Movies in 3D - cash cow or cool beans?

[Ronin Storm]

I was reading an article on BBC News about the different approaches to making a film 3D. James Cameron uses a 3D or stereo camera system, as seen in Avatar. Louis Leterrier sent Clash of the Titans to be post-processed from 2D into 3D; same for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.

I didn't see Avatar in 3D. Part of me is starting to wonder if I should have. I have, however, seen both Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland in 3D. The former felt fairly subtle, with some scenes making good use of 3D and some feeling fairly flat. The BBC News article notes that Clash of the Titans was rushed through conversion, though ("The film was converted in just eight weeks as opposed to the usual 12 - 15 weeks"). Alice, conversely, was so in-your-face with 3D that I found it quite disruptive for the first half of the film, with vegetation leaping out of the screen at me or simply "blocking" my view. It calmed for the second half and by the battle at the end I felt they had improved their technique and it was very watchable and rounded.

Thing is, I'm not sure that a 25% increase in the price of a ticket is actually worth the stereo vision. Perhaps Avatar would have convinced me?

Sure, I like the fact that images stand out more, or that you have a sense that if you just moved your head a bit you could look round the side of something. I dislike having things "thrown at me" out of the screen, and I find foreground obscuring infuriating and painful on my eyes (seen in Alice when they're racing along a road at one point and there's grass in the foreground getting in the way of seeing what's going on). But I'm not sure that I get into the film any more than I ever did. In any good film, I've always found it pretty easy to zone everything else out and then there's just the screen, almost as though my vision narrows 'til the cinema disappears and there's just what I'm watching. In a way, 3D gets in the way of that because I'm being asked not just to watch but to "experience" watching.

So, I'm ambivalent, tending to slightly unimpressed.

Seen any good 3D films...? By good I mean worth the extra money over a 2D version.

 

[Wol]

The only 3d parts of films I've seen at at the imax up at waterloo, so I dunno how much the funkyness was down to the size, rather than the 3dness.

They need to get glasses where you don't have to sit with your head straight though, as the ones I've seen have only been vert/horiz polarisation on them.

 

[thatbloke]

Not seen it myself but my brother recently went to see How to Train a Dragon in 3D and said it was awesome

 

[elDiablo]

I saw Up in 3D first, and thought it was meh and didn't really need the 3D. I saw Avatar in 3D and creamed my pants. Twice. I recently saw Avatar in 2D on BluRay and the was no creaming of pants.

I left the cinema of Avatar3D (just a regular Vue cinema nearby) and the first thing I thought was "I want a 3D TV now. Wait, there is nothing to watch in 3D yet... If Avatar was released on some form of 3D platform for home viewing right now, I would so totally go out and buy a 3D TV right now. Like, literally, right this second."

So yeah, some films are "OH MY GOSH WOW" with 3D, and some are pretty poor. Not seen Clash of the Titans (as it's meant to be poo) or Alice (as no one would go with me ) so I can't really comment on them. Sorry!

 

[Kasatka]

If i have learnt anything from my years of Media, it's that you take your initial shots in as high a quality as you can, and tone them down later if necessary.

Camron has the right idea.
The others are just cashing in.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Avatar 3D really was a cool experience. The film in itself was a bit on the flimsy side, a popcorn muncher with no aspirations of becoming a classic, but the 3D effects turned it into quite the sensation.
I was pleased that it was done in a reasonably subtle fashion, not every scene was throwing 3D things at you, but when it did go at full tilt you were really drawn in. There was one part where an arrow (or something) came flying out of the screen and everyone in the cinema ducked in unison, that was really cool.
A couple of things that weren't so good were the need for uncomfortable 3D glasses that didn't have big enough lenses to cover the screen when your head was slightly turned, and being able to see the edges of the screen, which really broke the immersion at some parts. You'd need the picture covering your whole perspective of vision for it to work right (is that what it's like at the iMax?).

To answer your final question, Avatar is certainly one to be seen in 3D. To answer your first question, I think 3D is really still just a gimmick at this point. I don't know if it will ever be done, but the only way I reckon 3D will become mainstream is if they can make it so without having to wear unfashionable, uncomfortable accoutrements. Maybe I could go for 3D contact lenses ...

