Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Sony and LG stop making 3D TV sets (fiercecable.com)
329 points by walterbell on Jan 24, 2017 | hide | past | web | favorite | 432 comments



I had been sort of hoping that 3D TV would not become the norm.

I saw Avatar in 3D and while the effects were fun to watch, I thought that the expressiveness of the depth-of-field shots was actually reduced.

In 2D cinema, the viewer's eyes adapt to the shot that the director intended, which often involves focusing on the foreground or the background... once in a while a shot puts both in focus, but it's rare.

The visual cue of depth of field is why cinematographers continue to use it even though it's been technically feasible for a long time to simply make all objects in the shot appear in focus.

In Avatar, the critters zoomed toward the audience and the effect was immersive, but I thought many of the close-in shots lacked the intimacy that good 2D shots can often attain.

3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects. There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances.

In fact, the human perception of a constant, detailed visual field is an illusion that the brain stitches together from the data collected by the narrow beam of detailed focus directly in front of our gaze.

So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.

3D film is unreal in that it requires us to suspend our normal method of discerning space, and watching it is something we must learn to do, just as we must learn to interpret 2D depth of field as both an attentional and spatial cue.


> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.

Depth of field isn't the only way for a cinematographer to to lead the viewer's gaze. There's also lighting, movement, scene (art direction)... Tricks that have been used in live theater for centuries. The depth issue really boils down to a lack of cinematic artistry, probably due to the lack of experience that filmmakers and audiences have with 3D.

Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date.


Great points.

> Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date.

I'm going to have to watch it, do you know of a way to see it in 3D using a normal laptop or TV?


If you have a samsung phone, you can copy the 3d version of the movie ( you know where to find that ;) and watch the movie in gear vr. The 3d is great and the illusion of sitting in a movie theater helps a lot.


Google Cardboard?


You probably can but strapping it on ones head is fairly difficult.


It was very effectively used on "Gravity" for the space station interiors.


+1 to all of this, especially Hugo.

Even seeing it in 2d you get a sense of the 3-dimensionality.


> There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances.

When you increase the width of the aperture of a lens (your pupil) you decrease the depth of field in sharp focus. It's a fundamental limit of optics.

On a bright day you have a lot of light and your pupil is narrowest, bringing as much as possible into focus.

> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.

I watched the Hobbit in 3d and thought it was awful. You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur.

I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried.


> You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur.

That was my experience as well. I find it head-ache inducing. It really doesn't emulate true 3-D vision very much at all and I would personally not pay any extra money for the experience.


Follow-up - Rogue One sucks in 3D. It's only an annoyance, blocking the set for some stupid spaceship models that wouldn't have been impressive compared to Babylon 5.

Also, the movie is Star Wars so there's no drama whatsoever. Literally everyone in the film is killed within seconds of their mission being accomplished.


> I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried.

I had a similar experience.


Similar experience with the latest Star Wars. I saw Nightmare Before Christmas years ago and it was all in focus (memory hazy here) and the 3D distance made it look like it was a play, on a stage. I absolutely loved it. I've never seen another 3D movie since that I thought was good for the same depth of field issues discussed.


In Australia, 3D is just designed to increase the cost of a movie ticket.


On Earth, 3D is just designed to increase the cost of a movie ticket.


I'm sure there is a galaxy close by where they are saying something similar...


You are forgetting that 3D TVs were not just for films. I use mine for games and while compatibility is a bit spotty, it's mindblowing how good 3D games look on a 50" 3D TV. Forget films, games are where it is.


I bought into the 3D gaming hype early (I bought one of the first 3D monitors made by Samsung for ~$700) only to be massively disappointed by how "small" it made games appear. Despite the prodigious 27" monitor in front of me, the addition of depth made every game look like I was playing with a bunch of toy cars or action figures. I don't know why I'm able to suspend my disbelief with 2D, maybe it's the fact that 3D adds a definitive scale to whatever is on my screen, but I feel like I wasted several hundred dollars since I haven't even seen my 3D glasses in ~4 years.


That sounds like an IPD (inter-pupillary distance) issue. Everybody has a slightly different distance between their pupils and if the cameras rendering the left and right eyes in the game aren't the same distance apart as your own IPD, your perception of scale will be affected.

If the cameras are further apart than your eyes, things will look smaller in size and have an exaggerated stereo effect also. If they are closer, the stereo effect is less pronounced and things appear larger in size.

It's actually the sense of scale I like the most in 3D (and VR). I don't care that much about things popping out at me on a 3D TV. I much prefer 3D that treats the screen like a window you look through, where the 3D effect comes mostly from things receding into the background. As an example, I loved the parts in Star Wars: The Force Awakens where you had characters shooting at things in the distance and the camera sat over their shoulder with them in the foreground.

There's also another issue here - you can't just take any game and 'upscale' it into 3D using a driver or such. The game's geometry needs to be properly modelled to scale for it to really work. There are other more egregious issues too - things like lens flares appearing in the wrong plane, because the game happens to be rendering them to a separate 2D plane.

These and other issues like them are the same reasons that you can't turn a non-VR game into a VR game with a driver and have it be as good as a native made-for-VR experience (although many games do come somewhat close, if you don't have a native VR version of them for comparison).

FWIW I think the 'average' IPD is 64mm.


I really enjoyed watching sports in 3D back when ESPN actually was pushing good content in 3D. Oh well.


Which would you recommend?


The horrible thing about watching something like Avatar in 3d is looking at parts Of The shot youbare not meant to, they are blurry and you end up with a headache.


I wonder if you were brought up with 3D TV as the norm if you'd still think the same.


3D tv display technology just isn't there. Either as a convincing experience nor can it compete with the quality of HD TV. I would guess that if someone saw regular tv for the first time, after only seeing 3D tv, he would be impressed with the better quality of color/contrast/sharpness of regular tv.


> 3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects.

Apparently you've misunderstood either 3D (or more accurately stereoscopic) vision, depth of field, or both. Cue detailed HN-worthy explanation of each... but frankly, you'd be better off perusing the myriad of resources available on these two subjects.


Please explain.

My point is that stereoscopic vision lets our brains ignore more information by identifying the depth of interest and ignoring the rest.

Similarly, trying to identify the direction of a sound using only one ear is very difficult, and there is inferior signal to noise ratio available to our perceptual system. The same applies to stereoscopic vision.


Yeah, if you can do away with it in the cinemas as well, that'd be great, thanks.


Yeah, no - it wouldn't be great. I love seeing movies in 3D. Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it. This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with.


>This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with.

Couldn't agree more.

It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten.

If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman.

And to categorize 3D movies as simply a fad totally disregards works for which 3D was an integral part of the creative vision, e.g. Avatar, Gravity, Love.

There's simply no good reason to discourage anyone from contributing anything creative to the culture, even if you question their motives.


> It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

I don't know about that, there are very good reasons not to, in my opinion. It's the same reason we don't build on top of the gaza pyramids, or replace the mona lisa with a more modern version.

We like to preserve the legacy of things, and when you pollute it with things not in the original design it's easy to end up reshaping what it means and diluting its history.


I don't know that making a new season of a tv show is anything like building on top of the Great Pyramids of Giza. It's like building another pyramid.

I certainly don't think that the Luxor hotel and casino in Las Vegas diminishes the legacy of the Great Pyramids in any way. In fact, I think it's really interesting that they were able to use an ancient form to achieve something architecturally unique from a modern standpoint. It allowed them to create an uncommonly large open lobby area, which is really cool to see, and wouldn't have happened if someone had said 'no pyramids, pyramids have been done.'

A remake/reboot is certainly nothing like replacing the Mona Lisa. It's more like a Banksy type person painting their own take on the Mona Lisa on a concrete wall or something.

Do you think that no artist after da Vinci should ever reference the Mona Lisa in any way? Because derivative works were being made by prominent artists before da Vinci even considered his finished. In fact, the famous Mona Lisa arguably wasn't even the only version of the Mona Lisa that da Vinci himself contributed to.

'Meaning' is extremely personal and dependent entirely on the context within which a work is received. No work will ever hold the exact same meaning for two individuals. Furthermore, a work's meaning to a particular individual is likely to evolve continuously throughout their life.

To discourage derivative works is like saying that you don't want to have to consider that alternate meanings are even possible.


Agreed, not all sequels or reboots are bad.

Derivative work is a little different than building a sequel though. A sequel may stand alone on it's own, but it also can take away from the original intention of it's prequel because it usually further builds out the universe or plot that took place in the original.

Movie producers often reach for sequels because they are guaranteed cash grabs and prop them up with nothing more than a shallow plot and a few A-list celebrities. To many, this takes away from the intent and meaning of the original.


I like a well-done sequel. As much fun as it is to step into a movie world for the first time and find out what's going on, there's a certain sameyness to the requisite beats to establish origins, establish personalities, establish locations, just a whole lot o' establishing going on. Again, that's great and all, but it limits the amount of time for the story itself, and limits the range of stories that can be told.

Look at all the superhero origin stories that have come out lately, and summarize to yourself the story in the movie, without including any of the establishing. Even in the best ones... in fact, to some extent, especially in the best ones... the story itself is quite simple.

The sequel will have a chance to spread its wings much more. The fact that so many fail to do so is... well... an interesting discussion on its own. But the really great sequels are often movies that had to be sequels, because they told a story too big to also have 45-75 minutes of establishing in there with them.


Each of your examples destroys the original.

Making sequels in no way affects the integrity of the original.

They are wholly different circumstances.


Building on top of the gaza pyramids doesn't destroy the original, it changes it.

Sequels absolutely can affect the integrity of the original by expanding the universe of the plot in ways that it's original design never intended or the way it was originally perceived.


Yes, but it's a fictional universe, so you're free to disregard any elements of it that fall outside of your favorite entries into the canon.

If you think that some new works expand the universe in a stupid direction, there's no reason you can't pretend they don't exist and still derive the same meaning from your favorite works.

Disney does this as a matter of policy.


You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels.

Countless Shakespeare productions and remakes and reinterpretations don't diminish the original form.


> You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels.

That statement does nothing but detract from the conversation. Of course I'm not obliged to pay attention to any of them. I'm not making the generalization that all sequels are bad.


No but you are saying that a bad sequel can make the original worse. I don't think so. The original is still there, untouched, and you can hone your skill at putting yourself in the context in which it was originally released.


Just for the record, Adam West was indisputably the best Batman.


I don't know if you're joking, but regardless there is a point to be had.

Batman needs some comedy, and it needs to be proud of it, and there has been very little of that in the reboots. In fact, with the exception of a few scenes in the Michael Keaton version (which is my favourite in fact), I've only really seen it in Suicide Squad, and it only had about 30 seconds which included Batman.

The Adam West version is a comedy show, and it does a pretty good job at it.


Not at all joking that Adam West is the best. He owns the character like Shatner owns Kirk.

That said, I like the campier interpretations of the TV show and Burton/Keaton but I also like the grittier Miller/Mazzuchelli Year One and Nolan/Bale interpretations, too. There's a proud tradition of both, and they complement each other (one interpretation playing straight man to the other, if you will).


It would be a thing of beauty and wonder if someone could accurately re-dub all of Batman Begins with Adam West dialog from the original series. Instant meme-success.


> If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman.

Recently, I've been watching Sherlock. After doing some reading, I learned that Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character ever, "with more than 70 actors playing the part in over 200 films" [1]. Talking with a work mate, he said his favorite portrayal was Jeremy Brett. I also learned that the original works are in the public domain, which is probably why it is so often used as source material.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Adaptations_in...


> If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten.

Yes it does, absolutely.

That's like saying an awful ending to a movie can't ruin the whole movie, people can still enjoy the beginning.

It's totally possible to ruin people's memories and nostalgia.


Tangential, but the bad thing about 50 seasons of the Simpsons isn't the product, but rather all the comedy writers and voice actors it ties up making schlock, who would otherwise be off making much more interesting and coherent works in smaller teams. The Simpsons is to TV production staff what EA is to game devs or Google is to software engineers: a place where promising talent is absorbed into a black hole.


You make it sound as though no one has a choice in their job.

Like jackbooted thugs from Fox show up on your doorstep and say "we heard you write comedy; you're coming with us."

There's no shortage of talented creative people, and contracts usually don't last forever.


3D takes up time slots that could otherwise go to 2D showings, so it's zero-sum and the mentality is logical and reasonable for 2D fans to celebrate the decline of 3D. The faster the 3D showings phase out, the faster the movie-going experience returns to its former convenience of having all showtimes be acceptable. Or not having to go to a worse theater that has a 2D showing at the only available time.

Nobody's trying to oppress you personally or trying to control your experience out of principle. (I hope.)


> 3D takes up time slots that could otherwise go to 2D showings, so it's zero-sum

3D is typically enhanced price, and serves as a way of extracting more money from the segment of the population willing to pay more to see movies in the theater. Without 3D pulling in that segment, the profit-maximizing 2D ticket price would probably be higher.


I doubt it. When 3D movies started to appear in the cinema, 2D prices did not go down. The 3D tickets were simply higher by, in Ireland, several euro, ostensibly to pay for the extra production costs.


When the 3D movies disappear, is it more reasonable to expect that cinemas will take the cut to their income, or try to raise their 2D ticket prices to make up for the lost extra revenue? I'd expect prices to go up, at least in the formerly-3D theatres that already have the upgraded, premium equipment. In fact, one of the ones nearby does sell tickets to their premium-level theatres for a few extra dollars, even for 2D shows.


Ticket prices generally increase over time. It's quite possible that 2D prices would.have increased faster without 3D, but obviously impossible to verify.


3D also usually monopolizes the best (tech) screens/sound systems.

I'd pay the 3D fee to get in the most modern 2D theatre experience possible. I also get frustrated that 2D showing times can be quite limited if I want to see it on a system better than what I have at home.


There's always an option to bring 2D glasses [1] to a 3D movie showing.

[1] Not a joke: on Amazon you can find polarized glasses that work with most theaters where both lenses are polarized to just a single camera (left 2D and right 2D). I've got a friend that experiences motion sickness at 3D showings that uses them to see movies where everyone else wants to see 3D. One of the lesser utilized but awesome tools with some of the home 3D TVs (like my LG) is to have one player with left 2D glasses and the other with right 2D glasses and play a "full screen" coop game.


My bet is that people just wouldn't be willing to pay as much for a 2D movie. If there were only 2D movies at 3D prices, people would just go to the theatre less. Which is why, whether consumers like it or not, theatres won't let 3D die: it's their profit margin, like "whales" are for casinos.


> "enhanced price"

That's a very friendly way to put it :)


Alternatively, higher prices for 3D could be offsetting the reduced revenue of the smaller viewership.


8 Theaters showing Star Wars movies, only one of those theaters is not 3D.... Sure you can see those movies in non-3D, but they sure like having a lot of 3D versions in the theaters. Nothing I like more than watching a movie wearing 2 pairs of glasses, especially if the second pair is really unfomfortable and don't fit right.


That's a hint at how many people agree that all showings should be in 2D.


It's more of a hint of how much money 3D makes the theater. As far as I can tell, most of my friends are pretty neutral on 3D. I don't like 3D, but I'll go to a 3D movie with my friends, especially if the only time we can find that works is a 3D showing.

I personally think 3D sucks because it is a gimmick that affects the cinematography of a movie. Even if you can see a movie in 2D, you are consuming a product that was creatively compromised by filming it in 3D. I've seen a lot of films in both 2D and 3D, and I do appreciate the gee-whiz factor of 3D for some kinds of movies, but it's really unnecessary for movies where spectacle is not the primary consideration.

Plus, 3D is really immersion breaking. When you are watching a 2D movie directors force you to look at a certain part of a shot by using a shallow depth of field. In a 3D movie, this results in a really disorienting effect where something in the foreground can be out of focus, and despite trying to focus your eyes on it, it will continue to be out of focus, while the part of the image that is further away is still in focus.

Realism isn't the goal of movies, telling a story is, and 3D gets in the way of telling that story.


> Even if you can see a movie in 2D, you are consuming a product that was creatively compromised by filming it in 3D.

Mind you, for movies where the majority of many shots are CGI-composited (or for works that are just plain-old digital animation in their entirety), the 3D is "free": you have a 3D master whether you want one or not, and any 2D release is a post-processed edit.

> In a 3D movie, this results in a really disorienting effect where something in the foreground can be out of focus, and despite trying to focus your eyes on it, it will continue to be out of focus, while the part of the image that is further away is still in focus.

I've always wondered whether this problem could be "solved" with eye-tracking in VR. The gear would project a ray from your pupil to the image, hit a pixel, map it back through the projection matrix to the surface of an object in the scene, and then dynamically adjust the depth-of-field so that that part of that object (and everything else at the same depth) was in focus.


> Mind you, for movies where the majority of many shots are CGI-composited (or for works that are just plain-old digital animation in their entirety), the 3D is "free": you have a 3D master whether you want one or not, and any 2D release is a post-processed edit.

It's not free because although the assets are in 3D, the final render still needs to be done, and for stereo you need to render every frame twice, once for each eye. When I was working on animated features the extra production cost for stereo was ~10% of the total production budget.


It's a common misconception that the theatre pockets the 3D surcharge, or that is pays for the glasses. It's a licensing fee for RealD.


Or that theatres or studios prefer to sell 3D for various reasons (like they can charge more, differentiate more from watching movies at home, etc)


Why would they be able to charge more for something people don’t want?


Psychology. People have an inner understanding of how much things "ought" to cost. If you charge more than that, you need a differentiator or it will trigger their scam detector and they'll reject you.

3D is a good differentiator, and allows for a price raise that otherwise doesn't appear justified.


Ok. But if people prefer the 2D version, then they’d not pay more for something they like less.


Actually yes. As a commenter above me hinted at, you would if it was the only option you had. I had to see ep 7 in 3d because there was no 2d showing on release day.. But I'd rather pay a bit more and watch it in 3d than to not watch it at all


If it's the only option you have they could just raise the price without implementing 3D. After all, ticket prices have risen over time for the same formats. Of course, the reality is that you always at the bare minimum have the option to just not go to the cinema.


No not quite. The thing is that they have a normal mix of 2D and 3D showings but not on the release day. So the issue is of wanting to see it the first day. So they have the normal division of prices between the two of them, but you are essentially forced to go for the more expensive one if you want to see it when it is released.


But you still have a choice, which is all I was saying.


Well true, you have a choice in everything. But given the constraint that I want to see the movie on release, my choices are more limited.


Because in a lot of markets they control the supply. 3D provides leverage to increase revenue across the board, and if 3D is the only option to see Star Wars, people will choose to pay more and see it in 3D when faced with the option of not seeing it at all.


Because the people who do do are willing to pay more.


That’s my point. People do like 3D movies. Not everyone, but enough to dedicate screens to it.


> Sure you can see those movies in non-3D, but they sure like having a lot of 3D versions in the theaters.

That's because large numbers of people like to watch 3D versions in preference to 2D, especially for movies like those in the Star Wars series (less so for, say, romcoms, which is why you don't see them in 3D at all.)


I suppose you could always bring your own polarized glasses with both eyes polarized at the same angle.


Actually yes you can https://www.2d-glasses.com/


> Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it

Depending on where you live, not really.


Sure. It's also true that some people live hours from a decent cinema. I don't really see the relevance.


Well, the total number of movie showings in an area are somewhat limited, and don't increase that fast. By splitting the types of experience shown between 2D and 3D, they are reducing the number of showing for people that prefer a certain type of experience compared to if they were all that experience. For people that prefer 2D, this is a reduction in the total showing they could expect, so a loss. Of course it's a gain for those that prefer 3D, and a huge one, since it was effectively nonexistent previously.

What we're really seeing is that people don't like to lose something they had previously, regardless of how small. People who prefer 2D really are having fewer showings available, but the trade-off is choice, and allowing other people to actually experience their preference, which is a good thing.


On (most?) non English speaking countries, on top of the choice between 2D and 3D, you have to choose between subtitled and dubbed.

Very often the only 2D option is the dubbed version—because kids, I guess—if any, because the other rooms are already split between subtitled and dubbed.


In my view, the problem is actually that theaters often do not have equivalent quality for 3D and non-3D. The biggest, best screen may show 3D IMAX all day long, because that's what is most profitable. Seeing movies in 2D on the highest quality screen/projection/sound has been fairly difficult in the last year or more.


I really wanted to see Rogue One in IMAX, but there were no 2D IMAX showings in my area.


Oh man, this drives me nuts to no end. I'd gladly pay the extra ticket price for an IMAX showing if I didn't have to get a headache 15 minutes in.


I would actually recommend against it. I saw it in 2D IMAX, and there was enough shaky-cam that the giant screen just felt disorienting and a bit nauseating. I don't think Rogue One is well-suited to that kind of environment.


Out of curiosity, did you end up watching 3D IMAX? There is a single IMAX cinema in my city (so I cannot do a comparison), and Rogue One was awful in it. Blurry, dark, slightly out of focus. I wonder whether this is a flaw in all 3D IMAX showings, or maybe this particular cinema had some technical problem?

My experience was that 3D IMAX is way worse than regular 3D (which I'd also rather not watch).


The only passable 3D experience I've ever had was in a 3D Laser IMAX. The brightness was leaps and bounds better than any other 3D screen I've seen, and it wasn't constantly distracting like most are. The laser imax experience blew away any other 3D movie on a regular screen I've ever seen and it wasn't remotely close.

That said I'd still prefer 2D.


At my local theater, the IMAX movies I've seen have all been incredibly bright and sharp, both 3D and 2D. I don't think it's something inherent to the format.


No problem. I haven't been to a 3D movie anywhere, ever. I used to go to lots of them. Now I hardly set foot in a theatre. So I voted with my feet - until the 3D fad passes, I'm good with Netflix thanks.


How is the 3D fad keeping you from seeing 2D movies at the theater?


Popular movies come out in 3D. All the friends want to see that one. I say "no thanks" and stay home.


I would think the greatest value in that scenario would be in sharing in a new experience with friends.

But I don't know your friends.


Why do something you hate or gives you headaches just to enjoy the company of your friends? Why not do something none of you actively hate?


Because sometimes it's worth the camaraderie to "take one for the team". Sometimes if you're the only one in a large group that actually dislikes something, you keep your trap shut.

It depends on the personalities of everyone involved, the strengths of their feelings on the matter, etc. There's a lot of variability involved.


I bet 3D movies don't give you headaches?

I'll do something I fear will be boring or go to restaurant I don't love for my friends. But I won't take a 3D headache or eat at a restaurant that has nothing but stuff I'm allergic to, because headaches suck. (Turns out both my clauses converge on that "because".) At the risk of channeling $STEREOTYPICAL_MOM, are people who'd ask that of you really your friends?


Lack of sleep gives me headaches. Sometimes (but not always), 3D movies do too. They're always more fatiguing than 2D movies, at the very least.

> At the risk of channeling $STEREOTYPICAL_MOM, are people who'd ask that of you really your friends?

They don't know, because I don't tell them. Otherwise, they'd bend over backwards to accommodate me, which would make me more uncomfortable than the physical pain does.


I give you permission to tell your friends that you don't want to risk a headache to spend time with them.


You'd choose differently than I would, apparently. Having tried both approaches to dealing with the situation (with other groups of people), I've decided that I prefer this one. You can take your condescension and shove it up your ass; it serves no useful purpose here.


I just checked local Cinemark and most movies showing (including the Star Wars one) are available in non-3D. So it may be not the function of availability :)


3D can reduce the availability of 2D showings by 50%, so if there are half as many times when 2D is showing, then there will be customers that choose not to see the film because showtimes don't fit their schedule.

Source: Myself, a dad that only sees movies a couple times a month during a very limited time period when the babysitter is available


So you used your feet to vote against something despite never giving it a try? You just assume you'll hate 3D? What if you're wrong and missing an amazing experience just because you're afraid to try new things? Worst case scenario is you were right to begin with and you wasted 2 hours and maybe an extra $3.


It's a gimmick. If you don't care about plot and story and acting ability have at it, but to call it a "movie" is a stretch in any classic sense of the word. More like a theme park ride. This is why people are dismissive of it.


It's no more of a gimmick than "talkies", or color films. It's just newer in wide use, and so there are more people who are still more used to film without it.


> Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it

This is not true. Every 3d movie takes up IMAX screens that could be used to show 2dd versions of the movie. The 3d IMAX version has less visual fidelity than the 2d version and actively makes people feel sick.

Because movie theaters believe they can charge more for 3d often 3d movies take up every single IMAX screen and do not allow people to enjoy the best possible experience.

3d is a stupid gimmick and ruins movies.


> Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it. Unless it's in IMAX, then IMAX without 3D is rarely offered.


Some 3D theaters are great, the IMAX ones tend to be the best because the projection equipment is top-notch, but others are really awful. The picture's dim.

Some 3D movies are great, like Avatar that actually shot things using 3D cameras. In other movies, like Captain America, they add the 3D in post and it looks like garbage. I appreciate a 3D movie done well, but too many are half-assed.

The real problem for me is if I can't see it in IMAX I'd rather see a film in not-3D but because the theaters have a hefty 3D surcharge, they're not interested in running the 2D version. I'm paying a ridiculous tax for something I don't even want, and I have no options other than going way out of my way to avoid it.

Maybe you like everything in 3D. That's fine. There are a lot of people that don't care for it and yet are forced into paying for it for lack of options.


I love 3d movies, I have a passive 3dtv, and have even taken up 3d photography. 3d rocks!


The worst thing about 3d is that most 3d movies aren't even shot in 3d. It's all "fake" and done in post. So it adds even less in that case than a movie that's actually shot with 3d in mind.


I do find it said that it is near impossible to find non-3D IMAX showings. My wife isn't a fan of the 3D. So I'm often forced to go to the normal showing and skip the IMAX showing.

It'd be great if they had both!


I'm not sure it's that easy. There have been concerns that 3D projectors as they are being used negatively impact 2D screenings: http://archive.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2011/05/22/misu...


Well, for every one of you, there's one of me, and I hate it. Sure it's also offered in standard, but sometimes (too often) the only showing I can make is 3D.

So yeah, go away you stupid gimmick.


There's a real cost to producing a 3D movie, though.


I conjecture that 3D in movie is just an excuse to increase ticket price and lowering image quality at the same time


It could have also have been a ploy to get theaters to upgrade their projection equipment to the new DRM-ed digital projectors.


I happened to be working as a Projectionist around the time 3D and Digital Projection began to really take off, and yeah... pretty much this.

[EDIT] Damn those early digital projectors were cool, basically huge light-bulbs wired up to a Centos box with some weirdo DRM shit baked-in. We would receive movies on ordinary hard-drives and plug them in to a central server rack to be ingested and then distributed out to each of the projectors. Pretty often in those days it would simply take too long to ingest and transfer to a screen, so we'd have to cancel early showings of new movies.


I've certainly seen movies where that was the case, but The Martian in 3D was amazing. I also thoroughly enjoyed Doctor Strange 3D, though that was on IMAX laser projectors, which are amazing by themselves.


I saw Doctor Strange on IMAX 3D as well and I must say it was very impressive however there needs to be a good system for rating 3D movie experiences beforehand that way the consumer is not subject to wasting money on a horrible experience.


I've had luck with the "To 3D or Not To 3D" reviews at cinemablend.com.

Here's a recent example: http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1600740/to-3d-or-not-to-3d-b...


I find that I can often tell based on a baroque reading of the credits. Some of the 3D "upconversion" houses are better than others at their job. Some of the special effects houses have dedicated stereoscopic staff. Some of the studios themselves have dedicated stereoscopic departments. Obviously too, if there were stereoscopic cameras/film units involved in the main production crew of the film, that's usually a sign that the director cared about the stereoscopic output of the film.


I'm stereo-blind, so 3D movies annoy me more than anything. It always annoys me when people want to go see a movie in 3D and I have to decline since it will give me a headache 15 minutes in.


Hank Green, of vlogbrothers fame, came up with "2D" glasses. http://www.2d-glasses.com/

Instead of different polarisation in each lens, like normal 3D glasses, it just uses identical polarisation in both lenses.


I don't quite understand that argument. If people hadn't purchased enough of the higher prices 3D tickets, it wouldn't be profitable, and cinemas would have given up. If people "have no choice" because of a lack of sufficient competition, then the cinemas would have just raised the price without adding a new feature which costs them money.


I think it more-or-less (at least for me) comes down to...

Friend: "I can only make the movie after 8"

Me: "The 2D one is at 7:40, but there's a 3D showing at 8:10"

And thus, 8:10 it is. Then I have to stake the glasses off for 30 seconds every 5-10 minutes because the image makes me dizzy as all hell.


Yes, that. And selling you one more cheap piece of plastic each time you forget that thing at home.


Huh? Every cinema I've ever been to provides the 3d viewing glasses for free and collects them afterwards.


I've been to cinemas in several European countries and it varies between cinemas.


Looks like he is from Switzerland. Must be different there.


It depends; the cheaper ones have passive 3d glasses (polarisation filters), the cinema nearby then sells them for €1 apiece. I have two of them at home. The fancier cinema, brand new etc, has Dolby Atmos and active 3D glasses - they hand those out and collect them when you enter and leave the room. The ticket price of those is higher though (€15 ish).


Active 3D meaning they alternate flipping the lenses black? I think I'd throw up if I tried to sit through 2 hours of that.


It means that one eye is polarized one way and the other eye the opposite.


That's passive 3D


Misread the comment :)


You know... if you take 2 of those 3D glasses (you criminal!) and swap out the left lens for the right lens between them, you can make 2D glasses. That way when you go to the movies, you and a friend can share different views during the film... one with the right view and one the left. If you have friends with differing viewpoints, it might help... as long as they don't like 3D either.


Or if you don't want to fiddle with very fragile things just buy 2D glasses, I won't link because I do not want to spam but they exist and they do the job.

As an aside, this reminds of the prime example of "people are so stupid you can't even imagine": I checked some epilepsy forum when Avatar came out because I suspected it's dangerous and yes, people said it is not advisable and some got auras and some even seizures from the movie so I decided 3D movies are not for me. Not everyone though -- there was someone who posted "yeah, I saw the warnings here and went to see Avatar 3D and got a seizure" and I am like "you can't be real".


The real question here is what is so special about the visual input that it causes a seizure?


Well, many people get headaches. It's not a stretch to say whatever causes a headache in a sensitive person might cause worse.

Edit: to whoever downvotes this, I had seizures when I was 20 years old. Despite numerous examinations including sleep deprived EKG, CT, MRI they never found out what causes them. So if you are downvoting this because I sound like we do not know what causes seizures then you are either ignorant (because we indeed do not know and I am the damned walking example) or have knowledge I really badly need. If the latter then please share links to new neuro research which will help me and my neurologist to decide whether I need to stay on medication or not. I would be glad to stop after two decades.


Here's my speculation on why you got downvotes, based on how I would criticize your post. You're missing a third possibility: That it is a stretch to say that the "worse [than headaches]" could be seizures. It's a somewhat extraordinary claim, and you provided 2nd-hand, circumstantial anecdotes in support of it.


This works, but by blocking half the light, wouldn't you get a pretty dim picture?


As is true of all 3D movies, which is another ding agaist them.


It's just a different half of the photons, and the photons available to each of your light collectors are separate streams anyway.

Each of your eyes gets a half of the light available to them both before and after.


Yes, that!

3D is and has always been a gimmic.

It doesn't improve the story telling. It doesn't contribute to the plot in any way.

But then, some movie makers remark, 'story' ? 'plot ? what strange words you use.


3D was a big part of Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby. It made me wish Moulin Rouge had been done in 3D.

I think using 3D effectively is hard, and most films being made don't have a good reason to use it. It also makes my eyes feel a little uncomfortable, so I'm not crazy about it getting widespread use. Most filmmakers don't have the visual sense (and budget/tech crew) of Baz Luhrman or James Cameron.

The Wizard of Oz was a really masterful tech demo for color, because color was a pivotal part of the story. 3D's problem is that it has been totally driven by technologists and financiers rather than storytellers. If the first big 3D film were The Great Gatsby rather than Avatar I think we'd have a very different sense of what 3D is. Although The Wizard of Oz may be unique in the way the tech manages to serve the story just as much as the story serves the tech.


It's not a gimmick, it increases immersiveness when done right. The problem is the technology isn't quite there and directors haven't been trained in it (and usually don't make the effort) - so it's basically never done right.

3D as we know it is probably never going to happen. Most movies don't gain much from more immersiveness, and the tech may always be clunky. I've seen some VR movies lately, and I predict they will supercede 3d entirely. Whether they'll end up being the next fad is an open question.


It only increases immersiveness if it doesn't make you throw up. This is only going to get worse with VR.


There's a huge difference between immersiveness (you feel surrounded by the image) and presence. Good modern VR gives you a sense of presence, which tricks the body at a level below conscious awareness that you are somewhere else.

And presence is characterized by lack of nausea.

If your only experience with VR is cell phones or the Playstation 4, then you probably have never experienced presence.


Yeah, if you want to experience presence you basically have to use a Vive - a Rift might just about do it but you'll probably run into a whole lotta tracking issues thanks to their (awful) tracking solution.


Wow, even HN has been infected! JK, but Rift tracking is great too. For "room-scale" with good tracking you basically need 3 sensors (you can buy additional sensors). For some games that cause heavy occlusion due to needing to lie on the floor or whatever, you would have to put the sensors in ceiling mounts to get the full volume tracked accurately. And the tracking volume will be smaller for the Rift compared to the Vive, but very few people have a bigger than 2.5m by 2.5m space, which the Rift can track just fine.

I just got my third sensor a couple days ago, and it has made a night and day difference (there is also an option for 360 tracking with two sensors, but I didn't set that up). But even when I had two sensors the tracking was fine except under certain situations where my body would occlude the controllers. Not a problem anymore after the third sensor.


What's a movie you can suggest that should be seen in 3D? Preferably one in theatres so that us nay sayers can give it another try.


Anything that's 3D animated IMO, your pixar or dreamworks kinda stuff - they all work far better than camera-3D stuff as the '3D gimmick' fits with the fact that it's animated, as well as the nature of 3D CG allows for the stereoscopy to be tweaked and perfected far easier.


I agree - the best, by far, 3D movie I have seen is Pixar's Up


Doctor Strange is, but unfortunately at least in my town it's only showing in 2D at the cheap ($1) theaters now. I was blown away by the appropriate use of 3D and visuals in 3D IMAX for that movie. I saw Rogue One in 2D and then IMAX 3D and hated it in 3D.

Article about it: http://www.thisisinsider.com/doctor-strange-how-you-should-s...

When new movies come out, google "should I see it in 3D $moviename" type articles. Unfortunately it's January now; not many good movies coming out.


Ohhhhhh. I saw Dr Strange in 2D and thought the rippling building effects and hurling of bodies and such was kind of goofy. Didn't think of 3D at the time, but now it makes sense.


Dredd was fantastic in 3d, but it was 90-95% 2d, only exploding to 3d for dramatic effect, particularly in the slo-mo scenes and some of the other set pieces.

Obviously, that doesn't help very much since it isn't in cinemas.


Avatar. Crap movie, but a nice theme ride in 3D theatre.


Avatar and Gravity are the standout examples.


I saw Gravity in 3D and strongly hated it. One scene in particular killed it for me. In what should have been an emotional scene when the hero looses all hope and sheds a tear. The tear floats into 3D space and the camera changes focus from the distraught hero to the tear drop instead. So, the audience is taken from what should be an emotional scene to admiring a fucking tear drop floating in 3D space.


I know you've heard this argument before, but isn't that the same thing people said about color movies? This sort of reminds me of arguments about Snapchat. A lot of people really enjoy 3D, trying to logically convince them that they actually shouldn't like it is not going to work.


Chaplin fought against sound in movies on a similar basis.

Not an absolute rejection, but a concern that it took focus away from other parts of the story-telling and wasn't necessary.

He supposedly sabotaged attempts to add speech to Gold Rush (1925) after the actors pushed for it.

City Lights (1931) was basically his ode to silent movies, famous for its endless retakes of the initial meeting with the blind flower girl [1], while he tried to figure out how she could mistake the Tramp for a rich man without words. In the end the solution was simple, and both funny and provided motivation for the Tramps desire to help her: The Tramp walks through the car of a rich man to avoid passing a police office, and so when he stands before her she has just heard him slam the car door. He accidentally knocks the flower he's purchased out of her hand and realises she can't see that he has picked it up. As he hands her his money, the owner of the car comes and drives off and the girl thought he had left without his change, and he didn't want to break the illusion and so walks off without money he badly needed for himself.

It's one of my favourite movies because it masterfully made his point that you can tell a complex story without it feeling like you're missing something because you can't hear dialogue.

He added speech in his next movie - Modern Times - but his character still didn't speak dialogue (but did sing).

