To me 3D technology is there. The problem is that 3D is now imposed by the producer NOT the director. As a consequence, they artificially add the 3D effect which makes bad 3D movies. Movies like Avatar were thought in 3D by the director which makes a movie with a "good 3D". PRODUCERS: Give freedom back to your directors : if they don't want 3D in their movie don't make them 3D.
They did a terrible job. Out of focus scenery all over that is 3d in your face. Over exaggeration of the effect. Somebody make a realistic 3d movies and people might watch it. The stupid thing is, Avatar is a digital movie, and they didn't need to make it blurry. They were matching the limitations of a physical camera. Use the 3d to highlight the subject, not focus.
@@r.l.189 Idk what you are talking about. I saw Avatar in 3D back when it came out in 2009 and it was pretty impressive. Do you have an example of a film that handled 3D better?
@Jude Fenwick most movies that are worth to be seen in the theater is worth 3 hours long like The Avengers. I get headaches in first 30 mins of the movie wearing the glasses.
Its simple - 3d isn't the gimmick like it should be. Its the "ooh we'll throw things in the audiences faces" they obsess over. Avatar, when he climbs out of stasis is amazing because it felt so real. Ironically for 3D to work it has to be filmed like a standard film.
Yeah, it's usually the over-pronounced 3D VFX that kills it. A more natural 3D look is awesome, things getting flung at your face are only fun in small doses.
@@enemixius yes. too many 3d films are "LOOK AT US WE'RE 3D!". Avatar threw something at your face once (the gas grenade) and then for all of the rest of the film it was simply there. The scene with the ash falling through the air was stunning /because/ it was 3D
3D also seems to be at it's best when its helping a sense of place, giving depth and character to a location. We lose this automatically when watching a widescreen film on a smaller TV screen. Without 3D the "Amazon" in "Creature From the Black Lagoon" looks just like (and as easily dismissed) as the studio setting like Gilligan's Island. In 3D the other-worldliness of the place comes alive, just as it does in the great underwater sequence's. Same with the long desert vistas in "It Came From Outer Space". Their enhancement of the setting is directly tied to the storytelling. This film also shows the awkward issues of 3D when it comes to building suspense and then having a "coming at you" effect ruin it. Richard Carlson approaches a closet after he learns the aliens have entered his home. The music builds, his expression tightens, he reaches for the door handle with us expecting something terrible on the other side. Door opens! No one there, a near miss. But the shot sees him from inside the closet, and the hangers on the rack are now 60' long and dangling right under our noses. The audience bursts out laughing at the "got ya" moment, but it throws the whole mood off which they spent some effort trying to build!
@@enemixius This exactly. I love 3D, if I have the chance to watch a movie in 3D I'll do so, even love my 3D TV (which can be amazing) and am trying to find a decend used 4k 3D TV (they were only produced for a short period of time). One of the most amazing 3D effects I've ever seen is the circus sequence in the last Madagascar film. I was totally stunned when watching it in cinema and also when rewatching it on my TV a few months later. In my oppinion what really killed 3D was that it was never supported by mainstream TV and most streaming platforms and the prices for 3D BluRay were just incredibly high. Disney+ has the entire Marvel library and all movies after 2009 in that universe were shot in 3D, but you don't even have 3D as an opiton on D+.
It's like what was the first robot. The first instance of a thing, is almost always the most terrible, and impractical implementation of it. People just rush to be the first, without spending the time necessary to make it any good. Or perhaps it's just a novelty to say, "Hey I was the first" or "Hey isn't this neat?". Practical implementation always occurs much, much later. Robots in this case, have yet to find a practical place in people's homes, but one day they will be, and people will be surprised how old the tech predates to. But of course, it was anything but practical back then and even today.
I did not realize how long a history 3-D movies had and how often people tried to make a commercial success of them. But what seems to be a major problem for 3-D movies is human physiology which has not changed over the period. My prediction for the 2040's is it will be a fad for a few years with the same complaints occurring (you could probably quote people verbatim from the earlier attempts).
Just to full a new generation to this sh... This will never work because it requires glasses. Extra optical barrier always reduces light and resolution, do not mention poor interaction with correction glasses that many needs to were out.
-the glasses affect the brightness of the film. everything looks dark -wearing glasses over glasses is uncomfortable -accidentally smudge your glasses with popcorn butter and you're in for a bad time -extra cost on an already over-priced activity -objects in foreground look like cardboard cutouts. it's distracting to the actual movie
Americans don't even think about it, but it's extremely unconfortable to read subtitles in 3D movies. Almost every movie in Brazil started being dubbed because of this 3D fad.
The darkness is actually an issue created by the theatres and not a problem of the process itself. Projector bulbs are expensive (especially for IMAX), so rather than increase the brightness to correct for 3D viewing, they keep the brightness down (in fact many theatres actually have the bulbs down even on regular movies).
Enrique Garcia That’s lame. I remember 3D movies in the early 2000s’ were brighter but recent 3D movies have “regular” brightness and much dimmer once putting on the glasses
You can get clip on 3D lenses with 2D conversion clips also available when you want to see a film in 2D but only the 3D showing is available. ( That isn't such a problem these days.)
The problem with 3D is that most of the 3D is added in post production. That leads to foreground looking like cardboard cutouts. Instead of that, filming with two cameras is much more realistic and looks like real life with VR. But the downside is filming with two cameras is very expensive, and cgi on that is much more expensive and difficult. That's why there are only a few short films that are filmed this way. And they don't have any cgi or sets.
The problem with 3D is showing it sequential. left picture to the left eye, while right eye gets black. Than right picture to right eye while left eye gets black. All cinemas with RealD or Dolby ColourWheel work this way. On a home cinema with dual projection, the post produced 3d movies look much less than cardboard cutouts (but of cause not as good as real 3d film).
