Is 3D dying ?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
But Alice in Wonderland wasn't true 3D, it was done in post. Last 3D movie I saw was Dredd and that was ok. People rubbish Avatar a lot here, but I thought the visuals were great.

The problem with 3D is that it's inconsistant. You'll get one out of every 5 titles that is decent, especially with non animated stuff. 3D can be really well done if they apply themselves whether it be shot in 3D or post 3D. Avengers was post 3D and looked great, and so did Titanic. Spider-Man was shot in 3D and doesn't look too good. The culprit here is the studios that are trying to push this technology but don't actually put time in it. The equipment also varies too much from one to the other. There is also a big difference from 3D at the theater and at home. I absolutely hate it in the theater but love it at home. But again, there is a vast inconsistancy from equipment to equipment. My setup absolutely blows away any experience I've had in a theater, but my friend's setup is really poor quality, dim, and headache inducing. I haven't had one person come watch Tron: Legacy, Prometheus, Avatar, or Titanic that hasn't left my house stunned. 3D is a novelty though and it's not for everyone.
 
But Alice in Wonderland wasn't true 3D, it was done in post. Last 3D movie I saw was Dredd and that was ok. People rubbish Avatar a lot here, but I thought the visuals were great.

I think Avatar got exactly what it deserved: Best Cinematography and Best Visual Effects.

The movie or story itself was nothing spectacular. It's basically a sci fi version of Dances With Wolves. :lol
 
After seeing Alice in Wonderland (Burton) and getting a huge migraine because of it with no real benefit, I won't pay for another 3-D movie experience if I can help it.

Sounds like you picked a badly done post-converted 3D movie to base your judgment on. Too bad, some native 3D films have been truly spectacular.
 
Yep. like Avatar, Tron Legacy, Prometheus, The Hobbit or Tintin...
Those are really spectacular 3D movies to watch...

I don't think it will go away anytime soon either... it will evolve for sure...
 
I watch a bit of football (rest of the world's name for soccer) on my box and it's superb.
It is a fad however but it's good to be able to use this feature occasionally.
 
3D sucks now. I was pumped at first, but now I just don't care.
I just want to watch a movie. I don't need the most epic sound or picture quality.

The odd movie worth seeing on the big screen I will. Life of Pi for example.

But 3D at home. Not needed. I'd rather see it on a huge screen out at the movies.
 
Sounds like you picked a badly done post-converted 3D movie to base your judgment on. Too bad, some native 3D films have been truly spectacular.

Alice in Wonderland had all of the CG effects rendered in 3D, which is most of the movie, the only thing that was converted was the live-action elements.
 
I think it will stick around in theaters but die off for the home setup until, like others have said, can be done without the glasses. I spent a lot of money to have my home theater setup at home and going 3D isn't enough to make me go out and upgrade again so soon. It's one of those things that when the time comes that I need a new TV, then maybe I'll get a 3D one or one that is 3D ready. I think that's most peoples approach. If they improve it and it evolves in the right direction, it will catch on more down the road.
 
tumblr_lxk0hyQ5Lv1qc67tzo1_500.gif


Technology is cyclical.
 
3D isn't dying & it's here to stay. All the new OLED Tv's seemed to come with 3D as standard but all the excitement right now from Sony, Samsung, Panasonic etc is for 4K. Until we get 3D Tv's which won't need glasses there's nothing new for them to hype about 3D. Saying all that I've had a 3D Tv for well over a year now & I still haven't watched one film or program on it yet, I hate wearing the glasses they annoy me :wave
 
Sounds like you picked a badly done post-converted 3D movie to base your judgment on. Too bad, some native 3D films have been truly spectacular.

But Alice in Wonderland wasn't true 3D, it was done in post. Last 3D movie I saw was Dredd and that was ok. People rubbish Avatar a lot here, but I thought the visuals were great.
Be that as it may, it gave me a bad migraine. I don't think the 3-D being done during or after production would really affect that.

And it wasn't that the effects were bad, but my brain sort of adjusted after a short while and the effect wasn't really processing all that much anyway. You would notice it when something spectacular happened, but most of the run-of-the-mill 3D stuff was easy to ignore.
 
3D is a useless gimmick. I didn't even care for it with Avatar. Stop Motion movies look great with it (probably due to them actually being three dimensional objects) but I haven't been impressed my live action 3D films (still want to check out 48fps Hobbit though).

IMAX is where film makers should be focusing in on, not 3D. Don't follow Cameron. I'll just drag you down to the bottom of the ocean. Follow Nolan and RISE! :lol
 
3D isn't dying & it's here to stay. All the new OLED Tv's seemed to come with 3D as standard but all the excitement right now from Sony, Samsung, Panasonic etc is for 4K. Until we get 3D Tv's which won't need glasses there's nothing new for them to hype about 3D. Saying all that I've had a 3D Tv for well over a year now & I still haven't watched one film or program on it yet, I hate wearing the glasses they annoy me :wave

Exactly CES is not for spending big dollars on floor space to show something you can see in any best buy.
 
I like 3D, and most action movies would work well if only action scene gets the treatment. As bad as Superman Returns was, when they tell you to put on the glasses during certain scenes, it was done well.
 
Back
Top