Avatar Producer Says 3D Glasses Need to be Sexier

Spectre39

New member
Oct 6, 2008
210
0
0
Screw what they look like, just keep on with the R & D! 3D is good and all, but it's still not quite virtual reality. If you can get an MMO with graphics like a 3D movie that you view through goggles, and the scenery changes as you move your head then we'll worry about the aesthetics. Awesome. And it better get here sometime before I get arthritis or go senile.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Lightweight would also be ideal. We get RSI from over(and improper)use of keyboards/mice/controlers. We dont need to add strained neck in to the mix.
 

DigitalSushi

a gallardo? fine, I'll take it.
Dec 24, 2008
5,718
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
Get Oakley to make them, slap an O sticker on anything and thousands will come out of the woodwork to buy it price be damned.

ColdStorage said:
If 3D glasses were designed like my 8 year old pair of Oakley's then yes, yes I would spend 365 pounds on a game.
I rest my case!
Not that I'm a consumerist whore or anything.

Straying Bullet said:
Same here, Rayburn stylized 3D glasses would be awesome, seriously.
Oliver Peoples Fight Club sunglasses, yes please!
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
I think 3D sucks because in it's current form, it's tricking your eyes, which, for quite a few (but not all) means head pain.

Plus, it seems very gimmicky to me.
Yeah, great, the graphics are nice, now... how about the actual movie?
 

Odjin

New member
Nov 14, 2007
188
0
0
SR glasses always are going to suck... especially if you are like me wearing already glasses :/ (point in case: simple not working).
 

ShadesOfGrey84

New member
Feb 16, 2010
17
0
0
Make them hip, just like sunglasses became hip?

Yeah sure, that might work.. except you wear those things at home where you game.
Who cares how dorky those things look if you're at home?

And walking outside with 3d glasses on, no amount of hip sexyness cuttingedge fashion design will *not* make you look like a dork.

Unless you sarcastically say it makes everything look more HD and realistic. But then you'd still look like a funny dork :p
 

Dendio

New member
Mar 24, 2010
701
0
0
Am I the only one who gets Eye Strain from looking through 3D glasses for too long?

Thats really my only gripe with them
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
The Thief said:
And what about the people who wear glasses to correct poor vision, not just as a fashion accessory. Sure they could use contact lenses, but that's kind of a nuisance ain't it? I wear contacts throughout the day but I usually switch to glasses in the evening when the contacts start to become uncomfortable, which is coincidentally when I do the most gaming. That is my biggest issue with 3D gaming, since wearing two pairs of glasses does not sound comfortable or sexy.

Though I really don't care how sexy I look while I'm gaming or watching a movie. Anyone who does is a little too vain...
Eh. I do it all the time at the cinema. RealD's glasses don't conflict with my own in any noticable way...

I can quite comfortably put on 2 pairs of glasses if the 3d ones are designed properly.

My local cinema chose the dorkiest possible design for it's 3d glasses though, because RealD that created the system they use clearly has much more stylish designs available.

The glasses are a red herring though.
It's the headaches that make 3d worthless...
 

Voodoomancer

New member
Jun 8, 2009
2,243
0
0
Treblaine said:
You know what isn't sexy? Headaches, like the type I get them from watching 3D movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

They've come a long way since red/blue 3D, people. Stop thinking about headache-3D, the current technology is full color, non-headache inducing. Although producers can still fuck it up.

Good example: Avatar, the 3D is so natural you stop noticing it after 10 minutes.

Bad example: Clash of the Titans 3D: It uses Real-D 3D, but the 3D was added afterwards so it comes out like "paper cutouts at various distances", which IS headache-inducing.

So basically, 3D is a tool that's been perfected, now it's just a matter of movie makers not using it right...
What I'd like to see is a video game developer using it right. ;)
 

sooperman

Partially Awesome at Things
Feb 11, 2009
1,157
0
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Avatar cause a significant dent in Ubisoft's entire fiscal year? And correct me if I'm wrong again, but should that not invalidate Landau's opinion?

