Monster Distractions in 3D

[admin]

Mitsubishi debuts a new line of 3D HDTVs. Meanwhile as theaters across North America prepare for another salvo of movies featuring video’s third dimension - studios and movie theater chains are squabbling over who pays for those plastic glasses handed out before the show. It’s part of the growing pains of the entertainment industry’s latest frontier. But there’s a serious philosophical question that just isn’t part of the dialogue on 3D cinema. Is it really even necessary?

Discuss "Monster Distractions in 3D" here. Read the article.

 

[gene]

I went to see Monsters vs Aliens in 3D wth the family this weekend. It was pretty cool but I wasn't too thrilled I had to pay a $3 upcharge for each ticket. Also my 23 mo old would NOT keep the glasses on for more than a few minutes and most of the time she preferred them upside down which of course meant for the bulk of the movie she was watching a blurred 2D image.

My 8 year old complained the glasses were too tight which was also my complaint as well. Both my daughter and I wear glasses so its quite annoying to have to put these glasses on top of them. As a result, I often see a distorted image that feels like I am going cross eyed if I look the wrong way.

I don't see 3D ever being as mainstream as color unless they can give you the 3D effects without the need for the glasses.

 

[s162216]

Supossedly, Dolby Labs new digital cinema projection system that has been avaliable for a while can do 3D images much better than the conventional way, although you still have to use the glasses, it is said to be better as you don't get a blurred 2d image if you don't wear them and they are designed to not give you a headache (like I always get when I see a normal 3d film) and the glasses are like proper platic things, not cheap card versions and are meant to be reused again and again as well as being able to produce a much better effect. (although I have never seen a 3d film like that as non of the cinemas near where I live in the UK are digital)

I don't think that 3d tv will ever catch on though as majority of programs will not need 3d effects and plus everything will have to be filmed in 3D so if any older programs are shown, there won't be anything 3d either!

I think its just another case of putting uneeded technological advances into mainstream tv viewing like with UHDTV quality tv that is meant to begin broadcasting in 2015, it will just show too much uneeded detail.

 

[MatthewB.]

I saw Monsters vs Aliens with my GF last weekend, and although I was also ticked to pay 3.00 more, it was a gift card we used to pay for everything, so I couldnt complain too much. Anyway we had no problems with the glasses (I also wear glasses and had them over my pair. The 3D was jaw dropping and very very good (best I have ever seen) my problem was the movie itself. Very boring, in fact I nodded off about 3 times throughout the movie (only waking up when my GF would nudge me because of my snoring) but when awake, I thought the 3D was outstanding. I am looking forward to seeing Pixars "Up" when it comes out in 3D.

 

[Wayde Robson]

I don't think 3D is appropriate for anything beyond kid's movies and some action stuff.

It's part of an over-all belief that Home Theater technology has a technological limit that is being reached now. It seems to me we now have the "ultimate" home theater experience available to us for reasonable cost.

I know, I know... There was a time when I thought a 37" picture tube and stereo speakers was the "ultimate" in home TV-viewing. But that's different.

I agree that ultra-high resolution technologies, like 3D is just not needed for movie viewing. Nor is 14-speaker surround sound. Call me an old curmudgeon but it's just my opinion.

Now, if we want to call it something else... like the IMAX theater experience or a roller coaster ride... this isn't really movie viewing - is it?

 

[MatthewB.]

I have to disagree with you. Granted my knowledge on 3D is lacking at best. Before seeing Monsters vs Aliens, the last semi decent 3D movie I saw was "Captain Eo" With Michael Jackson at Disneyland when I was a youngin. But feel with how far 3D has come and in the future with how far it will progress, I feel pretty soon we will have a Star Trek scenario with putting on a helmet and living a movie with our own personal holodeck. I recall playing a StarWars video game at a casino about 7 years ago that you put on a helmet and vest which had sensors to push against you when you were shot. It had 3D, surround sound and were just immersed in the Star Wars world and although the game was very short, I was amazed at how I lost contact with the outside world and actually felt I was on the Death Star shooting baddies. In 10 years this will be common and very realistic.

 

[ned]

It's true that you don't need 3D for story telling however 3D depth perception (not 2 D) is an important sensory experience. Try driving/walking with one eye!

 

[ratso]

saw "meet the robinsons" in 3D when it came out with my wife and kid and we loved it. not only the movie, which was sadly kind of ignored and really a pretty good kids movie, but also the 3D. it was really cool, worked well in the story line, and much to my surprise didn't give me a headache. i could see a lot of potential for artistic abuse here, but really no more then CGI or any other special effect.

 

[Wayde Robson]

It's true that you don't need 3D for story telling however 3D depth perception (not 2 D) is an important sensory experience. Try driving/walking with one eye!

Interesting thing is... Yes, it's an important part of sensory experiences but it already exists in movies without 3D effects.

Depth perception has been painted on flat canvas since the Renaissance artists came up with perspective. Paintings (photographs and moving pictures) have created depth perception ever since.

No, the 3D effect isn't required to see depth in film. That's why it's kind of a gimmick.

My spin here was just that 3D is not (as some in the industry want you to think) as inevitable as color in film.

Color is required to see the real color of Lauren Bacall's dress, or the shades of a sunset. B&W films where these things come up in dialogue isn't pertinent to the audience due to limitations of the technology. That's why, as compelling an experience as a black and white film can be, color was an inevitable improvement.

@MatthewB.

I see what you're saying. But you're talking about different forms of media - which I believe the 3D movie really is. 3D movies are a bit like watching a sporting event, WWE or a live play or concert at the movies instead of someplace those activities usually take place. It's not a movie - it's a different experience.

That's why it's difficult for film critics like Roger Ebert to review them as films. He has to take them on their merit as a movie only. He's only slightly more qualified to review Friday the 13th 3D as he is a Star Wars video game.

I'm not saying these other mediums are a waste of time.

But when you start putting on a helmet and experiencing holographic "stories" as if you were in the middle with full sensory input - it's not a movie.

Who knows... one day in the future people may look back on 2D movies like today look back on those little booths from 1920s Penny Arcades where you turned a handle to advance the frames of a short, silent video such as a hula girl or Babe Ruth hitting a homer.

Those weren't movies either.

 

[ned]

Interesting thing is... Yes, it's an important part of sensory experiences but it already exists in movies without 3D effects.

Depth perception has been painted on flat canvas since the Renaissance artists came up with perspective. Paintings (photographs and moving pictures) have created depth perception ever since.

No, the 3D effect isn't required to see depth in film. That's why it's kind of a gimmick.

My spin here was just that 3D is not (as some in the industry want you to think) as inevitable as color in film.

Color is required to see the real color of Lauren Bacall's dress, or the shades of a sunset. B&W films where these things come up in dialogue isn't pertinent to the audience due to limitations of the technology. That's why, as compelling an experience as a black and white film can be, color was an inevitable improvement.

Knowing and experiencing it are 2 different things. 2 D images let you know that there is depth with out the need for sensory stimulus. There is however a learning curve - which means you need to get use to it which could be spontaneous if done right especially in animation but not so with film.

Sensory stimulus is what I'm pointing out not the knowledge that a depth is present in a presentation.

Gimmick or not it does stimulate your depth perception.

 

[RavnosCC]

3D is coming whether you like it or not...

Has anyone seen Coraline in RealD?

It was NOT computer animated, it was filmed using cameras. It was the single most amazing 3D imagery I have ever seen and I don't think the same could be said for the 2D version (albeit I have not seen it in 2D). 3D should come, and it should come to all movies that the directors choose to have it in, soon. RealD is the type of technology where you wear "normal" glasses, and can literally look around at the move screen in any direction and see clear 3D images 100% of the time. My jaw dropped for the first 10 minutes of the movie, until the 3D film became normalized, now when I look at a normal film, I miss the 3rd dimension terribly.

I recently saw M vs. A in IMAX 3D, and I must say, while it was good, it was nowhere near as good as the 3D implemented in Coraline (RealD)

Does anyone have any details on the differences between the various 3D technologies that exist in theaters today?

 

[Biggiesized]

I'm not ready to make any judgments about 3D technology until I see James Cameron's Avatar this December.