It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:12 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

3-D
Poll ended at Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:38 pm
I have it and use it. 13%  13%  [ 18 ]
I have it and don't use it. 8%  8%  [ 11 ]
I don't have it but am interested in it. 22%  22%  [ 30 ]
I don't have it and am not interested in it. 58%  58%  [ 80 ]
Total votes : 139
Author Message
 Post subject: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:33 pm 

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:45 pm
I'm curious and I bet a few others are as to how
many people actually have 3-D capabilities....


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Just too expensive of a luxury. There's only 3 movies that I'd watch again in 3D, and even then, they don't rank among my absolute favorites. Beyond that, I just have no use for it - not interested in seeing any sports in 3D.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
Not only am I really not that interested, but as is mentioned in other threads, I have so many 2D movies that are sitting unwatched/I haven't bought yet/need to get to, that I imagine it'd be a very long time between seeing something in 3-D is at the top of my priority list.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
Non-mods can start polls? Also, there is no option for "I only believe in 3D to the extent that directors I respect and who should know better make 3D films anyway and I feel moderately obligated to find out why" or "I intend to spend $2000 to see Dial M for Murder in 3D and then never use that capability again." Therefore, I cannot vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:22 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
This is not exactly the hotbed of intended 3-D consumers on the Internet


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
domino harvey wrote:
This is not exactly the hotbed of intended 3-D consumers on the Internet

Although I cannot be the only one here who has a copy of Piranha 3DD (I do find it amusing that my usual reaction to 3D of "aargh, they're coming right at me!!" works well in response to both horrific and sexy moments)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
I've never quite understood, even when it works well, the implication that 3D is actually a three-dimensional 'coming right at me' display of images. It's more like a pop-up book than an actual three-dimensional experience, even if something's jumping out from the screen. I've seen a few films that I've enjoyed in the format, but I think it's billed as more exciting than it actually is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:36 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
I think the only one I have is Drive Angry, since the combo cost like 75 cents more than the regular Blu, but obv Dial 'M' For Murder and Pina are soon to make a quorum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
swo17 wrote:
Non-mods can start polls?
No, I made it a poll after the fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
I have a 3-D player, but more by accident than design. Same with the half-dozen or so 3-D discs that I own. But I have no intention of buying a 3-D monitor, so that's pretty much where it ends.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:57 pm 

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am
I'm 3D capable and have been for a while but the only 3D Blu-Ray I've bought so far is Hugo. I will be picking up Dial M for Murder though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester
I'm always someone who wants to see films in their intended and original form. Hence, were I to watch Hugo or Pina, I'd only want to see them in 3D. As the cinemas I frequent don't have 3D-capability and I have no 3D setup, I probably won't see these films for a long time. The same would apply for something like Dial M for Murder.

The number of films that I want to see, that are intended to be seen primarily in 3D, is pretty low, however, hence why I voted for "I don't have it and am not interested in it." There's not a single film out there that I want to see any more than I otherwise would because it was made in 3D either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
I believe the intention for all those films was that they can be, and would be, enjoyed in 2D or 3D. There was not one "original form." A director may prefer the 3D presentation but that certainly doesn't necessarily mean that any given viewer will have a better experience of it that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:03 pm 

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm
My BD player and my Plasma display (my secondary screen) are 3D capable. I have no intention of watching movies on TV, so it ends there.

My projection setup is from a 2D era. I'm not replacing it yet. Also, my HDMI amp will not pass a 3D signal. That makes it annoying to even get a 3D image from the BD player to the TV.

I like 3D for video games, and in a few instances. But as a video lover and a film lover, it doesn't satisfy my requirements. There is little good content and the picture quality in 3D display mode on both LCD and Plasma are poorer compared to 2D.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:39 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Everything I have is 3D capable except for the most important item: my TV. And I'm not in a hurry to upgrade it since 3D in general, whether in theaters or on a TV, gives me a fairly brutal headache.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
cdnchris wrote:
Everything I have is 3D capable except for the most important item: my TV. And I'm not in a hurry to upgrade it since 3D in general, whether in theaters or on a TV, gives me a fairly brutal headache.

Ditto. My optometrist told me when I was a teenager that my eyes weren't quite aligned horizontally. From what I understood at the time (I don't make it to the eye doctor much), one eye is a little higher than the other. I can see fine, and in fact I still have 20/20 vision, but they have to work unusually hard, and that leads to eye strain headaches after awhile. I'm supposed to wear reading glasses to balance the workload, although I haven't had a functional pair for a few years.

Anyway, I don't know if this is why I have so much trouble with 3D, but I can't ever quite get the picture to resolve properly. I'm constantly seeing double of whatever's on screen, and it doesn't take very long for me to start feeling my eye muscles tense up. As a result, I really hate the experience of 3D, and haven't bothered since Cave of Forgotten Dreams and probably won't bother ever again. Even if I bought a 3D TV for some reason (which is plausible as prices come down and they become more or less the same as 2D TVs), I'd never in a million years actually want to use it to watch 3D content.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:17 am 
Carthago delenda est
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:32 am
Location: George, South Africa
I am in the process of upgrading my entire system to HD and anticipate completing the final phase, being the screen (my 10-year old Panny is SD-only), sometime next year. Due to 3D coming pretty much as standard with a decent screen nowadays, I'd probably end up with full 3D-cpability.

That said, I can count the films that interest me as far as 3D goes on one hand - Dial M For Murder, House of Wax, Creature From The Black Lagoon, Hondo (if it ever gets released in 3D) and more recently, Hugo. That's it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:16 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm
To me the depth-of-field afforded by a good blu-ray presentation is thrilling...and just about enough. Any more depth just seems excessive to me. Every 3-d film I have seen in a theater (including the iMax one about sea life, Starchaser: The Legend of Orin, Captain Eo, and a couple of others I don't remember so well) I ended up removing the 3d glasses about 20 minutes in and watching the rest without the glasses.

It's very conflicting for me, because i feel that some of my favorite filmmakers, like Johnnie To and Jean-Pierre Melville, use depth-of-field rather purposefully, to convey meaning and pictorial dynamism--and I love that seeing their work on blu-ray or in a theater gives me the opportunity to get really deep into that level of visual filmmaking. But when I take off my 3-d glasses at some theater and watch everybody else in the theater reaching out to touch an image that isn't there, I think they're all idiots and that this 3-d is all a load of carp shoved at us just to humiliate us with our own credulity. And while I love horror films, I have never appreciated the type where people leap out from behind a bush and terrorize people--and I think that's remained the level at which people engage 3-d moviemaking. As if it will make you feel inside the world of the picture. If the shot is composed well--if the atmosphere of the film supports it--I can already be transported into any kind of narrative. I love kung-fu movies, but last night I saw Dodsworth, with Walter Huston and Mary Astor, and I was completely immersed in it from beginning to end. Neither the kung-fu nor the wealthy American industrialist engaging a more sophisticated space than he has ever trod before needs any benefit 3-d has so far offered. I have yet to see a reason 3-d is at all important.

But then, most of my film collection is made up of films with monaural soundtracks, as well. So like Domino said, this isn't precisely the target audience for modern 3-d.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
feihong wrote:
To me the depth-of-field afforded by a good blu-ray presentation is thrilling...and just about enough. Any more depth just seems excessive to me. Every 3-d film I have seen in a theater (including the iMax one about sea life, Starchaser: The Legend of Orin, Captain Eo, and a couple of others I don't remember so well) I ended up removing the 3d glasses about 20 minutes in and watching the rest without the glasses.

Really? Outside of post-coversion stuff, which often has ten or twenty minutes go by without actually using the 3d process, most of the movies I've seen that use it are completely impossible to watch without the glasses, as the image is split up and looks unbearably blurry that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:39 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm
I know, but that's the way it's always played for me. The actual 3-d with the glasses gives me such a headache that I'd rather watch the blurry, doubled image than put the glasses back on. Personal quirk, I guess? I remember watching Starchaser that way for what seemed like forever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:36 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Brian C wrote:
Ditto. My optometrist told me when I was a teenager that my eyes weren't quite aligned horizontally. From what I understood at the time (I don't make it to the eye doctor much), one eye is a little higher than the other. I can see fine, and in fact I still have 20/20 vision, but they have to work unusually hard, and that leads to eye strain headaches after awhile. I'm supposed to wear reading glasses to balance the workload, although I haven't had a functional pair for a few years.

