The 3D Experiences you had!

I think people overstate or misunderstand the colour dimming in 3D.  When a movie is shot for 3D and projected properly, the colour balance on the projection is such that it's supposed to compensate for the dimming of the glasses.  The best example for this is when you use a 3D TV: as soon as you turn the 3D mode on, it cranks the backlight and alters the white balance (this is also why universal active glasses are kind of a crock, since the different manufacturers' TVs tweak the white balance differently because of their different glasses).  Yes, if you take off the glasses, the colours will be more vibrant, but that vibrancy isn't what the filmmakers intended the audience to see.

The problem is, as is pretty well known, most theatres undervolt their projector bulbs as a cost cutting measure, and my theory is that a lot of them set the 3D projectors to the same level as their 2D ones, so the dimming effect of the glasses ends up amplified.

The only 3D experience I've had that I would describe as bad was Avatar, and that was because I bought my ticket late for the midnight show and ended up in the first row. 

Tron: Legacy worked for me, but they don't seem to have pushed the depth as much as they should have, and even if they had, the art design for a lot of it didn't really lend itself to the sense of depth.  Bright Lights + black backgrounds make it hard to accurately judge placement in a 3D field (think when you check your blindspot while driving at night and you just see a bunch of headlights).

Coraline and How To Train Your Dragon are my 3D benchmarks, but animation lends itself much more readily to 3D than live action.

Except for Up, the animated 3D films I've seen have been great. Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline look glorious.

Live action, I thought Avatar looks great, but it was shot in the format. For some reason, the Harry Potter films have actually had post conversions that work. I don't know what the problem is with other films, but every single other one has a wash.

You know, I was just discussing this with my girlfriend yesterday. I feel that probably 95% of the time, live action films do not need 3D...its just distracting. But films like Avatar and Tron Legacy, and animated stuff like Pixar...they greatly benefit from the 3D. Also, conversion to 3D usually doesnt work for me. It just comes across as gimmicky.

Is it time to boycott 3d?

I was one of the lemmings that enjoyed watching Avatar in 3d. I felt like it was a premium movie experience, and I did not mind paying the extra. I saw a few more movies in 3d since then, a couple of kids movies and I think some action flick. These movies soured me on 3d overall. It adds nothing, and the annoyance of the glasses actually detracts from my experience. I have not had the headaches some complain of but I do find myself removing the glasses to 'rest' my eyes. At this point I dont care to see anything in 3d, did not even bother with the 3d in Tron, though I thought about it with that one.

I took my kids to see Thor yesterday, solid movie, the lead was good, the rest was passable.  I live in southern california in a metro area, with 3 large multiplexes around me. I had a hell of a time finding a 2d screening. It seems the large moviehouses are devoting all but one (or none) theatres to 3d showings. The 2d showing at 1pm was packed, people were standing in the aisles, I ended up in the 4th row even arriving 10 minutes early.  I have no idea how packed the other theatres were, but I doubt that people were packed like sardines in a can. The whole experience reminded me of flying coach.

I liked 3d ok when it was optional, when you could choose whether or not you wanted to pay the extra money for 3d. But now with theatres basically saying it is 3d or nothing, I am left choosing nothing. I will basically see movies 3-4 weeks after release on a 2d screen if it is available. If not, I wait 6 months for the DVD. Between that and the Nazi that tried to search my backpack at the door, it really lessens my enthusiasm for this summers crop of movies.

Regal had best be careful, this is the type of thing that can hasten a culture shift away from cinema patronage. It may be that the suits know that cinema going is dying, and are trying to shake every last nickel from their remaining customer base, but it just seems a damn shame.

I've seen Tron Legacy and Thor in 3D. The technology has come a hell of a long way since those shitty green and red glasses, but it's still a gimmick. With Tron I thought 3D did bring some interesting texture to the film (there is a scene where Jeff Bridges is walking around the balcony to his "apartment" and it really looks like a place, not a 2 dimensional picture. With Thor there were some cool effects with CGI (especially when the characters travel between dimensions).

But overall i don't see the value add to 3D. It tends to distract the eye (I'm looking at some bit of rubble flying off to the right instead of following the action, for example) and for the most part doesn't make it a premium experience, though it sure results in a premium ticket price.