It was first with The Dictator (1940) that Chaplin himself spoke on screen: Finally he had something where the speech added clear value by conveying more than he knew how to convey with just pictures.

In the same way I think we will see more and more movies eventually come out in 3D as the industry gets enough experience with it to see where it adds clear value and leave it low key other places, rather than add it to make a spectacle of it.

I think one of the first to do it well was Prometheus. A friend saw the 2D version and afterwards told me elated that it felt like it was made as a 2D movie - no weird camera work solely to make 3D effects stand out etc.. Meanwhile I'd seen it in 3D and been blown away at how good it looked in 3D. The effects were clear and beautiful but not in your face. Crucially they didn't alter the visual language noticeably.

[1] http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/378808/City-Lights-Movie-...


>I think one of the first to do it well was Prometheus

Too bad they didn't put as much thought into the script.


Personally I loved it - it's one of my all time favourite moies. I find a lot of the criticism of it tends to boil down to whether or not people believe the science expedition was meant to be a serious effort vs just an thin veneer of a cover for Weyland. There's nothing to indicate that it was meant to be serious. E.g. it has the wrong set of specialties for an expedition looking for live aliens, for starters, and Weyland clearly see everyone but himself as expendable.


>I know you've heard this argument before, but isn't that the same thing people said about color movies?

No in any large numbers. Besides, 3D cinema has been coming and going as a fad for 6 decades now.

But even if it was true that people said that about color movies, people can say the same thing about different inventions and be wrong in one case and right in another.

>A lot of people really enjoy 3D, trying to logically convince them that they actually shouldn't like it is not going to work.

Well, they are not that many to sustain 3D TVs (as TFA tells us), and they have never been that many to make it not be a fad in the cinema either.

In which case, whether some enjoy it is a moot point.


> No in any large numbers.

This implies that "large numbers" of people complain about 3D. I suspect this isn't true, and that it's really a very loud very small minority.

> But even if it was true that people said that about color movies, people can say the same thing about different inventions and be wrong in one case and right in another.

Yes, but the point is that some evidence needs to be provided. Since some statements are wrong and some are right, the argument needs to be more than "it's true because I said it."

> and they have never been that many to make it not be a fad in the cinema either.

What does this mean? At what point do you concede that it's not a fad in the cinema?


>This implies that "large numbers" of people complain about 3D.

No, it just implies that they don't care about it enough to e.g. sustain a 3D TV lineup.

>Yes, but the point is that some evidence needs to be provided. Since some statements are wrong and some are right, the argument needs to be more than "it's true because I said it."

The article is one piece of evidence, isn't it?

>At what point do you concede that it's not a fad in the cinema?

At the point it surpasses regular viewing and studios don't stop making such movies 5-10 years down the road?


Well, I love 3D movies but I've never been interested in a 3D TV, I think because watching movies in a theater and at home are very different experiences. If I always watched TV sitting up straight without leaving my seat, I'd probably buy a 3D TV.

I don't really understand how enjoyment is a moot point. Enjoyment is pretty much all that matters for a consumer entertainment product.


pretty much the whole population who can see perceive color. about 15-20% don't see in stereoscopic 3d. I'm one of those and i like seeing this 3d trend die...


Why? Maybe it's just my area, but I've never seen a 3D release that isn't also available in 2D. I guess it's slightly annoying when once in a while you can tell a scene was designed for 3D, but I don't think it's that big a deal.


But do they really enjoy it as more than a novelty?


I guess I can only speak for myself and people I know, but yes.


It varies a lot. E.g. the Transformers movies are poster-children for overdone 3D for the sake of making the effects look cooler, while in Prometheus the 3D looks fantastic but is subtle enough that they don't become the focus of any of the shots.


Like with "fad," it's important to define "novelty." Is it a novelty if cinemas profitably offer 3D for 20 years before moving to some other technology? What about 50 years?


Yes, it can still be a novelty even if it exists for a long time. The question is whether people continue to value it after it's no longer novel and surprising; if a steady stream of people try it once or twice for years on end it could last a long time while still being a novelty.


I don't really understand that argument. It seems like everything would be a novelty under that definition. Will we be watching 2D movies in 100 years? What about 1,000 years? Even ignoring the halting problem, how can we possibly guess what is and isn't a novelty under your definition?


> how can we possibly guess what is and isn't a novelty under your definition?

By observing the typical behavior of one person using it?

Think of a Chinese finger trap. It's been around forever. And yet one person is not going to play with a Chinese finger trap every day. Once you experience it and figure it out there's not much to do with it. That's a novelty.


I saw The Martian in 3D, and I thought the 3D added value in the shots of the Martian desert.

Then they had indoor shots that used depth of field, while still using some 3D effects and totally ruined it for me.

The whole point of 3D is you can choose what to focus on! The moment you ditch that the effect is ruined.


Plot and story are very important. To me the most enjoyable movie of the year is usually the best script winner. Almost never the best movie winner.

But there's this thing called cinematography. And when it is done well, it adds another layer of enjoyment to the movie viewing experience. 3D is part of cinematography.

So, yes, plot is important. But if you are watching a movie instead of just reading a book, it is usually because the added elements are worth it.

And I say that as someone who usually reads the books as well.

3D is fun, and films like Avatar and Tron and Pacific Rim are totally worth in 3D.


The only movie that I have felt that was better in 3D is Gravity. Wow - what a movie.


It seems that 3D is better suited to slow-moving, large-scale images than typical Hollywood action sequences. I can't stand 3D action movies, they make me dizzy. Especially when it's combined with shaky cameras!

But Gravity was awesome, animated 3D movies from Disney/Pixar are generally OK, and I really enjoyed the 3D version of Titanic that James Cameron produced in 2012 for the 100th anniversary of the sinking. (It's the same movie that came out in '97 but converted to 3D. Most of the time, you don't even realize that it's 3D. It's quite subtle.)


Gravity was spectacular in 3D, but I have a much larger list of films (many of which aren't great) that have immersive and not distracting 3D. Off the top of my head:

Life of Pi

Pretty much every Marvel movie

The new Star Trek films

Star Wars: Episode VII

The Martian

The Hobbit films

How to Train Your Dragon and sequel

Finding Dory

The LEGO Movie


You left out "Avatar" which was the movie that single-handedly sold 3D to the world.


I never saw it in the cinema. I did watch it at home on my old and terrible 3D TV, which was a fairly mediocre experience.


If the visuals don't contribute to the storytelling, then why watch movies at all?

Why not just listen to radio plays?


It makes it much more immersive.


It seems ridiculous now that you can get 4K TV sets for a reasonable price now and yet all the cinemas are touting their "New" 4K projection technology. Either bring back film or start projecting at 8K+.


From the viewing distance of movie theaters 8K wont do anything at all.

Actually it wont just be diminishing returns, but it will give movies the over-sharpened, soap-opera/sports-coverage style image (and even worse if paired with higher frame rates).


It's just a matter of what you're used to. I think higher frame rates look great! If you had grown up watching 60fps movies, and then someone released a 24fps movie, you'd complain that it looked rough and jittery.

I never watched soap operas and very little sports coverage so I probably don't mentally associate clear images and high frame rates with those types of content.


No, you'd complain they'd look blurry, and smoothed out. 60fps makes everything look sterile, and rough. Because you see every single minute detail on everything. Rough edges included. It's like using anti-aliasing and more recently motion blur in games, blur out the edges, and it's more "lifelike". Make everything a billion frames per second, and absolute, and it looks uncanny.


AA isn't used to make things look more "lifelike", it's to make up for the fact that you're looking at a 1080p image (or lower) and since you're dealing with pixels shit looks jagged without it.

On that note, to hell with motion blur in games. The first thing I look for when I notice a game has it enabled by default is a way to turn it off, I'm not watching a film and responsiveness is much more important when I'm not sitting there mindlessly consuming content being played for me.


Right, so real life isn't made of jagged lines, and blurring that gives illusion they are not.

Regarding motion blur, I agree, it's way overdone in games, and I disable as well.


> Right, so real life isn't made of jagged lines, and blurring that gives illusion they are not.

Blurring is a hack to deal with the fact that higher res is expensive. Higher resolution is preferable over AA if you can afford the monitor and the GPUs to drive it.


How do you know what another person would complain about? I've seen the Hobbit films in both 24 and 48 FPS, and the higher frame rate looked better. Period. I also don't watch soap operas or sports, so I have no aversion to a technically superior image.


>How do you know what another person would complain about?

The same reason we know what people would find too salty or too spicy. Because, outliers aside, humans tend to have the same psychology.


>If you had grown up watching 60fps movies, and then someone released a 24fps movie, you'd complain that it looked rough and jittery.

Not really. It's not just some historical accident why we ended with 24fps (or close) and not 50fps or 5fps or such.


It was a historical accident, in that 24fps was the cheapest frame rate that looked decent on the equipment at the time. Film stock cost money, and cameras and projectors that could reliably handle higher frame rates were more expensive. If the motion picture industry was starting from scratch today but with all of our modern equipment then I'm certain the standard frame rate would be higher.


Accurate picture reproduction is now somehow a negative?


Accurate reproduction has always been seen as a negative among a certain set of people used to what came before. Other examples include higher framerates for movies, digital photography, and compact discs.

If you live with a technology for long enough, you can start to see its flaws as advantages instead.


Say, your nephew is an inexperienced driver. He used to drive an old beater but has worked hard for a year and buys a new car with a lot of horsepower. He gives you a lift, and it's an uncomfortable constant stop and go. Technically, the new car is better, but the driver doesn't understand that he should treat it differently, resulting in a worse ride than the old car.

Say, your cousin has been cooking as a hobby for a while. They move to a bigger house with a new kitchen and can finally get a big spice rack and a deep frying machine. They proceed to deep fry everything and put all possible spices on it. It tastes bad and monotonic.

Your friend plays in a band. They've been gigging a while and got new PA equipment that they say sounds less muddy than their old cheap crap. You go to a concert. The treble is so harsh you can't stand it and have to leave.

Some examples where some new tool is, in theory, better. But it turns out a worse end result because lack of skill in using it.

I find many technically oriented people don't understand this. They point out to some number saying "well this makes it absolutely better". Sure, numbers might be easy to measure. But it's the end result that's important to most people.


None of those would be reasons to avoid a new car, bigger kitchen, newer PA equipment, etc. They just show that there can be a learning curve. Your cousin's cooking is probably going to be a lot better once he gets the hang of it, and your friend's music will too. Your nephew's driving may not improve, but only because what we see as "good driving" lines up poorly with what a nicer car provides.

Not every film has to be made with the latest technology. Sticking with analog or black-and-white or 24fps is a perfectly valid artistic choice. But it's an artistic choice made by the film creator, not some advantage to the older stuff. Cinemas should be using the most accurate reproduction they can. Filmmakers can then dial it back in the actual film if they think that's better.

The comment I was replying to wasn't saying 8k might produce worse results sometimes, it was arguing that 8k and higher fps would just be worse, period.


Ok, so we agree the things that were limitations could also be used for artistic effects. (I technically disagree about the avoidance: don't buy something if you're not going to bother learning how to use it.)

Then, let's look at the reproduction part only.

Technically, it might work. More choice in reproduction. But maybe in the real world, movie theaters (and certainly in the television world!) would crank up the brightness and edge sharpening and frame interpolation to make the director's artistic material look totally horrible.

If you think about the whole life cycle of any kind of art delivered to some audience, it's lined with these huge pitfalls at every point.

Maybe I'm obsessive compulsive about it.


Theaters certainly could screw it up. Wouldn't be the first time. But maybe they wouldn't! I have no problem acknowledging and discussing potential downsides. But blanket statements that better reproduction will provide a worse experience don't seem to be supported by the facts, and it bugs me.


"Better reproduction" probably means very different things to different people.

Likely a lot would depend on good defaults and good training. If you were as skeptical about people and organizations as I am, you would assume it could on average worsen many movies. The original Murphy's Law and all that. :)


I'd accept "on average." The original comment up there didn't even say that. It just said, blanket statement, high resolution would be worse, and high framerates would be worse still.


Having more horsepower does not make the car better.


Or rather, you learn to take advantage of the flaws of the current technology to create the kind of visual experience that you want. When the technology changes, it will take a while for everyone to learn how to take advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of the new platform to create different kinds of visual experiences, and in the meantime you get less than optimal results.

Some directors still shoot movies in black and white from time to time, not because they think color is inferior, but because they think black and white is better suited for the specific movie they want to shoot.


Definitely. I feel like "The Hobbit" was the wrong vehicle to introduce audiences to HFR, for example, and I hope it hasn't soured directors or studios on exploring what's possible artistically at higher frame rates.


A Stockholm syndrome of sorts?


>Accurate reproduction has always been seen as a negative among a certain set of people used to what came before.

Only I'm someone working with 4K video and beyond professionally, not some grandpa tied to the ways of yore.


I don't see why that would disqualify you from what I said. Plenty of tech-savvy people are hung up on 24fps or vinyl, too. It can happen to anyone.


>Plenty of tech-savvy people are hung up on 24fps or vinyl, too. It can happen to anyone.

Maybe take the opposite reading of this observation? E.g. that those tech-savvy people know what they are talking about, and are not merely nostalgic or whatever?

First, vinyl vs mp3/WAV is not the same as 24fps vs higher frame rates, and conflating technical issues (each with their own characteristics and/or tradeoffs) is not really illuminating the subject matter.

Some things are not merely an issue of "technological capability" but tied to human physiology (the eye, etc).

The same way that a screen with 50,000 lumens is not naively "brighter = better" but blinding, or a 150dB headphone is not "louder = better" but physically damaging the ear.

Yeah, 150dB dynamic range is great, but nobody can hear it, and nobody can tolerate the upper range of volumes it takes to reproduce the full range on a speaker.

With color, on the other hand, it's not like that. The more, the better (24bit, 32bit, 64bit, etc).

With fps, again, there are issues related to the eye, how the "afterimage" works, when visual information becomes too distracting or overbearing, etc.

Note also that we, for example, have been technically lowering the resolution of photographs (smoothing the skin) to make portraits appear more pleasant since forever. It's one of the main staples in fashion and magazine portrait photography.

And that's not because "some old-fashioned people like smoother skin vs detailed skin". It's inherently better looking unless one likes wrinkles, pores and detailed nose hairs.


I'm not exactly clueless myself. I've yet to see an argument for lower-fidelity technology that is remotely convincing.

Reality is basically infinite fps. We all get by just fine, and the general consensus is that the effect is quite pleasing as long as the subject matter itself is.

Smoothing skin in photographs is entirely different. That's a selective effect applied before it reaches the display. Using higher resolution doesn't somehow force photographers not to airbrush.

As another commenter said, sometimes people deliberately decrease fidelity for effect, like filming in black and white after color was available. Doing it deliberately in a specific context for one work is totally different from a blanket declaration that 8k is fundamentally worse than 4k.


>I'm not exactly clueless myself. I've yet to see an argument for lower-fidelity technology that is remotely convincing. Reality is basically infinite fps.

Extreme close ups, action sequences, camera panning and traveling are not part of reality. Nor do we change camera angles several times per minute in a discontinuous fashion. Cinema is not a full real world simulation, it is a technical way to tell stories.


Sure reality has extreme close ups, action sequences, and panning. I'm not sure what traveling refers to, since the obvious interpretation is absurd. I don't get the argument with changing camera angles. If our eyes really do need 1/24th of a second to adjust for a cut, then a high-fps film can replicate that with multiple blank frames.

I get that cinema isn't reality, but the more capable the medium is, the more choices the filmmaker has for telling their story. I can buy that 24fps might be the best choice sometimes. I don't buy that it's the best choice for everything. It would be a crazy coincidence if a framerate chosen a century ago due to technical limitations when dealing with cellulose just happens to be the perfect framerate for cinema.


HFR and 8k require rewriting the rules of set design, makeup, lighting and post-production for non-documentary work as they expose the artificiality of fictional narrative. Rather than feeling like you're in the movie, you feel like you're on the set, seeing all the fake backdrops, cables, and acne. HD (and 4k) had similar issues, but not to the extent that HFR and 8k does. Although both HFR and high resolutions do work extremely well for sports and nature documentaries where suspension of disbelief is unnecessary, at the moment both are worse for narrative filmmaking using current techniques.

The Hobbit (shot 48fps 5k 3D)had mixed results using HFR. The scenes shot on location with less CGI looked awful (like low budget early 80s BBC mid day dramas) while the green-screen, heavy CG scenes felt like being in a video game (in mostly a good way). Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (shot at 120fps 4k 3D) looked absolutely horrible, like early HDCam home movies. It was impossible to get swept up into the movie and made an ok script and good acting feel much worse than it actually was.

I do believe someone will crack the code on HFR, but it will first require the right source material (The Hobbit and Billy Lynn's Long Walk Home were not it). I suggest utopian sci-fi or something set in a sterile environment. But even beyond that they have to figure out the lighting, makeup and set-design (and the extra burden HFR and 8k puts on post-production, especially for CGI/VFX).

One element that actually helps make a film feel cinematic is a slight softness to the image. The best looking digital cinema uses on camera filters and/or post-process to help achieve this look that comes naturally from film shot at 24fps.

Younger audiences who've grown up on HD and HFR video games are less bothered by the differences, but audiences usually don't really know what they want until they see it (one reason that early audience feedback is poison to the process).

background note: 20years experience working in production and post-production


I don't like the "feel cinematic" argument. It's rather circular: what feels cinematic is defined by what we're used to, so of course anything new won't feel the same. That's not an argument against the change, unless you want everything to stay static forever.

As for the rest, I don't doubt that it's hard, requires new techniques, isn't always the best choice, etc. But I don't buy this idea that it's always worse. Which doesn't seem to be the argument you're making, but it is the one I was responding to.

I'm getting a lot of good arguments about why certain videos should be shot using less than the maximum possible. But that's quite different from saying 8k and HFR is just plain worse.


> With fps, again, there are issues related to the eye, how the "afterimage" works, when visual information becomes too distracting or overbearing, etc.

There is no physiological phenomenon that makes low frame rates more natural or appealing. The real world doesn't have a frame rate. The preference for low frame rate is learned. No one ever selected 24 fps because it was better. They selected it because it was technically feasible at a reasonable cost and crossed the line into acceptable fps.

> Note also that we, for example, have been technically lowering the resolution of photographs (smoothing the skin) to make portraits appear more pleasant since forever. It's one of the main staples in fashion and magazine portrait photography.

This is wildly different. Firstly because most things on screen are not human skin and secondly because we've been smoothing skin in real life for centuries with makeup. The desire to see skin as smooth and flawless doesn't mean that people generally want the world to be blurry.


With higher FPS i feel like i see more of the flaw on acting. Like im watching theater. I think low FPS increases the expérience by letting our brain fill some gaps.


>Firstly because most things on screen are not human skin

Most, no, just the most important (actors' faces).


Depends on the movie. Pretty sure pores weren't problematic for Avatar, or March of the Penguins, or many other movies. For the majority of movies that do focus primarily on humans, there are typically still scenes (e.g. outdoor panoramas) that clearly benefit from high resolution. And a competent film crew should be able to soften the look if it is appropriate. It's slightly absurd to suggest that 4K is the max resolution we should allow because some films might be diminished by the use of 8k.


It takes more than just a competent film crew to adjust for 8k and HDR. New lighting, makeup and set design techniques have to make up for the higher fidelity. Suddenly the line where makeup is applied is highly visible, as happened during the switch over to HD (this led to makeup artists switching to air-brushing in the early days). Set design needs to look even more real than before (if you've ever been on set, you probably noticed how fake everything looks, yet on screen the flaws disappear). This will take time and experimentation. And money, money that the industry really doesn't seem willing to spend yet as they've spent tons moving over to a 4k pipeline. It'll take a blockbuster success from someone like Cameron releasing an 8k HDR film for the industry to even seriously entertain the idea (and they'll be more gun shy since the 3D push wasn't as successful as they hoped). And unless annual attendance shrinks drastically, they have little reason for the extra expense (and theater owners won't want to bear the cost of the upgrade since they're still working on the upgrade to 4k).

Douglass Trumbull, a pioneer in cinema techniques, is developing technology to allow mixed frame rates and resolution. So those panorama shots could be 8k HFR, while maybe the close up shots of the actors are 4k 24fps. It will be interesting to see if this actually works in a film that requires suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to reach cinemas in large numbers anytime soon.

All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be.


> It takes more than just a competent film crew to adjust for 8k and HDR....

Your list boils down to "use it appropriately and don't assume old techniques are appropriate". Obviously there is a lot of learning the industry would need to do to use 8k well.

> Douglass Trumbull, a pioneer in cinema techniques, is developing technology to allow mixed frame rates and resolution. So those panorama shots could be 8k HFR, while maybe the close up shots of the actors are 4k 24fps. It will be interesting to see if this actually works in a film that requires suspension of disbelief. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to reach cinemas in large numbers anytime soon.

Sounds interesting, and promising, though I agree that it seems unlikely to be widespread anytime soon, even if it works beautifully.

> All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

That's an odd comment to end on. At no point did I ever say it was simple. I said it's absurd to treat 4k like it's the pinnacle and anything beyond that is somehow actually a loss.


> All this is to say, it is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Sorry, I think this was meant for another comment, not yours, as I don't see the sentence I thought I was responding to in yours.

>Your list boils down to "use it appropriately and don't assume old techniques are appropriate". Obviously there is a lot of learning the industry would need to do to use 8k well.

This takes more than a "competent film crew". A competent film crew should have no problem working in well established techniques and workflows but wouldn't necessarily be prepared to venture outside that. If I was directing a production in 8k, HDR, VR, 3D or any edge cases, I want more than a competent film crew. I want creative thinkers and problem solvers. I want crew members who have experience on a wide range of projects, everything from digital video to imax (you might be surprised at how often even the crews of big budget productions have limited experience outside the status quo).

In the early days of the RED camera, the best footage came from cinematographers who had worked in lower budget HD productions, not film cinematographers. The HD crews had already been working in similar workflows, but the competent film crews were flummoxed by this one piece of equipment and even though they could see the results on set, they would still send back footage that was way underexposed and often unusable (and this was often from very well respected and experienced cinematographers).

I believe few people in the industry believe that 4k is the pinnacle. But most do believe that the technology to move to 8k is not even close to ready or worth the added cost, that workflows for 4k are just now becoming standard (the majority of projects are still finished in 2k, although that will change with distributors like Netflix now requiring 4k delivery). And that audiences won't care enough about beyond 4k enough to pay extra. Are you ready to pay extra for an 8k screening? The theaters have to recoup the cost for new projectors while they're still paying off the brand new 4k installs. Oh, and there aren't many cinema lenses that can cover an 8k image (especially since many DPs prefer the quality of older lenses).

There are old timers that lament the loss of film and resist moving from 24fps. But they'll be replaced by the younger generation who will be more open to experimentation and pushing the medium beyond its limits. The industry is driven first and foremost by profits, so once the pencil pushers see profit in 8k and HDR, the whole industry will move in that direction.


In fairness, I did not say that the transition to 8k was easy or that any "competent film crew" could make a beautiful 8k film or leverage 8k to its max. I said that a competent film crew could soften the look if appropriate. The lazy fix for "too sharp" is to just scale down to 4k or throw a slight blur at the frames. A slightly less lazy fix would be use lenses that yield a softer focus (which I assume some of the insanely expensive film lenses can deliver).

But I wasn't saying it's trivial to leverage 8k well, just that if 8k is too much to deal with in some cases, effectively reducing the resolution seems a tractable problem.


What makes it difficult to mix frame rates and resolution? I would naively assume that you could just record each scene with whatever framerate and resolution you wanted, combine the whole thing into a single movie with the max resolution and framerate you used out of the bunch, and be done. For example, if you put 24fps material into a 48fps video, it still displays at 24fps.

Edit: since it's an ongoing theme in this discussion, I should point out that my "just record each scene" description is from a technical perspective only. Making it result in a nice-looking work of art is, of course, another matter entirely.


Current playback technologies only playback one frame rate. yes you can mix frame rates in an edit, but they will be converted to the master frame rate of the timeline (so that 24fps footage would be converted to playback at 48fps, not it's native frame rate). Sometimes this looks fine, other times this can cause image problems.

And it's only recently that mixing frame rates in the same timeline has worked well. 5-10 yrs ago, we would have to convert the footage, typically using hardware specifically built for conversion (Teranex or Alchemist). Then came along desktop software that could do decent jobs converting. Now, if i'm cutting in Premiere or FCPX, I can just drop the footage in and the software will take care of it, usually without issue (Avid still has problems with non-native frame rates and it's recommended to convert before importing the media).

And it's been this way since playback frame rates were standardized (and automated). Projectors had no way of changing playback speed on the fly depending on what frames were projected. Television was locked into one broadcast frame rate spec (29.97 in N. America, 25 in Europe) and TVs were locked into one of those specs. Tapes and disc playback was typically locked into one in the early days, although DVD eventually allowed for multiple playback options, as does Bluray, but the hardware typically converted them for playback on 29.97 screens (pre-HD). We're still limited to what the screen can playback to some extent, the broadcast specs of 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, 30, 50, 59.94 and 60.

With computers and monitors we have the capability to playback multiple frame rates, if the software allows it, and that is where the current issue is. I can playback different frame rate QTs on the same screen, at the same time without issue. But there is no software (that I know of) to create or playback videos consisting of multiple frame rate videos. Game engines might be able to change playback on the fly, but I have zero knowledge of that tech.

And it would be advantageous to have tech that allowed switch on the fly playback. I'm currently consulting on a documentary that uses source footage from at least 3 frame rates (24, 25 and 29.97). And the editor is cutting in Avid, so we have to convert before import, which slows down the creative process and adds complications to the finishing process.


That's like asking "feeding yourself is now somehow a negative" when people talk about obesity.

It's not always a naive "the more the better" issue.

Too much resolution can result in unnatural and distracting results -- your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup. It's neither natural not flattering to see an actors individual skin pores, for example.

Similarly, faster frame-rates capture motion more accurately (sharper under motion), but result in a movie that looks distracting and soap-opera-ish to the viewers eyes.


> Too much resolution can result in unnatural and distracting results -- your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup. It's neither natural not flattering to see an actors individual skin pores, for example.

Your eyes can't see human faces 8 feet tall either but no one seems to think that movies are better on 20 inch screens. To the extent that movies look unnatural in extremely high resolution, that's an issue where directors need to learn to use the medium effectively. It's certainly not more natural to see blur or pixelation instead of pores.

> faster frame-rates capture motion more accurately (sharper under motion), but result in a movie that looks distracting and soap-opera-ish to the viewers eyes.

Only because we've been trained to expect films to be a juddery 24 fps experience. If high frame rates become commonplace they'll look commonplace.


>your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup.

If I move close enough to your face that it fills my entire vision I can see it in glorious 16k, skin pores and all. It's the extreme close up that's unnatural, not the fact that you can see details in extreme close ups.

As with 3d, most directors are lagging behind in adapting their style to changes in the medium. Some things that were developed for low-fidelity grainy film don't work in 8k. Some fight scenes that look good at 24hz look garbage at 60hz. But on the other hand 60hz and 8k allow for speed and details that just produce blurs on old 24hz mediums.


I don't follow. Even looking painfully close to my retina displays the picture still looks great. There is no point where suddenly skin pores become noticeable when they weren't previously. If you see skin pores in a movie then that's the fault of the makeup department--I recall reading early HDTV productions struggled with this.

Rather, I think the reason why theatres don't benefit from 8k is that from a certain distance increased resolution doesn't have a benefit. E.g. If you ever get close to a billboard you may notice that the resolution of the ad is quite poor, but from street level it looks perfectly fine. We aren sitting much farther than 10' from the theatre screen, so more resolution won't be noticeable given the distance from the screen for most of the audience.


