posted 04-22-2009 03:30 AM                   

quote:

---

Let me go on record with this now, while the 3-D bubble is still inflating: Katzenberg, Quittner, and all the rest of them are wrong about three-dimensional film—wrong, wrong, wrong. I've seen just about every narrative movie in the current 3-D crop, and every single one has caused me some degree of discomfort—ranging from minor eye soreness (Coraline) to intense nausea (My Bloody Valentine). The egregious side effects of stereo viewing may well have been diminished over the past few decades (wait, does anyone really remember how bad they were in 1983?) but they have not been eliminated. As much as it pains me to say this—I love 3-D, I really do—these films are unpleasant to watch.

---

We've talked before how 3-D viewing is both, a matter of taste (some love the Technicolor look, i.e, some may hate it as "too artificial") and a matter of perception (we all see things slightly different).

As a result, at least 10% of the population have and always will have problems watching 3D films, mostly due to medical reasons (amblyopia, strabismus). They either don't see it or hate it.

Also, there is some people that can chew any 3-D you throw at them: good or bad, full of ghosting or whatnot, their visual systems are tantalized so much they will enjoy it no matter what. I call this the "3D nuts" and they will love most all 3-D films, good and bad.

These, I informally found, are also about 10% of the population.

Most of the rest of the people, seem to fall in the in-between, with most enjoying the 3D, specially as a novelty, but not enough to really make too much effort into going to watch it (i.e. they are not happy to pay much more for it and have to put up with glasses and dark images).

If the quality was the same and the price only $1 more, I'd say most of them would quite happily go to the 3D version once the novelty wears out (and if the movie is not heavily promoted as MUST BE SEEN IN 3-D OR IT WILL SUCK).

The problem lies when one of the first two groups of people, those that LOVE 3D or those that HATE 3D are either in charge of writing an article or in charge of a movie studio (Katzenberg, or a director like Cameron). Their perspective on the subject is skewed by their personal experience which they think it's the same for everybody else.

Once the novelty wears out, after watching 10 or 20 3D films, I'd say some 75% of people don't give a rat's behind about it anymore, nor are they willing to put up with any shortcommings or extra expenses compared to 2D (except, once again, for specialty movies that "must" be watched in 3D).

Just my 2.5 cents.

I will always say that if 3D was so good that "nobody" could live without it, at least 5% of the movies would've been made that way in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. Instead, we have the occassional Spy Kids or Jaws 3D and only around 200 3D films in the whole history of cinema. That's like 30% of all films made in Hollywood in just one year (or 25% of the movies made in Bollywood ), while cinema is about 100 years old.

There must be a reason for that, other than cost or technical ("cheap" and "good" ways to make and exhibit 3D films have always existed and, again, if 3D was so incredibly good and financially worthit, I'm sure even better and newer systems would've been developed).

Also, just for the heck of it, Panasonic is teasing with a pro-sumer 3D HD camera.

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=12503

quote:

---

The twin-lens P2 camera recorder enables the capturing of high-quality live 3D images, says Panasonic. Due to the solid-state construction of the P2 system, the camera recorder will be compact enough to allow 3D shooting in a way that's more flexible than current stereoscopic 3D rigs. 3D Full HD recording using Panasonic’s proprietary P2 system enables recording of two channels of Full HD images on the P2 card.

---

I still have my Toshiba VHS-C 3D camera from the 80's, but it no longer works after a submarine accident with it while in a shoot underwater in a cave

[ 04-22-2009, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

posted 04-22-2009 02:11 PM                   

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

"The Stewardesses" is a must see-3-D film. All others not! Louis

---

I remember projecting that film ... (Polarator adapter flipped sideways for the side-side anamorphic print)

Opinion as to the quality witheld as to not start a flame war ...

I enjoyed other risqué 3D films more than that one. I remember a german one that was most fun. And a swedish one that was boring and in a really strange format (was over/under, but pillar-boxed to 1.85 or so).