I think that 3D is here to stay, but I doubt that any important innovations will be made in the next few decades.

Voodoomancer said:
Good example: Avatar, the 3D is so natural you stop noticing it after 10 minutes.

Bad example: Clash of the Titans 3D: It uses Real-D 3D, but the 3D was added afterwards so it comes out like "paper cutouts at various distances", which IS headache-inducing.

So basically, 3D is a tool that's been perfected, now it's just a matter of movie makers not using it right...
What I'd like to see is a video game developer using it right. ;)
I agree on all three points. Making a movie in 3D works; 2D-into-3D does not. Maybe game devs will catch on to this?

Only time will tell what becomes of 3D, but I can't imagine Landau being right about 3D glasses. They look fine IMO.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Also, they need to design 3D glasses, or more accurately, glasses accessories for people who wear normal glasses.
 

TOGSolid

New member
Jul 15, 2008
1,509
0
0
I just don't want to wear the god damned glasses. I don't care how they look, I just don't want to wear them. 3d is a pathetic gimmick being pushed by an industry that's out of ideas.
 

InvisibleSeal

The Invisible One
May 3, 2009
528
0
21
Am I the only one whose eyes feel a bit weird after wearing 3D glasses for a while?

I mean, yes people would feel happier wearing them outside of dark cinemas if they looked cooler, but after like an hour my eyes feel a bit strained, and lasting through an entire film is only just doable. Considering how some of my gaming sessions tend to be quite long, this might be a problem fr me.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Voodoomancer said:
Treblaine said:
You know what isn't sexy? Headaches, like the type I get them from watching 3D movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

They've come a long way since red/blue 3D, people. Stop thinking about headache-3D, the current technology is full color, non-headache inducing. Although producers can still fuck it up.

Good example: Avatar, the 3D is so natural you stop noticing it after 10 minutes.

Bad example: Clash of the Titans 3D: It uses Real-D 3D, but the 3D was added afterwards so it comes out like "paper cutouts at various distances", which IS headache-inducing.

So basically, 3D is a tool that's been perfected, now it's just a matter of movie makers not using it right...
What I'd like to see is a video game developer using it right. ;)
Bullshit, I went to see Avatar in a cinema that used the RealD method and I know exactly how circular polarization works... and it sucked, it was unpleasant and not just a bit nauseating. I still enjoyed the movie only some points the double-vision it would just get too unbearable and I'd be forced to close one eye and just look through a single lens with one eye (instant 2D).

Perfected? MY ASS!

You act as if the ONLY issue is how to crease a stereoscopic effect, no, the problem is even if you have a 3D effect there are major issues with both how it is shot and how it is viewed by the audience.

It is not just as simple as recording a scene with two cameras and then giving each eye see that corresponding camera view. It is a nightmare of hundreds of variable angles of deflection which are NOT controlled for.

What about how each camera is further apart than the human eyes are? What about how the person viewing the screen could be any distance/angle away and with many high variable screen sizes? Then there is even slight variations in the angle of your head, how far apart your own eyes are from each other.

Yeah, I know what the industry says "we'll sort that out" but no, they won't, there are too many damn variables and when it DOES work... it'll only look the same as the real world as I see it with my own two eyes. It is a GIMMICK and an expensive one at that.

Answer me this: why do RealD films like Avatar not look like normal vision? Seriously, I am looking at a 3D world right now using two eyes, but what I see on Avatar does NOT look like the real world as I see it. Watching Avatar, things things were flickering in and out of perception, I can't follow movement, it is literally straining my eyes for me to focus on this wonderful world that JC has created. The action scenes were impossible to follow, scenes with high depth of field was like an acid trip, it was a mind game to look at something interesting in the foreground of background without going cross eyed.

I am constantly battling with double vision while watching these REAL 3D films that are shot 100% in 3D like Avatar, quite clearly because each image that is coming to each eye CANNOT be combined up according to any true-3D effect.

