Off to see Star Wars in 2D. Is 3D an age thing? I've seen very little in 3D but never really fancied it. Feeling it might induce eye strain? Seen a little 3D TV but not convinced. Opinions? Is it a dead format again?
2D or 3D cinema
- Thread starter RobinKidderminster
- Start date
Paul.
Well-known member
I watched star wars in 2D and 3D and found 3D very distracting, it kept snapping me out of the film and back to reality. In bright scenes I could see the texture of the screen, ruining the 3D effect of depth. When the subwoofers sent ripples through the screen this also destroyed the depth and ended the suspension of disbelief.
bigboss
Moderator
I couldn't see much affect but I was in the front row, looking straight up and straining my neck. If you use calibrated settings on a 3D TV it looks much better than normal settings. I don't get eye strain on my passive Oled nor at the cinema. Active TV bad headaches I get.
We are used to 2D with photos, TV and computers. Is 3D a learned experience? Do younger folk enjoy it more? Does it actually improve the experience or detract from the storytelling and pin-sharp graphics? I know I should go and try it. I did see some footy in Currys and thought it looked more involving but the players looked like plastic models. Does the novelty wear off?
bigboss
Moderator
It depends on how 3D is implemented. Bad when gimmicky, and amazing when used properly. Mad Max and Star Wars have used 3D very effectively which adds depth.
Son_of_SJ
Well-known member
I like (active) 3D on my Panasonic 65VT65 and LG 60PZ950T plasma sets. I don't get eye strain and some kind people have said that they prefer my 3D to the (passive) 3D at the commercial cinema. I'll always, now, buy a 3D set if I can, my next television, a Sony, will also be 3D.
chrisr1718
Well-known member
I've yet to see a film that has been enhanced by the use of 3D. Film is projected on to a flat (2D) screen, so it's 2D. I've never seen anything on IMAX 3D, perhaps that may change my opinion, or maybe I'm just too old school.
Son_of_SJ
Well-known member
Avatar is hugely improved in 3D. There is quite a few films that once you see them in 3D you can see why they look either a bit odd in places or like they do in 2D. You dont realise until you see the 3D version. There are a few naff ones as well where its novelty
I would expect UHD blu ray to be more novelty than marvel at first as well by the sounds of things and also as they just upscale films to flog them to people again. The world is wiser but still just as much of a sucker
I would expect UHD blu ray to be more novelty than marvel at first as well by the sounds of things and also as they just upscale films to flog them to people again. The world is wiser but still just as much of a sucker
I heard a college professor on the raido the other day, saying our eyes only see in 2D anyway. It's our brains that translate the stereoscopic 2D images into 3D, or rather, give us depth pecreption. Therefore I think the reason some people (like me) dislike having quote unquote "3D" images thrown at them is that it confuses the grey matter. No scientific basis for this, just my thoughts.
Personally I really dislike 3D movies, at home or at the cinema. Mostly gimmicky (I was really put off by Alice in Wonderland and Gravity wasn't that much better). But then I wear spectacles and think that good quality black and white photographs (with film cameras) are frequently much better, and more revealing, than colour ones....
Personally I really dislike 3D movies, at home or at the cinema. Mostly gimmicky (I was really put off by Alice in Wonderland and Gravity wasn't that much better). But then I wear spectacles and think that good quality black and white photographs (with film cameras) are frequently much better, and more revealing, than colour ones....
Son_of_SJ said:
gravity was TERRIBLE! i bought it especially for the 3d, and it was the worst 3d film i have probably ever seen. none of it looked 3d to me. but then i do have mediocre 3d vision. even transformers 4 had 10x better 3d
Son_of_SJ
Well-known member
nugget2014 said:
People to whom I've shown Gravity 3D have been quite impressed, on both my Panasonic VT65 and LG plasmas. Also impressed by Gravity 3D have been very many reviewers, for instance Home Cinema Choice review of Gravity 3D and What Hi-Fi review of Gravity 3D, and even The Daily Telegraph newspaper - How Gravity changed my mind about 3D, but you are quite entitled to disagree.
I saw both Alice in Wonderland (one of the first new 3D movies) and Gravity (one of the latest ones) in 3D at our local multiplex, part of a huge national chain of multiplexes and in the US's fourth largest city, so I'm pretty sure their technology is kept up-to-date.
Alice in Wonderland's 3D effects were RUBBISH. Just gimmicks.
Gravity was better, but I wouldn't say it added anything to the experience.
My brain is quite good at figuring out when things are far away (they look small) and when they're close (they look big) and when they're moving towards me (they get bigger) and when they're moving away from me (they get smaller).
And I've yet to experience a 3D movie where the helicopters in Apocalype Now seem to hover overhead or the Battlestar Galactica seems to pass overhead...
Just my humble opinion of course.
Alice in Wonderland's 3D effects were RUBBISH. Just gimmicks.
Gravity was better, but I wouldn't say it added anything to the experience.
My brain is quite good at figuring out when things are far away (they look small) and when they're close (they look big) and when they're moving towards me (they get bigger) and when they're moving away from me (they get smaller).
And I've yet to experience a 3D movie where the helicopters in Apocalype Now seem to hover overhead or the Battlestar Galactica seems to pass overhead...
Just my humble opinion of course.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram