What's GB? Watched a few 3D films but they give me a headache and made my nephew throw up. Don't think I will be watching it on 3D. Plus I don't have a 3D TV.
On DS, often perceived to be the lesser of two great DW froums (the other being GB), .... On GB, usually considered to be the greater of two sites, ....
Really? People have perceptions about greater and lesser? I'd have thought it was more one of different strokes for different folks. GB is 100% Doctor Who with an intricate forum structure to cope with the myriad avenues of the entire world of Who. DS is a general entertainment site with a Doctor Who Television subforum which evolved out of the Rose and series one threads. They just have a different focus and mix of users. My lurking on GB hasn't given me a perception of "better vs lesser". Except of course that Doctor Who royalty are or have been active members of GB (doffs cap).
What's GB? Watched a few 3D films but they give me a headache and made my nephew throw up. Don't think I will be watching it on 3D. Plus I don't have a 3D TV.
Gallifrey Base. It is an extensive forum of great antiquity and many people who are or were contributors to the show and its offshoots are members. Moffat was an active member before he took over the show.
As you would expect, unlike DS it tends not to attract many casual passers by (waves to lovely DS casual passers by).
cinemas show lots of one off events, theatre, opera, ballet, and people pay to see them obviously. haha cinemas don't run themselves for free you know.
for everyone who is willing to pay, this is great thing.
for everyone else, they can still watch it on tv as they have done for the past 50 years.
cinemas show lots of one off events, theatre, opera, ballet, and people pay to see them obviously. haha cinemas don't run themselves for free you know.
for everyone who is willing to pay, this is great thing.
for everyone else, they can still watch it on tv as they have done for the past 50 years.
Oddly enough, if I want to see something in truly stunning 3D, I find the theatre, the opera or the ballet offers it as standard. And it's much better than that fake 3D rubbish the cinema seems to charge extra for. In fact, I saw a 3D Doctor Who at the Manchester Arena a couple of years ago. Those monsters really seemed to be right there, in amongst the audience.
On DS, often perceived to be the lesser of two great DW froums (the other being GB), the announcement of DW in the cinemas and also in 3d has sparked a discussion over the merits of the technology and what it means for the show. All in all a very positive and sensible discussion. On GB, usually considered to be the greater of two sites, things have descended into pessimistic nonsensical chaos about how the evil BBC want to profiteer by forcing us all to pay extortionate cinema fees to see something the Licence fee is paid for etc.
I know which site I prefer right now
Whilst 'oh no, the sky is falling!' seems to be a prevalent attitude on GB at all times, the recent reaction to the special being in 3D was hilariously over the top. The only reason I'm even a member there is because they sometimes get info about the new series first. As a place to actually discuss the future of Doctor Who it's a nightmare.
Anyway, swiftly back on topic, I'm excited for this. I need to buy a new TV soon anyway, and the thought of going to see the 50th DW special in the cinema with my mates in genuinely thrilling, 3D or no 3D.
Of all the reports of this story I've seen, not one of them have used a picture of David Tennant wearing 3D glasses from Army of Ghosts/Doomsday! Come on people! It's just too obvious!
If your tv is the passive 3d sort they will cost a quid a pair (or
Use cinema ones)...
I have a pair of cinema ones. Cost a pound when I saw a film. They now just seem to lend them out. I suspect a practice that may stop if people start buying passive tv sets at home and want to stock up on free glasses.
But my telly is active. I didn't buy it for 3d. It just happened that the telly I wanted to buy anyway had the 3D feature. which is how I expect many people have ended up with one in their house.
Luckily I have an elderly relative planning to buy a larger one where the glasses come included. They will "lend" them to me.
Oddly enough, if I want to see something in truly stunning 3D, I find the theatre, the opera or the ballet offers it as standard. And it's much better than that fake 3D rubbish the cinema seems to charge extra for. In fact, I saw a 3D Doctor Who at the Manchester Arena a couple of years ago. Those monsters really seemed to be right there, in amongst the audience.
haha
i think the cinema thing is for people who don't want to pay exorbitant theatre prices.
Hmm, dunno if it's just me, or if it's common to people of advancing years, but the 3D they have nowadays doesn't work as well as the old red/green version of my youth. Stuff going into the screen is ok, but stuff coming out just goes blurry, and if it happens too much, I get a headache.
Hmm, dunno if it's just me, or if it's common to people of advancing years, but the 3D they have nowadays doesn't work as well as the old red/green version of my youth. Stuff going into the screen is ok, but stuff coming out just goes blurry, and if it happens too much, I get a headache.
Different TVs have variable 3D quality. You also have to remember to turn the glasses on of course
I'm fifty years old and I have no problem watching 3D without getting a headache but headaches are a known issue for some.
I feel you lose a bit of brightness and vibrancy watching 3D but the effects can add something to the experience too. I haven't really decided which I prefer. It probably depends a lot on the material.
I shall no doubt record the show in 3D and 2D and watch them both
As long as they make it so no one watching on 2d is missing out then it should all be fine. Any costs of filming in 3d sound like that may be recouped from the cinema tickets. The only worry now is when I sit down to watch on my 2 dimensional set, I just hope there aren't too many wonky camera movements and stupid dead airtime devoted to watching something coming towards the camera, which 90% of viewers won't see, and will perhaps take up valuable time which could be devoted to telling a better story.
Guess we'll have to wait and see if turns out that way, or if we get a real masterpiece, which is enhanced if you happen to watch on 3d.
I don't think the cost of 3D is really a factor for the Doctor Who team. My guess is that this is a BBC initiative to make more 3D content. The investiture in the 3D cameras and gear is more likely being covered by the BBC's technology and promotional budgets rather than coming out of Doctor Who's budget.