This is the most common explanation. It makes a lot of sense. Half-assed post-production attempts at 3D never showed what the medium was capable of and shoot repeated the problems of gimmicky 1950s 3D. And all of that seems to have been driven by corporate concerns about cost and profit margins. I think there are, however, other reasons why 3D failed. After all, technicolor was incredibly expensive but still managed to do incredibly well in the films that were filmed in it. Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, all those postwar Vincent Minnelli film musicals, Douglas Sirk melodramas... So being expensive isn't *necessarily* enough to make 3D filming impractical, within reason. I think the audience complaints of nausea and headaches do a lot of damage. But even if that problem were solved, you still need directors and cinematographers who can THINK in 3D, understanding it as its own medium with its own abilities, quirks and limitations. I don't think even James Cameron accomplished that, sadly.
Two things that should never be in 3D film: 1. Requiring audiences to take their 3D glasses on and off for parts of the film 2. Post-production adaption of non-3D video into 3D So, most films marketed as 3D are crap because a) Sturgeon's Law i.e. most films are crap regardless of having any 3D in them, b) those 3D films that aren't crap regardless of 3D were not shot in 3D originally, and had to be made 3D in post, and c) those that were shot in 3D originally were not fully shot in 3D.
Sohan Dsouza> Two things that should never be in 3D film: … 2. Post-production adaption of non-3D video into 3D You'd be amazed how 2D images can look 3D. Take a single regular 2D image, tile it horizontally (put them side-by-side), then do the magic-eye thing of looking "through/past" it until they overlap, and they'll look 3D.
@@user-vn7ce5ig1z That results in a "flattening" cardboard cutout effect that only looks right in a universe where all objects in your 3D view are flat, in the same plane, and facing you (and even then, you have to interpolate the background where you have shifted the objects for each 2D view). Our visual hardware has the ability to pick out when something is converted like this. It looks disastrous when you have multiple complex 3D objects at multiple distances, especially with free-moving cameras. www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/debate-waging-over-2d-3d-22262
not true, all of the MCU movies are post production 3d. infinity war and end game are the some of the best 3D movies ever I've seen, flying ships look like they are hovering off the screen. the issue isn't post production, its how much money the company is willing to put into post production 3D. Another example is the first Pacific Rim movie, most people think that it was shot in 3d but Guillermo del Toro pointed out in interviews that the 3D had its own separate 6 month post production pipeline. The 3d in that movie looks better than some movies actually shot in 3d like transformers dark of the moon for example.
I thought Nightmare Before Christmas was very good remastered in 3D and my wife said Top Gun was one of the best 3D experiences she had--I suspect it's the same thing that helped Avatar: Seeing distant objects through nearby glass is an effect you cant get from red/green glasses and makes a very immersive experience.
They make clip on versions that flip up. They're relatively cheap on Amazon, and usually a better quality lens than what you get at the theater anyway. Just make sure you get the right ones (circular polarized vs. linear).
@@markmarshall6438 The clip ons are great! When I went to the movies in China they always had then there. I don't get why don't have them on hand in western countries
@@Dawn-Shade wait, really? They removed 3d? First polls, then community captions, and now this. What is it with UA-cam and removing the features that make them so special...
Im a glasses wearer and still love 3d movies- i loved in the hobbit when they used the 3d to make the landscape so much deeper- or in the great and powerful oz where the 3d was stylized to look like layers on a stage. I remember watching jurassic world 1 and 2 in 3d and surround sound- was so freaking real and thrilling for me.
The Hobbit in theaters, if you saw it in the High Frame Rate and 3D version, was something I can't even explain to people, to this day. I saw the second one like this. There is NO theaters experience like that film. It was just mind blowing. It was almost too real in a sense. But if people saw that, they might have their minds changed.
I saw Endgame for a second time in IMAX 3D and it was amazing. Even if it was a 3 hours movie I didn't have any problem like headache or nausea. I remember seeing the scene with the spaceship, Captain Marvel and Titan (Thanos' planet) in the same shot and really feeling the actual depth of the scene and the distance from each other like I was really in space. This scene (along with some others) was really mind-blowing for me to watch in 3D and with the amazing resolution of IMAX proving that this technology can really help tell a story if it's used correctly.
The problem with 3D movies is the brain uses more that the image offset to determine distance. It also used eye convergance angle (cross-eyed), the focus effort, etc. Without ALL the effects of viewing a solid object, some people feel sick.
Eye-convergence is the one thing 3D movies _do_ get right - and provided the viewer keeps their head straight, that alone actually serves the purpose quite well. But yeah, ultimately those other aspects do matter too, and they're not feasible to implement in cinemas but we may well get there with VR headsets.
*MORE PEOPLE* report feeling sick after watching a 3D move than after watching the same movie in 2D. 3D films give a majority of people who watch them discomfort.
3D also fails because it doesn't really add that much value to most films. It's like watching a sporting event live vs on TV, it's not 3D that makes live better. Also it's sort of 2.5D. It looks 3D but you can't look around things, when you move your head the image doesn't change.
I have to disagree. It adds plenty of value to films. It adds extra depth to the image and creates a sense of scale and grandeur that flat projection does not have. I recently rewatched Titanic 3D and the scale of the ship really comes through. Plenty of movies benefit from the effect such as Pixar, Star Wars, and Marvel films. Blade Runner 2049 is far superior in 3D to the flat projection.
Yeah i remember watching the disney remake of the jungle book. there was a scene where the bear had his snout pointing at the audience. We all thought it would be 3D but no, it was just another 2D part of the 3D movie.
This is the main reason people are overlooking I think, even if 3D were perfect technically it's not clear to me what it adds cinematographically. It adds depth, sure, but how does that improve the shot, how does that help convey story? It just sort of makes things look... separated, but it's not like it makes things look life-like or anything actually remarkable.
It's funny to read these comments, because I want to watch a film in 3D to actually get a depth of field; that things far away should look far away. Film in 3D should not "wow" you, just like how a film in colour should not "wow" you with its colour*. The film should be recorded in 3D, but not made to show off that it is in 3D. It should just be a passive effect. * There are films that do interesting effects, like how Sin City is a black-and-white film that only has red. It's okay to make a film with a certain 3D gimmick, if that is the style you want to go with. The issue is that almost all 3D films add 3D gimmicks, which takes me out of the experience. But very few films use colour gimmicks.
