3D movies: does it still suck?

[Jayjay]

I'm thinking of going to watch the Avengers 2 this weekend. It seems that the local theater here is really pushing the 3D version which I find a bit baffling because I thought 3D was a fad and any sensible person would prefer 2D. The last 3D movies I saw were the two hobbits, which are not a good indicator of overall quality of 3D since they were done with the 48 frame per second technology, and before that Avatar. Which was a long time ago.

Has 3D progressed since then? My main disappointment was that the glasses made everything look a bit dark and colorless. And I presume that the "regular" 3D looks shit compared to Hobbit movies... or does it? Maybe technology has improved in the last few years.

What are your thoughts on it, is 3D in movies better now than it was five years ago? Should I give it another shot?

 

[Underseer]

The main issue with 3D movies is how the 3D is handled.

Avengers, like most "3D" movies are shot in 2D, then they use computers to separate it out into 3D. The process is better than you would expect, but essentially it's an image broken up into a series of 2D images sliding past each other in 3D.

The next step up is a movie that is actually shot in 3D with a 3D camera, but this is technically difficult and few moviemakers can handle it. The best examples of this (if you're looking for quality 3D) are Tron: Legacy and James Cameron's Avatar. Most other major releases are shot in 2D and upconverted.

CGI movies produce the best quality 3D images. After all, it's a simple matter of rendering each scene twice to produce separate images for both virtual "cameras."

 

[Underseer]

Uh, forgot to answer the question.

I saw Avengers 2 in 3D in a theater (non-IMAX) and enjoyed it, but I'm not super picky about 3D quality in the theater. For viewing 3D at home, I get more picky and will not waste my money on up-converted fake 3D disks.

 

[Jayjay]

Thanks for the opinion. After some digging, it turns out the movies I've seen so far used active glasses, which block about 75% of the light coming in, whereas passive glasses only block about 50%. The theater in this town uses passive technology, which should be about twice as bright as my previous experiences, but with slightly more blurring due to the different technology. I think I'll check it out just to see how it looks. Interestingly, some directors like Christopher Nolan are against 3D precisely because of the darkening effect of polarizing 3D glasses.

As for Avengers, it's mostly CGI anyway so I'd assume all the action sequences are true 3D and not post-processed...

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm thinking of going to watch the Avengers 2 this weekend. It seems that the local theater here is really pushing the 3D version which I find a bit baffling because I thought 3D was a fad and any sensible person would prefer 2D. The last 3D movies I saw were the two hobbits, which are not a good indicator of overall quality of 3D since they were done with the 48 frame per second technology, and before that Avatar. Which was a long time ago.

Has 3D progressed since then? My main disappointment was that the glasses made everything look a bit dark and colorless. And I presume that the "regular" 3D looks shit compared to Hobbit movies... or does it? Maybe technology has improved in the last few years.

What are your thoughts on it, is 3D in movies better now than it was five years ago? Should I give it another shot?

The 3d has to be the point of the film for it to work. It can´t only be a gimmic. IMHO, only two films have used it well Dial M for Murder and Avatar.

Shakespeare´s test is applicable. If the film works without 3d the 3d has to go.

The problem with 3d isn´t the technology. The problem with 3d is that it is hard to make it work for the story.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm thinking of going to watch the Avengers 2 this weekend. It seems that the local theater here is really pushing the 3D version which I find a bit baffling because I thought 3D was a fad and any sensible person would prefer 2D. The last 3D movies I saw were the two hobbits, which are not a good indicator of overall quality of 3D since they were done with the 48 frame per second technology, and before that Avatar. Which was a long time ago.

Has 3D progressed since then? My main disappointment was that the glasses made everything look a bit dark and colorless. And I presume that the "regular" 3D looks shit compared to Hobbit movies... or does it? Maybe technology has improved in the last few years.

What are your thoughts on it, is 3D in movies better now than it was five years ago? Should I give it another shot?

The 3d has to be the point of the film for it to work. It can´t only be a gimmic. IMHO, only two films have used it well Dial M for Murder and Avatar.

Shakespeare´s test is applicable. If the film works without 3d the 3d has to go.

The problem with 3d isn´t the technology. The problem with 3d is that it is hard to make it work for the story.

Why would 3D be any different than, say, color film? Should all movies that don't need color be made in black and white?

In modern blockbusters the story is almost secondary to the action, which in principle should be better in 3D, and how would a good story become any worse in 3D?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The 3d has to be the point of the film for it to work. It can´t only be a gimmic. IMHO, only two films have used it well Dial M for Murder and Avatar.

Shakespeare´s test is applicable. If the film works without 3d the 3d has to go.

The problem with 3d isn´t the technology. The problem with 3d is that it is hard to make it work for the story.

Why would 3D be any different than, say, color film? Should all movies that don't need color be made in black and white?

We see the world in colour. Unless there´s a point of removing the colour, as in the Elephant Man, or the Night of the Living Dead we should stick to colour... if possible. Of course... there used to be a technological limitation preventing colour back in the day. But the shift to colour was... of course... completely natural. We don´t see the world in 3D. We see the world as a flat image projected around us. The third dimension is only apparent when we are tracking movement towards us or away from us. Watching a movie is like looking at the world through a window. Strictly speaking, we really need an IMAX theatre for 3D to work well.

In modern blockbusters the story is almost secondary to the action, which in principle should be better in 3D, and how would a good story become any worse in 3D?

He he... well... modern blockbusters don´t aim for artistic greatness. Rather the opposite. Blockbusters are notorious for adding more than is necessary, creating pointless confusion. That is why their stories and dialogue are often incoherent. So the fact that they often add 3D no matter if it adds anything is not an argument. They most often just play out as a list of events divorced from any story or story arc. I often find blockbusters boring for that reason. I just don´t care about the characters. It´s like porn when they talk. Nobody cares about the dialogue in porn. I don´t in blockbusters either. That´s what I liked about Avatar. The dialogue was preposterous. The story was mind-numbingly stupid. But with a wink to the audience. They let the audience know that they were in on it. The film makers also thought the story was dumb. That made it work. That film was only about 3D.

 

[Underseer]

Uh, what?

We see the world in stereoscopic 3D. That's why we have 2 eyes. Really, you should have noticed by now.

Movies in stereoscopic 3D simulate the way we see the world, each eye gets a slightly different flat image, and your brain stitches them together into 3D.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Uh, what?

We see the world in stereoscopic 3D. That's why we have 2 eyes. Really, you should have noticed by now.

Movies in stereoscopic 3D simulate the way we see the world, each eye gets a slightly different flat image, and your brain stitches them together into 3D.

We shift focus around all the time. At any one given instance we see a flat image. The fact that we have the machinery for stereoscopic vision doesn´t mean that that is the way the brain interprets images. We really only use our stereoscopic capability to track movement towards or away from us. Unless we´re doing that the brain shuts this part off. So it´s most often pretty pointless for a filmmaker to add 3D. Like I said... a film maker needs to be really clever in how they use 3D. Or it´s just wasted money. Like it so often is. 3D films so far come out in both 2D and 3D versions. Which is most often/always the best of them? And why? If not used well 3D is simply confusing. It´s adding irrelevant information to the screen. It´s like having a camera zoomed out more than necessary for a shot.

I recommend reading up on Gestalt Psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology

It was part of my computer degree. The reason being is that we want to send as little information from the processor to the screen as possible. It saves on processor power. So we need to know how the brain processes images. That´s the only reason I know this stuff. I did really well on that exam

 

[Juma]

Uh, what?

We see the world in stereoscopic 3D. That's why we have 2 eyes. Really, you should have noticed by now.

Movies in stereoscopic 3D simulate the way we see the world, each eye gets a slightly different flat image, and your brain stitches them together into 3D.

