Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)

[Scotty]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110/page/1

[DarkTrinity]

I really agree with this.... 3D is good for kiddie films and seems kinda cheesy to me. I went and saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D and it really didn't add much to the movie. And the surcharges are ridiculous. I never saw Avatar in 3D, but it was graphically amazing without the 3D experience.

In conclusion, 3D is sooo 10 years ago. :P

[Pizzaz99]

Yeah, really the only reason 3D is around is for the 4-year-old novelty of "Oh look, it's coming at me!". What I find surprising is that people actually watch these movies. I think I've watched like one 3D movie.

[Lingus]

I was going to say I don't completely agree with this article. Though after reading the whole thing I understand what it is trying to say. There's nothing wrong with 3D inherently. It's the way it is being used as a marketing device. The fact that there are "fake-3D" films being made (that is, not filmed in 3D, but converted). But there is nothing wrong with a movie like Avatar being in 3D as it actually enhances, rather than detracts, from the experience. A movie like Casablanca or Titanic would obviously not make sense in 3D. But the marketing executives are pressuring other directors to use 3D even if it doesn't make sense for the movie.

Btw, this:

Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination.

Bugs the crap out of me. I hate this kind of argument. They say the same thing about progressive versus interlaced. On an interlaced video, each frame of video only displays every other line, so therefor it is half the resolution of a progressive scan video which displays every line on every frame. My opinion is that that is nonsense. If your brain cannot process the images fast enough to tell that every line is or is not on the image, then there is no effective difference in resolution. Same thing with this. If your brain processes the images from both eyes into a single image, then it doesn't matter that half of the light goes to one eye and half to the other. You're getting all the light.

That said, it is kind of annoying wearing those glasses. They should make the glasses better. The 3D technology itself is great.

Edit: Pizzaz, have you seen Avatar? I do agree with you in that most 3D movies do the whole something coming off the screen at you deal (I'm thinking of Beowulf). That annoys the crap out of me. I know it's a 3D movie, you don't have to throw something at me to make me realize it. But anyways, Avatar did none of that. There was nothing overtly coming at the screen that said "Hey! You're watching 3D!! Check it out!!" There were definitely times where objects would float above or fly across the screen, but no more so than any movie of its kind. It was just overall a great graphical experience, and the 3D effect added a lot to that.

[Pizzaz99]

Edit: Pizzaz, have you seen Avatar? I do agree with you in that most 3D movies do the whole something coming off the screen at you deal (I'm thinking of Beowulf). That annoys the crap out of me. I know it's a 3D movie, you don't have to throw something at me to make me realize it. But anyways, Avatar did none of that. There was nothing overtly coming at the screen that said "Hey! You're watching 3D!! Check it out!!" There were definitely times where objects would float above or fly across the screen, but no more so than any movie of its kind. It was just overall a great graphical experience, and the 3D effect added a lot to that.

Well, I guess the reason I think of 3D like that is cause the only time I've seen it is on stupid shit like Hannah Montana. I never even really saw the 2D version of Avatar let alone the 3D but I will surely keep that in mind. But, really, 3D doesn't have the chance to be used well. If it was used casually in movies to make them better, that's all fine and dandy, but like you said you still those retarded glasses on your face, so kinda hard to overlook them at points.

[Lingus]

Oh, yea. I know for some people they can't get over the glasses. I forgot I was wearing them through most of the movie. That's just how I am I guess.

But for instance, my fiance can't see 3D because she has a thing with her eyes. The problem with a 3D movie is you have to go with only people who want to see it in 3D. If you take the glasses off, the image looks like crap. It's all blurry. So I can't go see a 3D movie with her.

[NotSoCheerios]

Jackass in 3d sounds awesome.

I'd sooooo watch that. could see all the nut shots coming right at you!

[LeGuy]

Agreed - it's simply a gimmick that doesn't really add anything to the movie experience. I heard about some sort of movie producer comparing the supposed 2D to 3D transition to the B&W to color transition in terms of advancement. I completely disagree, because whilst color makes things clearer and easier to see (the visibility being the most significant technological aspect of any film) 3D sacrifices clarity and ease of vision for, once again, a cheap gimmick to excite 5 year olds with the illusion of an object progressively moving closer.

[Mr Pwnage]

I actually do enjoy an occasional 3-D movie...I find them to be unique and entertaining and provide a little bit of visual variety. Though I do see a lot of validity in these points, I wouldn't say I'm necessarily against the idea. In all of the theaters I've gone to playing a 3d movie, they also show the same movie in 2d...all it does is give you more options.

[ARTgames]

To start i want to say SCOTTI PUT ALL YOUR STORYS INTO 1 TOPIC AND UPDATE IT.

What i think about "3D" in the entertainment industry:

As for the topic. I think 3D things like videos games that can do tracking to how they are viewed and can be changed dynamic are super cool. I think it should be made into games as an option. I don't think all games need it.
Like so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWYgM1RGixM

I have also played COD MW2 in normal 3D (like in the movies) and i thought the effect was cool. I felt like i could reach out and touch the gun i was holding. I think of 3D as like having a game in full screen or window mode. Its nice to have both but i think having both should always be an option.

As for 3D TVs its hard to say now. These are the first 3D TVs in the home and will improve over time. I think its good for here and there 3D viewing but i don't think 3D should be the only way to see TV unless it becomes glasses less and non eye straining (BTW: I think all 3D tech should become glasses less and non eye straining). Maybe one day 3D TVs will just become a check box that every TV has like HD is for today.

As for in theater i think its OK. As i said over time I'm sure it will get better as anything else does. But it will be nice to also have the 2D version until then. But i don't think every movie should be 3D also. You need to remember most of motion picture industry does not have experience making big 3D videos for theater/tv. I'm sure there skills will improve over time.

I also think outside of entrainment 3D will be useful. Think about making a building or a doctor using some kind of 3D viewing for a MRI scan.

My ending thoughts:
3D has its places and i think we can sort out ware.

[Lingus]

I totally agree with Art. That video of the head tracking Wii was brilliant. I would love to play video games like that.

I think that's the key. Yes, we may be getting price gouged right now for movies with 3D, and we may be getting a somewhat crappy product, but as time goes on this will change. If 3D is accepted in movies, as it clearly is, it may start showing up in other places such as home theatre and gaming. In addition, the more money spent on it, the better the technology will become as more research is put into it. And furthermore, as Art mentioned, the more experience directors and developers have using the technology, the better the product they put out will be.

You may hate 3D now, but given the chance, it may end up being better than our current display.

[stick d00d]

The only thing I really hate about 3D is the glasses of course. I wear glasses so it's really annoying for me to have to put them over my glasses and sit through a movie. The only 3d movie I have been to was Avatar and it was really neat and everything but the glasses annoyed the hell out of me. Also I had to sit in the front row because the theatre was packed. They made my eyes hurt and I had to keep taking them off.

I like the way it looks and everything, I just wish they could find a way(like Art said) to make it so you dont need to use the glasses...and I can see it coming into games as well. I wouldn't buy one of the 3d tv's just yet, until they get better and more advanced.

[crozier]

Spy Kids 3D made me sick. I haven't seen an other 3D movie since.
And I am amazed at the prices for the glasses. Did it say 50$ plus batteries!?! That is insane for 1 pair. In an other related article it noted they washed the glasses. Thats really odd.
@Cheerios *chuckle*

I am a big fan of graphics. I like 2D things because they are simple; mostly artwork and videogames. I also enjoy 3D games because they seem so lifelike. I personally prefer 2D games but Monster Hunter might have changed my case (or it may be the games creativity.)
But the real world is 3D. Who wants more of it?