My favorite 3D movie experience (and, aside from obvious dreck like Mars Needs Mom, I've seen all the recent ones) remains STEP UP 3D. It served it's purpose, it looked great, it didn't induce headaches at all. Also, it was kinda awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

Except for Up, the animated 3D films I've seen have been great. Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline look glorious.

 

Live action, I thought Avatar looks great, but it was shot in the format. For some reason, the Harry Potter films have actually had post conversions that work. I don't know what the problem is with other films, but every single other one has a wash.

I thought Up looked really nice in 3D.  Nothing popping out.  Just a lot of depth in the grander environments.

The Harry Potter post-conversions have the benefit of not being completely converted to 3D.  So, ideally they have more time to finesse the parts they actually convert instead of straining to do an entire movie.  Just a theory, of course.

I think the thing with post-conversion (and iirc Christopher Nolan said this when asked about doing Inception in 3D), is that when they take their time with it the results can be really good, but the cost of the conversion goes up significantly.  When the quickie conversions are done (which are generally what the studios spring for) you get The Last  Airbender and Clash of the Titans, but you can also get good results out of it like Harry Potter and (presumably, since it's been used as the test bed/sell reel for the process for years) Star Wars.

And I've always been a bigger fan of 3D when it is used to create depth into the screen instead of stuff coming out of it.  The only times that the out of the screen effect is convincing to me are when it's used for more particulate things (the ashes after the ur-dragon explodes in HTTYD).  When it's an object that intersects the plane of the screen my eyes tend to reject it and it hurts.  Otherwise it turns the screen into a window and I get the sense that if I could tilt my head just right I could see things around the corner, and that's the most convincing the effect ever is.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams was incredible, and had a texture and life to it that justifed 3D despite the slightly muted colours.

No other film I've seen uses 3D well in the slightest. Not Avatar, not Up, not Thor, not even Coraline (which was at least less irritating than the others)

The most amazing 3D experience I've ever had was in 2006 at the World 3D Expo in Los Angeles. I don't know if you're familiar with a guy named Peter Kuran, but he was the special-effects artist largely responsible for creating mushroom-cloud imagery in Dreamscape and The Day After. In the process of researching documentary footage while working on those films, he discovered that many A-tests had been filmed with banks of multiple, redundant cameras... and that if he combined the footage from two cameras that happened to have been installed side-by-side, he got 3D. Of those famous atom-bomb impact shots, like the imploding house and the burning trees. I saw them projected in color 35mm at the Egyptian Theatre. Stunning, horrfying, unforgettable.

My answer is in two parts:

3D at the movies

I'm aware of how disingenuous this sounds but the best 3D experience I have had, certainly since the recent boom, is Jackass 3D. I love that it was simultaneously giving Hollywood the finger and utilising the technology BETTER than anyone else. Case in point: Dun fires a projectile at the screen in super slow motion. As the camera is focused on him the projectile is out of focus. After what seems like a minute and the object is seemingly inches from your face, it is revealed to be a dildo. I almost passed out laughing.

3D Elsewhere

The Spiderman ride in Universal Studios remains the most incredible 3D experiences I've had. It's aged incredibly well considering it's older than my sister in law. When Scream charges across that tank at your it still makes me duck.

I also love the Philharmagic in The Magic Kingdom. Hot Damn Ariel looks good in 3D.

I only usually enjoy 3D when it's used as a gimmick, such as in Jackass or the flying scenes in How To Trains Your Dragon. You know, those moments that make you wanna duck or look like a tool as you grab the air. Other than that, I'm still trying to figure out what the big deal is.

Oh and gaming, I've played a couple of 3D games and as far as I'm concerned THAT'S what 3D was made for.

The Otherverse collapsing into nothingness at the climax of CORALINE is still the best use of 3D I've seen in its new iteration.

I had a many no of 3D movie experience.I just love to watch 3D movie.The best experience i had in the case of Resident Evil After Life.That 3D is amazing.After that I will give marks to Avatar.

If they really want to enhance the 3d effect they should simply add a few black bars at the top and bottom of the picture (of course requiring to shoot the movie in a higher format) and have some off the 3D effects cross these bars. That would create the illusion of 3D that really brakes the barrier of the screen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave 

If they really want to enhance the 3d effect they should simply add a few black bars at the top and bottom of the picture (of course requiring to shoot the movie in a higher format) and have some off the 3D effects cross these bars. That would create the illusion of 3D that really brakes the barrier of the screen.