We shift focus around all the time. At any one given instance we see a flat image. The fact that we have the machinery for stereoscopic vision doesn´t mean that that is the way the brain interprets images. We really only use our stereoscopic capability to track movement towards or away from us. Unless we´re doing that the brain shuts this part off. So it´s most often pretty pointless for a filmmaker to add 3D. Like I said... a film maker needs to be really clever in how they use 3D. Or it´s just wasted money. Like it so often is. 3D films so far come out in both 2D and 3D versions. Which is most often/always the best of them? And why? If not used well 3D is simply confusing. It´s adding irrelevant information to the screen. It´s like having a camera zoomed out more than necessary for a shot.

I recommend reading up on Gestalt Psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology

It was part of my computer degree. The reason being is that we want to send as little information from the processor to the screen as possible. It saves on processor power. So we need to know how the brain processes images. That´s the only reason I know this stuff. I did really well on that exam

The best use of 3D in film is depth discrimination. Not movements in depth. 2d has the problem of almost no depth discrimination. The "stage" is immensly bigger in 3d.

 

[Underseer]

We shift focus around all the time. At any one given instance we see a flat image. The fact that we have the machinery for stereoscopic vision doesn´t mean that that is the way the brain interprets images. We really only use our stereoscopic capability to track movement towards or away from us. Unless we´re doing that the brain shuts this part off. So it´s most often pretty pointless for a filmmaker to add 3D. Like I said... a film maker needs to be really clever in how they use 3D. Or it´s just wasted money. Like it so often is. 3D films so far come out in both 2D and 3D versions. Which is most often/always the best of them? And why? If not used well 3D is simply confusing. It´s adding irrelevant information to the screen. It´s like having a camera zoomed out more than necessary for a shot.

I recommend reading up on Gestalt Psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology

It was part of my computer degree. The reason being is that we want to send as little information from the processor to the screen as possible. It saves on processor power. So we need to know how the brain processes images. That´s the only reason I know this stuff. I did really well on that exam

The best use of 3D in film is depth discrimination. Not movements in depth. 2d has the problem of almost no depth discrimination. The "stage" is immensly bigger in 3d.

Hey, I mostly like 3D for flying scenes! Whooosh!

In fairness, it makes a big difference if the director and photographer are thinking about 3D while making the movie. Whatever else its flaws, Avatar is simply brilliant as a 3D experience.

 

[Bomb#20]

The 3d has to be the point of the film for it to work. It can´t only be a gimmic. IMHO, only two films have used it well Dial M for Murder and Avatar.

Shakespeare´s test is applicable. If the film works without 3d the 3d has to go.

The problem with 3d isn´t the technology. The problem with 3d is that it is hard to make it work for the story.

In general I agree. But as to the particular... Best 3-D movie ever: Gravity.

 

[jab]

The movie sucks, and mediocre 3D/ CGI, is only part of it, but a significant part.

 

[Draconis]

Seen 3D movies twice - Clash of theTitans 2010 and Star Wars Phantom menace.

On CotT it reminded me of those mini cardboard puppet theatres with the characters made of paper on sticks, with layers of paper representing curtains and backdrop. For Star Wars I - it was better, but the movie was still pretty poor.

Never bother with it now.

 

[Underseer]

Seen 3D movies twice - Clash of theTitans 2010 and Star Wars Phantom menace.

On CotT it reminded me of those mini cardboard puppet theatres with the characters made of paper on sticks, with layers of paper representing curtains and backdrop. For Star Wars I - it was better, but the movie was still pretty poor.

Never bother with it now.

What you noticed is the inherent inferiority of using post-processing techniques for converting a 2D film into 3D using computers. (To be fair, modern post processing techniques are less bad than it was.)

If the film is properly shot in 3D in the first place using 3D cameras, or CGI rendered for stereoscopic 3D, then the result is properly 3D.