I'm over 3D

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Last 2 movies I've seen at the theatre, Avengers and Mad Max, were in 2D. And I thoroughly enjoyed them.
 
I believe I gave 3d movies a fair shot. But I've had enough bad experiences with it to decide that I'll no longer bother choosing the 3d version over the 2d version when going to see a movie.

My good experiences of 3d have been where it's been subtle to the point where it's not noticeable. And it doesn't detract from what I'm watching on the screen.

And I figure, if it's not noticeable, what the point of having it.


Where as my bad experiences consist of the following;

The Hobbit - objects 'closer' to me the screen become blurry, or I see two fuzzy images overlapping. Sometimes this happens with the background as well.
I'm not a fan of the high frame rate either, but I'm willing to give this a chance.

Transformers - vast expansive scenes which are supposed to show giant robots in the distance, actually end up looking like a scene showing tiny toy robots.

In General - stupid glasses which have smudges which have I have to clean myself. And refract lights from the sides/behind me etc

The price - For this degraded movie experience, they charge me $2 to $5 more then a normal ticket.


I like going to the movie theatre, the big screen and the immersive sound make it worth it. But for me, 3D doesn't add anything positive to the experience.

[Xsannz]

I tend to agree and all valid points, to the same effect i actually got rid of my 27inch 3d lightboost asus monitor

[Retardobot]

I've seen 2 3D movies.

Both times it wasn't worth the admission price.

I like letting my eyes wonder during scenes, taking in the background. 3D doesn't let you do this, it forces you to pay attention to whatever part is in focus/3D.

Shitty gimmick.

[The Demon Lord]

I like 3D and I like HFR.

Now - let me be clear - I like Proper 3D (not shitty Post Production 3D) and I despise gimmicy 3D (as in where objects come out of the screen to make you jump) but I feel that proper 3D really does add a depth (excuse the pun) the Film.

Does that mean that the 2D version is bad - no, I have the Lego Movie in 2D on DVD, but I watched it in 3D at the movies - I can enjoy both. but I find when watching a proper 3D film, it really is enjoyable.

as for HFR - I always find that in intense action sequences, the images are clearer, more crisp - for me compare the intro to Saving Private Ryan to a similar high action sequence of the same era - the into is sharper.

Again - its not a case of night and day or a case to say that normal frame rate is bad - I just find HFR again to be slightly more enjoyable (like the difference between BF4 at 36 fps on a console and BF4 at 70-80 fps on my PC - it just looks nicer)

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

as for HFR - I always find that in intense action sequences, the images are clearer, more crisp - for me compare the intro to Saving Private Ryan to a similar high action sequence of the same era - the into is sharper.

What does Saving Ryan's Privates have to do with anything? The only movies so far to be filmed in HFR is the Hobbit series.

[The Demon Lord]

as for HFR - I always find that in intense action sequences, the images are clearer, more crisp - for me compare the intro to Saving Private Ryan to a similar high action sequence of the same era - the into is sharper.

What does Saving Ryan's Privates have to do with anything? The only movies so far to be filmed in HFR is the Hobbit series.

I always thought that the first section of Saving Private Ryan was shot at 48 fps as opposed to the normal 24 - but further reading suggests it was the shutter angle that did it - either way the Hobbit and Saving private ryan look nice

[Retardobot]

I do enjoy HFR. Saw the Hobbit in cinemas with HFR. That with a 4K projector and holy tits you've got some HD goodness.

[Dr. Acula]

While I agree with pretty much all points in this thread, I am not yet going to rule out 3D completely. 3D, where you have to wear those glasses, active or not, is just shit. I don't think I've seen a solid representation of it yet, BUT when it comes to 3D in the form of something like the Oculus Rift, this is where I'm hoping it will finally come in to it's own. Having used DK2 for a short amount of time, and with CV1 being just around the corner now with the specs it supposedly will have, I can definitely see 3D as not just a gimmick to TRY and make things more immersive, but as something that will work well and will make the content more immersive.

[Bounty Hunter]

HFR is superior.

/r/PCMR

HFR 3D was bearable, I enjoyed the hobbit in 3D.

Everything else is ruined by the shitty frame rate.

[Kayne]

I feel like you are all watching the shittest movies out.

I found 3D to be quite a nice addition to Prometheus, Back Door Sluts 9, and the hobbit.

It does add depth, making corridors feel longer (as it was with Prometheus) and personally, I've found it to *Feel* as if it was even clearer than normal.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I found 3D to be quite a nice addition to Prometheus, Back Door Sluts 9, and the hobbit.

It can be good, but it can also be not. So it's always a bit of a gamble.

There were parts of the hobbit where the 3d caused some fuzziness for me, but maybe there just something wrong with my brain.

[Kayne]

Well I've known a few people to hate it because their eyes can't cope?

Just like some people hate "cam-corder" movies (i.e Cloverfield) because they feel motion sickness.

[Dr. Acula]

I think the main issue with it is, you have to be sitting in the perfect spot in the cinema for it to work optimally, great example of this was a couple of weeks back when I went to watch Mad Max in 3D, I was sitting at the back and to the left, and a lot of it was quite out of focus, but other times when I've been sitting near to the middle of the cinema, it's been a lot better.

[BerG]

The only movie I've seen so far which was awesome in 3D was Avatar. I'll never forget the scene where they're inside the cockpit of the ship as its coming into land on Pandora, and the view through the windscreen was fucking amazing in 3D.

Every other prick ruining James Camerons shit.

[Pyromanik]

I've seen 2 3D movies.

Both times it wasn't worth the admission price.

I like letting my eyes wonder during scenes, taking in the background. 3D doesn't let you do this, it forces you to pay attention to whatever part is in focus/3D.

Shitty gimmick.

Always was, always will be. Right from the very start (of the return of 3d movies) I said this. I've seen a few (usually where attendance was as part of a group of friends). Never enjoyed any of them as much as I would have if I'd seen them in 2d. I've always made a point of purposely going to the 2d version.

Except Mad Max: Fury Road. I saw that in 3d because I thought I should see if maybe it's a bit better on IMAX.
It was actually enjoyable, but again it probably would have been better still in 2d. Or more relaxing, I guess is the way I like to describe it. Even if I enjoy the movie, I don't feel relaxed in 3d. 2d gives that softer edge of enjoyment. Like 3d is at best the same experience, but with sharp corners (metaphorically, not on screen).

I feel vindicated that these sort of post now also exist.

[Kayne]

Out of curiosity

Do the people who have problems with 3d, wear glasses or no (not wearing glasses does not include "I should go get glasses but I can't be fucked right now, so I don't wear them")

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Out of curiosity

Do the people who have problems with 3d, wear glasses or no (not wearing glasses does not include "I should go get glasses but I can't be fucked right now, so I don't wear them")

I wear glasses, so I'm wearing the 3d glasses over the top of my normal glasses.

[Pyromanik]

I do not.

[Retardobot]

I'm furious that The Martian has no 8pm screenings here in Palmy (non 3D). All the late viewings are shitty 3D.

However Palmy cinemas are doing their best to fuel piracy with $17 ticket prices.

[Pyromanik]

Wholey shit, that's cheap.