3D Cinema and 3D glasses

[NorthernDave]

The cinema is becoming a blatant exercise in rinsing the audience.
The drinks / snacks have always been over priced but extra for 3D, extra for 3D specs (which the cinema near me cunningly offers to "recycle" as you leave - ie get them back to sell to someone else!), charging an online booking fee when you're doing all the work and saving them staffing costs, extra for DBox or IMAX, etc.
Still going to see SW tomorrow though (in 2D, of course)

 

[Dec66]

I went to the Panto at the Greenwich Theatre yesterday, which had become an annual tradition for the last seven years or so.

This year, they handed out 3D glasses. Yes, a 3D section in something which is already presented in 3D, due to it involving real people and props.

I won't go into details, as it might spoil it for those who haven't been yet and plan to.

 

[andyfraser]

Gravity with Clooney and Bullock in it is stunning in 3D, without being too obvious.

I've seen a few 3D films and Gravity is the only one I'd recommend watching in 3D. It's the only film where I felt the 3D actually added something to the film.

The film was plenty of fun but the 3D aspect is just a gimmick i could have done without... after about fifteen minutes i completely forgot i was watching a 3D movie, in much the same way one doesn't really 'think' they're watching a 2D movie.

The was my experience with Toy Story 3 in 3D.

I think thats the point of modern 3D, you forget it's 3D in the same way you don't register a theatre performance as 3D. Film-makers seem to have dropped the stuff flying out of the screen gimmicks that came with the first newer 3D films in favour of more depth to the screen, like the theatre. The films and technology has matured enough that it isn't going to go away.

In that case I don't see the point in 3D. It's far more comfortable watching a film in 2D (no glasses, no headaches or feeling sick for those who suffer from those symptoms) that I'd prefer to watch something in 2D. As I said above, the exception so far has been Gravity where I could actually see the point of the 3D.

 

[NorthernDave]

I went to the Panto at the Greenwich Theatre yesterday.

Oh no you didn't!

(Sorry, couldn't resist... )

 

[Dec66]

Oh no you didn't!

(Sorry, couldn't resist... )

Oh yes I did!!!!

I was behind yooooooou...

 

[MontyVeda]

I've seen a few 3D films and Gravity is the only one I'd recommend watching in 3D. It's the only film where I felt the 3D actually added something to the film.

The was my experience with Toy Story 3 in 3D.

In that case I don't see the point in 3D. It's far more comfortable watching a film in 2D (no glasses, no headaches or feeling sick for those who suffer from those symptoms) that I'd prefer to watch something in 2D. As I said above, the exception so far has been Gravity where I could actually see the point of the 3D.

Same here... although i understand that 3d lends itself to action/adventure and sci-fi. I can't see a Bridget Jones or a Submarine type film being given the 3d treatment as it'd be (even more) pointless.

 

[andyfraser]

Same here... although i understand that 3d lends itself to action/adventure and sci-fi. I can't see a Bridget Jones or a Submarine type film being given the 3d treatment as it'd be (even more) pointless.

To my eyes 3D works best when the camera's not close to the subjects and either moving slowly or not moving at all. I can't get on with fast paced, close up camera work in 3D as found in most action/adventure films.

 

[MontyVeda]

To my eyes 3D works best when the camera's not close to the subjects and either moving slowly or not moving at all. I can't get on with fast paced, close up camera work in 3D as found in most action/adventure films.

Those bits seemed a bit 'jerky' to me... almost as if the frame rate was one frame slower than the rate my brain can register... but maybe that's just my tiny mind trying to cope with the X, Y and Z axes, and failing

 

[andyfraser]

Those bits seemed a bit 'jerky' to me... almost as if the frame rate was one frame slower than the rate my brain can register... but maybe that's just my tiny mind trying to cope with the X, Y and Z axis, and failing

That's exactly it! I think 3D probably needs a higher frame rate. Each frame for each eye is shown three times[1][2] so up to 144 frames are being displayed per second[3]. High frame rate (HFR) has it's own set of problems though.

[1] I have heard of systems that flash each frame twice but I've only used triple flash systems.
[2] So it shows left then right then left then right then left then right for what would be a single frame in traditional 24fps 2D.
[2] The film is actually 24 fps then you have the left and right eye frames flashed 3 times = 24 x 2 x 3 = 144 fps.

 

[Profpointy]

the somewhat glossed over flaw in 3d movies is that in real life we only see things in 3d when things are closer than, say, a metre or so. So unless you're making a movie about watch repairing or whatever it's all totally contrived and a bit silly; a gimmick basically

 

[dfthe1]

They might be pushing Star Wars in 3D, but remember, they R2D2.

Couldn't resist!