Incorrect, when done right it adds depth of field which actually exists in real life, just like color. You can enjoy a film in black and white and in 2D. So does that make color a gimmick?
Tron 3
- Thread starter CLU
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Incorrect, when done right it adds depth of field which actually exists in real life, just like color. You can enjoy a film in black and white and in 2D. So does that make color a gimmick?
wow some of those songs are really amazing. Even if it really isn't them or anything they are so awesome.
Snadinator
Super Freak
Comparing color to gimmicky 3D is asinine. Again, you are getting a lower resolution image with 3D. It's a step back in that sense. Hey if you like paying an extra $5 at the movies for a blurry image, that's your prerogative. In my book, resolution > 3D.
Now Disney have Star Wars, I reckon Tron is done
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
3D is indeed a gimic. And so what? Sometimes its done well and sometimes its done poorly, just like any other effect in the business, such as surround sound.
If you thought the 3D effect in TRON was done poorly then you can't appreciate a job well done.
That doesn't make it a great movie or anything, but maybe beside the soundtrack the 3D is the last thing to complain about on that movie, IMO.
Best 3D ever done up to that point, IMO.
If you thought the 3D effect in TRON was done poorly then you can't appreciate a job well done.
That doesn't make it a great movie or anything, but maybe beside the soundtrack the 3D is the last thing to complain about on that movie, IMO.
Best 3D ever done up to that point, IMO.
the 3D was good but since that world doesn't have a lot going on I didn;t think it needed it. I mean a movie like Avatar visually is amazing and the 3D can work well. Tron I don't really think needs to be in 3D.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
I'll strongly disagree.
The minimalist visuals on TRON make for a staggering world just as much as the lushness of Avatar did.
There is a lot of wonderful artistic design out there with simple lines and curves and bold colors.
The 3D in TRON wasn't meant to show you tiny leaves on trees. It was meant to provide pops of bold colors and lines...which it did wonderfully.
You obviously don't appreciate that design style, but that doesn't mean the 3D didn't work to enhance it for those that do.
I don't think any film "needs" to be in 3D. But for me it made it cooler.
My problem with 3D like most people is the annoying glasses and how sometimes the glasses make everything dark. For TRON on the other hand, everything is supposed to be dark with just the pops of light, so I actually don't recall thinking "man these glasses make everything hard to see".
Perhaps the simplicity of the design actually makes it perfect for 3D.
Last edited:
I understand. I guess is nice for you that you liked it, but for me it was a waste of money and I actually enjoyed the movie more when I saw in it 2D.
It was much better because the image was not blurry but sharp and the colors looked really good. in 2D I Was able to enjoy it a lot more, maybe it was just me but 2D was better than 3D, it made me wish I never saw it in 3D.
I mean, you obviously loved it which is good, but I just had a better time watching it in 2D. It felt better.
Blurry image? Next time you watch a 3D movie try it with the glasses ON genius.
I've seen the 3D and 2D versions of a number of movies and have never once detected a downgrade in resolution with 3D. In fact in the three years since Avatar I've literally never even *heard* of that as a complaint. So that indicates that it's something that the naked eye doesn't even pick up and therefore isn't even worth mentioning.
An even better comparison would be 3D to surround sound. Surround sound has the sound come from different sides, front and back, but of course isn't as accurate as if the sound really were coming from the individuals and events on screen. But the sound is three dimensional and makes for a more immersive experience. But should we all go back to single channel mono? Its just a gimmick right?
With various lense filters and lighting colors in movies are often inaccurate to what you see in real life too. So let's bag the gimmicks and go back to black and white mono.
Snadinator
Super Freak
Blurry image? Next time you watch a 3D movie try it with the glasses ON genius.
I've seen the 3D and 2D versions of a number of movies and have never once detected a downgrade in resolution with 3D. In fact in the three years since Avatar I've literally never even *heard* of that as a complaint. So that indicates that it's something that the naked eye doesn't even pick up and therefore isn't even worth mentioning.