I think it'll be interesting to see if directors can manage to make the 3D effects as big an artistic device as narrative or characterisation, but my first guess would be 'no'.

 

[Wol]

Yes, thats what its like at the IMAX (all capitals - it's not an apple product ;-) )

Emma watson in massivevision is very satisfying.... mmm

3d contact lenses...... you may joke now, but I reckon it's not going to be long until that becomes a reality.....

Definitely agree that its gimmicky at the moment, but with the increase in the number of 3d TVs coming out now, I reckon it's not going to be long until it ggets a lot more mainstream.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

3d contact lenses...... you may joke now, but I reckon it's not going to be long until that becomes a reality.....

Yeah, I started thinking about that as I was typing it out! It would be perfect - discrete, comfortable, could even be tailored to improve your vision a la normal contact lenses, and you could watch anything in 3D! I am filing a patent right now!

 

[Wol]

dunno how you'd do it though. essentially all it needs to be is a TFT LCD. Quite how you'd wire it in though ..... wouldn't want wires coming out of my eyes

Although I wear glasses normally, so turning normal glasses into the 3d LCD ones shouldn't be too tricky....

.... or at least relative to how tricky it would be for contact lenses!

 

[Ronin Storm]

3d contact lenses.

A nice idea, but I find that quite a few people are eye squeemish. That said, for them the glasses would still do fine...

 

[Wol]

without having to wear unfashionable, uncomfortable accoutrements. Maybe I could go for 3D contact lenses

I think if they just got rid of the unfashionableness and uncomfortableness. the ones ive had at the cinema are quite bulky, uncomfortable non folding things. Once it becomes more mainstream, i reckon it wont be too hard to get them down to the size and style of normal glasses, meaning you wont look as much of a spazz wearing them.

I'll second the fact that I dont quite like the idea of jabbing myself in the eye with contact lenses

 

[HotStuff]

3d films certainly have some level of uncomfortability for most people when viewing. One of the main reasons for this, is our eyes when viewing objects in real life can only focus on one object at time (or rather range of objects at a time, for example 1m to 2m or 10-15m. The further away the object, the more range for focus our eyes have). On changing the object we focus on, this causes the ciliary muscles in our eyes to make our jelly lenses either thin for objects far away (ciliary muscles relaxed) or thick for objects close (ciliary muscles tense). This is not a problem in real life as every object can be focussed on.

However 3d films can only show ONE RANGE OF FOCUS AT TIME. Why is that a problem? Well next time you watch a 3d film, try focussing on an object in the distance with close up action talking place or vice versa. You will find your eye will try to do it, ie your ciliary muscles will work very hard with your brain to focus on object. The brain is fooled into thinking it is a real 3d image it is viewing, but of course it isn't, it is merley an imitation of a 3d image with one range focus(small range of objects focussed). So with this happening continually, you can become fatigued, get a headache or feel...hmm something just isn't right here. Even if you consciously watch a 3d film and force yourself not to try and focus your eyes on apparent distant or near objects, you may find your eyes do it automatically as its such a natual response.

In watching 2d films or looking at still photos, your eyes/brain simply focus on the object the actually distance it is from your eyes and this is no discomfort with ciliray muscles/brain trying to do work it doesn't need to do.

I saw Avatar in 3d and thought it was a great film. I am not sure the 3d effect added a whole lot to it. I think it still would have been great in 2d. I thought the main character getting addicted to his version of wow was a great issue to address, not to mention the other two main ethical issues addressed in the film.

I have found that the best way to get the most from a 3d film is to try and forget it is in 3d and simply "relax and enjoy the ride". Focus on what is happening and try not to be tempted to let your eyes wonder around. The producers of 3d films understand the problems with 3d and try to take this into consideration (some better than others) when filming.

3d filming is a much cheaper operation than it was even just 5 or 6 years ago, we are likely to see more and more films certainly in the next 3 or 4 years being realeased with a 3d version. Whether the public lose it as a passing gimmick, or we get used to viewing it and appreciate it more or the film makers learn to do it better (even properly) to enhance the film viewing experience is a question that will be answered in time.