But what happens once them cross those bars and approach the actual edge of the screen?  WHAT THEN!?  Hehehe

Actually, I remember the trailers for G-Force doing that.  I thought it was a pretty clever way to do it.  I've wondered if the actual movie did that too, or if it was just for the marketing.

After your post, I considered expanding your idea (the G-Force idea) into movies having a 'soft' border.  The image would actually be letterboxed on the top/bottom and the left/right for the foreground elements to pop out of (when it's appropriate).  But there would be an unseen soft border so that these elements can leave the screen gradually and fade-away instead of simply disappearing into a hard edge. 

Kinda convoluted, huh?  Hahahahha

There's a gag at the end of Monsters Vs. Aliens that uses a false screen border with characters reaching over it as well. But there are problems with drawing the audience's attention to the edge of the screen, in that one is suddenly made aware of the physical size of the image-- if a normal-sized human being, say, grabs onto the border of the screen as if it were a window ledge he suddenly becomes a colossus towering over the audience.

In my experience 3D is much more effective at creating the illusion of depth. 'Pokes', as we call them, can be distracting and exhausting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xagarath Ankor 

Cave of Forgotten Dreams was incredible, and had a texture and life to it that justifed 3D despite the slightly muted colours.

No other film I've seen uses 3D well in the slightest. Not Avatar, not Up, not Thor, not even Coraline (which was at least less irritating than the others)

Actually, this was pretty interesting. I first saw Cave at 2D theater and I could tell how it was being formatted in 3D, and yet, without the added visual dimension, it still looked visually dynamic and enthralling. When I saw it later in 3D, it looked great, but I don't think it would have been worth the price upgrade, as the first time, the visuals just popped in a way I had never seen before.

See, when we get away from FX spectaculars (in which most everything is fake anyway) to live-action 3D documentaries, I can't imagine watching them flat. That's like choosing to watch The Red Shoes in black-and-white.

My one and only 3D experience was seeing Thor.

While I thought that the scenes that had obviously had more work done on them were pretty amazing, with lots of depth, and even snowflakes that I thought were right in front of me, I thought that the scenes that didn't get as much attention were slightly fuzzy and less focused. I doubt I'll see another conversation and would rather wait to see a fully shot film in a proper theater with good bulbs.

Growing up through the 3-D era of the 80s and the current crop we now have, and watching as many as I could afford to, the best theatrical 3-D experience was Friday the 13th Part 3. The opening credits, especially, came out a bit, then extended even more, as the beat in the music switched. It was the type of 3-D where the objects felt as though they were just a few feet from your face. The 3-D employed was a new version too, with a single lens camera (sound familiar?) for the filming.

The best 3-D experience I had was Universal Studios' Terminator 2 3-D: Battle Across Time show, combining live action stage actors and 3-D film effects. Quite stunning!

Friday the 13th 3D was indeed the best-shot production of the '80s boom. It was also the most shameless in its use of gimmicky 'pokes'.

It may be confusing, though, to describe the over/under format as using a 'single lens' system. Single strip of film, yes, but a dual-lens diopter for photography and projection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

Friday the 13th 3D was indeed the best-shot production of the '80s boom. It was also the most shameless in its use of gimmicky 'pokes'.

 

It may be confusing, though, to describe the over/under format as using a 'single lens' system. Single strip of film, yes, but a dual-lens diopter for photography and projection.

Even the cast members in interviews refer to it as a single lens system, so that's a great clarification.

That's an especially cool link, seeing how misaligned the recent DVD's anaglyph version is. I actually had better success watching it while wearing two pairs of glasses at once. It's rather frustrating because, when it does work, it's about as well as can be expected for anaglyph. Unfortunately, for me, there's too much ghosting and color bleeding to labor the eyes through the entire feature for.

There are ways to grade color anaglyph so that you don't get violently conflicting reds and blues, but for some reason nobody seems to have tried it with movies.

I've only seen AVATAR in 3D (not counting something on TV when the old 3D made a brief comeback in the early 80s). It was pretty cool, but I did find the colors muted and I found it distracting. There were a lot of times I found myself looking at peripheral items (fern fronds, seeing what depth did to branches and leaves, etc.) instead of the main story. And while it was neat to have an added layer of viusal depth, I found it ultimately either distracting or unnecessary. I'm glad Nolan's steered away from 3D (so far), and unless something like AVATAR comes along the pike again (meaning: developed from the get-go specificallyfor 3D and filmed with 3D cameras and composition in mind, because I thought AVATAR was merely an OK movie in and of itself, away from the visuals), I'll be seeking out the conventional 2D versions.

