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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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)
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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).
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.
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 !
Seems a really odd strategy. People like you and I who want to see it in 2D are unlikely to go and see it at all now, so instead of gaining an extra couple of quid for 3D tickets they get nothing. I certainly won't be shelling out £12 to see it at my local with the inevitably cheap and gimmicky 3D effects interfering with my enjoyment of the film.
Comments
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...
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...
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.
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.
What are the best 3D movies anyways?
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...
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)
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 !
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
£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).
Really. I saw Friday the 13th III and Jaws 3D in the 80s. Both used red/cyan anaglyph.
Seems a really odd strategy. People like you and I who want to see it in 2D are unlikely to go and see it at all now, so instead of gaining an extra couple of quid for 3D tickets they get nothing. I certainly won't be shelling out £12 to see it at my local with the inevitably cheap and gimmicky 3D effects interfering with my enjoyment of the film.