3D Movies: Yay or Nay?

My mistake... I didn't realize that watching movies with those red/blue glasses and what you all are discussing were two different things. I'll head over to the local library to look into this further.

They aren't really all that different, honestly. Like I was saying before, that whole "red/blue" thing is just a cheap imitation of what a real 3D experience actually feels like.
I'm guessing they have an AMC Theatres over by the Empire State Building too. Those places usually use those red and green glasses, though the colors on the lenses are pretty washed out—kind of a struggle, if you ask me.

Look, if you actually want to sit down and watch a movie in 3D, you’re gonna need a 3D monitor, some glasses, and a 3D Blu-ray Player. It’s not just plug and play.
I’ve been having a massive headache trying to get these files to work that I shot on my new Samsung 3D camera. Seriously, not a single piece of software I’ve messed with so far will actually play them in 3D. All I end up with is a flat 2D image or—even worse—just the left video channel playing by itself. It's driving me nuts. If you're planning on grabbing a 3D flick from a torrent site, make sure the resolution is either 3840x1080 or 1920x1080 per channel if you want it to look decent in Full HD. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.
If you're actually curious about how this works, I can break down the whole difference between passive and active 3D for you.

I suppose there isn't much point in trying to explain the nuances between passive and active systems to him, given that he already owns a 3DTV and the necessary glasses. It seems to me that such technical distinctions aren't really his concern; his only real priority is simply downloading the movie in a stereo format. As far as I can tell, the TV and the glasses will handle all the heavy lifting regarding everything else.

Go to the theater and just steal the screen.

I’ve actually never sat through a 3D movie, nor am I really making any plans to start now. Is it even worth the hassle? I keep hearing people complain about eye strain when things start spinning around too much. I can't recall which specific flick they were talking about, but I heard one movie had so much swirling motion that people were feeling dizzy by 3 p.m., haha.

Is it actually a circle? Or more like a cross? 😁
I suppose it really depends on the specific film and whatever tech you're using to watch it, but fundamentally, I don't think it's particularly harmful. One just shouldn't overdo it, I guess—you can't exactly spend the entire day binge-watching 3D movies.

Look, if you really want to get the gist of active versus passive 3D, here’s the deal: with active 3D, you're looking at a massive 3840x1080 resolution, but with passive, you're stuck at 1920x1080. Plus, passive basically throws two images up there at once, so it ends up looking a bit like interlaced video. That's the easiest way I can break it down for anyone who's clueless. The real kicker with active 3D? Those left and right eye images swap back and forth so fast that the whole screen starts "flickering." You just don't get that with passive. Honestly, it's a toss-up. It's your choice: do you want high resolution but end up with a flickering mess and a splitting headache after twenty minutes? Or do you want a picture with four times less resolution but zero headaches?
Until we actually start seeing monitors hitting that 240 Hz refresh rate, I’m sticking with passive 3D. 😁

I suppose one could argue that active systems are the only ones offering true full resolution, whereas everything else falls into the passive category—meaning you get less eye strain, better brightness, and no annoying crosstalk, and so on. But then again, as I mentioned before, my colleague doesn't really care about those technicalities anymore, since he’s already gone out and bought both the TV and the glasses. At this point, I guess he's just focused on finding actual content to watch.

Since I don't see any actual threads dedicated to 3D tech—just endless chatter about specific movies or random clips—I’m starting this one to gauge what everyone actually thinks about it.

I'll also drop two links here that dive a bit deeper into why 3D can be such a mess.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

http://www.dr-lex.be/info-stuff/3dfail.html

Just to be clear: I haven't sat through a single 3D movie yet. Does that mean I won't? No. I'll check one out eventually just to see if it's worth the hype. That's all.

The concept of 3D makes sense for certain genres, as those links point out. But forcing it into every single blockbuster? (Which, honestly, is my biggest fear right now.) That's just plain stupid.

Maybe this poll is a little unfair, but hey, even national referendums have loaded questions. Deal with it. 😁

What’s even the point of this thread? You really think a little poll like this is going to stop Hollywood from churning out 3D movies...

I’ve sat through a few 3D movies lately. Honestly? The animated ones are easily the best. I can't quite put my finger on why, maybe it's just the way they're rendered, but I don't know. The live-action ones... they aren't terrible, per se, but they just don't hit the same way. They lack that certain something. Anyway, if you've never experienced a 3D film before, my advice is to grab a seat as close to the screen as possible—it makes the whole thing much more immersive, I guess. Also, try to find an AMC theater if you can; the quality there is usually much better.

So, I’ve sat through a handful of those 3D flicks, and honestly? I’m voting a hard pass on the whole thing... mostly because those glasses are just such a massive pain in the neck, and after a little while, my head starts absolutely throbbing from staring through them... plus, if you actually take them off to give your eyes a break, you can't see a single thing happening on screen...
I mean, don't get me wrong, *The Critics* was actually way better than most other movies shot in that format, but even then, I've pretty much decided I'm done throwing my money away just to go through the hassle of watching something in 3D again.

I voted for him, since I suppose that high-quality 3D implementation in the film does provide that extra dimension it was seemingly lacking.
Unfortunately, I suspect it might take quite a while before genuine, high-quality 3D actually becomes the industry standard, mostly because people still seem to rely far too heavily on those cheap various conversions.

I voted against it—mostly because I can't stand how those glasses darken everything during a movie. In my book, getting a crystal-clear picture is way more important than that whole "collage effect" you get from 3D.

mistyotter35 said:I voted for him, since I suppose that high-quality 3D implementation in the film does provide that extra dimension it was seemingly lacking.
Unfortunately, I suspect it might take quite a while before genuine, high-quality 3D actually becomes the industry standard, mostly because people still seem to rely far too heavily on those cheap various conversions.

Which one? 🙂

As far as timing goes, 3D goes all the way back to the 1800s. It's hardly some brand-new tech.

I voted no. Honestly, what a waste. Lately, it feels like half the movies coming out aren't even worth watching unless you're sitting in a theater with 3D gear, and I’m just not feeling it. I'd much rather just wait for the Blu-ray release and watch it at home on my own terms.

😁The Hobbit is one of those flicks you gotta see, even if it's in 3D.

I don't really see the point of 3D. All it does is mess with the camera work to fake some depth. So what? Pretty sure there are better ways to handle cinematography without all that gimmickry. 3D is just a crutch for people who don't get film.

rustywalker42 said:Which one? 🙂

As far as timing goes, 3D goes all the way back to the 1800s. It's hardly some brand-new tech.

I believe I said it was overlooked, not unknown. It hasn't been used much for several well-documented reasons, though I guess that landscape is shifting.
I see people listing all sorts of arguments against it, but it seems to me those complaints aren't really about 3D itself; rather, they seem to stem from the playback technology, which varies quite a bit depending on whether you are at a movie theater or using various home setups—active versus passive systems and so on.

mistyotter35 said:I believe I said it was overlooked, not unknown. It hasn't been used much for several well-documented reasons, though I guess that landscape is shifting.
I see people listing all sorts of arguments against it, but it seems to me those complaints aren't really about 3D itself; rather, they seem to stem from the playback technology, which varies quite a bit depending on whether you are at a movie theater or using various home setups—active versus passive systems and so on.

Actually, it was used all the time, especially back in 1950s America.

It seems like everyone’s listing reasons to be "against" it, but none of those have anything to do with the 3D itself. It’s about playback tech, which varies depending on whether you're at the theater or watching on TV.

Just look at those first two links. This isn't about playback technology; it's about how the human brain actually works.

Nah, I'm against it. It's mostly because of the glasses issue.