Before Avatar blew it all up my recent 3D experiences included Beowulf and Coraline, and both of those worked pretty well, particularly Coraline.  The physical feel it was given due to the way it was made really lended itself well to the 3D experience.  Textures popped and it felt like you were watching a diorama at times.  Very charming. 

Then came Avatar.  I thought the 3D for Avatar was phenomenal, and I'm glad I got to experience it that way in the theater.  It's a shame though that most 3D since then has often felt a bit too 'me too' and cash grabby.  There are times when it works but largely it seems to be wasted and abused especially with post conversion stuff.  Like, I'm thrilled I did not spend the extra money to see Clash of the Titans in 3D after some of the things I heard.  But there are others where it seems like perhaps I did miss out.  I didn't get to see How to Train Your Dragon in theaters, and after finally seeing it I was kicking myself, but it seems like one where the 3D would have been worthwhile.  Animated films seem to fare better.

Other 3D flicks I've seen: Up and Tron Legacy.  Up was well done, but I was so absorbed by the movie itself that I didn't even notice it after a while, which is ok in this case.  Tron Legacy bugged the hell out of me though.  It SHOULD have been an amazing experience, and I do really enjoy the movie in a mindless way (as the blu ray has taught me), but the 3D was wasted here.  Barely noticeable, and I was looking for it, expecting eye candy and spectacle.  It was the first time I was actually left feeling let down by the 3D experience.  If it was a great movie, like Up, perhaps I wouldn't have been so bothered by it, but I doubt it.  In my brain "New Tron + 3D = No Brainer", at least it SHOULD.  Oh well.

Going forward I'll only do 3D if buzz from Chud or other places makes it sound worthwhile.  Like, I saw Thor this past friday (and had a blast with it) in 2D and I don't feel like I missed out on anything.  Another reason I'll try to stick to 2D...  The ticket prices.  When I saw Tron in 3D I paid $20 for my one ticket.  It stung a bit when I didn't feel like the movie delivered the 3D the way it should have, and it will be hard to justify paying so much for a so-so experience, and this one was on a big, real Imax screen in NYC.  That $20 ticket also seems a bit more harsh when you consider that I got the blu ray set (3D Blu Ray, 2D Blu Ray, DVD, and Digital Copy) for $24.99.  I don't even have a 3D tv, but I couldn't resist.  My wife still wanted to see the flick anyway.  you can question my taste in purchases, but it's hard to argue that that's not a good deal.

Sorry if it seems like I'm rambling...

I hope so. I'll take size and clarity over 3D every day of the week and twice on Sundays. At least until someone manages to come up with a visual vocabulary that actually uses 3D. The Hobbit movies are the only upcoming ones I intend to watch in 3D. If I'm unimpressed by them I'm writing it off completely. And even for the Hobbit I'm more excited about the 48 FPS stuff than the 3D. 

Seconding stelios' vote: I'd much rather that IMAX become the next hook Hollywood uses instead of 3D.

The problem is there aren't tons of true IMAX screens showing commercial films; I think the total number of true IMAX screens in the USA is around 50, and they're not uniformly placed around the country. There are tons of smaller, digital IMAX screens, but these are simply NOT the same as seeing something on a 90-foot tall screen, and can't offer the unique kind of viewing experience the studios are wanting to keep people going out to theaters for films.

Lie-MAX is good enough. In fact for general movie watching I'd prefer it to a full IMAX.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Lie-MAX is good enough. In fact for general movie watching I'd prefer it to a full IMAX.

It's been few years since I've seen something on one of the smaller digital IMAX screens. Is it significantly bigger/better than the largest conventional screens in a standard multiplex?

They are bigger than usual but not by much. As little as 20% sometimes. The scummy part about Lie-MAX is them charging IMAX prices for it. It still looks better than regular projections tough.

Blame whoever you want, but don't blame the customers for not understanding how it looks when its presented it properly.  If its never presented in its correct setting, what does it matter what it could look like? 

The way it actually looks is too dim in 99% of the time.

