3D Cinema

[dbuckley]

3D TV is what gets me, I DON'T want to wear glasses to watch it

Of course, some of us always wear glasses to watch the telly...

[the kid]

So do I, its more those glasses that look as ergonomic as a brick.

[Kevin Ross]

How long do you think it will be before spec savers and co start making prescription glasses that work with 3d? I think that if 3d came into the home then it would happen then it gets rid of the problem of wearing glasses over glasses

[LXbydesign]

I was dissapointed with 'Clash of the Titans' in 3D

 

We were watching it at a cinema in Kuala Lumpur last week - and it seemed the only thing that was 3D were the subtitles - unless I blinked and missed something.

 

Avatar, hower, was exceptional - and a film like this - with all the bells and whistles, proves to me that cinema will not die for many years to come. It dosent matter what whizz-bang kit you may have at home. Nothing compares to the sight and sound of being in a cinema auditoria.

[Shez]

I was dissapointed with 'Clash of the Titans' in 3D

As was I. A bit of subsequent research informed me that it wasn't actually filmed in 3D; that was all done in post... Hence the less than stellar depth. A disclaimer in the advertising would have been courteous :unsure:

[back_ache]

The best of these is IMAX 3D, which doesn't polarise, just uses LCD shutters on the active glasses.

Depends which IMAX you go to, the two in London for example use passive glasses.

 

They used to have an IMAX in central London that used active but they didn't seem to look after the glasses and it was pot luck whether you got a working pair! (I wonder why it shut!)

 

I don't know about 3D but I think digital cinema is set to become the default format, in London they now have at least one multiplex cinema that is digital only.

 

Its quick adoption in the UK now is probably partially to do with the government giving away projectors and that a 35mm feature film apparently costs 4000UKP a copy to duplicate!

 

On the downside projectionists are less that happy with what they see as short lamp life as compared with a 35mm projector

[Matthew Robinson]

:)

You know, the London Eye are claiming to be showing a film in 4D. 3D is quite old tech now!

[Andrew Edwards]

3D and indeed 4D have been round for ages. (DisneyWorld, Universal Studios, Kennedy etc.)

50s Anaglyph 3D and then again around 1996 when Terminator 3D was opened. Granted it was the most expensive movie per second at the time. To me new wave 3D looks no better. I suppose then it could be classed as a novelty but then the same year I also saw an IMAX film called L5 about a space station and there were no 3D tricks. It just looked cool.

 

Most of the recent flurry of 3D films were not even shot with any type of 3D camera system (including Alice). They have been Dimensionalised in post.

Painstaking mapping of depth elements of a 2D image with very little automation of the process. Quite impressive really. Just think about doing smoke and hair!

Clash of the Titans is a poor example of this as it was a rush job. Reviews cite hair being on the wrong plane for example.

G-Force is a good example (of the process).

 

3D used to be a gimmick and was used to virtual poke you in the eye. Remember the old anaglyph 'rides' at Alton Towers et al, duck or you might just get cut in half by a chain saw!!!

The old adage 'the best special effects are the ones you do not notice' applies. In this case Alice, G-Force etc. win hands down. Yes it is massively obvious what with having to wear some glasses AND it is in 3D but it wasn't originally.

It's all about expectations and/or not ruining the surprise.

 

In the 50s 3D 'looked rubbish', in the 90s it was too expensive. Now it is very good and reasonable to produce (or reproduce).

 

I wait with baited breath regarding glassesless 3D. I remember seeing a Sharp 3D TV in 1995 and it was indeed amazing BUT you had to be in exactly the right place for it to work; this meant that only 1 person could see the 3D hence the reason why we all do not have 3D TVs now. I assume they have overcome this for the Nintendo 3DS supposedly due this Autumn (proportedly carrying Sharp displays).

 

I expect the Cinema market will plod along nicely with 3D movies where appropriate. Probably out numbering non-3D specific eventually. Even romcoms. Personally I think the best scene for 3D in Avatar was the briefing in the mess. No crazy beasts or floating spores, just a large gathering of real people in a room with realistic depth.

 

The home market needs to move quicker however, in order for the big houses to flog us yet another copy of their classic movie but now in 3D. Hands up who has multiple copies of Ghostbusters, Jones, BTTF, Star Wars etc.?

Remember when DVD came out? Disney decided to release its back catalogue spread over 10 years or so. Drip feeding us with all their remastered classics. Before it could complete this, BluRay popped up and they suddenly had to get rid of the stock. 2for1 on Disney DVD! and now in a few short years BluRay is 2for1.

 

3D has been a long time coming, is still finding its feet and eventually will consign what we consider traditional to a niche. Rather like wet photography has now with the proliferation of digital cameras.

 

By the time 3D is the norm something else will be the next big thing. Holograph or some other yet to be conceived total immersion system. (remember this has already been tried with Virtual Reality; it was rubbish but this was only because of the graphics of the era. Maybe now....)

 

Drew.