It's because film studios kept cheaping out by doing the 3d effects in post production instead of shooting the movies in 3d. There are only 2 true 3d live action movies from the most recent 3d era. Avatar and Jackass 3D.
Other reasons is because not everyone can actually enjoy it. I have eye problems and 3D gives me headaches and most of the time I’m more comfortable seeing it flat. :/
They're dark because of how the technology works. As briefly stated in the video, modern linear polarized 3D glasses only accept two directions of light: Vertical waves to one eye, and horizontal waves to the other. The other, less common polarization, circularly polarized, produces much brighter images, but unfortunately never really caught on.
@@ryanandrews3053 Yeah I know , but that kinda ruins the movie experience and 3D movies are not cheap. It's like any unpolished tech , we should appreciate the tech and people working on it,but also acknowledge it drawbacks. They have movies in a dome. Best experience ever.
In Switzerland, almost every movie is shown in 3D too. Cinemas are hideously expensive anyways, so why not show it in 3D. Combined with moving chairs, wind and all that fancy stuff, it's actually pretty nice. But again, such an experience costs 30$ for one person.
@@durururururururu was wondering the same. In Kenya 3d is also 7-8 dollars and when the movies run their cycle you get all summer blockbuster movies for like 3 movies for the the same 8 dollars
Before the video, My thought: "because studios kept doing shit 2d-3d digital conversions" After the video, My thought: "because studios kept doing shit 2d-3d digital conversions" I love 3d... it was so frustrating to watch it go down in popularity because of cheap cash grabs making the technology look bad. The tech works, but every shortcut you take with it makes it significantly worse, to the point its worse then a 2d showing. Audiences can and will conflate the shit with the good.
@@merren2306 Some of that could be due to different inter-pupilary distances. If your eyes are much closer or farther apart than the distance they optimized for, then the distances between objects can feel off. This is more obvious when something is closer to the lens (like the "pop-out" gags so many 3d movies like). Of course, if the movie was originally filmed in 2d, then the conversion was probably just poorly done.
@@bryanferguson3157 That isn't "fake background blur" it's something known as bokeh. It's basically the way a high-end camera with a large sensor gets a naturally blurred background (this varies camera-to-camera and lens-to-lens). Since many movies use RED cameras (costing as much as a brand new car) the bokeh is omnipresent
Great video, I think I can add one detail. The quality of the polarized glasses. I can in fact report on what long term use of 3D feels like. I worked for a company for years who made maps in a 3D environment, our source data would be made into a stereopair and we would extract an entire map using some fancy polarized lenses. In truth the expensive version of 3D glasses. Even these though with 8+ hours a day would induce headaches and dizziness. While it was common to take frequent breaks and spend some time looking at distant objects in regular daylight they still had a major flaw. The plastic parts that go from the lenses to the ears. These were of course what set the angle of the lenses to the face, not just one angle, but several. Distance from the lens to the eye, pitch of both lenses, yaw of both lenses, how far above the nose or lower down... a ton of possible angles. If one angle was off, it made the experience even less enjoyable. I would go to a 3d movie and look at the extremely cheep polarized glasses available, would try on several pairs and compare. Some of the pairs were so bent up that unless you had a severely deformed head to match them, there was no way they would even work for a few minuets. Even the best pairs though, would sit on the face like an unsteady pair of glasses, slipping around and constantly needing adjusting. While at work I could go about 2-3 hours in stereo before it got to much, the movie grade glasses I could get 30 min. max before needing to step out of the theater and look at something far away. Spend more on the glasses? well you could, but audiences also are at fault for man-handling them. In short... plastic cheep polarized glasses don't help either.
The type of 3D technology implemented on the 3DS could never be implemented in a theater, as you seem to suggest. Its relies on eye tracking for the *individual* viewer and the fact that the person using the 3DS is always positioned within a narrow range in front of the display. Projecting 3D images made of only light, visible simultaneously, from any angle in a theater, without glasses...that requires holograms made of harry potter magic.
Got a pair of 3D clip ones which worked with my passive 3D tv and Real D theaters. They may still be available. 3D died because too many bad films flooded the market. Besides Avatar check out Cameron’s conversion of Titanic, The Martian, Life of Pi, Hugo, Prometheus.
You see in cultures where homosexuality is less openly prominent that men are more physically affectionate in public in a strictly platonic way (see middle eastern/Armenian hand holding)
In India and most of the rest of Asia, hand holding and hugging is extremely common between heterosexual males who have nothing except friendship for each other.
3D, when done right, can be amazing. There have been times when I've literally flinched or jumped as something headed towards me. Tron: Legacy and Avatar are two examples for me.
3D in cinemas and on the 3DS was impressive, but it's VR that made me love it. Giving 3D view of the surroundings with actual response for head movement.
I can't see movies 3D due to strabismus. But at least I don't struggle with geometry anymore, as a child I couldn't see drawings of 3D shapes made of cubes as three dimensional so it was hard to understand how many cubes they had
@@stephenbmassey its actually much higher as eye limitations increase with age. It’s a bit like that ‘emperors new clothes’ in that regard.. people got very excited but statistically many of them wouldn’t be able to see it correctly. :)
@@stephenbmassey not just eye problems. A shitload of people's brains don't actually see 3d. Which is normally not even noticeable in regular life, cause a trees distance is easily discerned by it's apparent size, and for stuff at larger distances than a few dozen feet, the eye seperation distance isn't even enough to see 3d anyway. That's also why current 3d movies are recorded with much larger distances between the lenses. It intensifies the 3d experience. But even with the intensified 3d experience, it doesn't take more than 30 seconds for someone to get used to the effect and their mind just turning it out again. And that's why 3d will always go through bust and boom cycles: it's great if you experience it for the first time, but after the 5th movie you'll not experience any difference anyway. So why watch the darker movie version for more money? It's great for looking at the moon in 3d though, which usually far too far away for our eye seperation to provide 3d I formation. But if you take two cameras the distance of a football field apart, the seperation lets you actually experience the moon in 3d, rather than it looking like any 2d painting. But again the feeling lasts for less than an hour. Same with yellow tinted glasses against blue light. That's noticeable when putting them on first, but go snowboarding with them, and snow will just appear perfectly white as it always did. Only when you suddenly take off the glasses will the snow suddenly be much more brilliant... For a few minutes. So really, 3d is only good for novel entertainment for short times, or for those cases were the added 3d information is essential. Like stereoscopic war time aerial photos that allow you to easily discern flat shapes on the ground from actual 3d objects like real planes. And it's great for photos in general, cause it really makes them pop, and since you will only look at each photo for a short time, your brain doesn't make 2/3s of the viewing experience a waste.