And sometimes its unbearably dark, its ridiculous.  Even in the best scenario its fairly dim.  Despite this I've had one or two cool 3d experiences.  I'm still not sold.  I'll take Imax shot footage any day over 3d.

And apparently holographic tv is being sold commercially next year.  The tech already exists and works, and it leaves behind no eye strains.  It looks very impressive.

I remember seeing Up for the first time in 3D, then seeing it again 2D, and it was like seeing two different films.  The 2D showing was so much more bright and vibrant.  The brighter image made the balloons pop off the screen more than the 3D effect did.

My best 3D experience was Avatar in IMAX, hands down.  The size of the screen really helped with the immersion, the image didn't look dark, and having the whole thing planned and shot with 3D in mind certainly helped.  That's why I won't see any post-converted 3D films.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the inevitable wave of 48-fps conversions will make everyone beg for 3D.

Nabster, you have one good point there-- how (and why) should audiences be expected to determine whether the 3D movie they're seeing is being presented properly? Well, one way is with your gut. If the movie doesn't look or feel right, leave. Talk (politely) to the manager, describe the specific issue that disturbed you, get the address of the company's comments department, maybe score a pass or two.

Regarding IMAX Experience (which is the official term for LieMAX), 3D (and soon, 48-fps) is going to remain a more popular 'premium' attraction because it doesn't require retooling an entire auditorium.

So how does a 48 fps conversion of 24 fps films work?  I've never heard about that kind of conversion.

Those LieMAX theaters ARE nice because they are more likely to hold to a certain standard of presentation, but the price hike for that is ridiculous.  It's something theaters should ideally be doing anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

So how does a 48 fps conversion of 24 fps films work?  I've never heard about that kind of conversion.

I'm hypothesizing about the eventual theatrical application, but there are HDTVs on the market now that promise it. They automatically average the frames together and it kind of sounds dreadful.

NOOOO!!!!

I hate that shit!  Cancer for my eyes!!!

All these 3D inventions for the home make me think of those special glasses device Navin invents in "The Jerk." We're all going to be crosseyed from this, you realize that, right?

I saw Beowulf in 3D at a proper IMAX theater. The glasses were heavy-duty: they had RFID chips in them so you couldn't walk out of the theater with them.

It was fucking amazing. It should be noted that I was tripping balls during this film, but I ascertained the incredible 3D experience a good 15 minutes before things got weird.

Unfortunately, that particular theater is a good hour out of the way, and every other 3D movie I've attempted to watch locally has sucked balls. Not inconsequentially, every other experience has featured crappy, toss-em when you're done lenses. Is it an active-shutter thing, I wonder?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

I'm hypothesizing about the eventual theatrical application, but there are HDTVs on the market now that promise it. They automatically average the frames together and it kind of sounds dreadful.

That's what PJ said about it:

He's talking about shooting 48 fps-native, and then downgrading to 24 for conventional cinemas. That's equivalent to exhibiting a 'flat' version of a 3D movie by only projecting one 'eye', and it's an acceptable quality:format issue. But jump ahead a year or two, after PJ has (presumably) blown everyone's mind with 48 fps and the term "48 fps" (presumably) becomes the new shorthand for deluxe entertainment, and you'll see cheap 24-to-48 conversions swamp the marketplace, just like post-converted 3D does now.

ETA: belatedly realizing I meant to describe 24-to-48 as "averaging between frames" instead of "averaging frames together"

Either way, I'm much more interested in the 48FPS part of the technique than the 3D. Mostly because I want all these weird "high framerate video looks cheap" luddites to finally shut the hell up. Whenever a conversation about video framerate happens I get analog-to-digital sound transition PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Douchechills). "Analog sounds sooooo much better." Ewww.

48fps, when done natively, looks AMAZING. What those HDTVs are purporting to do are pretty much a snake oil sale, and they do the "averaging more frames between the real frames" business that look just absolutely shitty. That's what people mean when they harp about 48fps not looking right--you're basing it on something that's being played at a frame rate it's not meant to be. The Hobbit, shot and projected at 48fps, won't give any real noticeable difference in movement, other than the 3D is going to look much smoother and brighter.

That's GOOD NEWS.  It's exactly what I wanted to hear.  

Where were you guys every time I asked whether or not 48fps would feel different or not!?!?!  Hahahah