Hmm, dunno if it's just me, or if it's common to people of advancing years, but the 3D they have nowadays doesn't work as well as the old red/green version of my youth. Stuff going into the screen is ok, but stuff coming out just goes blurry, and if it happens too much, I get a headache.
It doesn't work for me, out of the few 3D films I've seen at the cinema in recent years there was only one instant that I saw the 3D effect the rest of the time it just looked 2D to me.
The investiture in the 3D cameras and gear is more likely being covered by the BBC's technology and promotional budgets rather than coming out of Doctor Who's budget.
I expect they just hire it from a facilities company.
How many people even own a 3D TV? I think 3D's a gimmick anyway, which lessens the picture quality and distracts from the story. I wish the money and time spent on this had been used for a Part 2 or something similar
How many people even own a 3D TV? I think 3D's a gimmick anyway, which lessens the picture quality and distracts from the story. I wish the money and time spent on this had been used for a Part 2 or something similar
It's not universally true. I missed it, but Life of Pi was said to be greatly enhanced by 3D. (funnily enough I saw life of pi in trt style real life 3d a few years ago when a theatre company did it. Puppet tiger though., not a real one.)
If it helps, it seems any money needed for the 3D stuff wasn't necessarily taken out of any budget for the actual show. So 2D only wouldn't necessarily have meant more episodes etc.
I really enjoyed the Angels etc flying out at me at the Experience exhibition. so it might be fun. I think I prefer the "flying out at you" gimmicks more than the depth stuff. Scary!
Comments
Really? People have perceptions about greater and lesser? I'd have thought it was more one of different strokes for different folks. GB is 100% Doctor Who with an intricate forum structure to cope with the myriad avenues of the entire world of Who. DS is a general entertainment site with a Doctor Who Television subforum which evolved out of the Rose and series one threads. They just have a different focus and mix of users. My lurking on GB hasn't given me a perception of "better vs lesser". Except of course that Doctor Who royalty are or have been active members of GB (doffs cap).
Gallifrey Base. It is an extensive forum of great antiquity and many people who are or were contributors to the show and its offshoots are members. Moffat was an active member before he took over the show.
As you would expect, unlike DS it tends not to attract many casual passers by (waves to lovely DS casual passers by).
Unfortunately, most TV stores will push the active shutter sets with expensive glasses as they make more money.
And if you've got a family it can cost a fortune, as well as inducing headaches!!
Some passive sets come with up to seven pairs and they're only a couple of quid to buy.
Here's a demo showing the difference between the two systems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOFCRuWN5kg
basically this is just an extra 'treat' for fans who have 3d or will pay to go to the cinema.
i really cannot believe people are complaining about this and managing to turn it into a bad thing.
for everyone who is willing to pay, this is great thing.
for everyone else, they can still watch it on tv as they have done for the past 50 years.
Oddly enough, if I want to see something in truly stunning 3D, I find the theatre, the opera or the ballet offers it as standard. And it's much better than that fake 3D rubbish the cinema seems to charge extra for. In fact, I saw a 3D Doctor Who at the Manchester Arena a couple of years ago. Those monsters really seemed to be right there, in amongst the audience.
Whilst 'oh no, the sky is falling!' seems to be a prevalent attitude on GB at all times, the recent reaction to the special being in 3D was hilariously over the top. The only reason I'm even a member there is because they sometimes get info about the new series first. As a place to actually discuss the future of Doctor Who it's a nightmare.
Anyway, swiftly back on topic, I'm excited for this. I need to buy a new TV soon anyway, and the thought of going to see the 50th DW special in the cinema with my mates in genuinely thrilling, 3D or no 3D.
http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-3d-45333.htm
There you go.
Hopefully, like Mr Stink 3D it will be more depth than pop-out.
I have a pair of cinema ones. Cost a pound when I saw a film. They now just seem to lend them out. I suspect a practice that may stop if people start buying passive tv sets at home and want to stock up on free glasses.
But my telly is active. I didn't buy it for 3d. It just happened that the telly I wanted to buy anyway had the 3D feature. which is how I expect many people have ended up with one in their house.
Luckily I have an elderly relative planning to buy a larger one where the glasses come included. They will "lend" them to me.
haha
i think the cinema thing is for people who don't want to pay exorbitant theatre prices.
Different TVs have variable 3D quality. You also have to remember to turn the glasses on of course
I'm fifty years old and I have no problem watching 3D without getting a headache but headaches are a known issue for some.
I feel you lose a bit of brightness and vibrancy watching 3D but the effects can add something to the experience too. I haven't really decided which I prefer. It probably depends a lot on the material.
I shall no doubt record the show in 3D and 2D and watch them both
Guess we'll have to wait and see if turns out that way, or if we get a real masterpiece, which is enhanced if you happen to watch on 3d.
Not with passive!!
I expect they just hire it from a facilities company.
Latest Ofcom figures from Summer 2012, show 8% of UK households. The Olympics and general upgrading would have increased that figure.
It's not universally true. I missed it, but Life of Pi was said to be greatly enhanced by 3D. (funnily enough I saw life of pi in trt style real life 3d a few years ago when a theatre company did it. Puppet tiger though., not a real one.)
If it helps, it seems any money needed for the 3D stuff wasn't necessarily taken out of any budget for the actual show. So 2D only wouldn't necessarily have meant more episodes etc.
I really enjoyed the Angels etc flying out at me at the Experience exhibition. so it might be fun. I think I prefer the "flying out at you" gimmicks more than the depth stuff. Scary!
Obviously in 2D on BBC1 and BBC1 HD, but BBC HD will have closed by November because BBC2 will have replaced it.
Do I therefore see the BBC keeping BBC HD after all? If not, there is no platform for this to be shown on.
Can someone please tell me where the 3D version will be carried? Thanks.