Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion Page: <<   < prev  42 43 [44] 45 46   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 9/11/2013 4:20:11 PM   
thedrin

 

Posts: 562
Joined: 9/1/2007
From: Ireland
I saw Gravity in 2-D yesterday. There is a very strong sense of disorientation throughout the film, and the film never feels visually flat, two of the fears Kermode has of seeing the film in 2-D. But I might go see it in 3-D to compare.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1291
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 9/11/2013 5:08:57 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 4009
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
Seen it in both 2D & 3D.

It is without doubt the best usage of 3D that I've seen. Some of the depth of field is incredible to look at.

Compared to 2D though, there is still an element of light loss & unlike what the good doctor says, it's not so much that you need to see it in 3D, more that it's essential to view it on the biggest screen you can possibly find.

In other words, if you're a 3D sceptic, I don't think it's going to change that. If you're curious though, it's worth a shot.



< Message edited by Qwerty Norris -- 9/11/2013 5:09:40 PM >


_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to thedrin)
Post #: 1292
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 29/11/2013 4:23:02 PM   
REALLYMAD

 

Posts: 104
Joined: 30/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

Seen it in both 2D & 3D.

It is without doubt the best usage of 3D that I've seen. Some of the depth of field is incredible to look at.

Compared to 2D though, there is still an element of light loss & unlike what the good doctor says, it's not so much that you need to see it in 3D, more that it's essential to view it on the biggest screen you can possibly find.

In other words, if you're a 3D sceptic, I don't think it's going to change that. If you're curious though, it's worth a shot.




Fully agree here. Most effective use of 3D in a movie to date. And an excellent film to boot.
Really has to be seen on the big screen.

_____________________________

"Hahahaha, you've ticked all the points on the "wounded bunny" checklist tonight!"

#1 wankiest attempted put-down in messageboard history.

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 1293
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 30/11/2013 1:25:15 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7124
Joined: 18/11/2006
hope this give hollywood a quality baseline to draw on for future 3d movies until 'avatar 2' flips things again.

(in reply to REALLYMAD)
Post #: 1294
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 1/12/2013 9:33:21 AM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9313
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
We do need more visionary directors to really push the usage of 3D in movies in interesting ways.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1295
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 2/12/2013 5:43:26 PM   
King of Kafiristan

 

Posts: 1004
Joined: 14/1/2012
From: The States
First off, 3D photography is "the way of the future", and once we reach a certain saturation point, people will never be able to go back. It should be used for drama, comedy, for every and any genre. 3D is simply about capturing three dimensional images, not about effects or objects jumping out at the audience. This is what most people don't understand.

Anyway just posting to say that I've been watching so much 3D lately that last night when I switched over to HBO's ROME on blu ray, my eyes had to do a double take. The image was distractingly flat and artificial looking, all depth planes crammed into one frame. I worry that to future generations, 2D is going to be nearly unwatchable. Our eyes see in 3d. Our brains process in 3D. When you step back from watching 2D content for a while, you sort of remember how weird it is as a concept.

< Message edited by King of Kafiristan -- 2/12/2013 7:38:11 PM >

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 1296
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 2/12/2013 6:37:44 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18333
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
However, the 3D process used is not true 3D but utilises layers which is an artificial approach which is why so many people suffer headaches and nausea when watching it.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1297
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 2/12/2013 6:50:14 PM   
King of Kafiristan

 

Posts: 1004
Joined: 14/1/2012
From: The States
No. 3D cameras capture images using binocular lenses. The same way the eye sees the world.

3D conversion is bunk though - an utter lie. You can't interpolate data the camera doesn't capture, as you say, that is just layers.

All 3D headaches are mental though, a product of the mind. It comes from the fact that when we see with our eyes, we can adjust the depth focus. In 3d photography, the focus is decided by the camera. It requires acquiescing to the film, and not trying to treat the 3d space as a type of virtual reality.

I had a headache the first time I saw Avatar. Now 3d is completely natural to me. Why? Because I stopped thinking about the depth and focusing on it, and just started perceiving it like I do day to day life. I doesn't require any more focus or eye strain to see the world around us in 3d, so it follows there is no extra effort required to view a 3d movie. Just relax and stop over thinking it.

< Message edited by King of Kafiristan -- 2/12/2013 7:30:05 PM >

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 1298
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 2/12/2013 7:12:25 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18333
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
For me I have to wear spectacle and have had significant migraine as a result of 3D cinema mine are not psychosomatic but a result of the forced artificial focal point and having differing levels of focus for either eye. I have also experienced nausea. L Mark Carrier in a study showed that 3D actually increases the risk of eyestrain threefold and that is not psychosomatic eyestrain but actual physical eyestrain which has been medically proven. Considering that actual 3D films number in the very very few and the vast majority are conversions I am not certain which films you have been watching? There appear to have been about four in the last year (one a Justin Bieber film) other than animated films and the rest are conversions.

I wish I did enjoy 3D but am physically incapable of enjoying this format.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1299
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 2/12/2013 7:50:25 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3156
Joined: 22/11/2006
3D is never going to be the standard format. It's had its attempts all throughout cinema's history and has always disappeared. Granted this current phase has been going on for quite some time now, but I just don't see it ever becoming the only way to watch films. Some people love 3D, and that's absolutely fine, but more people (I would guess) don't like it or if given the choice would choose 2D.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 1300
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 2/12/2013 8:23:52 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
Agreed Whistler. My local cinema used to have mainly 3D showings of the blockbuster films, but THOR - THE DARK WORLD had a single 3D showing in the early evening, whereas the 2D showings were spread out all over the day on two screens...

I can't wait until cinemas get rid of this bullshit gimmick...

And, for the record, I DO appreciate that sometimes, just sometimes, it can be done right... I'm still trying to see GRAVITY in a decent cinema...



_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 1301
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 2/12/2013 8:36:48 PM   
King of Kafiristan

 

Posts: 1004
Joined: 14/1/2012
From: The States
Gravity had 80% of it's profit in the states from 3d. I intend to respond to everyone here in depth tomorrow, but 3D is not going away. Great Gatsby, an adult oriented, mid budget drama.... A risky bet in this day and age. Opens to 60 million dollars. 70% of the profits from 3D.

Audiences are perhaps saying that they only care about 3d for some films, and will pay for it on certain blockbusters where it is a key part of the experience.

Audiences have for years now though shown they're willing to give 20-30 percent if profits at least on a post converted movie like Thor, which is extra money for studios that's they will NEVER give up.

As the tech spreads, the spectacles improve and audiences grow to demand 3D as part of the mega blockbuster experience, the tech will creep into other corners of the market, like we've already seen with Herzog documentaries, Scorsese movies and more. New generations will accept 3D readily (Will address eye strain tomorrow), and it will go from there till it's an integral part of the entertainment landscape.

I own a Panasonic ZT60 65" plasma TV - widely regarded as the best Tv on the planet. I say this not to brag, but just to tell you I speak from an informed perspective. It has 3d so good it's better than any of three local movie theaters - each with it's own expensive type of 3d tech. My tv shows me 3d so beautiful I'd never want to go back. I've seen the promised land of effortless and comfortable dimensional reality. Soon the rest of the planet will catch up, and when we have 3d in our homes with ease and wonder at our fingertips, the tipping point will occur and 3d will eclipse 2d as the dominant image capture technique of the human race.

Soon there will be glasses free TVs, and more, and 3d will add itself into the cinematic and visual vocabulary of our age - to take it's place alongside color and sound as a defining achievement in humanity's quest to replicate images and experiences at a 1:1 reference level.

< Message edited by King of Kafiristan -- 2/12/2013 8:41:07 PM >

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 1302
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 2/12/2013 9:52:49 PM   
musht


Posts: 1883
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland
I've never understood the point of 3D. 3D is never going to make a movie more "immersive" for me, that all comes down to good script, acting, etc and 3D can't fix that. 3D adds very little to a film for me, I have no trouble knowing what's small and what's far away in 2D.

I remember someone once tried to compare the move towards 3D to the introduction of colour. Colour actually added and improved, make things more distinguishable. But even at that black and white films are still revered eg It's A Wonderful Life, the black and white even adds to the aesthetic. Unfortunately KoK I don't think the same will ever be said of 2D because I think people generally don't have any interest in 3D and you can see already that the trend is fading.

Can I ask about the stats on the 3D profits. 80% of Gravity profits from 3D, is this not partially because 3D tickets are usually more expensive?

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1303
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 2/12/2013 10:21:46 PM   
King of Kafiristan

 

Posts: 1004
Joined: 14/1/2012
From: The States
My bad- meant to say percentage of ticket sales! An even more important stat.

(in reply to musht)
Post #: 1304
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 1:46:45 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4037
Joined: 19/10/2005
Gravity was good in 3D but overall I think 3D is still a con, and not even perfected yet. Characters still tend to look like bloody cardboard cut-outs and not part of the background.

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1305
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 3:14:07 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5113
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan

Gravity had 80% of it's profit in the states from 3d. I intend to respond to everyone here in depth tomorrow, but 3D is not going away. Great Gatsby, an adult oriented, mid budget drama.... A risky bet in this day and age. Opens to 60 million dollars. 70% of the profits from 3D.

Audiences are perhaps saying that they only care about 3d for some films, and will pay for it on certain blockbusters where it is a key part of the experience.

Audiences have for years now though shown they're willing to give 20-30 percent if profits at least on a post converted movie like Thor, which is extra money for studios that's they will NEVER give up.

As the tech spreads, the spectacles improve and audiences grow to demand 3D as part of the mega blockbuster experience, the tech will creep into other corners of the market, like we've already seen with Herzog documentaries, Scorsese movies and more. New generations will accept 3D readily (Will address eye strain tomorrow), and it will go from there till it's an integral part of the entertainment landscape.

I own a Panasonic ZT60 65" plasma TV - widely regarded as the best Tv on the planet. I say this not to brag, but just to tell you I speak from an informed perspective. It has 3d so good it's better than any of three local movie theaters - each with it's own expensive type of 3d tech. My tv shows me 3d so beautiful I'd never want to go back. I've seen the promised land of effortless and comfortable dimensional reality. Soon the rest of the planet will catch up, and when we have 3d in our homes with ease and wonder at our fingertips, the tipping point will occur and 3d will eclipse 2d as the dominant image capture technique of the human race.

Soon there will be glasses free TVs, and more, and 3d will add itself into the cinematic and visual vocabulary of our age - to take it's place alongside color and sound as a defining achievement in humanity's quest to replicate images and experiences at a 1:1 reference level.


Are you Dr Manhattan?


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1306
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 3:37:44 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan

Gravity had 80% of it's profit in the states from 3d. I intend to respond to everyone here in depth tomorrow, but 3D is not going away. Great Gatsby, an adult oriented, mid budget drama.... A risky bet in this day and age. Opens to 60 million dollars. 70% of the profits from 3D.

Audiences are perhaps saying that they only care about 3d for some films, and will pay for it on certain blockbusters where it is a key part of the experience.

Audiences have for years now though shown they're willing to give 20-30 percent if profits at least on a post converted movie like Thor, which is extra money for studios that's they will NEVER give up.

As the tech spreads, the spectacles improve and audiences grow to demand 3D as part of the mega blockbuster experience, the tech will creep into other corners of the market, like we've already seen with Herzog documentaries, Scorsese movies and more. New generations will accept 3D readily (Will address eye strain tomorrow), and it will go from there till it's an integral part of the entertainment landscape.

I own a Panasonic ZT60 65" plasma TV - widely regarded as the best Tv on the planet. I say this not to brag, but just to tell you I speak from an informed perspective. It has 3d so good it's better than any of three local movie theaters - each with it's own expensive type of 3d tech. My tv shows me 3d so beautiful I'd never want to go back. I've seen the promised land of effortless and comfortable dimensional reality. Soon the rest of the planet will catch up, and when we have 3d in our homes with ease and wonder at our fingertips, the tipping point will occur and 3d will eclipse 2d as the dominant image capture technique of the human race.

Soon there will be glasses free TVs, and more, and 3d will add itself into the cinematic and visual vocabulary of our age - to take it's place alongside color and sound as a defining achievement in humanity's quest to replicate images and experiences at a 1:1 reference level.


Are you Dr Manhattan?



Does Dr. Manhattan have a contract with Panasonic?

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 1307
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 5:41:38 PM   
King of Kafiristan

 

Posts: 1004
Joined: 14/1/2012
From: The States
quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

I've never understood the point of 3D. 3D is never going to make a movie more "immersive" for me, that all comes down to good script, acting, etc and 3D can't fix that. 3D adds very little to a film for me, I have no trouble knowing what's small and what's far away in 2D.

I remember someone once tried to compare the move towards 3D to the introduction of colour. Colour actually added and improved, make things more distinguishable. But even at that black and white films are still revered eg It's A Wonderful Life, the black and white even adds to the aesthetic. Unfortunately KoK I don't think the same will ever be said of 2D because I think people generally don't have any interest in 3D and you can see already that the trend is fading.

Can I ask about the stats on the 3D profits. 80% of Gravity profits from 3D, is this not partially because 3D tickets are usually more expensive?


Depth is as important as sound and color in recreating what is in front of the capture. Of course scripts, acting and such are the first step, but immersion is perfectly valid as an artistic imperative.

Depth also opens up entirely new cinematic tools, such as Coraline 3D, where the 'real world' sets were constructed with little depth, so that they'd feel claustrophobic in 3D, where as the 'other world' had open, expansive sets so that they'd feel welcoming and spacious. In 2d, there would be no visible difference between the two, but in 3D, it's a key element in setting the two worlds apart.

And again, sorry, I meant to say % of ticket sales. 80% of people who went to see Gravity went to see it in 3D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

For me I have to wear spectacle and have had significant migraine as a result of 3D cinema mine are not psychosomatic but a result of the forced artificial focal point and having differing levels of focus for either eye. I have also experienced nausea. L Mark Carrier in a study showed that 3D actually increases the risk of eyestrain threefold and that is not psychosomatic eyestrain but actual physical eyestrain which has been medically proven. Considering that actual 3D films number in the very very few and the vast majority are conversions I am not certain which films you have been watching? There appear to have been about four in the last year (one a Justin Bieber film) other than animated films and the rest are conversions.

I wish I did enjoy 3D but am physically incapable of enjoying this format.


It does sound like your specs might complicate matters, but I truly believe it's a mind over matter thing. Now don't get me wrong: the eye strain for some is real. It's not in their head. However this is something that is very much a result of 'trying too hard' with 3D. Like you say, there is an artificial focal point in 3D cinema. Your brain is not used to viewing things in 3D where your eyes can't set the focus. It's just a new concept for your brain and eyes to get used to. Once you just let it wash over you, and your eyes stop "fighting" your brain, then it will be effortless and the 3D will trouble you no longer, mate!

Also, other than Jurassic Park 3D (and Titanic because Cameron put so much effort into the conversion), which I bought on a whim, I *only* watch natively shot 3D content.

Exceptions are Pacific Rim - all the effects scenes were rendered in native 3D, and Gravity, where all the effects (99% of the film) were rendered in 3D.

Also many modern 3D glasses are designed to be comfortably worn over glasses, and when glasses free comes along you'll have no problems at all!

< Message edited by King of Kafiristan -- 3/12/2013 7:08:07 PM >

(in reply to musht)
Post #: 1308
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 6:41:46 PM   
Professor Moriarty

 

Posts: 10469
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: the waters of Casablanca
It is fun to see someone so strongly taking the side of 3D.

I've seen 3 films in 3D. The first was Cameron's offering, which I did just to see what the buzz was about. And I must admit it far exceeded my expectations, I thought it was beautifully imagined and came over really strongly.

But I wasn't interested in things coming out of the screen, or films that were made in 2D and then retro-fitted to 3D, so it was a long time until my next try. Life of Pi, I'd heard good things about and thought the director would make good use of the medium. To be quite honest I wasn't a big fan of the film, but even so, I got nothing from the 3D and feel I could have watched it quite happily in 2D.

So, that put me off it for a while, until Gravity came along, which had such strong 3D reviews. And I think the 3D made a difference, but I still didn't feel pulled into the film and I reckon I'd have enjoyed it almost as much in the 2D.

I'll see what comes up in the future to interest me, but at the moment I find myself leaving it much more than taking it.

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1309
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 6:49:22 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18333
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

For me I have to wear spectacle and have had significant migraine as a result of 3D cinema mine are not psychosomatic but a result of the forced artificial focal point and having differing levels of focus for either eye. I have also experienced nausea. L Mark Carrier in a study showed that 3D actually increases the risk of eyestrain threefold and that is not psychosomatic eyestrain but actual physical eyestrain which has been medically proven. Considering that actual 3D films number in the very very few and the vast majority are conversions I am not certain which films you have been watching? There appear to have been about four in the last year (one a Justin Bieber film) other than animated films and the rest are conversions.

I wish I did enjoy 3D but am physically incapable of enjoying this format.


It does sound like your specs might complicate matters, but I truly believe it's a mind over matter thing. Now don't get me wrong: the eye strain for some is real. It's not in their head. However this is something that is very much a result of 'trying too hard' with 3D. Like you say, there is an artificial focal point in 3D cinema. Your brain is not used to viewing things in 3D where your eyes can't set the focus. It's just a new concept for your brain and eyes to get used to. Once you just let it wash over you, and your eyes stop "fighting" your brain, then it will be effortless and the 3D will trouble you no longer, mate!

Also, other than Jurassic Park 3D, which I bought on a whim, I *only* watch natively shot 3D content.

Exceptions are Pacific Rim - all the effects scenes were rendered in native 3D, and Gravity, where all the effects (99% of the film) were rendered in 3D.

Also many modern 3D glasses are designed to be comfortably worn over glasses, and when glasses free comes along you'll have no problems at all!


You do realise the study I mentioned actually scientifically proved that 3D does physically cause symptoms and not psychosomatically and it is not the result of trying too hard but because 3D in this format causes physical issues if you do not have perfectly balanced vision which virtually no one has? Other studies since that one have also backed up the results. In the last year there have been five actual "native" 3D films the rest are rendered or converted.


< Message edited by sanchia -- 3/12/2013 6:52:05 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1310
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 6:58:39 PM   
King of Kafiristan

 

Posts: 1004
Joined: 14/1/2012
From: The States

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

For me I have to wear spectacle and have had significant migraine as a result of 3D cinema mine are not psychosomatic but a result of the forced artificial focal point and having differing levels of focus for either eye. I have also experienced nausea. L Mark Carrier in a study showed that 3D actually increases the risk of eyestrain threefold and that is not psychosomatic eyestrain but actual physical eyestrain which has been medically proven. Considering that actual 3D films number in the very very few and the vast majority are conversions I am not certain which films you have been watching? There appear to have been about four in the last year (one a Justin Bieber film) other than animated films and the rest are conversions.

I wish I did enjoy 3D but am physically incapable of enjoying this format.


It does sound like your specs might complicate matters, but I truly believe it's a mind over matter thing. Now don't get me wrong: the eye strain for some is real. It's not in their head. However this is something that is very much a result of 'trying too hard' with 3D. Like you say, there is an artificial focal point in 3D cinema. Your brain is not used to viewing things in 3D where your eyes can't set the focus. It's just a new concept for your brain and eyes to get used to. Once you just let it wash over you, and your eyes stop "fighting" your brain, then it will be effortless and the 3D will trouble you no longer, mate!

Also, other than Jurassic Park 3D, which I bought on a whim, I *only* watch natively shot 3D content.

Exceptions are Pacific Rim - all the effects scenes were rendered in native 3D, and Gravity, where all the effects (99% of the film) were rendered in 3D.

Also many modern 3D glasses are designed to be comfortably worn over glasses, and when glasses free comes along you'll have no problems at all!


You do realise the study I mentioned actually scientifically proved that 3D does physically cause symptoms and not psychosomatically and it is not the result of trying too hard but because 3D in this format causes physical issues if you do not have perfectly balanced vision which virtually no one has? Other studies since that one have also backed up the results. In the last year there have been five actual "native" 3D films the rest are rendered or converted.


quote:


You do realise the study I mentioned actually scientifically proved that 3D does physically cause symptoms and not psychosomatically and it is not the result of trying too hard but because 3D in this format causes physical issues if you do not have perfectly balanced vision which virtually no one has? Other studies since that one have also backed up the results. In the last year there have been five actual "native" 3D films the rest are rendered or converted.


< Message edited by sanchia -- 3/12/2013 6:52:05 PM >


I am not implying it's psychosomatic in the least. It comes from over focusing your eyes when you can't change the focal point of 3D. It requires changing how you view the material. The human brain is simply not used to 3D spaces where the focal point is beyond the eyeball's control.

It's a mental block that leads to physical issues for some.

3D doesn't cause headaches - for some, their flawed understanding of how to view 3D leads to headaches.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 1311
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 7:33:48 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18333
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
For a very few maybe but for most it is a physical reaction which is a result of an imperfect and artificial 3D system.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1312
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 7:53:25 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

For me I have to wear spectacle and have had significant migraine as a result of 3D cinema mine are not psychosomatic but a result of the forced artificial focal point and having differing levels of focus for either eye. I have also experienced nausea. L Mark Carrier in a study showed that 3D actually increases the risk of eyestrain threefold and that is not psychosomatic eyestrain but actual physical eyestrain which has been medically proven. Considering that actual 3D films number in the very very few and the vast majority are conversions I am not certain which films you have been watching? There appear to have been about four in the last year (one a Justin Bieber film) other than animated films and the rest are conversions.

I wish I did enjoy 3D but am physically incapable of enjoying this format.


It does sound like your specs might complicate matters, but I truly believe it's a mind over matter thing. Now don't get me wrong: the eye strain for some is real. It's not in their head. However this is something that is very much a result of 'trying too hard' with 3D. Like you say, there is an artificial focal point in 3D cinema. Your brain is not used to viewing things in 3D where your eyes can't set the focus. It's just a new concept for your brain and eyes to get used to. Once you just let it wash over you, and your eyes stop "fighting" your brain, then it will be effortless and the 3D will trouble you no longer, mate!

Also, other than Jurassic Park 3D, which I bought on a whim, I *only* watch natively shot 3D content.

Exceptions are Pacific Rim - all the effects scenes were rendered in native 3D, and Gravity, where all the effects (99% of the film) were rendered in 3D.

Also many modern 3D glasses are designed to be comfortably worn over glasses, and when glasses free comes along you'll have no problems at all!


You do realise the study I mentioned actually scientifically proved that 3D does physically cause symptoms and not psychosomatically and it is not the result of trying too hard but because 3D in this format causes physical issues if you do not have perfectly balanced vision which virtually no one has? Other studies since that one have also backed up the results. In the last year there have been five actual "native" 3D films the rest are rendered or converted.


quote:


You do realise the study I mentioned actually scientifically proved that 3D does physically cause symptoms and not psychosomatically and it is not the result of trying too hard but because 3D in this format causes physical issues if you do not have perfectly balanced vision which virtually no one has? Other studies since that one have also backed up the results. In the last year there have been five actual "native" 3D films the rest are rendered or converted.


< Message edited by sanchia -- 3/12/2013 6:52:05 PM >


I am not implying it's psychosomatic in the least. It comes from over focusing your eyes when you can't change the focal point of 3D. It requires changing how you view the material. The human brain is simply not used to 3D spaces where the focal point is beyond the eyeball's control.

It's a mental block that leads to physical issues for some.

3D doesn't cause headaches - for some, their flawed understanding of how to view 3D leads to headaches.

quote:

3D doesn't cause headaches - for some, their flawed understanding of how to view 3D leads to headaches.


So, we all have to go to night-classes or something to enjoy a 3D movie?

Sorry, KOK, not having a go, this is something you're passionate about and I respect that.

But 3D ain't about folks from the past rejecting colour or sound or anything like that... but so many people just don't want it! End of! 'Immersive'... I don't find it immersive, not for one moment.

For the record, I saw GRAVITY today and thought it was excellent... and, yes the 3D worked, for the first time in my life. It was a great cinematic experience.

But it would have worked just as well in 2D, thanks to the film being in the hands of a master director and having two terrific performances. The 3D was just a bit of sugar sprinkled on top.

IMO, 3D should be a rare treat, something that takes a damn good movie and adds something to it when its truly deserved...

Let me ask you, if you say 3D should be the norm, what exactly would it add to the likes of THIS IS ENGLAND, BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR or the 10 'oclock News? Be specific, sir!



_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1313
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 7:55:16 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4307
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan

I am not implying it's psychosomatic in the least. It comes from over focusing your eyes when you can't change the focal point of 3D. It requires changing how you view the material. The human brain is simply not used to 3D spaces where the focal point is beyond the eyeball's control.

It's a mental block that leads to physical issues for some.

3D doesn't cause headaches - for some, their flawed understanding of how to view 3D leads to headaches.


Do you not see how it's somewhat disingenuous and condescending of you to be explaining to someone else that you know more about the nature of their physical reaction than they themselves do?


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1314
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 8:06:40 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3156
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

For me I have to wear spectacle and have had significant migraine as a result of 3D cinema mine are not psychosomatic but a result of the forced artificial focal point and having differing levels of focus for either eye. I have also experienced nausea. L Mark Carrier in a study showed that 3D actually increases the risk of eyestrain threefold and that is not psychosomatic eyestrain but actual physical eyestrain which has been medically proven. Considering that actual 3D films number in the very very few and the vast majority are conversions I am not certain which films you have been watching? There appear to have been about four in the last year (one a Justin Bieber film) other than animated films and the rest are conversions.

I wish I did enjoy 3D but am physically incapable of enjoying this format.


It does sound like your specs might complicate matters, but I truly believe it's a mind over matter thing. Now don't get me wrong: the eye strain for some is real. It's not in their head. However this is something that is very much a result of 'trying too hard' with 3D. Like you say, there is an artificial focal point in 3D cinema. Your brain is not used to viewing things in 3D where your eyes can't set the focus. It's just a new concept for your brain and eyes to get used to. Once you just let it wash over you, and your eyes stop "fighting" your brain, then it will be effortless and the 3D will trouble you no longer, mate!

Also, other than Jurassic Park 3D, which I bought on a whim, I *only* watch natively shot 3D content.

Exceptions are Pacific Rim - all the effects scenes were rendered in native 3D, and Gravity, where all the effects (99% of the film) were rendered in 3D.

Also many modern 3D glasses are designed to be comfortably worn over glasses, and when glasses free comes along you'll have no problems at all!


You do realise the study I mentioned actually scientifically proved that 3D does physically cause symptoms and not psychosomatically and it is not the result of trying too hard but because 3D in this format causes physical issues if you do not have perfectly balanced vision which virtually no one has? Other studies since that one have also backed up the results. In the last year there have been five actual "native" 3D films the rest are rendered or converted.


quote:


You do realise the study I mentioned actually scientifically proved that 3D does physically cause symptoms and not psychosomatically and it is not the result of trying too hard but because 3D in this format causes physical issues if you do not have perfectly balanced vision which virtually no one has? Other studies since that one have also backed up the results. In the last year there have been five actual "native" 3D films the rest are rendered or converted.


< Message edited by sanchia -- 3/12/2013 6:52:05 PM >


I am not implying it's psychosomatic in the least. It comes from over focusing your eyes when you can't change the focal point of 3D. It requires changing how you view the material. The human brain is simply not used to 3D spaces where the focal point is beyond the eyeball's control.

It's a mental block that leads to physical issues for some.

3D doesn't cause headaches - for some, their flawed understanding of how to view 3D leads to headaches.


Why can't you just admit that some people don't like 3D, and some get headaches from it? I mean are you really so obsessed with being "right" that you're actually trying to convince us that some people don't know how to watch a film properly?

Like Mister Coe, I'm not trying to be combative and your passion for 3D is great, but you can't just tell people they're wrong because it goes against something you like.

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1315
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 8:28:03 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18333
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
quote:

In conclusion, the present results suggest that one cannot count on a meaningful positive impact of viewing 3D movies compared to 2D versions of the same movies. In fact, the largest—albeit small—effects of 3D presentation observed in the present study were a decrease in positive emotions, an increase in negative emotions and a decrease in immersion level.


A conclusion of L Mark Carrier's study.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 1316
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 9:19:50 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14582
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan


. It comes from over focusing your eyes when you can't change the focal point of 3D. It requires changing how you view the material. The human brain is simply not used to 3D spaces where the focal point is beyond the eyeball's control.

It's a mental block that leads to physical issues for some.

3D doesn't cause headaches - for some, their flawed understanding of how to view 3D leads to headaches.




_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1317
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 9:23:54 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b


quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan


. It comes from over focusing your eyes when you can't change the focal point of 3D. It requires changing how you view the material. The human brain is simply not used to 3D spaces where the focal point is beyond the eyeball's control.

It's a mental block that leads to physical issues for some.

3D doesn't cause headaches - for some, their flawed understanding of how to view 3D leads to headaches.





It's like how if you get stabbed and you die from it, the knife that stabbed you doesn't cause you to die, it's just some people have a flawed understanding of how to respond to being stabbed.

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 1318
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 9:25:45 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14582
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 1319
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 3/12/2013 9:47:03 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8321
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan
Depth is as important as sound and color in recreating what is in front of the capture. Of course scripts, acting and such are the first step, but immersion is perfectly valid as an artistic imperative.


As an example,this:


is a scene where colour plays a role that could not be done in black and white. The same scene is identical in 3D or 2D, except that in 2D the viewer isn't treated to headaches and a lighter wallet. There are many, many examples of colour being used to shape the narrative (Don't Look Now, The Village etc etc). Colour changed filmmaking in a fundamental way that 3D has never matched.

As for % of ticket sales in 3D, I think it would be important to add some context, i.e. how many cinemas offered the choice of 2D and 3D. Because where I live the vast majority of seats available for Gravity on opening weekend were 3D only. Want to see the film? Then you'll have to buy a 3D ticket, sorry. The playing field isn't level, so the numbers are loaded.

< Message edited by superdan -- 3/12/2013 9:49:01 PM >

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 1320
Page:   <<   < prev  42 43 [44] 45 46   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion Page: <<   < prev  42 43 [44] 45 46   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.328