Theaters can't die soon enough. They have all the charm of public transit but with laughable pricing.


So don't go to the theater. Complaining that some other people do a thing that you aren't interested in and are not compelled to participate in is petty and obnoxious.


If only so I don't need to hear "Why would you NOT want to see it in 3D?" again in my life.


So what is your answer?


Speaking only for myself, there are two big reasons I never go to 3D shows anymore.

First is that the technology is just plain uncomfortable. The glasses feel bad, and my eyes hurt after a while.

Second is that filmmakers seem to have no clue how stereoscopic depth perception actually works. Objects only have perceptible parallax out to a couple dozen feet. Beyond that, depth is perceived purely by other means. But 3D movies keep applying parallax to objects much farther away. All this does is make them look closer and therefore smaller. The worst example I saw of this was an IMAX film at the Smithsonian about the development of the Boeing 777. There was a scene of a distant 777 in flight which popped the plane out of the screen. The result was that this 100-ton building-sized machine looked like a child's toy.

If the technology can be improved so it doesn't hurt, and if filmmakers can figure out how to use it without it looking utterly stupid, I'll give it another shot. Until then, I'm sticking with 2D.


The 3D movies I've seen were just too dark. Add to that fingerprints on ill-fitting glasses and the faintly cross-eyed feeling I get watching scenes where the 3D is pronounced, and I'll much rather watch a nice, bright, 2D version.


To each his own, I guess: the lower brightness is actually the main thing I like about 3D. It's occasionally done well enough to add something to the movie. Other than those cases, the only benefit is having not as bright a screen in a dark room.


I've read that some theatres reduce the brightness to extend the life of the projector light bulb.

I generally am not a fan of 3D, but my theatre seems to light 3D movies perfectly, while their 2D showings often seem dark.


Personally I find that even when it's well done it creates moments that draw me out of the movie and make me very aware that I'm in a cinema

When it's badly done it makes my eyes hurt after a while and I find it tends to make everything look blurry


Not that you asked me, but here's one reason: I have keratoconus and even with glasses and multiple eye surgeries don't see 20-20. Moreover, my right eye is considerably worse than my left, which means that I can't quite get binocular vision to work, making 3d viewing impossible for me. I realize folks like me are a tiny minority, however.

Perhaps a broader reason is that 3d seems to encourage filmmakers to go for visual spectacle over good storytelling.


I lost my right eye when I was very young, so for me as well 3D is just a way to make a movie look worse.


3D gives me a headache. It also looks rubbish. I watched Gravity in 3D after Mark Kermode admitted it added something. It was bearable because it was a concise film and was enjoyable. But it works only in specific cases like these. It's more like a theme park ride than something that works on any film. Other times I was forced to watch 3D were: Dredd (only available in 3D), The Hobbit (was curious about 60fps which was only available in 3D). I regretted it each time.


My wife and I were on a date and I thought watching the first Hobbit movie in 3D would be a fun, impromptu thing to do after dinner.

She loved the experience, so I sat there for three hours watching a blurry movie because the 3D glasses were awful and causing pain.

Never again.


For us it was Avatar, but at least both of us couldn't stand it. I couldn't focus due to the 3D glasses not sitting at the right distance in front of my real glasses, and my bespectacled girlfriend got sick about 20 minutes in. We left, got our money back, and never bothered with 3D again.


"Because I don't like gimmicky depth, distraction from the story, and worse dynamic range, and I'm not 5 years old to care for floating Ice Age characters...".


5yr olds aren't supposed to use the tehnology...possibly can cause developmental problems with 3d perception.


5 year olds are seeing in 3D 24X7 already. Sounds fishy.


3D movies aren't real 3D, they leverage a subset of what we have learned to judge depth by independent of (and inconsistent with) other depth cues.

I can certainly see how too much early exposure would actually interfere with the development of the usual association of cues that support perception of distance.


Citation? It's hard to believe that watching a 3D movie even once per week would have any negative developmental effect.


Motion sickness


Stereo-blind.


One reply to that is "I ain't got 4D for that fad"

4D==time :).


3D films give me a headache. I think it's something to do with a slightly lazy right eye. I've not actually been to a blockbuster theatrical release in the better part of a decade. There were plenty of films I would have gladly payed a ticket for, if only they were released in 2D.


Maybe it's different in different markets, but in my area, every movie released in 3D is also released in 2D.

They're usually released simultaneously for blockbusters, e.g., 1-2 IMAX screens showing 3D and 1-2 screens showing 2D. For others, they might start out only showing 3D on opening weekend and then transition to 2D as the movies age and move to smaller screens, e.g., Rogue One is still playing in my area but only available in 2D now.


People with amblyopia (lazy eye) are much more prone to stereo-blindness than people without, since your eyes aren't properly aligned stereoscopic 3D not only "doesn't work" for many but the tricks your brain normally uses to compensate don't work correctly and can cause headaches.

In fact, you can test this yourself. Go look up "split-depth GIF", then compare the experience you get from those to a traditional 3D image (either in theaters or from a 3DS or something else that uses parallax to fake 3D). This was the first time in my life I've ever actually experienced the '3D' effect coming from any 2D plane.

Another fun thing to try: go try and hit a baseball, catch a ball, whatever. You may notice you are not very good at this, even with a fair amount of practice. These small objects don't give off depth cues your brain normally uses since it can't rely on stereoscopic vision, the lack of shadows, small change in relative size and a lack of other objects to use for depth positioning can make this a difficult if not almost impossible task for someone with amblyopia.

Want to know how I know all of this? Because I've done all of this, my left eye is horrifically bad and has been since the day I was born (80/20 in the left eye, 40/20 in the right), and even after TWO strabismus surgeries it decided to misalign itself again and I've suffered from occasional double vision ever since.

If you're still relatively young (20's or early 30's) you can check out vision therapy, there's been a lot of great success rates on retraining the brain to properly integrate the information from both eyes that will allow you to see "normally" and likely remove these issues. Personally I've opted not to because at 25 years old I really have no desire to change how I perceive the world (it's not a comforting thought, especially since once you've retrained your brain you can't exactly undo it).


Same here.

I went to see Rogue One to the only IMAX cinema in my city. First time I went to an IMAX and I didn't like it at all. This surprised me because IMAX is supposed to be such a big deal, but the picture quality was awful: only the center of the screen was in focus, everything else was awfully blurry and dark. It really ruined the movie. Is this supposed to be a premium experience?

I can't wait for the 3D fad to die. It will probably outlast me, however.


FYI: There is IMAX, and there is "IMAX". The brand has been diluted to hell with screens that previously wouldn't have qualified.


This.

It pains me that they aren't just focused on higher and high quality of projection instead of 3d.


Theaters are starting to get there. The laser projectors are just still way too expensive. I'm glad to see a lot of theaters finally upgrading their seats to be wider recliners. That's something I'll pay a premium for.


I think 3D is so much more of an effective gimmick in movie theaters than at home. It's kind of a "special" thing to go out to a movie, etc. so I think the effect kind of works there.

3D at home... on a smaller screen... just doesn't work as well as a spectacle.


I went to the IMAX at the zoo in MN and watched Jurassic World in 3D. It was amazing, and actually made me want to see more movies like that. It was much nicer than the standard IMAX.

They had a preview for The Walk and that preview showed the true depth of 3D.


The first Jurassic Park in special release IMAX 3D was pretty good as well. The larger screen helps a lot, as well as them not going crazy with the post 3D


Outside of IMAX cinemas, it seems ticket sales for 3D movies are lackluster as well (compared to 2D showings of the same film at the same location). Not sure if it's the actual format or just the 3D surcharge.

I imagine smaller chains opening new locations may pass on adding 3D capability to their theatres in future, however many may continue showing 3D films on the equipped screens if only to justify the extra $15k/cinema in equipment they were hustled into buying while making their mandatory 3D conversion.


It contributes to story if movie designed ground up for 3D specifically. Actually, the only movie I have seen in this category was Avatar. The environment, colors, action scenes are all designed to look better in 3D. Other movies I watched have always ended up with poor experience.


I agree. I watched Transformers in 3D and it made sense to me.


I'd be pretty happy to never see another terrible chase scene that has been crammed into a movie where it didn't need to be, just to justify showing the movie in 3D.


Agreed. Can we get over the 3D fad again please? It was a misguided idea in the 50s and it is just as misguided now.


3D != 3D. If they can do away with non-IMAX 3D, I'd be happy. The typical cinema experience is just crap - especially because the brightness being usually cut in half compared to the regular, flat movie. But IMAX screens I actually enjoy (even though I wear prescription glasses, which makes watching 3D movies a tricky problem in general).


I remember hugely enjoying a traditional film-based IMAX 3D, but there isn't such anymore close to me.

The quality of projections in all the theaters that I visited is year to year worse. Somehow they switch to constantly worse technologies for 3D? I suspect the older ones but only on a few places had higher FPS than these done now? Now is watching the movements annoying, I see the objects move like in the strobolight -- not smooth at all.


I wish more movies would be done like Superman Returns.

It was plain old 2D except for a handful of scenes where they flashed an icon in the corner to tell you to put on your glasses. You put them on for a minute, saw some cool 3D effect in an action scene, and then you took them off before you got a headache and before it affected the rest of the movie.


Thanks for trying to take it away from me because you don't like it.


Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: