quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

As you stated though early colour did not reflect the real world either being often too vivid so it could be a comparison. If they could obtain a 3D effect which did not appear so layered and more realistic then it would be less of a distraction. At the moment 3D works for little things (see Avatar and floating seeds) but the big things don't really work (crowd scenes etc).

quote:

I found the thing about Thor was that the 3D was very subtle and in fact there was very little actual 3D used and only for small things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

There are several reasons that I don't see the stereoscopy argument as analogous to colour but there is one quite basic one. Colour blindness didn't mean you couldn't see the film - and as that is normally blind to particular colours (I think? one of, or mixing, one of the primary colours so the norm is being blind to a specific colour?) , not seeing the world in B&W, you'd still understand the impact of eg the transitions in Oz. 3D gives me a dreadful headache. I find it quite difficult to watch apart from that and there are many that simply can't watch it at all. As a result I don't think any film has had a release without a 2d print available even if, as has happened, it's not been used in the UK (although I think they've moved from that as they realised they were losing business - Dredd is the first film in ages where I didn't have as much choice for 2D as 3D but, even then, there were 2D screenings).  I think that's a material difference to the colour example?

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Aside, if I may - you mention the 2d for 3d showings. A bit upthread someone said that it's been said you can do that by swapping the lenses around on the 3D set. Leaving aside my preference not to encourage cinemas by paying them for 3D showings to make a pitifully poor point, can I ask if it's easy to retrofit the glasses that way? 

quote:

On-topic - I wasn't aware there were such extremes of colour-blindness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I think I could probably manage that with the glasses - it won't kill me if I get a couple wrong! Thank you 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

Some people are colour blind. Did those people see a significantly poorer version of 'The Wizard of Oz'? Once you get past the visuals is there anything it has to offer that couldn't have been gained from sticking to an all black and white version?

etc...

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

On-topic - I wasn't aware there were such extremes of colour-blindness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveTheStampede

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

Some people are colour blind. Did those people see a significantly poorer version of 'The Wizard of Oz'? Once you get past the visuals is there anything it has to offer that couldn't have been gained from sticking to an all black and white version?

etc...

However, my main question still remains (and I know this may come across as... a little snarky, but that is not my intention): what does 3D add? Or perhaps more to the point, what does 3D add that colour does not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Aside, if I may - you mention the 2d for 3d showings. A bit upthread someone said that it's been said you can do that by swapping the lenses around on the 3D set. Leaving aside my preference not to encourage cinemas by paying them for 3D showings to make a pitifully poor point, can I ask if it's easy to retrofit the glasses that way? 

I made my brother's set from two pairs of RealD glasses. I disassembled them by taking the arms off, separating the the two halves of the frames and removing the lenses.

I then took 2 sets of left eye lenses and put them in the frames. I can't remember if I had to trim them to fit, but I might have done. You have to be careful that you don't inadvertently flip or rotate the lenses as it will mess with the polarity and they won't work. I found the 2nd left lens fits quite well in the right hand side of the frames.

It was then a simple case of putting the frames back together with a bit of superglue and re-attaching the arms. I sanded off the 3D logo so it was easy to pick them out from the other pairs.

It took less than half an hour, and if I were less heavy handed I would have been able to make 2 pairs. The hardest part was disassembling the frames without breaking them.

quote:

On-topic - I wasn't aware there were such extremes of colour-blindness.

I wasn't either, and probably would still be unaware if it wasn't for my uncle. He once gave me a birthday card with, "Dad" in big red letters across the top as he couldn't see them. Another time he turned up in a violently pink jumper which he thought was brown. We laughed about it of course but it does go to illustrate how it can affect someone.

Apparently since 3D films have become more prevalent a large number of previously undiagnosed visual impairments have come to light. My brother, it turns out, has virtually no stereoscopic vision due to one of his eyes being massively dominant. It might in part explains why he was such a clumsy child.

It's fascinating stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
...
This meant that we were each seeing just our side of the screen in full screen image. So, on COD I would only see my side of the split screen and couldnt see his, likewise he could only see his side of the game and not mine. It was great, but again another nifty little side effect of 3D technology... improved split screen gaming. Not sure what the settings were or exactly how it works, but it did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveTheStampede


However, my main question still remains (and I know this may come across as... a little snarky, but that is not my intention): what does 3D add? Or perhaps more to the point, what does 3D add that colour does not?

Excellent question. Some people argue that only 3D offers a properly "immersive" experience. But I tend to think that if a film-maker or cinematographer are doing their job then surely you don't need 3D for that. And it's ironic that a so-called "immersive" experience actualy ends up taking many people "out" of the movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


If the answer is nothing that's fine. Don't watch it (I realise that is not always easy but I think that was can all find common ground that ideally both 2D and 3D screenings should be readily accessible). You don't have to justify why you don't like it. If you want to that is fine, but it doesn't make your dislike of 3D any more valid, or my liking 3D invalid, just because you can write a long well constructed post on all the reasons 3D sucks. By this point we all know what the negatives are. Some of us like it despite them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


Actually this is one of the major reasons I hate 3D, With Dredd, I had no option to see it on 2D The only way I could see Dredd was to pay 9 Euros and watch it on 3D since there was nowhere on this island where it showed at 2D in a glorious 5.50 Euros tag. So I saw the 3D version, which looked quite fuzzy and blurry and far worse than it did on the trailer. It's a shocking moment that you realized that you could have done some very illegal downloading and seen the film for free in better quality. If this is the slight fun that the cinema should be bringing me then it has failed miserably.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


And even the most robust defence of an opinion can be entirely defeated, at least on a personal level, by two little words: "I disagree".

quote:

Some people argue that only 3D offers a properly "immersive" experience. But I tend to think that if a film-maker or cinematographer are doing their job then surely you don't need 3D for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

Mark Kermode on the status of 3D and it being forced on Guillermo Del Toros Pacific Rim...http://youtu.be/Rod-3IeVYfw

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

Mark Kermode on the status of 3D and it being forced on Guillermo Del Toros Pacific Rim...http://youtu.be/Rod-3IeVYfw

Cool Breeze Guillermo Del Toro admits to changing his mind about Pacific Rim being in 3D:

"What happened was, in the weeks and months following Comic-Con, what I asked from the studio was to agree to four points that I wanted to do," he says. "The more the ILM shots arrived, the more I realized that there were only a few shots that would miniaturize. I asked the studio, number one, that we would not hyper-stereo-lize the thing. That we would not force 3D on the beauty shots. That we would keep the giant dimensions. They agreed. Number two, they agreed to something very unusual. Normally a conversion takes a few weeks. I asked to start it immediately so we could take the full 40 weeks to do the conversion. As an example, TITANIC took about 50 weeks to convert. The final thing that I asked that they agreed to, which was amazing, was that I asked them to give me an extra budget, which is considerable, to actually have ILM composite the shots that are CG native 3D. We're not giving elements. ILM is giving the composite in 3D from the get-go. That's a huge, huge element. Now I'm going to be involved in supervising it. What can I tell you? I changed my mind. I'm not running for office. I can do a Romney."

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/58594

If it means that he gets some extra money for certain shots in the movie, then that's a good thing. Give n take etc. I hope of course that audiences get a decent choice as to whether they watch it in 3D though.