3-D in the movies: Getting in too deep

[Moco Loco]

Wow, didn't know they were converting Star Wars. That's going to be a mess, most likely

[Empty Glass]

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

Wow, didn't know they were converting Star Wars. That's going to be a mess, most likely

From what I've been reading, they'll stop converting and re-releasing the movies if the conversion of The Phantom Menace bombs at the box office. Given how much that one is derided...

[mikkowilson]

At least we'll be able to see in 3D who shot first.


Harry Potter 7B is one current example of a movie that I see no reason to see in 3D. 2D will be fine.

- Mikko

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I wonder if people said the same about the first colour films

Well there will always be people complaining about change or lack of, but I guess the difference here is that there are significant tradeoffs to consider, so it isn't excactly a fair comparison.

Firstly there are the glasses, and as long as they are a mandatory part in the equation of 3D experience, it will always be a considerable downside. The related issue is the viewing angles, since in order to get the intended experience, one can't sit too far off from the center, too close to the screen or too far away. Also the glasses do distort the overall image quality in terms of colour and brightness, but that's not as significant as the aforementioned two.

[Human No More]

Viewing angles aren't an issue with polarised 3D any more than they are with 2D. They are with autostereoscopy (3DS handheld) though, and by extension any application of that to large scale displays. Glasses-free 3D already exists, just not deployed practically on a larger scale than phones or handheld devices.

[txim_asawl]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Viewing angles aren't an issue with polarised 3D any more than they are with 2D. They are with autostereoscopy (3DS handheld) though, and by extension any application of that to large scale displays. Glasses-free 3D already exists, just not deployed practically on a larger scale than phones or handheld devices.

Well. if you have US-$ 1,900.00 free to spend, you can purchase a glasses-free 3D display notebook by Toshiba:

Toshiba Qosmio® X775-3DV78 17.3" widescreen Laptop (Red) | Laptops | Computers | us.toshiba.com

Specs are as follows:

Performance
Processor*
Intel® Core™ i7-2630QM processor
Operating System*
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)*
Graphics Engine*
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 560M (3D vision)*
Graphics Memory*
1.5GB GDDR5 discrete graphics memory
Memory and Storage
Memory*
8GB DDR3 1333MHz memory
Hard Drive*
1.25TB: 500GB (7200rpm, Hybrid 4GB Serial ATA) + 750GB (5400rpm, Serial ATA)
Optical Drive*
Blu-ray Disc™ Rewriteable (RE) and DVD SuperMulti drive with Labelflash®*
Audio and Video
Display Size
17.3" widescreen
Display Type*
FHD TruBrite® TFT LED Backlit Display (3D ready, 120Hz)*
Display Resolution
16:9 aspect ratio, Supports 1080p content*, 1920x1080
3D Package
NVIDIA® 3D VISION™ Kit (glasses, USB 2.0 type A to 5-pin mini-B cable)
Note: 3D Vision IR emitter embedded in display bezel
Audio
Microphone input port with Sleep and Music, Headphone jack (stereo), Built-in microphone, harman/kardon® stereo speakers
Communication
Webcam
3D Stereo webcam and microphone
Wireless LAN*
Wi-Fi® Wireless networking (802.11b/g/n)
Bluetooth
Bluetooth® V3.0 + HS
Modem*
No Modem port
LAN
10/100/1000 Ethernet LAN
Power
AC Adapter
180W (19V x 9.5A) Auto-sensing,100-240V AC Adapter
Battery
Li-Ion (47Wh, 8-Cell)
Battery Life*
Up to 2.5 hours

Well, battery power is not high enough to watch Avatar... fail, I'm afraid

Wiggling bare toes,

~*Txim Asawl*~

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Viewing angles aren't an issue with polarised 3D any more than they are with 2D. They are with autostereoscopy (3DS handheld) though, and by extension any application of that to large scale displays.

Granted that this issue is something that my brother keeps telling me, that he didn't get the 3D thing when he was sitting too far off center. I've not seen enough 3D flicks with different enough settings to confirm this myself.

Glasses-free 3D already exists, just not deployed practically on a larger scale than phones or handheld devices.

I wonder how it would be implemented though and what technical aspects have to be taken into account and so on. I'm too lazy to go find about these myself, because I don't really care too much about the whole 3D in general, but you seem quite informed about it, so can you elaborate some of these limitations that keep it from being universally deployed?

[Thorinair]

When it comes to difference between real 3D and converted 3D, it all depends on how it is done. If they know how to successfully convert a film to 3D, it can be done pretty damn well. For instance, Thor and Alice in Wonderland were in my opinion perfectly converted, with Thor being the best converted film I've watched. But when it comes to real 3D, I would say that Avatar and Transformers 3 are definitive winners.

[Stanley_9875]

What made me laugh is I went to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and the Harry Potter commercial said, "2-D select theaters"

Not 3-D select theaters

Not IMAX select theaters

yea 2-D is on the way out

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Stanley_9875

What made me laugh is I went to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and the Harry Potter commercial said, "2-D select theaters"

Not 3-D select theaters

Not IMAX select theaters

yea 2-D is on the way out

Oh, I really, really, really hope not. Goodbye small budget and indie films, then.

[ISV Venture Star]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Oh, I really, really, really hope not. Goodbye small budget and indie films, then.

I don't think that's the case. 2D will always be an option, just like b&w or silent. The dominance of colour didn't stop Lynch from making Eraserhead or Aronofsky from making Pi.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Oh, I really, really, really hope not. Goodbye small budget and indie films, then.

I don't see the issue at all. Before long anyone will be able to record in 3D - indeed, when was the last time a small budget indie film played in a normal cinema anyway?

We will know 3D is finally considered normal when films stop making objects hover in front of the audience and just use it to give realistic depth. So far, Avatar is the only film I've seen to do the latter. As for hipsters, they just want an excuse to complain, and they're usually going to do it 'ironically' anyway (meaning they secretly like it but wouldn't admit that because they're too hipster).

[Human No More]

It works by displaying two images at once with a surface that splits the two based on the position of each eye, so if you're too far off straight ahead when looking at it, one of the two images won't be visible.

[Moco Loco]

I'm sure there will be low budget 3D in the years to come anyway. Probably not for much of a demographic though, since true indie hipsters will apparently curse 3D until the day they die. Or at least, the ones in my area say such things.

[Moco Loco]

The thing that matters is, does the audience like it? They obviously do, so I wish the independent film people would stop making a fuss. Sure, conversions are actually garbage, and sometimes film makers don't actually consider how the 3D space will be used, but all of 3D is definitely not a waste of time.