Ditto, seen jackass 3D and Tron now.
Glasses annoy the hell out of me and in Tron we had a dodgy sub that kept rattling, movie ruined.
There were 1 or 2 points where something flew at the screen just to remind you were watching in 3D, it worked!
Just saw my first 3D film......
- Thread starter Pate
- Start date
Ditto, seen jackass 3D and Tron now.
Glasses annoy the hell out of me and in Tron we had a dodgy sub that kept rattling, movie ruined.
There were 1 or 2 points where something flew at the screen just to remind you were watching in 3D, it worked!
Soldato
Not much of Tron was in 3D, and it wasn't that good imo.
Avatar took things to a different level, it was the benchmark for 3D. Resident Evil is probably the only other film that comes to mind that I saw which was good in 3D.
Avatar took things to a different level, it was the benchmark for 3D. Resident Evil is probably the only other film that comes to mind that I saw which was good in 3D.
Have to agree really...
Thought Tron was shot with 3D Cameras, in fact using the same technology as Avatar.
IMO the 3D in it was up there with Avatar and much better than most of the other 3D films I've seen.
Soldato
I wish they stopped pushing it as home technology, especially without properly established standard and with ridiculously stupid tech. Let's face it, after couple of days no one is going to sit in their living room all evening long in extra pair of glasses (often on top of their proper glasses). It won't happen. And sure as hell the rest of the family won't be sitting there without glasses watching grey, blury pictures next to bunch of battery powered Ray Charleses probing the table in front of them for tea.
I really think in this day and age the companies should be made responsible for ill conceived, PR pushed, failed tech. For example, they should be forced by law to buy back all the rubbish they sold to people in race to the market before realising the product will never make it as a standard and dropping support for it. I think if companies were made to buy back all the laser discs, digital compact cassettes, HD DVDs, 3D TVs etc etc they would think twice and stop wasting everyone's time and stop pulling in all (often stupid) directions every time new technology gets introduced to consumer market.
I really think in this day and age the companies should be made responsible for ill conceived, PR pushed, failed tech. For example, they should be forced by law to buy back all the rubbish they sold to people in race to the market before realising the product will never make it as a standard and dropping support for it. I think if companies were made to buy back all the laser discs, digital compact cassettes, HD DVDs, 3D TVs etc etc they would think twice and stop wasting everyone's time and stop pulling in all (often stupid) directions every time new technology gets introduced to consumer market.
Last edited:
Not to you, but to many people it will. Porn and games push technology
I'd disagree with that, it's an old adage from the early VHS and Betamax days.
There was a lot of cries before the Bluray/HD-DVD war started that HD porn was going to win it, that simply wasn't the case though.
For one, Sony was quick to come forth in announcing they wouldn't be assisting Adult Film Producers in creating Blurays... though not banning them, just making it very difficult to get them produced. This was what Sony originally did with Betamax, they all out banned porn on the format, which is why the whole porn securing a format came about when VHS won.
This didn't happen with Bluray, it won outright.
Also Disney is one of the key contributors to the Bluray association and pushing the format... Disney won't allow their discs to be manufactured in any facility that produces adult content.
Thus porn really has nothing to do with Bluray winning, nor have I ever seen a Bluray porno anywhere.
Porn is quite cheap to make, 3D though requires the outlay on equipment and upping your resources... thus it boils down to whether it's really worth investing to shoot in 3D when a fraction of your audience is going to be able to view it in 3D, or for that matter pay to view it in 3D. I would imagine in most cases it's not worth it.
Games on the other hand, they make more money than the film industry now and really are the perfect media to actually see in Stereo. It's also got the plus that gaming is largely played solely by a single person right infront of the screen, which is ideal for the current generation of TVs that uses glasses and require you to be sat in a certain position.
I totally agree with you.
However from the manufacturers point of view, nobody wants to just get together and decide to make a standardized format together, as they are ultimately all businesses making money.
What each manufacturer hopes is that their format becomes the standard so that they can then license it to all the others. The 3D home tv market at the moment is a nightmare.
Where I'm currently working we just got in a brand new JVC which isn't on the market yet. It's expensive, but uses RealD's polarized technology, so you only need use the cheapo glasses you get at the cinema. Samsung is also going to be releasing TVs that will use the same... I think that is the sign that they are starting to move to using a standardized format, especially with active shutter glasses being so expensive.
Really though, it's 3D home tvs without glasses that we all want.
I've only watched Avatar in 3d and while the experience was awesome it hurt my wallet badly. I think I paid £12 for the privilege (having said that I've watched Avatar on DVD since then at home and the film was still very good so 3d is just a gimmick imo). I've yet to see 3d tv in a shop and I am sure I won't be getting any 3d tv for the next 5+ years.
Caporegime
Bargain surely? How much would you spend in a pub for three hours? Or any other evening out for that matter?
And for me Avatar 3D beats an evening at the pub, which can get quite repetitive.
Watched a bit of MegaMind in 3d - it was rubbish.
Not sure it was proper 3d, however, as it just reminded me of the graphics engine for Doom, where it was all 2D sprites set in a pseudo-3D environment...
Anyway, I won't be investing in 3D-ness until the auto-stereoscopic stuff becomes viable.
Not sure it was proper 3d, however, as it just reminded me of the graphics engine for Doom, where it was all 2D sprites set in a pseudo-3D environment...
Anyway, I won't be investing in 3D-ness until the auto-stereoscopic stuff becomes viable.
Soldato
Still not seen any films in 3D yet...
However, I do believe that it's too soon to release 3D TVs for the home. People have bought brand new HD TV's in the last few years and won't want to upgrade them again, plus most 3D models require glasses to watch them and the ones that don't cost a bomb.
However, I do believe that it's too soon to release 3D TVs for the home. People have bought brand new HD TV's in the last few years and won't want to upgrade them again, plus most 3D models require glasses to watch them and the ones that don't cost a bomb.
Soldato
Only portions of it, not the whole thing. My mistake.
I think it looked pretty poor though, imo.
Caporegime
That's the same thing I thought about Avatar and Tron Legacy in 3D. It's like a cardboard diorama, with all the 2D shapes set at different depths. There's no depth across individual things, so it's just flat people at different depths in the scenery.
It's not that though (well a lot anyway). Like all things new (tech, theories etc) companies are experimenting with different ways of doing things, refining them and changing them as they go. That does mean there is no proper standardisation between companies, at the moment at least, but it does mean tech is moving along faster.
Take HD-DVD and Blu Ray. Both released at the same time and both having their plus points (admittedly HD-DVD only really had "Cheap" as a positive but still...). After a while the better tech won. Not all to do with profits but to do with pushing ahead.
Well obviously the 2D parts were shot with normal cameras and the 3D parts shot with 3D cameras...
I think the mix of 2D and 3D was a really good idea, much like the Wizard of Oz, starting and ending in B&W and colour in the middle.
I remember seeing Beowolf in 3D, it was utterly fantastic. still to date the best 3D film I've ever seen. Then the second was Clash of the titans which was absolutely appauling film and 3D effects.
some films can make very good use of it, some others it's just a novelty.
some films can make very good use of it, some others it's just a novelty.
Soldato
Its a little over rated imo, the best 3D I have seen was at the imax in the Science Museum in London, watching fish swimming and being attacked by seagulls and dolphins.
Indeed. The company that did it were the only ones stupid enough to take it on with 6 weeks to complete
I'd agree with most of the sentiments so far. Avatar is the benchmark although to be honest I have only seen Tron since. That was ok, but I don't think the 3D added much really.
I think 3D will really take off when TVs are released that don't require glasses. The games industry will snap that up in an instant, then as soon as your average gamer has one, the films will follow.