Al_B on 29/12/2009 at 15:59
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Please don't miss the 3D for any reason other than "I can't get to a 3D showing"
Does having defective eyes that can't resolve a stereoscopic image count as a valid reason? It's good to know that it's worth paying the extra for a 3D showing though - I'll probably see it with my wife and her eyes do work. :)
SubJeff on 29/12/2009 at 16:10
Interesting. Do you have 2 functioning eyes and the ability to perceive 3D in RL? Because the tech (old colour filters and polarisers) is designed to give the illusion of looking at a 3D image by filtering the image that each eye receives. It is mimicking real life, not playing any fancy tricks. I don't get people who say the 3D doesn't work for them because unless you have some pretty specific neurological condition affecting the optic tracts it should work, and the sort of neurology I'm talking about would make any cinema experience, errr, fulfilling iyswim.
Al_B on 29/12/2009 at 16:20
No - 3D depth of vision by the eyes working together doesn't work in real life either. I have an alternating squint which although not as dramatic a condition as some people have does mean that the eyes work separately. Of course, perspective, shading and other cues work so I can still judge distance - it's the same as if you were to shut one eye.
Cinema is not a problem and although I have seen a couple of 3D showings before, it's just the same as watching a regular film. (albeit with more things pointed towards the camera)
SubJeff on 29/12/2009 at 16:32
Ah, I see.
Manwe on 29/12/2009 at 16:56
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Seriously people if you didn't see this in 3D you're not qualified to comment on whether the 3D is a gimmick or a fad or not. And I'll tell you now - its not (and it can't be a fad since its hardly been used wtf). In 2D it will be but a shadow of its real self.
Bullshit. I saw it in 3D with my brother and the first thing we talked about when it was over (after praising the fantastic cgi) was how 3D wasn't all that special and how the film would have been the same, if not better, without it. I mean it wasn't outright bad, it just wasn't mindblowing like I expected (it was my first movie in 3D). It wasn't worse than a normal film but it wasn't really better either, it was just weird. It was extremely dark, and fairly blurry, especially when there were quick movements on screen. Also it took me like half an hour to get used to the glasses and the 3D effect, but once I got used to it I pretty much stopped noticing it. So yeah pretty sure the film would have been the same without the glasses. The only two moments that really impressed me were the grenade coming at the screen towards the end of the movie (tried to dodge it by reflex) and the haribo commercial before the movie started. That's about it.
So I was either in a really crappy cinema (which is possible as I live in france) or 3D is a stupid gimmick.
Gingerbread Man on 29/12/2009 at 17:11
If you were waiting and watching for things coming out of the screen, then you WANTED a stupid gimmick. And, with only a couple of very subtle (and one not-very-subtle-at-all) moments, a stupid gimmick didn't show up.
It's getting really frustrating to try to explain that the use of 3D is like the use of colour or sound, not like the use of bullet time or CGI. It's a fundamental, qualitative enhancement.
Ostriig on 29/12/2009 at 17:18
Quote Posted by Manwe
Also it took me like half an hour to get used to the glasses and the 3D effect, but once I got used to it I pretty much stopped noticing it.
Fucking
duh! You stop "noticing it" because it's something perfectly natural and common outside of the cinema, or any other occasion you're looking at a screen. The "novelty" of the experience isn't something of the "whoa, never imagined anything like
this" type, it's more like an "oh, yeah, there it is" as you re-encounter the depth perception you've grown accustomed to fill in the blanks with regard to when looking at movies.
I keep hearing IMAX is supposed to deliver a notably better experience altogether, I've only seen it at a "RealD" or something cinema, and I gotta admit there was room for improvement with the tech. And now I'm really curious to see nVidia's tech, though - nevermind the rest, but fuck on a bike I'm anxious to see if stereoscopy means I won't have to keep shuffling the viewport every time I'm dicking around with a vertex in Max.
Gingerbread Man on 29/12/2009 at 17:26
One thing I did notice that obviously spoke to the "designed for IMAX" philosophy was the unusual number of worm's-eye / ground-level shots. Which were intensely effective given the 60' or whatever screen in front of you. I suspect also the sound quality at an IMAX would be much better -- there were times in the film where the sound was just ridiculously awesome, surrounded-out perfectly and clearly, you could hear bugs all around properly (not loud and left / right, but as if there really were in various corners and crannies of the theater) oh shit I'm starting to gush :D
Manwe on 29/12/2009 at 17:50
Quote:
If you were waiting and watching for things coming out of the screen, then you WANTED a stupid gimmick. And, with only a couple of very subtle (and one not-very-subtle-at-all) moments, a stupid gimmick didn't show up.
I was expecting to be blown away, not to feel like something was wrong with the glasses for the first half hour of the movie.
Quote:
It's getting really frustrating to try to explain that the use of 3D is like the use of colour or sound, not like the use of bullet time or CGI. It's a fundamental, qualitative enhancement.
But that's the thing it didn't enhance the experience or make it more immersive. It had the opposite effect, it was very disconcerting and outright annoying at first. A few scenes worked well in 3D like the discovery of the forest near the beginning or when they try to resurrect sigourney weaver, while others were really awful, mostly when they're running or flying, you can't even see the 3D effect. It was very hit and miss.
Quote:
Fucking duh! You stop "noticing it" because it's something perfectly natural and common outside of the cinema, or any other occasion you're looking at a screen. The "novelty" of the experience isn't something of the "whoa, never imagined anything like this" type, it's more like an "oh, yeah, there it is" as you re-encounter the depth perception you've grown accustomed to fill in the blanks with regard to when looking at movies
I stopped noticing the 3D effects but the image quality was still darker, blurrier and overall worse than a 2D movie. At no point did it feel more natural realistic or immersive. Just because I got used to the crappy quality of the image after a while doesn't mean it wasn't really crappy after all. The disadvantages of 3D simply outweigh the few benefits it has imo. Basically it hindered my enjoyment of the movie instead of enhancing it.
thefonz on 29/12/2009 at 18:14
Seeing this at 9pm tonight at the Imax in London.
I'm excited.
Thoughts tomorrow...
