3D overrated?
I just came back form seeing Clash of the Titans in 3D and I wasn't very impressed. The only time I really noticed the 3D effect was when people were standing against a background or when writing was on the screen. I forgot I was watching a 3D film after a while, it also looked kinda blurry in some places which was annoying. For the price you pay for the ticket + glasses you expect more, it seemed that the 3D effect was only added later as a way for the studio to make more money.
0
Comments
No, your eyes aren't deceiving you – 3D really is a con
I just don`t see the point of 3D....Some would argue that state of the art equipment and digital technology herald a new era in 3D......again I`am old enough to have heard that one before......and if it`s true that the process results in an unavoidable 30% colour loss then were not there yet.
3D is a marketing gimmick......it always has been.....although I grant you it appears to be a very successful one this time around.....but for how long??
Holographic 3D or nothing for me. So nothing, for now. I hope 3D TVs don't become poplular, and I guess they won't since loads of people will have recently upgraded to HDTVs so won't buy another so soon.
I suppose the fad will be over soon enough and come round again in another 20 years.
Buyer beware.
Ray Maxwell explains 3d and the problems with it
Are there any upcoming 3D releases?
Thank you, fascinating, and the conclusion was reasuring to those of us who have reservations. Sky need to see this!!
However, Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans were both disappointing for me - by and large I thought that everything was flat, but staggered, so we had Alice and the Mad Hatter (flat) a few feet in front of a few trees (flat) a few feet in front of some other things (again, flat). It wasn't the immersive expereince that Avatar was; I think that Alice and Clash were both filmed in 2D and then converted into 3D and I didn't really see the benefit in this.
However, I won't totally write-off D just yet. I think Tin Tin is being shot using the same equipment as Avatar and so I will be very interested to see how that turns out. I just think at the moment it might be too expensive to do 3D to the standard Cameron pioneered for all films, but with time this will become more routine.
I still dream of the day when it's proper holographic 3D though like the recordings seen throughout Star Wars, such as when the Jedi communicate with one another or when R2D2 plays the messge from Leia in A New Hope.
Go on, Marty. Destroy your reputation.
To be fair, any post-production 3D live action film is a poor use of the technology at the moment. And Clash of the Titans was particularly poor.
Animation/CGI and steroscopic live action 3D work much, much better. Avatar and Up being excellent examples of the former, and U2 3D of the latter.
Well 3D is a con on Clash of the Titans - they shot it in 2D but when Avatar was such a success - they used a Post Production process to create the 3d effect. Basically it splits the picture into layers each one being further from you - but each thing in any given layer is flat.
The 3d for Avatar was based on proper 3d cameras which have two lenses (one for each eye) - so what you do is get real 3d.
Having said that I'm not that convinced with 3d while we still need glasses - and even I had the money I almost certainly am not going to replace my TV for a 3d one - as well as my Blu-Ray player.
I'm not bothered either about getting Avatar in a 3d version - been there, got the T-shirt. Will watch it in a couple of weeks on Blu-Ray and enjoy it for the hokum it is.