An even better comparison would be 3D to surround sound. Surround sound has the sound come from different sides, front and back, but of course isn't as accurate as if the sound really were coming from the individuals and events on screen. But the sound is three dimensional and makes for a more immersive experience. But should we all go back to single channel mono? Its just a gimmick right?
With various lense filters and lighting colors in movies are often inaccurate to what you see in real life too. So let's bag the gimmicks and go back to black and white mono.
Wow that was rude. Can't stand someone who doesn't have your point of view huh? If you can't see a downgrade in resolution or notice how blurry 3D films are during any kind of motion, then "genius" maybe you need glasses and not the 3D kind.
It was a joke. I found the image of you sitting in a dark theater watching a 3D movie with no glasses shaking your fist at the screen in a rage to be quite amusing. And funnily enough I did that once during Green Lantern. I ran to the bathroom, came back, put my glasses on and saw that in my absence the 3D had apparently been broken! Everything was blurry and off and 2D looking. Until I noticed that I had mistakenly grabbed my sunglasses.
Blurry image? Next time you watch a 3D movie try it with the glasses ON genius.
I've seen the 3D and 2D versions of a number of movies and have never once detected a downgrade in resolution with 3D. In fact in the three years since Avatar I've literally never even *heard* of that as a complaint. So that indicates that it's something that the naked eye doesn't even pick up and therefore isn't even worth mentioning.
An even better comparison would be 3D to surround sound. Surround sound has the sound come from different sides, front and back, but of course isn't as accurate as if the sound really were coming from the individuals and events on screen. But the sound is three dimensional and makes for a more immersive experience. But should we all go back to single channel mono? Its just a gimmick right?
With various lense filters and lighting colors in movies are often inaccurate to what you see in real life too. So let's bag the gimmicks and go back to black and white mono.
Tron was a little blurry for me. There were times that it was blurry.
Bummer. Obviously there's good, great, and crappy 3D, with 2D upconversions being the worst.
Snadinator
Super Freak
Just because you never heard that criticism doesn't make it any less real. In a simplified nutshell, you have two superimposed -lower resolution- images which your polarized glasses use to create that 3D effect. Any kind of motion, especially fast action scenes causes a very large amount of blur. It only looks good when the image is fairly still.
Plenty of people dislike 3D for these reasons. Google would reveal that to you.
This isn't a clear improvement such as distinct sound channels, lossless audio, large improvements to resolution, color saturation etc... It's a trade off with many cons.
Furthermore, it's still a fake effect. Again it's a trick caused by the superimposing of two offset images. Your polarized glasses then pull it off. It's not true 3D.
When I don't need the glasses and the images aren't such a blur, especially on fast scenes, then 3D will pick up. Right now, it's merely a hyped up gimmick to sell tickets at a much higher cost or to jack up revenue by selling more HDTVs, HDMI cables and Bluray players to keep the industry going until 4000p screens are available for retail.
Snadinator
Super Freak
and also about 99% of all 3D movies.
I'm guessing those are the same people who whine of "crushed blacks" or whatever on blu-rays that hardly anyone notices or cares about.
Yes I'm aware of that. Just as surround sound is fake and doesn't literally project sound where it would usually be coming from on the screen or off-screen relative to the audience. But it's immersive and here to stay and no less a "gimmick" than 3D (or good 3D anyway.)
Last edited:
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
POTC4 was awfully blurry for me.
Both times I saw TRON it was extremely crisp.
Maybe it depends on the theater or something, I don't know.
Both times I saw TRON it was extremely crisp.
Maybe it depends on the theater or something, I don't know.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
Dude, everything in entertainment is a gimic to make money. What else is new.
Snadinator
Super Freak
How can I debate when you throw around dismissive responses like this?
FYI: Black crush is something "EVERYONE" notices. It's what happens when the blacks are so overpowering that you can barely notice anything on screeen. You would say "it's too dark".
I know, I'm not making it easy.
I like the best possible picture and sound but people on the internet like to take it to crazy levels. I could see someone being put off by 3D if it gave them headaches but it definitely isn't a flash in the pan fad. This time around it's here to stay and will only get better and better.
