from the ground up with 3D in mind - properly shot for 3D, set design, positions, camera angles, etc. all done to maximise the effect and they are pretty good. (They usually have longer continuous takes which work far far better for 3D but are more complex and costly to produce so a lot of movies avoid them).

For most its a throw away mostly automated process late in the production and just looks rubbish IMO and I'd rather watch in 2D.
 
So films shot in Native 3D look good do they - do all scenes look 3D? Do they still have judder and what is the picture quality like?

Will Terminator Genisys be in native 3D?
 

Here's some info from 2012

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/116504-3d-tv-viewing-update-but-still-small

It shows incredibly slow growth.

Fast forward to April of this year:

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/sky-closes-3d-channel/5087076.article

Sky closes 3D channel
28 April, 2015

Sky is closing its 3D linear channel and making all the programmed available to view on-demand.

The broadcaster has made the decision to shift its slate of 3D films and TV shows on the Sky On Demand platform after the Sky 3D channel struggled to find viewers.

In a blog on the Sky website, brand director Luke Bradley-Jones said increasing numbers of subscribers viewed content on-demand.

“As more and more of our customers choose to watch TV when it suits them, we’re making some changes to how customers can watch Sky 3D,” he said. “The changes to 3D are all part of making our on demand offering a fantastic destination for customers.”

The move will take place in June.

Sky launched the channel on EPG slot 217 in April 2010 as part of its top-tier package but moved it into a basic-tier package in 2013.

Sky 3D channel director John Cassy left the company in 2014 and his responsibilities have been divided between existing sport and entertainment teams.

It is the latest blow for the format; Disney previously shut its ESPN 3D sport network and the BBC pulled the plug on its 3D pilot in 2013.

3d in the home is dead.
 
3d is a gimmick. It seems to be sticking around in the cinemas for some reason but nobody is buying 3d on disc, nobody's watching 3d on their home TVs.

Cinemas must have spent too much on the technology to ditch it straight away.

I was really looking forward to watching 3D on my new TV as I've never had it before. But I cant. It just gives me eyeache and I cant concentrate on the film.

3D can work. It's just not ready yet. One day, when we have no glasses, no flicker, high resolution and no headaches, it will catch on. Until then, just a gimmick.
 
3d in the home is dead.

Though you said nobody watches it, in the home is dead? :p

3D Blu-ray market shares of the most popular releases of 2014 (Overall disc sales, including DVD)

Guardians of the Galaxy 33%
Thor: The Dark World 25%
Captain America: Winter Soldier (week 2) 24%*
mavity 14%
X-Men: Days of Future Past 13%
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 13%
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 13%
Edge of Tomorrow 11%
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug 11%
Pompeii 9%
Gozilla 9%
Transformers: Age of Extinction 7%
300: Rise of an Empire: 9%
Hercules 6%
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2 6%
47 Ronin
Lego Movie 5%
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 5%
Rio 2 5%
How to Train Your Dragon 2 4%
Mr. Peabody & Sherman 3%
*Captain America: Winter Soldier's week 1 data was not available. It was trending around 16% in later weeks, suggesting week 1 share may have been higher than week 2.

Source: Nielsen Videoscan First Alert

and last weeks
 
Last edited:
It depends on the movie you watch at how good a 3D experience you get.

Regardless of what you might think of Dredd as a movie, the use of 3D, slow motion and the soundtrack give one of the best 3D experiences i've ever had.

I've really gone off 3D in general, had to watch Jurassic World in 3D as 2D was sold out, didn't mind it but it added nothing to the movie.
 
I was struck by the fakeness of the 3D in Jurassic World. It really did look like 2D layers in front of each other much of the time. And yet other 3D films look better.
I guess the director was more concerned with the quantity (of things jumping out of the screen, flying about) and not the quality.
 
It's how it's done. A lot of movies aren't shot with dual cameras to get a proper stereoscopic 3D image.

This is why you often find that animated movies look better in 3D. They have lots of control over camera positioning, which means they can make them look great in 3D

Post production 3D conversion tends to result in the 2D cut out layered effect that people have mentioned in this thread, which gives 3D movies a bad name and reputation, because there's loads of examples of how now to do it.
 
Jurassic World was shot on 35mm film so there's your mistake. As stated it would have been post-converted which is notoriously terrible. People should avoid that with a barge pole.

I hate 3D with a vengeance. I'll put up with some animations that have been produced that way but otherwise hell no.
 
Though you said nobody watches it, in the home is dead? :p

and last weeks

Looking at Guardians of the Galaxy, American Amazon has a blu ray edition for $27 that includes the 3d version, the 2d version and a digital version. They offer no 2d bluray only option. In the UK Amazon there is a 2d blu ray version and no 3d version at all for sale.

Sales of 3d versions of a blu ray are fairly meaningless when often you can only buy a version of the film which bundles the 3d version even if you won't watch it.

Ultimately the almost universal comments I see on reddit, other american forums, english forums is this, 3d occasionally looks good, is more often than not a hassle and almost no one bothers with it at home.

When people choose to now and then go to the cinema, they are also choosing to sit still for a couple of hours in one seat and all watch something that can't be paused. You're locked in so putting on glasses doesn't really detract from anything. At home, watching tv with friends of family much more regularly no one makes that same commitment. Maybe you're talking with friends, playing with your cat, reading a book or looking at a phone. Someone cooking in the kitchen but also listening to the tv and keeping an eye on a game. It's just not convenient to wear 3d glasses for casual viewing which is why almost everyone in every one of these threads says they don't watch 3d at home even if they are able to.

I have 3d films due to buying blu rays that include it, I've watched ONE when I first got a 3d screen... I disliked it, haven't tried any since. I feel like the gain of 3d is so minor it simply doesn't outweigh the inconvenience.

Because of the way content is sold there will be 3d film sales, it doesn't mean people are watching films in 3d often or indicate growth in usage of 3d content at home.

3d now seems to be rather like the Valve Orange box, you already owned HL1, 2, episode 1, but rather than pay £20 for episode 2, you saw £25 for the orange box with all the parts together as better value. Ultimately on 8/10 sales they just made £5 more than they otherwise could, most people just had duplicate copies of games. 3d the same on those American versions of GotG, rather than a $20 2d blu ray, sell a $30 version of the film only but with more 'value' by having a digital and 3d copy of the film. It's still only one film and most people will watch the 2d blu ray but you still got an extra $10 out of those guys anyway.


EDIT:- looking at a price history thing the 3d/2d/digital pack on Amazon us started at $30, dropped to $25 a few days after it was available(before xmas) then went back to $30. The 2d only film started at $20, went up to $25 after a few days, then went back to $20.

Ultimately they use pricing to push sales towards the higher pack, get a crapload of early orders then move then $5 apart again to generate more 'value' for the version that includes the 3d and digital version. Honestly the majority of people buying 3d versions are just in case or value buyers. If those versions came with only the 3d version their sales would be utterly horrific.
 
Last edited:
It ALWAYS affects the image quality in some way, be it less bright, less vibrant colour, or both, thus I never ever watch 3D unless I absolutely have to. It's a dumb fad and I wish it'd just go away. The way James Cameron champions it just annoys me. Avatar was a sub par film with a horribly cliched story, and the 3D wave it brought with it has forced virtually all movies to tack it on as if that's going to affect the storytelling process in any way whatsoever.
 
Regardless of what you might think of Dredd as a movie, the use of 3D, slow motion and the soundtrack give one of the best 3D experiences i've ever had.

All kinds of this. Dredd is incredible, and I'm certain it wouldn't have been as good in 2D.
 
One thing I'll say is for 3D to "Work" you have to be sat in the right position relative to the screen.

If you're in front of your TV at home, slap bang in the middle, perfect elevation it can look really good. If you're off centre then you can get a ghosting effect, horrible blurryness and 3D which doesn't quite look right.

Not sure if that's what you're referring to, but I notice it all the time if I'm not sat in the centre of a cinema screen, does my head in.
 
Back
Top Bottom