Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Should cinemas be banned from showing 3D only versions of a film?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-04-2013, 10:42
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 21,207
edited - nothing to see.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-04-2013, 11:55
Moony
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,712
I don't mind 3D if its done properly - but I have seen a few 3D films that did work and so i'm not willing to take the risk on many films these days - especially if I know they aren't true 3D movies and are 2D to 3D conversions instead (like the Avengers).
Moony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 19:09
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,728
My post in which I stated that I think 3D film screenings are too expensive, and that I'd rather watch films via other means (eg On DVD/Blu-ray):
I agree as well...I would rather WAIT FOR THE BLU-RAY TO COME OUT and buy it LEGALLY or rent off LOVEfilm or watch it via Lovefilm instant LEGALLY.

I did watch Dredd in 3D when a mate said it was good with the drug effect but it didn't grab me.

If Star Trek is just in 3D around me I'll travel to see it but as I'm in Cheshire with Manchester close by I should be able to see a 2D version somewhere.

NOTE TO MODS: I don;t watch films illegally...
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2013, 01:41
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 44,164
Just booked my ticket for the first night of the Star Trek release and thankfully my nearest Vue is showing it in 2D as well. I can't stand 3D either.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2013, 18:05
Paace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,548
I also hate 3D . Saw a film on demo in John Lewis and found it disturbing and not the way us humans are meant to view things.

Question: What makes a film 3D? Is it a special camera ?
If it's filmed in 3D can it be successfully converted to 2D?
Paace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 08:28
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,473
Question: What makes a film 3D? Is it a special camera ?
If it's filmed in 3D can it be successfully converted to 2D?
It can be a special camera (technically two cameras - one for each eye) or it can be converted in post-production.

Yes, they just take one image of the two filmed...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:34
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 7,475
I also hate 3D . Saw a film on demo in John Lewis and found it disturbing and not the way us humans are meant to view things.

Question: What makes a film 3D? Is it a special camera ?
If it's filmed in 3D can it be successfully converted to 2D?
You sure about that?
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 12:42
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 71,689
As others have said, banning would be wrong. But complain to the managers or cinema chain owners about the lack of choice and if possible take you custom elsewhere.
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:56
StaceySky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 474
3D is overrated.
I have seen a few 3D films such as Avatar, Toy Story 3, and a couple of others. I find after an hour or so into the movie, you don't really realise the 3D. The glasses irritate me as well as they are always to big.
I now just watch 2D films, so much better and easier to watch.
StaceySky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:15
munta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The United Kingdom
Posts: 15,081
You sure about that?
The 3D we see at the movies or on TV is not the way we see 3D. True 3D requires two things. Stereoscopic vision and focal length. When you watch a 3D movie you only have Stereoscopic vision to work with. Your focal length stays constant and that can lead to headaches or lack of perception of depth for some people.
munta is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 18:34
Steve_Cingranti
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 11
I feel like 3D is for kids...I don't want to see things fly at me...then again, I'm probably not seeing any movie that even has an option of 3D. Didn't 3D fail in the '80s anyways? The technology is basically the same and it's pretty lame. Maybe if they step it up a bit and put it in a good movie I"ll check it out.

What are the best 3D movies anyways?
Steve_Cingranti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 11:11
munta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The United Kingdom
Posts: 15,081
I feel like 3D is for kids...I don't want to see things fly at me...then again, I'm probably not seeing any movie that even has an option of 3D. Didn't 3D fail in the '80s anyways? The technology is basically the same and it's pretty lame. Maybe if they step it up a bit and put it in a good movie I"ll check it out.

What are the best 3D movies anyways?
The 3D is far from the same as in the 80s. In the 80s you were stuck with poor quality Anaglyph 3D which normally used red and cyan filters to deliver each eye with a different image. The problems with Anaglyph 3D were many fold. The colour filters by their nature meant that the colour of the film was un-natural. The quality of the film, the screen and the lenses also meant that you tended to get a lot of image bleed where the image would seen in both eyes rather than just the one it was intended for. Modern 3D has over come many of these issues. Polarised light is now used so the colours are true, the screens are much more advanced which keeps the light correctly polarised and the film is digital which helps.

If you really want to experience the best quality 3D then I would recommend finding an IMAX cinema. The technology that goes into a IMAX theatre is way advanced to a standard 3D theatre.
munta is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 11:28
Chasing Shadows
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,140
If you really want to experience the best quality 3D then I would recommend finding an IMAX cinema. The technology that goes into a IMAX theatre is way advanced to a standard 3D theatre.
Do IMAX exist in Washington, USA? Which is where Steve is from...
Chasing Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 11:42
munta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The United Kingdom
Posts: 15,081
Do IMAX exist in Washington, USA? Which is where Steve is from...
Yup - The Smithsonian has 3 IMAX theatres alone. And to be honest, these are going to be better IMAX than the ones you find in multiplexes as the original IMAX screens are much larger than the ones found in multiplexes (8.5m x 18m vs 23m x 30m)
munta is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 20:54
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 41,494
bit of a bump but i'm looking around to find a showing near me of Sin City 2 and the nearest cinema is showing it only in 3D at the cost of 10.90 a ticket !!

if i want to see it in 2D, which I do, I can only see it later in the evening which isn't really an option for me.

I suppose the problem with this particular film is that they need the extra revenue that 3D brings since it's largely tanked so far. it's bloody annoying though !
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 21:02
MrSuper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 7,345
It is very annoying!

At my local Cineworld the only regular 2D showings are at 11.30am, 2.30pm and 8.15pm. Notice the gap between 2.30 and 8.15pm showings?

The 3D showings however are at 12.15pm, 3.15pm, 6.15pm and 9.15pm.
MrSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 21:22
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 41,494
It bugs me even more because I can't afford to pay out 11 quid to go and see a film.

i can work it out so i can see it in the cinema i go to in romford as they charge 4 quid a ticket for all films, regardless of 2D or 3D, but, once again, the 2D showing is late evening and only the 3D showing is early enough in the afternoon.
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 21:44
MrSuper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 7,345
Well my advice is just leave it if it's going to bother you that much. Going by the poor box office it's probably a stinker.
MrSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 21:49
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 41,494
It bothers me that I can't see it in 2D without paying through the nose to see it. I saw the first one in 2D and I want to see this in the same format.
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 23:24
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,350
I ask, because I was going to see the new Star Trek film at Cineworld next month until I saw they were hosting 3D screenings only.

I despise 3D. I have no interest whatsoever in ever seeing a film of any kind in 3D. Call me old fashioned, but it's just not for me. I know even if I weren't so disliking of it I'd find it uncomfortable due to the glasses, so for me it's just totally no go.

Now, I'm not saying "ban X thing because I dislike it" but I am suggesting that in the name of being fair cinemas should be made to show both 3D and 2D versions of a film. I've seen many people say they either dislike 3D or find it inaccessible due to the uncomfortable glasses or sight problems, so is it reasonable to suggest cinemas which host 3D screenings only of some films are going so far as to be discriminating?

What do people here think?
So you've never seen 3D, you think you'll dislike it based on other people's opinions and you want to dictate what cinemas do with it?
Way to keep an open mind.
Daily Mail thinking at its finest.
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 23:34
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,473
So you've never seen 3D, you think you'll dislike it based on other people's opinions and you want to dictate what cinemas do with it?
Way to keep an open mind.
Daily Mail thinking at its finest.
Even if he's wrong, there are people with sight problems that can't see 3D, so it's a little obtuse for them to have pay through those nose to have to look at a weird somewhat nauseating image if they want to see a film...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 23:35
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,350
The 3D is far from the same as in the 80s. In the 80s you were stuck with poor quality Anaglyph 3D which normally used red and cyan filters to deliver each eye with a different image. The problems with Anaglyph 3D were many fold. The colour filters by their nature meant that the colour of the film was un-natural. The quality of the film, the screen and the lenses also meant that you tended to get a lot of image bleed where the image would seen in both eyes rather than just the one it was intended for. Modern 3D has over come many of these issues. Polarised light is now used so the colours are true, the screens are much more advanced which keeps the light correctly polarised and the film is digital which helps.

If you really want to experience the best quality 3D then I would recommend finding an IMAX cinema. The technology that goes into a IMAX theatre is way advanced to a standard 3D theatre.
This is nonsense. The only anaglyph movies in cinemas in the 80s were black and white 50s productions. These were created for cinemas that didn't want to invest in special 3D kit and were much easier to exhibit. Black and white anaglyphs work very well in cinemas.
The actual 80s colour productions (like their 50s colour counterparts) were shown using the Polaroid system of which today's 3D is a direct descendant.
Very few (if any) colour movies have ever been made for an anaglyph system.
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 23:38
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,350
Even if he's wrong, there are people with sight problems that can't see 3D, so it's a little obtuse for them to have pay through those nose to have to look at a weird somewhat nauseating image if they want to see a film...
If people who know they can't see 3D decide to pay over the odds and go see it any way, then who's really at fault?
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 23:47
Matt D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 11,491
bit of a bump but i'm looking around to find a showing near me of Sin City 2 and the nearest cinema is showing it only in 3D at the cost of 10.90 a ticket !!

if i want to see it in 2D, which I do, I can only see it later in the evening which isn't really an option for me.

I suppose the problem with this particular film is that they need the extra revenue that 3D brings since it's largely tanked so far. it's bloody annoying though !
10.90 for 3D?

Where I am, that's a good price!

2D (standard seating) is 9.70 at the Vue in Cambridge, while 3D (standard seating) is 12.55 (with no discount for taking your own 3D glasses).
Matt D is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2014, 00:12
munta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The United Kingdom
Posts: 15,081
This is nonsense. The only anaglyph movies in cinemas in the 80s were black and white 50s productions. These were created for cinemas that didn't want to invest in special 3D kit and were much easier to exhibit. Black and white anaglyphs work very well in cinemas.
The actual 80s colour productions (like their 50s colour counterparts) were shown using the Polaroid system of which today's 3D is a direct descendant.
Very few (if any) colour movies have ever been made for an anaglyph system.
Really. I saw Friday the 13th III and Jaws 3D in the 80s. Both used red/cyan anaglyph.
munta is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:45.