porntrooper
Posts: 2497
Joined: 6/9/2006 From: Sheffield
|
I don't have a 3D set up just yet (3D Blu Player is due to be delivered tomorrow, the 3D TV will likely be in the next month or so as I move house) and I'm not the biggest fan of the occasionally pointless use of 3D in some films. However, some films do utilise 3D well, Avatar may be a pile of shit, but it does use the medium well. I wouldnt buy Avatar just for the 3D, but I will buy the 3D version of Prometheus as it was used really well and it certainly added to the overall look of the movie. What does 3D really need to add? If used well it's just another part of presenting a story via some kind of visual. Slo Mo isn't needed, colour filtering isn't needed and any other number of visual techniques arent needed really, but they're used as part of the overall process of making and presenting a film to the general public, and when used they can all be very effective. I think if good film makers can utilise 3D in good ways, then im all for it, especially if the technology can be moved forward to remove loss of light or the eye strain. So yea, whilst I remain critical of it's often cynical cash cow use, I am at the same time open to it if used correctly. Plus, 3D sports do look great and that alone is the main reason for the upgrade. I wont go on a mental 3D Blu spending spree like DK, but I'll certainly indulge in some 3D.
_____________________________
"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."
|