Anyway, I don't know if this is why I have so much trouble with 3D, but I can't ever quite get the picture to resolve properly. I'm constantly seeing double of whatever's on screen, and it doesn't take very long for me to start feeling my eye muscles tense up. As a result, I really hate the experience of 3D, and haven't bothered since Cave of Forgotten Dreams and probably won't bother ever again. Even if I bought a 3D TV for some reason (which is plausible as prices come down and they become more or less the same as 2D TVs), I'd never in a million years actually want to use it to watch 3D content.

I took my daughter to see Finding Nemo after I promised her I would and unfortunately the only showings were in 3D. I thought she might at least get a kick out of the 3D. The 3D actually wasn't too bad and I was impressed with the use of it. But part way through I felt the headache coming on so I had to keep taking the glasses off. I've had to do this with every 3D film I've seen. I don't understand why this is as I don't seem to have trouble "processing" it. It never doubles and I don't feel like I'm straining or working hard to watch it. I feel like I'm watching it naturally. But it just doesn't work for me.

My daughter kept her glasses on the whole way through, which impressed me. I asked her afterwards whether she liked it and she did but then informed me she didn't want to see another one "with the glasses." When I asked her why she said her eyes hurt. Maybe she's too young but at least I know when I take her to see Monsters Inc. in December I won't have to take her to the 3D one now, which was a bit of a relief.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
The interesting thing about 3D to me is that relatively few people really seem to like it all that much. I'm not talking about just the unrepresentative sample here on this board, either - I've been working at a big multiplex the last couple months and I've seen firsthand how audiences respond to this. When we have 3D and 2D showings of the same movie, the 2D showings do at least as well in terms of attendance. For family movies, most people treat 3D like it's a concession they have to make to their kids, who mostly seem to like playing with the glasses, but whatever. And enthusiasm for non-family movies is tepid at best. A very typical response: "Oh, Dredd is only in 3D? OK, I guess."

Most telling to me, though, is that we never get complaints about 2D-only movies not being in 3D, but we get complaints about 3D movies being in 3D all the time. Seriously, when a movie is released 2D only, no one seems to care that it's not in 3D. I know that studios have been patting themselves on the back for figuring out the whole 3D surcharge thing, enabling them essentially to make more money with the same (or less) attendance, but it's just hard to see it as the wave of the future when the public response is so underwhelming.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Our local cinema charges half as much again for 3-D films, which if you're a family of four is a big deal. I made a point of seeing Tintin and Hugo in 3-D because I was curious about how Spielberg and Scorsese would approach the medium, but I go out of my way to see kids' films in 2-D now. And I didn't think I was missing anything at all when I saw Puss in Boots, Ice Age 4 and Paranorman flat, and would have preferred to see Brave that way too - it was far too dark in 3-D.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:29 am 

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:26 pm
Location: Somewhere in England
Earlier this year, my local cinema had emblazoned on its marquee: The Amazing Spider-Man, in Amazing 2-D.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Poll: 3-D
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
I think 3-D is great fun...when presented in short bursts as with amusement park attractions (Disney's STAR TOURS is a good example). Seven or ten minutes is about enough for the novelty to remain fresh. Watching 3-D features is simply burdensome. The brain already processes a 2-D live action film as taking place in three dimensions and when an action scene is well-directed and shot, I find myself involuntarily ducking to avoid an object hurtling towards the camera. The 3-D format only emphasizes the artificiality of what I'm watching even when done well. As much as I thought that Scorsese did an admirable job with HUGO, I enjoyed watching it a second time in standard 2-D more than my initial viewing with the added dimension. The reason: I was better able to tune into the characters' interaction when their spatial relation was not accentuated by the 3-D process. The added eye strain and surcharges makes going with standard 2-D an easy choice for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection