Just saw my first 3D film......

Ricochet J said:
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
Click to expand...

yea a lot of the highsreet stores have a £5000 3dTV at the back for people to look at
 
Margaret said:
It's overhyped rubbish that adds little to nothing to a film.
Click to expand...

Well it adds more money to the price of your ticket :p

It's a fad, a passing phase. I agree with what you said.

Avatar in full 3D glory did look impressive, but one film out of how many that have being put out? No sorry.
 
I have only seen Avatar in 3d at Imax and I loved it amazing experience, since seen the film on Blu-Ray and I felt it wasn't as good, I enjoyed the depth 3D gave to the film, it made me ill but still glad I saw it in 3D.
 
Droolinggimp said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I thought when watching tron. There was two levels of the depth, the main focus of the scene, and the background. And it just looked like the main focus was superimposed on the background. Just looked cheap and tacky.
 
FooAtari said:
That's exactly what I thought when watching tron. There was two levels of the depth, the main focus of the scene, and the background. And it just looked like the main focus was superimposed on the background. Just looked cheap and tacky.
Click to expand...

Post-processed 3D always looks this way. Avatar looks amazing because it was shot using 3D cameras.

This is why I don't think 3D will last much longer for live action films. Many directors are reluctant to shoot films with 3D cameras because they're really bulky and quite cumbersome to use.

Similarly, many directors are starting to go against post-processed 3D because the result is horrific. Especially if they completely mess it up like Clash of the Titans.
 
Fenris said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not really the case.

The 3D version of the film has a separate 3D grade or LUT applied to it to correct the effect that 3D has on the image over that of the 2D version.
 
Woody__ said:
Post-processed 3D always looks this way. Avatar looks amazing because it was shot using 3D cameras.

This is why I don't think 3D will last much longer for live action films. Many directors are reluctant to shoot films with 3D cameras because they're really bulky and quite cumbersome to use.

Similarly, many directors are starting to go against post-processed 3D because the result is horrific. Especially if they completely mess it up like Clash of the Titans.
Click to expand...

Clash was a mess, most in the Industry totally agree with that.

However there are a number of benefits to converting in post, for one it allows you to change the convergence and play around with the fields to get the look you want. If you shoot with 3D cameras you are pretty much locked into that how it was shot.

While some Directors have been outspoken about not liking 3D, it's ultimately got nothing to do with them. The Studios are the ones calling the shots and they want the extra money that the 3D version brings, so they will for the foreseeable future continue to convert major films to 3D.

On the positive side it's creating a lot of new jobs at a time when the industry has just been hit by credit crunch cuts. How sustainable it is though is the real question.
 
Nexus said:
Clash was a mess, most in the Industry totally agree with that.

However there are a number of benefits to converting in post, for one it allows you to change the convergence and play around with the fields to get the look you want. If you shoot with 3D cameras you are pretty much locked into that how it was shot.

While some Directors have been outspoken about not liking 3D, it's ultimately got nothing to do with them. The Studios are the ones calling the shots and they want the extra money that the 3D version brings, so they will for the foreseeable future continue to convert major films to 3D.

On the positive side it's creating a lot of new jobs at a time when the industry has just been hit by credit crunch cuts. How sustainable it is though is the real question.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the benefits but it's too much risk for too little reward, in my view. But I'm bias cause I don't think 3D is a good thing cause it doesn't add enough extra to the film to satisfy the extra cash on the ticket.

I'm not entirely sure about your studio comments. Zach Snyder's up coming film was going to be post-processed in 3D but him and his lobbied the studio against it because they felt it'd ruin the film. Also, for the next Batman film the studio tried hard to get Nolan to film it in 3D but he remains unconvinced, and will be shooting it in IMAX format instead.
 
Woody__ said:
I'm aware of the benefits but it's too much risk for too little reward, in my view. But I'm bias cause I don't think 3D is a good thing cause it doesn't add enough extra to the film to satisfy the extra cash on the ticket.

I'm not entirely sure about your studio comments. Zach Snyder's up coming film was going to be post-processed in 3D but him and his lobbied the studio against it because they felt it'd ruin the film. Also, for the next Batman film the studio tried hard to get Nolan to film it in 3D but he remains unconvinced, and will be shooting it in IMAX format instead.
Click to expand...

There may be some cases, but generally the Studio is the one paying the fees, they want to make the most profit, they decide whether it's 3D or not.

On a side note, I'm not just plucking my comments out of the air. I've already been involved in the 3D conversion of a major studio film and just started work on a new one for another studio, which will be released later this year.
 
Home 3d will take off if games and porn get heavily in to it.

I thought toy story looked great because of the depths that were evident, rather than in your face popping out of the screen stuff.

3d sport looks fantastic also tbh.
 
Morba said:
Home 3d will take off if games and porn get heavily in to it.

I thought toy story looked great because of the depths that were evident, rather than in your face popping out of the screen stuff.

3d sport looks fantastic also tbh.
Click to expand...

3d porn, good lord.

Margaret, if you're talking about home 3d, I'd agree. Avatar at IMAX, however, blew my mind. Absolutely amazing. Not seen another film in 3d though.
 
Watched Avatar in 3D at the cinema and without a shadow of doubt this was by far the best visually, there was just such a depth to the film from start to finish unlike a lot of the animated films which just have the odd ooohhh and ahhh. That said I think I'll leave the 3D for the cinema :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom