3D or 2D

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Marc, maybe you'll know.

They are shooting The Hobbit in 3D right? Can forced perspective work in 3D? I mean the whole trick of forced perspective is that you play a trick on the viewer taking advantage of the fact that film is one-dimensional.

[MSM 126]

I haven't read any of the above posts, but I HATE 3D. I also think in five years this foolish hype will be all forgotten.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Something that lasts a decade is more than hype.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Marc, maybe you'll know.

They are shooting The Hobbit in 3D right? Can forced perspective work in 3D? I mean the whole trick of forced perspective is that you play a trick on the viewer taking advantage of the fact that film is one-dimensional.

Good question. I don't know. Maybe they'll have to do some post-production trickery for this.

[Quintus 5,399]

Maybe they haven't a clue and they're just hoping for the best. I mean, I can't imagine they'd bother to do any research into it beforehand.

[MSM 126]

Marc, maybe you'll know.

They are shooting The Hobbit in 3D right? Can forced perspective work in 3D? I mean the whole trick of forced perspective is that you play a trick on the viewer taking advantage of the fact that film is one-dimensional.

If it is about static images, forced perspective will work as good or even better in 3D.

[Datameister 2,042]

That's not true. If you've got a setup like in LOTR with two actors sitting at a table and one being a lot further away so he looks small like a hobbit, unmodified 3D will instantly give away the fact that the actor is just further away, not smaller. They'd have to digitally correct it so that they appear to be the same distance from the camera.

[Wojo 2,453]

If anyone can find a way to make 3D work for these movies, it's PJ. I have faith.

That being said, to avoid hypocriticizing my earlier comments, I'll still be watching them in 2D.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Ollie 1,059]

Tintin better be a good movie....

[Quintus 5,399]

Spielberg and Jacko repeating what some of us already knew, there.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

I guess some people did.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[JoeinAR 1,949]

House of Wax, and Dial M for Murder are being released on Blu Ray 3D.

Now if they'd do Creature from the Black Lagoon and the Mad Magician.

[MSM 126]

That's not true. If you've got a setup like in LOTR with two actors sitting at a table and one being a lot further away so he looks small like a hobbit, unmodified 3D will instantly give away the fact that the actor is just further away, not smaller. They'd have to digitally correct it so that they appear to be the same distance from the camera.

Ah, yes. I was thinking more of static images like buildings etc.

It’s not just a matter of mediocre films, either. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 made only 43% of its record opening weekend gross in 3D-equipped theaters–that despite the fact that 68% of the locations where it played showed it in 3D. People who went to that film in 2D surely didn’t assume it was mediocre. On the whole, it has been getting very favorable reviews, and HP fans would surely spend the extra few dollars if they really wanted to see it in 3D.

I'm happy they realize it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I haven't read any of the above posts, but I HATE 3D. I also think in five years this foolish hype will be all forgotten.

how wrong could you be. It's been around since the 50's. It might diminish but it won't be forgotten.

[Matt C 452]

I haven't read any of the above posts, but I HATE 3D. I also think in five years this foolish hype will be all forgotten.

It won't. Given the $1B success of POTC 4 (shot in 3D) and the ongoing success of HP8 (post-converted 3D), it's going to stay a while longer.

However, the upcoming 3D releases of The Hobbit and presumably the Avatar sequels is that they're being shot in a higher framerate that reduces strobing and makes 3D a lot easier on the eyes. But I saw the teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man in digital 3D, and none of the footage used (aside from the gimmicky POV shot) uses 3D well.

If given a choice, 2D is definitely the better choice. If the movie is shot in 3D and the 3D is done well, then that's when I'll see a 3D show. A lot of post-conversion films don't use it effectively or hardly at all.

[MSM 126]

And the the fact that you still need glasses is a big minus.

[A24 4,331]

I haven't read any of the above posts, but I HATE 3D. I also think in five years this foolish hype will be all forgotten.

how wrong could you be. It's been around since the 50's. It might diminish but it won't be forgotten.

See, the previous attempts already have been forgotten. In the end, we remember great movies, not some gimmick.

[Quintus 5,399]

48fps will most probably make or break 3D. My bet is that'll be the turning point where we see more (not all) detractors begin to approve of it.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Provided of course there will be enough venues capable of projecting at 48fps.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes. The profit incentive in the the run up to The Hobbit will play a major part.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

48fbs seems far more interesting to me then 3D

[Quintus 5,399]

Same. But I have a good idea what a skilled director could do with both and that interests me very much.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

And the the fact that you still need glasses is a big minus.

That's one thing us glasses wearers aren't bothered about

When I saw Toy Story 3 I think I considered buying some of those clip-ons; my only concern was that since my glasses aren't really that big, I might be able to see the double-vision in my peripheral vision.

[Quintus 5,399]

The glasses do not bother me in the slightest. Other patrons are another thing.

[Brónach 1,302]

The glasses don't really bother me. Only when they aren't as clean as they should be. I wear glasses and I'm a bit obsessive about that.

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't wear glasses in general but I do wear a pair for watching tv and going to the cinema, purely because things aren't as sharp as they should be the further away they are. The 3D glasses fit just fine over my other specs.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Provided of course there will be enough venues capable of projecting at 48fps.

most digital projectors can project at 48fps, at least to what I just read on them.

[Demodex 557]

I prefer the 3D experience. I don't see many movies in the theater so the extra cost doesn't bother me.

[Matt C 452]

48fbs seems far more interesting to me then 3D

I just wonder how it'll maintain that 'dreamlike' quality at a higher framerate. But since Jackson says that the 3D is much less eye-straining, it should be interesting.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Are mirrors in 2D or 3D?

Normal household mirrors I mean.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

All they're doing is bouncing light, so they're 3D as well. Each eye is seeing something different.

I found a few scenes in Avatar a bit uncomfortable, but it was due to the angles being separated wider; I don't think framerate was a problem.

Concerning the poll, if the 3D choice is genuine 3D, then I'll go for that. I think of conversion as a last resort.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

48fbs seems far more interesting to me then 3D

I just wonder how it'll maintain that 'dreamlike' quality at a higher framerate. But since Jackson says that the 3D is much less eye-straining, it should be interesting.

I'm sure whatever editing program they use, it will have a "fade image" option.

[Quintus 5,399]

If anything I should imagine the extra fps will actually enhance the "dreamlike quality". It'll initially be quite surreal and probably take some getting used to, but in a completely pleasurable fashion.

[Datameister 2,042]

All they're doing is bouncing light, so they're 3D as well. Each eye is seeing something different.

Yep. The image you see in a mirror is every bit as 3D as your view of the world around you, Steef.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

And actually, if they weren't 3D, half the magic illusions in the world wouldn't work.

[indy4 155]

The next Spy Kids movie will be in 4D. It will include a scratch 'n sniff sticker that contains scents from the film. Honestly, that would just distract me from the movie.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/spy-kids-4-will-feature-4d-aromascope-2303923.html

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Let's just hope the damn kids won't fart at some point in the film.

This would be a funny comment, except that, if I recall, farting humor is popular in these films...

[Quintus 5,399]

You don't find farts funny?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They are.

[Jeff 10]

Back to the subject of 3D images, I saw DH2 in IMAX 3D as well as 2D. IMO, 3D was more immersive in this instance. It may be that IMAX is a particularly good venue for 3D.

However, I don't really like wearing the glasses (I spent 25 years in glasses and I'm glad to be rid of them), and I don't like to give the studios extra money just because they slapped a cheap 3D conversion on top of a crappy movie. So for most movies, I prefer 2D. I don't like to reward such opportunism.

[Datameister 2,042]

I finally saw DH2 today, and although I saw it in 2D, I could very easily imagine how it would have looked in 3D. I find it interesting that something about the cinematography and ubiquitous digital projections is making a lot of new films look like they were intended to be seen in 3D. Rather hard to explain, but I've been noticing it more and more.

And actually, if they weren't 3D, half the magic illusions in the world wouldn't work.