Watching some older movies in 3D when they had a more pronounced effect I thought was great. I think that VR will be the next big thing for movies because then movies can be flat yet with elements directly implemented to be 3D, making the film a better experience overall.
I still got one and is passive natural 3d I bought like 8 3d movies even espn and other 2 channels from directv back in 2010 I used to watch.,it was awesome that's what I think.
I loved 3D games on PS3. We had active shutter glasses that used watch batteries too quickly, however, so I often played in 2D. 3D could be as immersive as virtual reality if you were the perfect distance from the screen. It had none of the complications of a VR game (rig, headset, clunky movement through game, limited controls, etc) while allowing players to feel deep in the game world.
(9:40) Polaroid glasses aren't tinted. The reason why older glasses are tinted is to filter out the colours, because they aren't based on specific occelations. But polaroid only filters based on occelations and does not use tint. (The polaroid does give a tinting effect, but that's not what I'm talking about).
Splendid history of 3D! I learned about its problems from the horses mouth. When I was a child I made the acquaintance of our local manager at the Everett Mall Cinemas, Mr. McKinney. He generously let me watch the backstage work, including going upstairs to sit with the projectionists. Learned a lot about the business end of movie theaters, and the actual running of the shows. The projectionist (at least by 1972 they had a Union) once described the trouble with running 3D movies in the early 50's. He said it was a lot of extra work to keep the twin projectors synchronized. Remember, projectionists had to lug these huge, heavy film reels to the projectors in a hot narrow space of a projection room, synch the projectors with key cards which were left and right slides, set the film going on time, start rewinding the previous two reels, prep to restart and re-synch again. That was just for one theater screen, this was before the multiplex type came in. The old film stock was fragile and easily damaged when passing through the projector gate near the hot lamp. If the film broke in one reel and you removed a torn, or fried frame, you had to find the same location on the other reel (very tedious) to remove that as well, otherwise they would be out of synch, causing the "ghosting" effect. Towards the end of a film's run the medium was so dehydrated and brittle that these breaks were happening all the time. Very time consuming and frustrating in a job where the "show must go on" regardless of inconvenience. He thought it was the projectionists who helped doom the experience in the early 50's. The tech end of the business just wasn't there to handle 3D efficiently, and projectionists seemed threw up their hands and let it fail. As one who collects 3D on Blu-ray I've noticed several aspects of how it behaves to an audience. Everybody is different in how our heads work processing the visual image. I have usually no difficulty with 3D, but you're right about the fatigue that comes with a long, 2 hour viewing. Best recent 3D films like "The Avengers" have the most eyepopping bits at the beginning and the end so you have time to "rest" in the middle. I also think our minds after awhile do a sort of natural self adjustment to the 3D visual image. Our perception begins to realize that it's being fooled into a sense of depth by what it sees, so as the experience continues our brain works to "flatten" the image to what it really is, making the coming at you experience less pronounced. Our heads turn it back to 2D. To prevent this, try taking off the glasses and let the eyes relax. For me that seems to refresh the quality of it. Also, I think 3D needs size to be effective. I have a Benq digital projector that short throws a 120" image on the downstairs white wall. There is much more of the visual image to work with, and my experience with 3D at home is very much comparable what I have seen in a good, properly synched theater showing. Still, whenever "Creature From the Black Lagoon" or "It Came From Outer Space" come to the area I get in the car drive! In the last few years much good work has gone into restoring the classic 3D films and making them available on Blu-ray. Would love to see "Hondo" with John Wayne, and even "Bwana Devil" which got the ball rolling in the 50's. The latter was an early telling of Patterson and the Man-eaters of Tsavo, same story as "The Ghost and the Darkness".
I see you put a little effort into research, which makes your video slightly better than most 3-D hit pieces I've seen. But your idea that projectionists in the 1950s were underpaid teenagers is woefully out of step with the facts. You should peruse an issue or two of "International Projectionist," a trade journal from that era available online. You might be surprised to learn that the vast majority of booth personnel in 1953 were respected professionals, decently paid, who often made a long career in the projection booth. Polarized lenses, incidentally, are not tinted yellow and brown. I am not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. Having had time to think about it, I propose you go back to the drawing board and invite the participation of people who actually know the subject.
Mike Ballew yeah I raised an eyebrow at that claim too as I recall, at least in Canada, being a projectionist used to be a highly paid, union job requiring a lot of skill to splice in adverts/trailers and splice the reels onto the platter. Quite a sophisticated/technically skilled job and not the sort of minimum wage job that this video presents it as, especially in the past with all the film and hot lights. Not sure how it is these days, it might be simpler. I get the feeling the producer of this video made a completely incorrect assumption. That often happens when looking at history of anything when people don't understand the full context of something.. they end up projecting their modern-day assumptions on the past and the result is they get it wrong.
I had a quick scan of the comments here to see if it was full of the usual ill-informed nonsense and anti-3D rhetoric, so it was good to find your comment Mike and see that someone here actually knows what they're talking about!
