3D in Cinema's??

[big F]

For those who wear glasses, get your self a pair of those clip on sunglasses that clip on to the frames of your glasses. Take out the sunglasses lenses, and pop in the real 3D glasses lenses, and your all set. Those clip ons only cost a couple of bucks or so. Easy.

[Einherjar]

For those who wear glasses, get your self a pair of those clip on sunglasses that clip on to the frames of your glasses. Take out the sunglasses lenses, and pop in the real 3D glasses lenses, and your all set. Those clip ons only cost a couple of bucks or so. Easy.

Some theaters give out 3D glasses when you watch those films, and they expect you to return them.

[VF-19]

I usually pop in a pair of contacts if I'm going to watch a 3D movie.

[Limbo]

Is there such a thing as eye 3D fatigue?

I don't know if is only me, but on Transformers 3 there were only a few scenes where I *really* had the 3d feeling. It was on the first Cyberton scene and the wing suites strike... but at no moment I was able to see the robots in 3d, what was a big bummer for me)

I wonder if there's anything to the fact I wear glasses with anti-glare lens, or if there is any difference on the Dolby 3D, RealD or Imax3D technologies. But at least for me It looks like after a few minutes my eyes start adjusting to "normalize" the 3d effect. Same thing with Tron... I was so disappointed that I could barely see any 3d at all on that movie.

[big F]

I think as a 20-20 vision person I think the overall 3D was not in your face although the two scenes you mention did POP the 3D, there is something in you eyes compensating the effect, your eyes can temporarily "learn" to adapt although it is actually your brain doing the compensating.

[azrael]

Thought this was a good for a laugh:

Sony: some producing poor quality 3D

And a good quote from the article:

"Only add 3D where it makes a difference to the gameplay experience. It must add something. Don't just add depth for the sake of it."

[Graham]

Is there such a thing as eye 3D fatigue?

I don't know if is only me, but on Transformers 3 there were only a few scenes where I *really* had the 3d feeling. It was on the first Cyberton scene and the wing suites strike... but at no moment I was able to see the robots in 3d, what was a big bummer for me)

I wonder if there's anything to the fact I wear glasses with anti-glare lens, or if there is any difference on the Dolby 3D, RealD or Imax3D technologies. But at least for me It looks like after a few minutes my eyes start adjusting to "normalize" the 3d effect. Same thing with Tron... I was so disappointed that I could barely see any 3d at all on that movie.

To be honest, I didn't really notice much 3D effect with Transformers 3 either. Sure there was some extra visual depth, but I didn't notice any stuff flying out of the screen. Not that I care, as I hate 3D in cinemas and wish it would hurry up and die.

Graham

[big F]

To be honest, I didn't really notice much 3D effect with Transformers 3 either. Sure there was some extra visual depth, but I didn't notice any stuff flying out of the screen. Not that I care, as I hate 3D in cinemas and wish it would hurry up and die.

Graham

I don't think that it will die I just think that everyone will eventually "see" it as an field depth enhancement rather than massively over hyped selling point like it is now. and just produce films in the time honoured fashion with enhancements for 3D depth, and not worry about all this Stuff flying out of the screen at you fad like there is at the moment, cartoons are the exception though IMO.

[azrael]

This should add some fuel to the fire:

Who Could Have Guessed: 3D Hurts Your Eyes (TechCrunch.com)

[Penguin]

Closing line from the article:

The only problem is that technology tends to far outpace research, and until we get a better handle on its effects, we’re more or less walking blindly into a 3D world.

And here I thought the world was in 3D already.

[David Hingtgen]

The end credits in Capt America struck me as "nigh-3D" (and I was watching the 2D version, of course). Very interesting art style/effect they do there. Shifting layers/camera panning? Way better than "real" 3D IMHO.

[miriya]

I just got back from watching the last Harry Potter movie in 3D and the theater I went to had it looking like poo. It was out of focus the whole time and the picture quality was horrible. I don't know if it was just that their machine was not calibrated or if they were lazy about focusing but it looked much worse than 2D. Also the effect has this strip on the bottom of the screen that does not match up. Really disappointed.

EDIT: I do love 3D in general and have seen it look really great! My dad just got a 3D laptop and also has this cool 5x7 3D picture viewer that does not even require glasses!

Edited July 26, 2011 by miriya

[Dynaman]

I just got back from watching the last Harry Potter movie in 3D and the theater I went to had it looking like poo. It was out of focus the whole time and the picture quality was horrible. I don't know if it was just that their machine was not calibrated or if they were lazy about focusing but it looked much worse than 2D. Also the effect has this strip on the bottom of the screen that does not match up. Really disappointed.

As much as I personally HATE 3d, that problem does sound like the machine was not properly calibrated.

[David Hingtgen]

I've noticed that every 3D-capable screen in town, is slightly blurry when showing 2D. Most obvious when watching the credits. (plus, I never see any sort of focus adjustment, ever, any more---it used to usually happen either when the commercials started, or the opening credits)

[sketchley]

That probably started when they fired all the projectionists and replaced them with minimum wage workers who also have to run the ticket office and concession stand.

[eugimon]

I've noticed that every 3D-capable screen in town, is slightly blurry when showing 2D. Most obvious when watching the credits. (plus, I never see any sort of focus adjustment, ever, any more---it used to usually happen either when the commercials started, or the opening credits)

they're supposed to reconfigure the projector when switching back to 2D. If you're getting a blurry image it's because they're not doing that.

[big F]

they're supposed to reconfigure the projector when switching back to 2D. If you're getting a blurry image it's because they're not doing that.

If its anything like the alignment process I used to have to do with our multi projectors onto one massive screen set-ups where I use to work, then I can say it is far from the minimum wages multitasking cinema worker area of expertise.

Even with all the training and helpful gizmos to hand it still took me and my fellow engineers a far bit of practice to get it right quickly.

Four projectors with overlap onto one screen with no seam lines or visible colour differences would still take us an hour or so to get bang on. Especially when the client asks you to move it to the other end of their conference centre half way through set up.

[taksraven]

Nice little article about 3D not being as successful as expected. Duh.

[azrael]

Maybe Cameron should do a non-Avatar 3D flick just to demonstrate "This is how you frakin' use 3D, ya dumbasses".

[sketchley]

The article's main point, and probably not surprisingly, echoed by posters in MW, is that 3D works best in movies that deliberately visually manipulate the audience. Scary movies, with things leaping out from around corners (Final Destination 5 being a good example) are where it works.

I agree with that. It worked 50+ years ago in those movies. It worked 30+ years ago in those movies. Why shouldn't it work for like movies now? Just keep it limited to those kinds of movies - as 3D adds nothing. Absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G for me (especially 'cause I don't see those kinds of movies )