Scamming Viewers and Customers in 3D

What are they doing—just sitting around waiting for consumer protection agencies to step in? How long is this "3D" gimmick going to be treated like a joke? Isn't false advertising actually illegal? Honestly, I don't get how this is allowed at all in countries with much stricter consumer rights than we have here in the States.

If the European Union doesn't do something to stop this scam, nothing will. They market it as a 3D movie—so you pay nearly double the price—but then 90% of the film is basically just 2D, except the glasses dim the light so much that even the 2D looks terrible.

It’s essentially legal deception—cheating customers and messing with their health by causing eye strain.
I find myself rolling my eyes just searching for the actual 3D effect I paid for—except there isn't any, and I can't even focus on the movie because instead of watching the story, my eyes are just hunting for that missing 3D shit.

If nothing changes, they should at least introduce a way to rate the 3D quality specifically—that way, you'd at least know if paying double for the same content is actually worth it.

I suppose you might have watched certain films that aren't actually true 3D, but rather rely on that specific limitation of light flow—the Pulfrich effect—where your brain essentially "tricks" itself into perceiving depth. The issue, I guess, is that this requires the camera to be in constant motion along a single axis, and even then, this particular method of 3D doesn't seem to work for everyone.

mistyotter35 said:plus, this particular style of 3D just isn't everyone's cup of tea.

To be more exact, it fails to land for about 10% of the audience.

Apparently, some people are physically incapable of seeing 3D, according to NBC News: http://bit.ly/isQUBC

Haha, so now you're blaming the movies for the fact that you can't even see the 3D effect? 🙂 Just stick to the 2D screenings and call it a day. Seriously, what's the big deal?

Look, shooting in 3D costs way more money, so obviously the tickets are going to be pricier too. It’s just how it works! Some people love it, some people hate it. No biggie.

Yeah, honestly, it’s China's fault that I can't even see the 3D properly, since they only offer the 3D version in San Francisco instead of giving us a 2D option too. $16 If I have to shell out cash for the new Pirates of the Caribbean and I don't go this Wednesday, it's basically a slap in the face for just one movie.

This is straight-up robbery. It’s one thing when they actually give you a choice, like in Washington, D.C., where you can decide for yourself. I’ve watched pretty much everything released in 3D because I was totally hooked on the tech back in the day. But honestly, maybe it’s just me, but 3D is complete garbage now. I watched Kung Fu Panda 2 the other day without the 3D effect, and I think I finally kicked my addiction. 😛

Christian Taylor3 said:To be more exact, it doesn't even work for about 10% of viewers.

Some people actually can't see 3D, NBC News finds: http://bit.ly/isQUBC

I wasn't referring to actual 3D, but rather the kind they push as 3D using those specific glasses where one lens is darkened.



The gentleman didn't specify which theater he was at, nor the movie or the type of glasses used. Using this particular technique, which is based on the Pulfrich effect, you could arguably watch any film in "3D" as long as the camera movement and the characters move in the correct direction. Of course, I suppose for a large number of people, it just doesn't work—since we don't all possess identical visual acuity—and it might not even be healthy, because while watching, the pupils in the darkened eye dilate, meaning that eye requires some time to adjust back to normal light after the screening. In any case, I would suggest avoiding this technique altogether.

People really need to stay informed.
I’ve skipped certain 3D flicks before because the conversion was terrible—critics and audiences both made that pretty clear.
Plus, some people just can't see the 3D effect at all.
Honestly, I still find it thrilling.
I'm heading to IMAX tomorrow, and then again on Wednesday for Kung Fu Panda 3D.
I know the 3D will be solid: first, the trailer looks great (Avatar: The Last Airbender looked bad, so I skipped it), and second, the experts are raving about it.
I'll probably pass on Pirates too since I hear the 3D isn't much to look at.
But movies like Avatar, Pit of Fear, Street Dance, Legend of the Guardians, Step Up 3D, and Sammy the Turtle? The 3D in those blew me away and was totally worth the extra cost.
Technology keeps evolving, making films even more immersive.
And don't even get me started on 3D on an HD TV! Man, what an experience.

Look, they should stop trying to scam people who don't fully grasp how 3D tech actually works. They need to start screening high-quality 3D movies, like those dance flicks that are actually done right. Pirated versions are complete garbage when it comes to 3D—it's basically a straight-up rip-off. Either that, or they should just drop the price and be honest about the fact that the quality is way lower. 😠

There is a fundamental distinction between a movie actually filmed natively in 3D and those 2D films that have merely been converted into 3D, and I suppose it really ought to be explicitly stated.

mistyotter35 said:There's a difference between a movie actually filmed in 3D and just converting 2D footage into 3D. They should really make that distinction clear.

Studios aren't stupid enough to throw money away.
The reality is they just got lazy and started slapping 3D on everything, sometimes even forcing directors to use it.
Bay mentioned he’d never shoot in 3D because it doesn't fit his style of action, yet here we are with Transformers 3D.
Now I'm just waiting to see if they try to force Nolan to shoot Batman in 3D.

It’s honestly pretty rude when our local theaters decide to import nothing but the 3D versions. If you ask me, pushing 3D is just pure laziness—it doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the movie, and frankly, it can be a total nuisance.
I mean, what’s the point of paying for a more expensive ticket just to watch some digital snowflakes drift off the screen, or to deal with a depth effect that requires you to strain your eyes just to notice it?
The last one I caught was Thor 3D, and let me tell you—the scenes that were shown in 2D were a complete dream. They were so much clearer and brighter, especially without that annoying gear strapped to your face.

I suppose it’s possible that Thor was originally shot in 2D and then just converted into 3D afterward. I guess some people manage to pull that off quite well, while others, well, they just completely mess it up.

Thor is a total scam too, and even worse because they put it in IMAX. Honestly, I think I’m going to do some actual research before I head to the theater next time. Still, I can't survive without decent 3D. One thing I'm curious about, though—are there any glasses out there that actually have a built-in battery? I heard something about that happening once at a Regal Cinema?

I suppose you’re referring to those active Shutter Glasses that Sony utilizes within their specific 3D setup.



In my estimation, when paired with RealD, it arguably represents the premier solution for 3D, though I should note the entire system requires seamless integration, and naturally, the film itself must have been captured in true 3D.

That's what I was thinking. Thanks.👍

Grace Sanders24 said:Fine—let them stop trying to pull one over on those of us who aren't tech experts. If they want to show high-quality 3D, they should stick to the properly made stuff—like those dance movies that actually work. The 3D in Pirates is absolute garbage—it’s practically a scam. At the very least, they should drop the price and admit the 3D quality is subpar.😠

This review claims the 3D in Pirates is actually pretty decent.

http://www.fak-tvojfilm.net/novi-fil...poznate-plime/

The trailer doesn't look half bad, I suppose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmV4ieSpk4k
You should be able to view it using standard Red-Cyan 3D glasses, though I would probably recommend watching it at a higher resolution—at least 480p—to properly account for the Sensio technology being used here.

I have a personal distaste for 3D technology, and if I were ever in a position of authority, I would likely prohibit its use altogether.☕

feralorca4 said:What's the issue?

There's plenty of issues to go around.

An Eastman Kodak spokesman told me in the late 1990s: "The irony is that their only real achievement is to cheat the customers." That was then. This is now. Driven by a mania to abandon celluloid in favor of digital, increasing numbers of chains are installing 3D-ready digital projectors. As everyone can tell simply by taking off their 3D glasses, the process noticeably reduces the visible light from the screen. I got emails from readers saying the night scenes in "Pirates of the Caribbean" were so dim they were annoying.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011...the_light.html

The following article explains why people are actually getting so worked up about this:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-2...siness-screens

There's also a decent thread over on the Audio and Video Tech forum:

We're seeing an unprecedented campaign against 3D (though maybe not against 3D itself, but rather against this kind of theater-chain trickery):

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.

Why i hate 3 d Movies - Newsweek - http://t.co/uyh0K8C

Don’t Despair, Roger Ebert: 3D Is Going to Die - http://t.co/jXNKI9J

feralorca4 said:3D filming tech is more expensive, so it makes sense that the screenings cost more too. Some people like it, some don't. Big deal.

That depends...

It's easy to think 3D is 3D, and the only difference between avatar and Clash of The Titans is The difference between corny and extra corny. But there are actually two ways to do it -- the real way and the easy way. The real way is to actually shoot it with a two-eyed camera that films things the same way your two eyes judge depth and form a 3D image from it.

Here's the kicker: This camera is fancy and therefore expensive, so there's a lazy way too, which is to just shoot the whole thing with a regular one-eyed camera like a regular movie, and then youjust hire some cheap labor overseas to basically strip the actors away digitally and transform the whole thing into a hollow digital diorama.

Reliance, In-Three partner on 2 D-3D Conversion Facility in India

It’s such a cheap, shapeless way to do things.

Edward Price6 said:People really ought to do a little homework first.
I’ve skipped a few 3D flicks myself because the conversion was just terrible, which is something both audiences and critics have been pretty vocal about.
Plus, some people genuinely can't even see the 3D effect.
Personally, I have to admit, I still find it pretty thrilling.
I’m actually heading to IMAX tomorrow, and then back again on Wednesday for Kung Fu Panda 3D.
I’m confident the 3D will be solid: first, because it looks great in the trailers (The Last Airbender looked rough, so I stayed far away from that one), and second, because the experts are actually praising it.
I’ll probably skip Pirates of the Caribbean too, since word is the 3D is subpar.
But movies like Avatar, rupa strah, street dance, Legend of the Guardians, Step Up 3D, and Sammy kornjača—those were all fantastic, and the extra cost for the 3D experience was totally worth it.
Technology keeps moving forward, and films are only going to get more immersive.
And don't even get me started on 3D on an HD TV! Man, what an experience.

Great point. 👍

Do your research before you commit to a movie or drop money on a ticket.