Scamming Viewers and Customers in 3D

mistyotter35 said:Trailer actually looks decent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmV4ieSpk4k
You can check it out using standard Red-Cyan glasses, but I’d suggest bumping the resolution up to at least 480p since they're using Sensio tech.

Caught this in 3D at Cinestar, and believe me, the trailer's 3D is ten times better than the actual movie.
I mentioned on another thread that it feels like the 3D quality at Cinestar has actually tanked since they upgraded to those real digital projectors and glasses.

The next 3D blockbuster I actually bother buying a ticket for will be Spielberg's Tintin.

I suppose we shall see how much chaos ensues once the American 3D release of "Smash" finally hits theaters.
You might want to take a look at this 3D trailer: Trailer: Smash (3D)
Even from just the trailer, it seems quite apparent that they are already overdoing it with those characters jumping out at the audience.

Quote : an Eastman Kodak

Grace Sanders24 said:Look, if you aren't tech-savvy enough to grasp all the nuances of 3D, they shouldn't be trying to pull a fast one on us! Seriously! They really ought to just stick to putting out those high-quality 3D flicks—you know, like those dance movies that are actually put together the right way. Those pirate rips? Total garbage. It's nothing but a straight-up scam. Honestly, they should at least lower the ticket prices and just be upfront about it: "Hey, this version is much lower quality 3D." Just be honest! 😠

Maybe they should just slap those labels right on the movie posters at the theater, you know? Like, "Hey! This one actually has great acting!" or "Check this out if you want some actual artistic vision!" It would save so much time! Just tell us upfront which flicks are worth the popcorn and which ones are just mindless junk! 🙂 Look, it’s all subjective, right? For me, those old-school 3D glasses—you know, the red and blue ones?—those were actually the best. Honestly! No headaches or anything like that. If you aren't feeling it, then just don't watch it! Simple as that!

Quote : an Eastman Kodak

Christian Taylor3 said:Total salad disaster! Seriously, what a mess.

So, this next article actually breaks down why everyone's making such a massive deal out of this!

Check this out! I just stumbled upon this article about how movie screens are changing the whole business side of things. It’s wild! Honestly, you can really see the shift happening right before our eyes. Everything is moving so fast! It's all about how those big theaters are pivoting to stay ahead of the curve. You know, like how they're constantly upgrading tech to keep people coming through the doors. It makes total sense if you think about it! People want that massive, immersive experience, especially when you're talking about those huge blockbusters. It's a whole different ballgame now compared to just a few years ago. Just fascinating stuff!

Check it out! I found this awesome PDF on audio and video tech! Seriously, such a great topic!

I honestly can’t even begin to explain how much I love talking about this stuff! It's just one of those things that gets me fired up every single time. You know what I mean? Like, you sit down, you get comfortable, and suddenly you're deep in the weeds of a massive debate. It's awesome! So, I was looking at some of these old discussions, and man, people really have strong opinions! And hey, I'm right there with them! I think we need to talk more about the actual experience of watching movies. Not just the plot, but the whole vibe. The way it hits you! Anyway, I saw someone mentioning how much they loved certain classics, and it got me thinking about how much technology has changed everything. It’s wild! One minute you're watching something standard, and the next, you're dealing with all these crazy 3D gimmicks. Some of it is cool, sure, but let's be real—sometimes it's just overkill. It's like that saying, avatar and Clash of The Titans is The difference between corny and extra corny. Exactly! And don't even get me started on the technical side of things. The conversion process, the way studios handle these big blockbusters... it's such a massive undertaking. It reminds me of how huge companies like Reliance handle their massive operations. Everything is just so scaled up now! But look, I don't want to ramble too much (even though I totally am, haha!). I just wanted to throw this out there. What do you guys think? Are we overcomplicating the movie-going experience, or is the tech actually making it better? I've got thoughts! Tons of them! Let's get into it!

There’s this massive, unprecedented crusade going on right now against 3D—well, maybe not even against 3D itself, but more like a crackdown on the absolute highway robbery theaters are pulling on us!

Look, I’m just gonna say it: 3D is a total flop and honestly? It’s never gonna happen. Period. End of story. Case closed! I don't care what anyone says, it just doesn't work. It's a gimmick, plain and simple. There, I said it!.

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

Don't Despair, Roger Ebert: 3D is going to die. - I honestly can't get over this! Just look at it! It’s absolutely wild how things change, isn't it? I was just sitting here thinking about it and—boom—there it is. Seriously, you have to check this out. It’s one of those things that just hits you right in the face! Total game changer. I'm telling you, I'm obsessed!

It depends...

The bottom line is this: Look, this camera gear is super high-end, which obviously means it's pricey as hell! So, if you want to be a little lazy about it—and hey, who doesn't?—there’s a totally easy workaround. You just shoot the entire thing using a standard, single-lens camera just like a normal movie, and then you... So, I was just thinking about how much companies rely on having a bunch of low-paid workers overseas! It's everywhere now! You see it all the time with those massive corporations—they just outsource everything to wherever they can find the cheapest labor possible. Honestly, it’s kind of wild how much that drives the whole economy these days. Just one big cycle! It’s basically just cutting the actors out digitally and turning the whole thing into a massive digital diorama!

Reliance is teaming up with In-Three to open a massive new 2D-to-3D conversion facility over in India! Seriously, big moves happening there. It's all about that high-tech conversion game.

What kind of shapeless mess is that? Seriously!

Spot on! That was such a great comment. 👍

Look, seriously—do yourself a favor and actually look into a movie before you go dropping cash on a ticket! Just do some research first!

I skimmed that first article, but honestly, I’m not really following. Have you actually noticed this issue happening in our local theaters? Because I haven't! To me, it feels like the bulk of the problem is just the actual film projection itself. Take when I watched The show in digital—it looked fine at first, but toward the end, the quality just tanked. It wasn't even a brightness issue; I'm convinced it was some kind of technical glitch. I kept seeing this weird noise on the screen!

This whole other topic is just about stuff everyone already knows. Perspective tricks, depth of field, focus... honestly, I doubt we’re ever going to see those projection issues actually fixed anytime soon. Personally? I HATE 3D. I can't stand watching 3D movies, but I don't get why people are making such a huge deal out of it or acting like it's some massive "problem." Some people love it, some people don't. It's like how some people live for Fast and Furious while it makes me want to gag. That doesn't mean the movie shouldn't be made! Besides, I basically worship Walter Murch 🙂

Believe me, there are plenty of people who will be perfectly happy with even this subpar 3D. That's just how the technology works... there are tons of ways to pull it off, and I think it's just silly to argue that it's some kind of "scam" when it isn't. That's like saying Avatar is a scam just because it's a dumb movie... Or like Limitless being dumb. 🤣 That's not even a real movie. It's total garbage.

feralorca4 said:There are certainly various ways to approach this, though I suppose it seems somewhat futile to argue that it constitutes some sort of "scam" when, in my estimation, it simply isn't.

The issue being discussed here concerns films that weren't originally shot in 3D, yet they are marketed to you as such through various conversions, and frankly, they charge quite a premium for it. It isn't necessarily true 3D movies that pose the problem, but rather these deceptive imitations.

mistyotter35 said:We’re talking about movies that aren't actually shot in 3D, but they use all sorts of conversions to sell it to you as the real deal and charge you a premium. It’s not actual 3D films that are the issue—it’s these cheap knockoffs.

Look, I work in editing, so I know my way around the tech behind real versus fake 3D. And honestly? I still say both types are worth the ticket price! Just look at IMAX—it can be shot on 35mm or 70mm, but hey, it’s still IMAX! Same thing goes for this "fake" 3D; it brings something totally different and fresh to the table.

With this "fake" tech, they just layer the 3D simulation in afterward, basically popping characters out from the background. But let's be real: even the "true" 3D effect is pretty rough sometimes because you still deal with perspective issues and focus problems. If you ask me, both methods are kind of flawed and unnecessary, but hey, people love them!

At the end of the day, cinematographers and audiences just care about the final result, not the technical nitty-gritty. I’ve made this comparison before... It’s like if people started complaining about watching Black Swan because they expected a 35mm look, but ended up seeing something shot on a $20 digital camera$0.00... You get what I'm saying? It doesn't matter! The truth is, if it looks good enough for some people, then the conversation ends right there.🙂

I suppose I am somewhat familiar with the various methods used for 2D-to-3D conversion, and while there are certainly technical debates regarding A/V techniques documented in various PDFs, I find it quite impossible to ignore the glaringly obvious distinction between genuine 3D and this sort of artificial, manufactured imitation.

feralorca4 said:Maybe theaters should just list which movies have great acting or artistic merit right away? 🙂 That’s all subjective anyway. Honestly, the most basic 3D using those red/blue glasses was the best one I ever saw. No headaches or anything. If you don't like it—don't watch it.

I read the first article, but I don't get it. Have you actually noticed this issue in American theaters? Because I haven't. It seems to me like most of it comes down to the projection itself. I saw The show digitally, for example, and it looked worse toward the end—not because of brightness, but probably due to technical issues. I noticed some noise.

The second topic is about stuff that's always been known. Perspective occlusion, focus... I doubt we'll see those projection issues solved anytime soon. Personally, I HATE 3D. I don't enjoy watching 3D movies, but I don't get why people are making such a huge deal out of it. Some people like it, some don't. Some people love Fast and Furious, while it makes me sick. That's not a reason to stop making the movie. I consider Walter Murch my role model, though. 🙂

Believe me, plenty of people will be perfectly happy with mediocre 3D. That's just how the technology works. There are many ways to pull it off, but arguing that it's some kind of "scam" is just dumb. It's like saying Avatar is a scam just because it's a silly movie... Or that Limitless is stupid. 🤣 It's not even a movie. It's garbage.

I'll be honest, I don't follow your logic. What does 3D quality have to do with the acting or the plot? You can make money, sure, but then you should clearly state what kind of movie it is. If it's just been converted to 3D, the quality and visual experience are automatically going to be lower. Maybe for someone else, it's the opposite of what you're saying. Fine, but if you're praising a film, give a heads-up so it's easier for me to decide whether to see it. Or just let them show Pirates of the Caribbean in both 3D and 2D in Cleveland so people can choose. This is unfair. It has nothing to do with how subjective the acting and story are.

Grace Sanders24 said:I gotta be honest, I don't really follow your logic here! What does the quality of the 3D have to do with the actors or the plot? Look, if you're gonna charge top dollar, just tell people what kind of gimmick they're getting! If a movie was just slapped into 3D via conversion, the quality and the whole visual vibe is usually going to be weaker. Maybe some people feel the opposite like you're saying, fine! But hey, if you're gonna rave about a movie, give us a heads-up so it's easier for me to decide if I even want to go. Or, like, just let us choose! If they're showing Pirates of the Caribbean in Cleveland, let us pick between 3D and 2D. It’s just unfair. The tech quality has nothing to do with how much you personally like the acting or the story.

I brought up the acting and the plot scores just as a comparison point. You can totally feel the difference, and it also depends on the actual footage used—like I mentioned before, maybe it was shot on something like a Canon 5D, which isn't exactly something they're gonna blast on a poster or at the theater lobby info booth. You basically have to figure that stuff out for yourself before you shell out for a ticket.

Personally, I steer clear of 3D movies, so I totally get the frustration when there isn't a 2D option available too... I'm with you there. But listing the specific technology used to make the film? That feels pretty pointless to me. By that logic, we should expect instructions on camera movement, what lenses were used (which definitely affects quality!), what mic caught the audio, or what mixing console was used... All of that impacts the experience, sure. Maybe you didn't notice it, but trust me, it's definitely there!

What really bugs me is when I'm sitting in Cinestar for the first ten minutes listening to mono sound, and then suddenly all the channels kick in except the center channel where the dialogue is supposed to be (again, missing that mono punch!), and then finally—only after I've walked out of the theater and complained—does everything actually work correctly. -.-

Look, let me put it simply. If they’re advertising a 3D movie and charging $13 for it, I expect to actually feel things popping out at me, like being able to reach out and grab water mid-air like in >. Paying $12 just for some 2D flick that's been converted to 3D? No thanks, especially if it hits five bucks extra. That's way too much for me. You seem to think there's no real difference, but I disagree. It's like those fancy theaters with the recliner seats and full restaurant service—they charge a fortune. I don't mind spending the money, but you have to tell me what the quality actually is. To me, this feels like a total rip-off.

I’ve been dodging 3D movies for a while now whenever possible. If there's a film I actually want to see, I won't bother unless it eventually gets a 2D release; I simply refuse to go. I think I’ve already skipped about ten films because of this.
The only exception was going to see Thor in 3D, but that was strictly because I wanted to experience an IMAX theater.

Honestly, I feel like only IMAX documentaries are worth the 3D gimmick, maybe along with the occasional blockbuster here and there (Avatar was just ridiculous in 3D—way too much effort to sit through).

bluebison8 said:I've been dodging 3D movies for a while now whenever possible. If I really want to see something, I'll just wait until it hits theaters in 2D instead of sitting through the gimmick. I think I've skipped about ten movies this way already.
The only time I actually went for 3D was for Thor, mainly because I wanted to experience an IMAX theater.

In my opinion, only IMAX documentaries are worth the 3D price tag, plus maybe a few select films here and there (Avatar 3D was honestly just exhausting and annoying for me)

You're definitely in the minority there, especially regarding Avatar. Nothing else has quite hit that level of 3D tech yet.
I caught Kung Fu Panda 2 yesterday. It isn't on the same level as Avatar 3D, but it's still worth paying the extra premium for.

I distinctly recall a massive crowd of people complaining that the 3D in > was underwhelming, claiming they expected much more than just a bit of extra depth. The issue is that effective 3D should make the characters feel like they are leaping off the screen and standing right in front of us—or even beside us. Instead, all they ever do is tuck them behind whatever is sitting in the foreground.

bluebison8 said:I clearly remember a ton of people complaining that the 3D in Avatar wasn't all that great and that they expected more depth. The issue is that 3D should make characters feel like they're right in front of us, inside us, and beside us, but all they ever do is hide them behind stuff in the foreground.

That's interesting. I haven't heard anyone say that, even after talking to plenty of people.

I heard the same thing about Avatar having an incredible 3D experience, but I actually just stuck to the 2D version.

Honestly, though, I feel like people are expecting way too much from this technology—it’s really not *that* groundbreaking 🙂 Personally, I think the sense of depth is pretty decent, and it’s definitely a fun little thrill when something seems to pop right out at you! I think Hubble 3D was shot with a similar vibe in mind, so I'm actually thinking about heading out to catch that one.

feralorca4 said:I heard Avatar had amazing 3D too, though I only saw it in 2D.

Honestly, I think people expect way too much from this tech. It isn't quite that advanced yet. 🙂 The depth effect works fine for me, and it's fun when something pops out at you occasionally. Seems like Hubble 3D is built that way, so I'm thinking about catching that.

Agreed.
Technically speaking, Hubble is definitely top-tier.
But honestly, the best part is those IMAX intro scenes—that countdown. It’s impressive. I bet 3D keeps moving in that direction
until they start working on holographic projections.

bluebison8 said:I seem to distinctly recall a massive crowd of people complaining about how the 3D in Avatar was underwhelming and how they were expecting much more depth. I suppose the issue is that 3D should ideally make the characters feel like they are stepping out toward us, right into our space, yet all they ever seem to do is tuck them behind objects in the foreground.

In my estimation, the exact opposite is true; 3D ought to focus on the sense of depth within the screen itself. If one is expected to view a character in a shot where they appear to be emerging from the screen toward the audience, you essentially have to cross your eyes to focus, which I find to be entirely counterproductive. Personally, I think such scenes should simply be avoided altogether.

I guess the only two times I’ve seen 3D actually done right were when I watched Hubble 3D and some surfing documentary at an IMAX theater in New York City. Hubble 3D was especially incredible. The way those shots are captured feels almost revolutionary, but honestly, after seeing so many other 3D movies in theaters, most of them just feel pretty pointless and unnecessary to me.

Honestly, the moment a movie starts marketing itself as 3D, it just loses all sense of credibility.
Take a flick like *Piranha*—that’s actually the perfect candidate for 3D because it's pure trash where piranhas and... well, other things... are constantly popping out at you from the screen. That’s really the whole point of 3D, isn't it? Just a cheap, flashy spectacle designed for kids and teenagers.

nimblemarlin6 said:Honestly, whenever a movie markets itself as 3D, it just loses all credibility.
Take a flick like Monterey, for instance. It totally works in 3D because it's pure trash where sharks and boobs are constantly popping out at you. That's the whole point of 3D—it's just a cheap gimmick for kids and teens.

Yeah, that's exactly why they put it on Hubble.