3d Films, are they really worth it? are they even 3d?

[tbourner]

How does this new 3D work then? The glasses aren't coloured and I assume you could watch the film without the specs and it would look normal rather than with a blue and red blur on it?

[Branners]

The problem with 3d is they have to shoot the film for a non-3D viewer too. So stuff that is designed to poke out of the screen at you will just look odd in non-3D.

 

Things like Jaws 3D had clips of the shark swimming towards you for no obvious reason. Looked fine in 3D, but less impressive for 99% of the rest of viewers.

 

I saw How to Train Your Dragon in 3D and didnt see any benefit and will not waste money on 3D again.

[Snooze]

There's three ways of doing 3D, I believe.

 

One is red/blue, which wrecks the colour.

 

One is polarised (light for each eye is polarised in different directions), which needs 2 projectors, or a special TV with a filter (and you lose half your pixel resolution).

 

One is shuttered (the glasses have shutters which black out for alternate frames), which loses half your frame rate, and needs expensive glasses with batteries.

 

Most of the new TVs use shuttering. It's the cheapest to build.

Not sure what they use at cinemas.

 

 

....and no amount of technology will stop Jaws 3 being a rubbish film!

[SupraP-Z]

I think the way this new 3d works is by projecting 2 of the same image at different positions, slightly adjacent to each other, so your seeing a blurry double picture if you will. When you put your glasses on, somehow it tricks your eyes into thinking its seeing 3d...dont know how exactly, but it goes something like that.

[Willson]

How does this new 3D work then? The glasses aren't coloured and I assume you could watch the film without the specs and it would look normal rather than with a blue and red blur on it?

 

The cinema I went to used polarised lenses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema

 

If I took off the glasses the film was vaguely watchable. It was definitely blurred and not "normal" though.

[Terminator]

A good film is a good film, 3D or not. I think there will be a plethora of mediocre films produced just because they can them make them in 3D. 3D porn however........

[SupraP-Z]

i was waiting for someone to say that

[pistonbroke]

Watched avatar in 3D, thought it was OK, though the occasional eye strain and uncomfortable glasses pissed me off.

 

Then it came out on blu ray and watched it in normal HD, I much prefer the HD version over the 3d. There seems to be so much more of the film you can actaully see. Where the depth of field is used to give the characters on screen the pop out effect in 3d, it obviously blurs the background, in the HD version, so much more detail can be seen.

 

current 3d is a fad which won't last. Sony are pushing hard with it, but at this years CES they showed some prototype TV's that can do 3d without glasses.

 

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/3DTV-autostereoscopic-CES,review-1490.html

 

Then theres the whole hologram thing from Cisco systems. If this technology becomes mainstream, you can forget TV's altogether. Forget porn in 3d, imagine hologram smut

 

http://www.eyeliner3d.com/cisco_telepresence_holographic_video_conferencing.html

[AndrewOW]

A good film is a good film, 3D or not. I think there will be a plethora of mediocre films produced just because they can them make them in 3D. 3D porn however........

 

 

Just be careful what you reach out to touch though!

[scotty71]

seen 3dtv for the first time today and with being into A/V for many years and having some nice kit I was disapointed. I would not pay for the TV and extra Sky Subscription from what I have seen. Will not have to wear glasses in a couple of years so see how this technology advances