Comments on: What I Learned From a Year in 3D

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:46:57 +0000

Honestly, I couldn’t agree more with the author. I personally watched 2D movies, even when offered in 3D for the longest time. I’ve seen a few 3D movies and just saw right through their cheesey 3D gimmics. If 3D is used to set the scene and immerse the audience, it has a much more profound effect then when the movie just throws something at you.
Just watched TRON in 3D, praying it would be worth it. Now I see that it can actually bee done correctly. Hopefully directors catch on to this.

By: Philip Berne

Philip Berne — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:32:56 +0000

Really? I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised by the active shutter experiences I’ve had. Admittedly, that’s always been at trade shows, where the brightness is pumped to the maximum and the source material is carefully selected. But I’ve found a great active shutter TV looks better than a theater experience.

By: chris flory

chris flory — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:11:31 +0000

To the poster who did not enjoy Tron in 3D. Try another cinema. I travel further to one that has far better quality than my more local one. It’s amazing what difference there can be. Cineworld are always really good i find, even the none 3D movies that are ‘AD’ are incredibly sharp and I am always a bit gutted now when I see a movie on a film projector with all the lines and dots spoiling things! I personaly think Tron held back on the 3D and it worked well highlighting the difference between the ‘real’ world in 2D and the one inside the computer using 3D. the 3D glasses do make things a little darker but the picture is adjusted to compensate for this. As for fuzzyness, you really need to question the cinema. Every 3D movie i have seen has been in digital and very very sharp.

By: chris flory

chris flory — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:03:13 +0000

Some brilliant comments and I agree totally. 3D is the way that we see the worl everyday but you don’t find yourself going “woah, did you see that pigion fly over my head, it was like it jumped out at me ?!?!”. I HATE it when a scene has obviously been added just to get some reaction to an object being projected into the auidience. It’s a cheap gimick. I’m also sick of people telling me that they went to see a movie but “the 3D wasn’t very good” when talking about toy story 3 and Tron Legacy for example. Both of these movies avoided the obvious ‘pop up book’ effects and instead added real depth. I think we will get more used to 3D at the movies and eventually become immune to it, just like real life we will no longer notice it but it doesn’t mean it is not worth it. Some of my favourite 3D moments have been ‘flying’ sequences. There’s a bit in Tron where the camera swoops down between some buildings. Nothing special you might think but it’s not the first time a similar scene has actually gave me that feeling in my stomach that I’m falling. It’s simply brilliant that this is even possible without moving seats etc adding to the experience.

3D in the home is where things need to improve vastly and soon. The active shutter glasses just don’t live up to the cimema experience,,,,, yet!

By: slade256

slade256 — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:24:50 +0000

The only movie I have seen in 3D was Tron. If that is considered one of the better uses of 3D, then I will stick with 2D movies from now on. I feel like that I did not get to experience the movie. I was constantly distracted by the one or two items on screen that were in “3D” and not being able to focus on the whole screen. Also the 3D glasses do not create the best picture quality, it is about as fuzzy with the glasses on as it was when I would take them off.
I may give another 3D movie a shot in the future at another theater just in case they had something wrong. As of right now, the current 3D technology only takes away from the movie going experience in my opinion.

By: Marcus O'Cleary

Marcus O'Cleary — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:39:03 +0000

The first 3D movie I saw was Monsters vs. Aliens. I went (with my wife) specifically because I wanted to invest in watching a 3D movie and not necessarily the movie itself. From that perspective I was impressed. But I also came away with the realization that 3D is just a visual tool, just like every other tool used in film making. After the novelty has worn off, I seriously believe that some director (more likely an unknown) will come along and blow us away. We’re overdue for our next cinematic “event” anyway–James Cameron tried to give us one, but only gave us the canvas and not the painting. It’s just a matter of time before our next DaVinci shows him or herself.

By: Tony R

Tony R — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:40:01 +0000

Over the past 5 years, I have seen many articles on 3d and where it would be by now. All I can say is almost all of them got it wrong. They wrote as if it was just a known fact that nobody wanted 3d. That no one would show up to the 3d showings, and only buy the 2d ticket of the showing across the hall from the 3d showing at the multiplex. Yet I would see so many people turning down the 2d ticket for the 3d ticket. Then you get “Well these people don’t know any better.” How is that. Are these article writers saying that movie goers are all stupid? ok. My conclusion, the news article writer is out of touch with what many people like. They did not like the 3d, then talked to 3 people at work that did not like 3d. Forgot the 4 people they know that said they liked 3d, then wrote how no one wants it as if it was based on some survey done on 1,000,000 people across the country.

So my question is again, why did all those news article writers get it wrong?

By: Rob Ward

Rob Ward — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:15:32 +0000

I’m not quite sure what would worth making 3D in a romantic movie; a heist movie could be good though.