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.