In the meantime sky are certainly jumping on the band wagon with sky sports 3d and sky movies 3d channels planned before the end of the year.

 

[VibroAxe]

I saw Avatar in 3D and creamed my pants.

Yeah, I'm very much with elD on this one. Avatar in 3d was truly stunning. I think the reason it was so stunning was that it was 100% natural 3d and not extrapolated 3d. This seems to remove the "3d for 3d sake" function and it just look awsome and stunning. I didn't find I noticed it was 3d per say, it just looked so much more lifelike in 3d than 2d. That for me is the main difference.

I've seen alot of stuff in 3d now, and yeah it varies between Awsomely real, Awsome technically funky (mainly animated stuffs) and meh

Generally though, I've been very impressed and am quite happy to pay the few quids to go see stuff in 3d if theres an options

 

[Ghostwolf67]

Yeah, I'm very much with elD on this one. Avatar in 3d was truly stunning. I think the reason it was so stunning was that it was 100% natural 3d and not extrapolated 3d. This seems to remove the "3d for 3d sake" function and it just look awsome and stunning. I didn't find I noticed it was 3d per say, it just looked so much more lifelike in 3d than 2d. That for me is the main difference.

I've seen alot of stuff in 3d now, and yeah it varies between Awsomely real, Awsome technically funky (mainly animated stuffs) and meh

Generally though, I've been very impressed and am quite happy to pay the few quids to go see stuff in 3d if theres an options

Agree Vibro, Avatar seemed to be a far more subtle 3D experience where rather than having stuff jump at you or having some parts of terrain feel out of place it merged seamlessly and flowed.

 

[Panda with issues...]

Having recently given in and seen Avatar SE in 3d at the cinema I have these comments to make:

The film was visually stunning.

The film was awful. - With a devastating array of 2d (groan) characters to choose from, a bunch of aliens which weren't very alien, human tech which was totally derivative and an awful plot which the creators of fern gully should really sue over, needless to say, I wasn't impressed. This film was essentially a tech video in my eyes.

Treated as such, I can make the following judgements:

Human actors blended with CG effects is the way forward. This worked really well in this film. I know this is commonplace, but I feel it was done exceptionally well. The Na'vi still suffered a bit from dead eye in my opinion, but less so than any other film I've seen, which I suspect is due to some level of human integration into the effects.

The 3d was easily the most subtly done out of any film I've seen. This was really THE 3d film to see as far as demonstrations go.

That said, I didn't think it necessarily added much to the film overall.

The 3d worked best when: In the jungle, with the natural stuff going on, I.e: Spores floating around, tree limbs etc. It also worked well with the video logs in the human sections and curiously with bulkhead doors with windows in so you could see the people behind. It also worked well with reflections in parts.

I felt it really didn't add anything to the rest of the human intensive sections, and actually detracted strongly from action sequences, as the background becomes far less focussed and flat looking.

From this I can conclude:

Cameron's huge budget shone through in terms of visuals. Shame he couldn't get a good film to go with it.

3d didn't really aid the film much in terms of anything other than a curiosity, which confirms my opinion from the other 3d films I've seen. Its kind of pointless to the cinema experience.

If 3d is to really become worth paying extra for, it will probably work best with pixar-type films, if they can get it as good as Avatar. Which seems unlikely, due to the vast cost currently, but in the next ten years or so will probably drop dramatically.

If this happens, I think where it will really work well is nature documentaries. I would happily pay plenty to see stuff like blue planet in 3d in the cinema.

Post production 3d sucks.

 

[BiG D]

Post production 3D looks fine, so long as the film was shot with 3D in mind and not as an afterthought.

 

[thatbloke]

well I'm off to see the new avatar tonight in 3D, which will be my first 3D movie experience, so I'll have my own opinion on this tomorrow

 

[elDiablo]

[...] avatar [...] will be my first 3D movie experience...

That's a shame...

 

[thatbloke]

That's a shame...

why for?

 

[elDiablo]

why for?

There are a lot better 3D movies out there? Well, some.