I know, the usual response "just get used to it" is a short hand for saying only focus at the very centre of the screen all the time. Only focus one what the director want you to focus on at any given moment.

I have watched hundreds of movies in 2D and I never get the impression they are flat or struggle to appreciate the depth of a scene. That is achieved perfectly with focus and depth of field.

So what is the point in 3D? It's not like moving from silent to talkies... or from black-and-white to Colour-Film. It isn't even as significant as surround sound as it is SO INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE to setup.

I don't know what is wrong, all I know is it doesn't work and when it does work it is barely worth it.
 

Erinne

New member
Mar 12, 2010
3
0
0
I do wonder if they will also make sexy 3D glasses that come in gigantor over-glasses style for people who need to wear ordinary glasses to see things.
 

Voodoomancer

New member
Jun 8, 2009
2,243
0
0
Treblaine said:
Voodoomancer said:
Treblaine said:
You know what isn't sexy? Headaches, like the type I get them from watching 3D movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

They've come a long way since red/blue 3D, people. Stop thinking about headache-3D, the current technology is full color, non-headache inducing. Although producers can still fuck it up.

Good example: Avatar, the 3D is so natural you stop noticing it after 10 minutes.

Bad example: Clash of the Titans 3D: It uses Real-D 3D, but the 3D was added afterwards so it comes out like "paper cutouts at various distances", which IS headache-inducing.

So basically, 3D is a tool that's been perfected, now it's just a matter of movie makers not using it right...
What I'd like to see is a video game developer using it right. ;)
Bullshit, I went to see Avatar in a cinema that used the RealD method and I know exactly how circular polarization works... and it sucked, it was unpleasant and not just a bit nauseating. I still enjoyed the movie only some points the double-vision it would just get too unbearable and I'd be forced to close one eye and just look through a single lens with one eye (instant 2D).

Perfected? MY ASS!

You act as if the ONLY issue is how to crease a stereoscopic effect, no, the problem is even if you have a 3D effect there are major issues with both how it is shot and how it is viewed by the audience.

It is not just as simple as recording a scene with two cameras and then giving each eye see that corresponding camera view. It is a nightmare of hundreds of variable angles of deflection which are NOT controlled for.

What about how each camera is further apart than the human eyes are? What about how the person viewing the screen could be any distance/angle away and with many high variable screen sizes? Then there is even slight variations in the angle of your head, how far apart your own eyes are from each other.

Yeah, I know what the industry says "we'll sort that out" but no, they won't, there are too many damn variables and when it DOES work... it'll only look the same as the real world as I see it with my own two eyes. It is a GIMMICK and an expensive one at that.

Answer me this: why do RealD films like Avatar not look like normal vision? Seriously, I am looking at a 3D world right now using two eyes, but what I see on Avatar does NOT look like the real world as I see it. Watching Avatar, things things were flickering in and out of perception, I can't follow movement, it is literally straining my eyes for me to focus on this wonderful world that JC has created. The action scenes were impossible to follow, scenes with high depth of field was like an acid trip, it was a mind game to look at something interesting in the foreground of background without going cross eyed.

I am constantly battling with double vision while watching these REAL 3D films that are shot 100% in 3D like Avatar, quite clearly because each image that is coming to each eye CANNOT be combined up according to any true-3D effect.

I know, the usual response "just get used to it" is a short hand for saying only focus at the very centre of the screen all the time. Only focus one what the director want you to focus on at any given moment.

I have watched hundreds of movies in 2D and I never get the impression they are flat or struggle to appreciate the depth of a scene. That is achieved perfectly with focus and depth of field.

So what is the point in 3D? It's not like moving from silent to talkies... or from black-and-white to Colour-Film. It isn't even as significant as surround sound as it is SO INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE to setup.

I don't know what is wrong, all I know is it doesn't work and when it does work it is barely worth it.

Uhm, ok...
No need to get worked up...