@@thetrllrt And a problem is also that alot of movies are not shot in 3D they are just converted so its even worse Since 2015 there are less and less real 3D movies (just check realorfake3d.com)
The trouble is the 3D craze got out of hand. I mean, in San Francisco I remember seeing some 3D CARTOON advertised at the IMAX theatre. Tickets for this CARTOON were like $20 a piece. Um, no. If you're going to make it 3D, it better special like Avatar (which had a horrible script but amazing effects)
I think cartoons can probably take advantage of the 3D post-conversion better than a real life movie. Since the characters are still flat, you only need to calculate a single depth position for the character. If you do that in real life, everyone would look like cardboard cutouts. Not that I’ve watched a cartoon in 3D, but I played the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy on the 3DS and the 3D effect was excellent. And that’s a game was originally made for 2D.
David Weber Yes, well, IMAX in San Fran is already expensive. Most standard 3D movies I’ve been to were $10-12, depending on the state. I also don’t see the benefits of $6 popcorn, but people buy it. I will never understand theater prices. :P
3D is "cute" the first few times but after a while not only do you realize how better movies look without the glasses but you also find out the 3D did absolutely NOTHING for the movie besides raise its price
I love 3D movies and will always gladly defend their place to anyone who will listen. I think that the problem now is that the novelty wore off for most people following a slew of bad mainstream releases. - It's unrelegated so every studio banged a conversion on their picture, some used more care than others. But 3D as a label is the same for all, so audiences never really knew what quality of 3D they were getting. - The money side sucks. I am convinced if you only had to pay for the glasses (but could always reuse ones you already own) and the theatre screening price was the same, most would actually choose 3D. But because they're more expensive and actually less social because you can't really see who you're beside, most people choose the cheaper option. + Obviously all the James Cameron releases are great - Avatar, and the conversions on Titanic and Terminator 2 were done with great care over a period of many years. + The Disney 3D releases across Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and their own animated movies have all been really good and have actually shown continuous improvement over time. + I gladly keep buying any 3D blu ray discs I can get my hands on. I hope Pixar's Soul gets a 3D release but I think it not getting a theatrical release and Disney wanting to push everyone towards streaming stacks the likelihood against it. Interesting 3D doesn't exist as a home streaming format, only home video. Which is actually good for slowing the decline of physical media. If you have a good screen, good sound, you have an excellent home 3D experience. I hope James Cameron is working on something big with the Avatar sequels (glassesless?) to revitalise the format again. It's worth it.
I remember getting emotional when people thought that 3d was a fad. I loved it, it really made movies and games look like they were a tangible universe. It was also easier on depth perception, since it didn’t leave your brain guessing where everything is.
@@timmoe3370 good point but I think it should still be there, like how HD color video and stereo sound are everywhere now, even though many shows/movies don’t reeeally need it
It's caused because your eyes do more than parallax focusing. When you look at something closer to you, your eyes want to change focus. By making your eyes change their relative angle to each other (parallax vision) while maintaining the same focal distance, it will always cause eye strain to some people. It's the same effect that happens with stereoscopic images. (Cross your eyes to see the picture)
@SPECTRE working with VR for over 4 years now I can tell you that the headsets are a lot less to blame than the content makers. There are countless studies on how a range of visual effects or gaming techniques might be particularly harmful to audiences. Designing and building a virtual environment for VR is something from ground up, like with 3D movies. Unfortunately most content is a VR camera pushed into a 2D game, a poor conversion like with 3D movies.
To me, 3D is a premium for a specific showing time. There's been multiple occasions where I've planned a night for family. Dinner, movie, other stuff. Showing time and playtime are my concern. So if a film happens to have 3D at that showing, then well it's a nice bonus. My point is that I'm indifferent to 3D, and don't mind the price since the premium couldn't even cover a small popcorn anyways.
you're not alone, before covid I still kept seeing packed halls with people wearing their 3D glasses ready for a showing, the industry keeps making 3D movies because we do in fact watch them. There's just this attitude I've noticed since 2004 to bash 3D just to make a headline, one thing I keep seeing popping up over and over again is this tired old phrase "dorky glasses", which I believe is the basis of all this, people are too self aware of their appearance in a darkened theater where noone is actually looking at them, and then the excuses start piling up.
"Low tech" parallax 3D is pretty cool as a novelty effect, but "true 3D" will come via VR/AR experiences and volumetric filmmaking: *ua-cam.com/video/iwUkbi4_wWo/v-deo.html*
The issue is clearly still with the technology. If implemented in a way that is comfortable to most and works with the story telling, I believe 3D is the ultimate format of video considering the immersion opportunity. Avatar was subtle enough to feel real, the others were just over the top and killed the hype.
I never had a problem with the technology in RealD 3D theater experiences. The problem was when it wasn't used correctly. Cheap annoying 3D makes stuff pop out of the screen for spectacle. Good 3D, and Avatar was the best example of this, utilizes depth. The world of Avatar felt huge and it gave a sense of awe that no other film quite managed to duplicate
The 3DS was only good because it was an overall upgrade from the normal DS. I never turned on the 3D thing because it didn't change the viewer experience and yeah it gave me nausea...
EL QUE NO HAYA TIRUNFADO EL CINE 3D ES SOLO POR LA CUESTION ECONOMICA YA QUE ES MAS CARO EN TODOS LOS SENTIDOS QUE EL 2D Y LA DESAPARICION DE LA VENTA DE TELEVISORES 3D, QUE NO ES LO MISMO QUE DECIR QUE YA NO EXISTAN PORQUE LOS QUE TENEMOS LA FORTUNA DE TENER UNA TV3D Y UNA COLECCION DE PELICULAS BLUERAY 3D AUN LAS UTILIZAMOS EN LA ACTUALIDAD 2019 Y ESPERO SEA POR MUCHOS AÑOS MAS, (YO USO ESA TV3D LG EXCLUSIVAMENTE PARA VER PELICULAS BLURAY 3D NO PARA EL DIARIO PARA QUE ME DURE MAS AÑOS) SE DEBE UNICAMENTE AL FACTOR ECONOMICO QUE IMPIDIO QUE SE MASIFICARA SU USO EN EL MUNDO. LOS TELEVISORES 3D ERAN MAS CAROS QUE LOS NORMALES YA QUE COSTABAN HASTA EL TRIPLE QUE UN TELEVISOR NORMAL, ES MUCHO MAS CARO FILMAR EN 3D POR LO QUE UNA MINORIA DE PELICULAS SE FILMAN EN 3D NATIVO LA ULTIMA DE ELLAS GEMINI MAN FILMADA EN 3D+ HFR SE ESTRENO EN CINES EN OCTUBRE DE 2019 Y EN 3D ES ESPECTACULAR CUANDO EN 2D NO ES MUY BUENA ESE ES EL PODER DEL CINE 3D, LA ENTRADA AL CINE 3D ES MAS CARA, ADICIONAL AL TELEVISOR PARA VER PELICULAS 3D HABIA QUE COMPRAR FORZOSAMENTE BLURAY 3D QUE CUESTA HASTA 3 VECES MAS QUE UN DVD O QUE UN BLURAY NO 3D Y ADICIONALMENTE LAS PELICULAS EN FORMATO BLURAY 3D CUESTAN HASTA 5 VECES EL PRECIO DE UNA NO 3D.ADEMAS ESTOS TELEVISORES EN MI OPINION DEBERIAN DE USARSE SOLO PARA VER PELICULAS BLURAY 3D NO PARA LA PROGRAMACION DE TV DE TODOS LOS DIAS NO PARA VER LAS NOTICIAS POR EJEMPLO, ES DECIR MUCHA GENTE CREIA QUE ERAN PARA VER LA PROGRAMACION DE TODOS LOS DIAS Y ENTONCES SI ES RIDICULO USAR GAFAS 3D PARA VER TV TODOS LOS DIAS PERO PARA VER PELICULAS 3D EL USAR GAFAS 3D EN EL CINE O EN LA CASA ERA INDICIO DE QUE ESTABAS VIENDO ALGO ESPECIAL NO COMUN Y LA VERDAD POR EJEMPLO CON MI TV LG CINEMA 3D LA IMAGEN SE VE MUY BIEN NO OBSCURA Y SI VALE LA PENA PONERSE GAFAS PARA VER PELICULAS EN CINE 3D, Y ESO QUE YO USO LENTES PARA MIOPIA Y ASTIGMATISMO, ME PONGO LOS LENTES 3D SOBRE MIS LENTES NORMALES Y NO ME OCASIONAN NINGUNA INCOMODIDAD Y SI QUE VALE LA PENA PARA VER LOS EFECTOS 3D COMO PROFUNDIDAD Y SALIR COSAS DE LA PANTALLA .Y AL IGUAL QUE MUCHOS YO SOLO USO MI TV3D PARA VER PELICULAS LO QUE SI CONVIERTE LAS TVS3D EN UN PRODUCTO COSTOSO, QUE NO ESTA AL ALCANCE DE CUALQUIERA. EL 3D DESAPARECIO DE LAS TVS NO POR LA TECNOLOGIA EN SI QUE ES FABULOSA MARAVILLOSA Y ESPECTACULAR UN AUTENTICO ESPECTACULO NUNCA ANTES VISTO EN EL CINE Y LA TELEVISION MODERNAS VER COMO SALEN LOS OBJETOS DE LAS PANTALLAS ETC.LA VERDAD NO ENTIENDO PORQUE MUCHA GENTE NO APRECIA EL 3D YO ME VOLVI CINEFILO CON LAS PELICULAS 3D, TENGO 48 AÑOS Y NO HABIA VISTO QUE LAS COSAS SE SALGAN DE LA PANTALLA NUNCA EN MI VISTA NI ESE EFECTO DE PROFUNDIDAD Y ALTA DEFINICION QUE SON CARACTERISTICOS DEL FORMATO BLUE RAY 3D, SI HE LEIDO QUE EN LOS 50S SE PROYECTABA 3D ANAGLIFO (NUNCA VI UNA PELICULA DE ESA EPOCA) PERO LA VERDAD ESA TECNOLOGIA NO SE COMPARA CON LA ACTUAL DE LOS CINES 3D Y TVS 3D CON BLUE RAY 3D. MUCHOS DE LOS QUE ESTAMOS AQUÍ NUNCA HABIAMOS VISTO SALTAR COSAS DE LA PANTALLA NI ESE EFECTO DE PROFUNDIDAD, SI ESO NO LES PARECE ESPECTACULAR ALGO ESTA MAL, YO ME ENAMORE DEL 3D CUANDO VI SALTAR LAS COSAS DE LA PANTALLA TANTO EN EL CINE COMO EN TV3D ES ALGO ESPECTACULAR ASOMBROSO BRILLANTE MAGICO UNICO CUANDO SE SALEN DE LA PANTALLA Y LLEGAN HASTA A TI QUE CASI CREES PODER TOCAR LAS COSAS, IGUAL CON LA PROFUNDIDAD E INMERSION, VAMOS AL CINE A ASOMBRARNOS BUSCAR EXPERIENCIAS VISUALES Y AUDITIVAS Y EL CINE 3D ME DA ESO, COSA QUE NO DA EL CINE 2D, MIS FAVORITAS SON LAS PELICULAS 3D, ESPERO NUNCA DESAPAREZCAN Y EN VERDAD ME SIENTO AFORTUNADO DE PODER DISFRUTAR DE ESTA TECNOLOGIA COMO NUNCA SE HABIA VISTO ANTES EN LA HISTORIA DEL CINE NI DE LA TV, IGUAL CON MI TV3D NO SUFRO DE MAREOS LO QUE NUNCA SE MENCIONA AL MENOS EN EL CASO DE LAS TVS3D ES QUE HAY CONTROLES PARA AJUSTAR LA PROFUNDIDAD DE LAS PELICULAS EN 3D QUIZA ALGUNAS PERSONAS QUE SUFREN MAREOS ES PORQUE NO CALIBRAN BIEN LA TV3D O ACUDEN AL CINE CANSADOS LO CUAL ES UNA CONDICION PARA NO VER CINE 3D. ES UNA LASTIMA QUE ESTA TECNOLOGIA NO ESTE AL ALCANCE DE TODOS, POR SU ALTO COSTO, CUALQUIERA TIENE HOY EN DIA UNA TV PERO NO CUALQUIERA TIENE UN SISTEMA DE TV 3D CON BLUE RAY 3D CON PELICULAS BLUERAY3D, UN SISTEMA ASI POR SU COSTO TIENE SU GRADO DE EXCLUSIVIDAD Y POR LO TANTO NO CUALQUIERA DISFRUTA ESTE TIPO DE CINE 3D EN CASA Y NI EN EL CINE YA QUE EN EL CINE TAMBIEN EL BOLETO ES MAS CARO Y NO TODOS ESTAN DISPUESTOS A PAGARLO. HOY DISFRUTE EN MI CASA UNA PELICULA 3D Y ESO SI ME EMOCIONA, MAS QUE UNA PELICULA 2D.HAY QUE TENER APERTURA A LAS NUEVAS TECNOLOGIAS Y NO MANTENERSE CERRADOS PORQUE DE LO MISMO NO SE VA A PASAR.YA SE ANUNCIO AVATAR 2 EN FORMATO 3D Y CAMERON DICE QUE SERAN SUNTUOSAS Y A CAMERON SI LE CREO.AUN 2020 Y 2021 DISFRUTO EL 3D AUN VENDEN PELICULAS 3D EN LINEA EN SEARS SANBORNS MIXUP AMAZON ETC . EN CHINA SI TRIUNFO EL CINE 3D HASTA LA ACTUALIDAD MUCHOS CINES EN CHINA SIGUEN PROYECTANDO PELICULAS 3D. SALUDOS DESDE MEXICO
3D in the sense of "monsters and explosions jumping out at you" from a 2D viewing experience will either be forever a fad, a niche tool for special entertainment venues, or will be made obsolete by a more effective film medium(s). Something like this: *ua-cam.com/video/iwUkbi4_wWo/v-deo.html* I believe that storytelling through virtual reality and augmented reality experiences will transform or replace existing movie-going formats altogether. The fact that you can "teleport into a movie" with family and friends, interact with the surrounding environment like it is real, and live the life of any character you want for few hours (or a few days) could mean the death of sitting in front of 2D screens on a commercial scale.
I completely disagree...virtual reality will always be a gimmick when it comes to narrative storytelling. The magic of cinema comes from the shared experience with the director's and cinematographer's vision. If everyone is viewing from a different angle or looking at a different part of the environment, you're no longer sharing the experience or seeing the story in the same way. Look at the millions of UA-cam videos that review and break down movies...none of that will be possible if we all see the film differently. That frame and the arbitrary control by the filmmaker of what images fill it are what separates filmmaking from gaming, and it is what makes filmmaking an art form. I'm sure there will be some interesting forays into VR storytelling, but they will likely stay gimmicks rather than the norm.
Also disagree. The things you describe may become very popular but they can't replace movies because they don't serve the same function. there will long be a place for a passive movie watching experience
I am a massive fan of all things 3D and the movies which used 3D to enhance and not as a gimmick which takes you out of the movie were awesome, it's a shame that it is dead because some directors overdid it and audiences couldn't figure out to focus on the screen and not on the projection. I have a 3DS, I have only played without 3D a couple of times when playing new games to see a comparison to 3D, I love it so much and can play on it all day without any eye issues (just need to focus on the screen, if you focus on the screen you won't have eye strain, it's your fault you have eye strain and not the medium). I much prefer 3D over high resolution (I have the "New 3DSXL" and the screens are low resolution but in 3D mode the pixels disappear and appears much higher resolution), but I rarely even watch movies or TV and games are still 3D so it's fine - 3D movies may be dead, but 3D is not.
I was waiting for you to explain how 3 D without glasses works. I've seen it on the internet and would like to learn more about it. Also I'm interested in laser 3 D, there was a museum in NYC where they showed striking 3 D photos made by a process of interference patterns created by lasers. But they were simply still photos not movies. I would like to see more 3 D and hope someday they will perfect the process.
I say the major issue is that there are very few films that make good use of the 3d effect. The only two I have seen that really use the 3d effect well are AVATAR and the 50th Anniversary special of Dr. Who (Day of the doctor). In Dr. Who not only did stuff come at you but you had a whole world in a painting, the went into the screen. Also loved the motorcycle ride into the TARDIS.
I liked playing some video games in 3D. Uncharted 3 for example plays really well in 3D. The addition of the "depth" component over the "stuff coming at your face" novelty is what makes the difference to me when thinking of good vs bad implementation of 3D.
I always liked 3-D movies and would try to see a movie in 3-D whenever I could, I never really had an issue with the effects and it honestly kind of saddened me that they dropped off like they did.. they definitely seem better suited for theme parks and what not tho as the experience is much shorter and viewed by many more, implementation still makes a big difference though as I’ve heard some not so favorable stories about some of the 3-D rides..
I love 3D movies. One of the most memorable scenes I remember is the opening to all of the Great and The powerful. The scene is right at the opening there's flowers and snow in 3D it look like it was snowing in the theater it was just beautiful. When I watched Star wars the Force awakens there's a scene where they are inside a wreck of a vast spaceship. In 3D this scene made the inside of the theater looking men's the screen went on forever. I hope 3D continues.
I like 3D movies too, and I don't see what the problem is. I never experienced headaches or nausea. I did have trouble understanding your second-to-last sentence, though: _"In 3D this scene made the inside of the theater looking men's the screen went on forever."_ Huh???
The tech used in the 3DS to create a 3D will never work on more than one person at once. It displays 2 images at a time and determines the distance between those 2 images by the position of your head relative to the screen. It needs to track your head in order to display the image correctly. It wouldn't have been that hard to look that up. If they had read up on the New 3DS most articles would have explained this.
9:44 "one oscillation of light" - worst explanation of polarizing glasses ever. One lens filters out everything not polarized vertically and the other - everything not polarized horizontally.
Are you kidding? LOVE 3d movies. Especially since they started getting a the hang of it, so it was not so sickening. I have several good 3d televisions.
I am an avid movie goer and I used to go to 3d Imax movies whenever it was an option especially for the biggest releases and I always loved it. Its not always available both 3d and imax tho and often I choose imax sound over just 3d. I am looking forward to going to the movies again when they reopen after covid.
I love 3D in VR. I love everything being life-sized, actual distance and 3 dimensional, even if the resolution or focus could be better, I actually went and bought a 3D camera so I can take my own pics and videos. But just like with movies, it's hard to share them because most people don't have VR headsets. I can and do make anaglyphs that I can show on tablets or TVs but again, most people don't have the glasses. Still in VR at least, that sense of being there and perceive things in all their complexity just can't be beat. You can guess people weights, and a lot of things like textures, translucence, transparency, and size are just soooo much more obvious in 3 D, like when you look at water and can see the surface, depth, reflections, and glare all on different levels that are just lost in 2D.
@Dust My Broom Well......if its on IMAX......I go for 3D....lol. But now I live in the most boring place in the world (Wyoming)....and entertainment is all in Colorado.
3D in the 1950s was even done for a Three Stooges short; as I saw one on TV a few weeks ago that I had never seen before in all the decades of Three Stooges shorts I've seen on TV. It had Shemp as the third stooge and it took place in an automotive repair shop. The short itself was not shown in 3D, but it had all the elements of it, such as thrown objects towards the camera's view.
Sharkboy and Lavagirl is still the best 3d movie I've seen. i like how you don't have to wear the glasses the whole time and they very creatively let you know,
he also doesn't bring up active shutter glasses. which imo are better in every way than passive. they don't mess with the color of the movie and you also see the "full" image in each eye. not like polarized which each eye is only getting half of the image making it look lower resolution.
@@thomas-tv7ev He was mostly referring to movies at the theatre. All movies at theatres use passive polarized glasses. Both eyes see a full image, since there are two full images being projected on the screen at once. As far as TV, passive glasses can be better depending on which TV you have. I have two 65 inch 4k 3d TVs with passive glasses. Each eye sees either odd or even lines, but because there are 2160 of them, each eyes still sees a full 1080p picture. Whereas on a 1080p TV, you only see 540 lines with each eye. With active glasses they do have some flicker and require heavier glasses with electronics in them.
Part of it is the fact that many 3D movies weren’t even done that well- the 3D wasn’t very high quality. So many times, I didn’t even realize the movie I was watching was 3D- it seemed 2D.
There's 3D and then there's 3D. Most “3D” movies I encountered only have increased depth on screen, more like an aquarium than an immersive room. Very few times I experienced elements appearing to move towards the audience, creating a more interactive appearing sensation. It's that sense of being more of a witness to the story than a mute, caged onlooker, that feeds people's expectation of 3D. That's what I think.
I still want 3D to make a comeback, as the depth is just as important and incredible as the “pop”. I believe the technology will advance to the point: + no longer need to wear glasses + has a wide viewing angle + can see “around the sides” of objects
I like the Real D 3D system we got at our cinemas here. It just needs a continuous stream of new movies. To me, 3D is still the future of cinema. Especially now home TV's don't seem to go this route. This makes 3D in the cinema something special.
You can see why sound was successful added to movies, why colour was successful added to movies, but what does 3D add to movies ? Spectacle ? If the spectacle is drawing attention to itself that’s not adding to the movie, it’s a theme park ride, if it’s inconspicuous it’s not doing its job. Does it add to story telling ? Does it convey more emotions ? Does it help with the feels ? Often it gets in the way. There are cuts and speeds of camera motion that the director is constrained from using, because of the motion sickness wooziness problems.
The projectionist was not typically a teenager in the 1950's during the golden age of 3-D, but a trained professional who worked with delicate and expensive film prints. Prints needed to play many theatres and required careful handling.
To me 3D technology is there. The problem is that 3D is now imposed by the producer NOT the director. As a consequence, they artificially add the 3D effect which makes bad 3D movies. Movies like Avatar were thought in 3D by the director which makes a movie with a "good 3D".
PRODUCERS: Give freedom back to your directors : if they don't want 3D in their movie don't make them 3D.
Nah we don't all need to use a 3d glasses anymore so what a waste
They did a terrible job. Out of focus scenery all over that is 3d in your face. Over exaggeration of the effect. Somebody make a realistic 3d movies and people might watch it. The stupid thing is, Avatar is a digital movie, and they didn't need to make it blurry. They were matching the limitations of a physical camera. Use the 3d to highlight the subject, not focus.
Can’t really think of a movie where 3D improved the experience. Movies are darker and blurrier than its 2D counterpart
Remember seeing this in theatre, last 3-d movie I’ve seen but I remember being blown away
@@r.l.189 Idk what you are talking about. I saw Avatar in 3D back when it came out in 2009 and it was pretty impressive. Do you have an example of a film that handled 3D better?
Missed a trick with the title "Why 3D Movies keep falling flat"
People hate wearing uncomfortable glasses that give you a headache. The payoff isn't worth it.
True
Jude Fenwick its just not worth the “wow” factor of 3D to wear cheap glasses that barely work anymore to me. certainly dont want to pay more for it.
I actually hate the waste vs sanitize issue.
@Jude Fenwick most movies that are worth to be seen in the theater is worth 3 hours long like The Avengers. I get headaches in first 30 mins of the movie wearing the glasses.
Its simple - 3d isn't the gimmick like it should be. Its the "ooh we'll throw things in the audiences faces" they obsess over. Avatar, when he climbs out of stasis is amazing because it felt so real. Ironically for 3D to work it has to be filmed like a standard film.
Yeah, it's usually the over-pronounced 3D VFX that kills it. A more natural 3D look is awesome, things getting flung at your face are only fun in small doses.
@@enemixius yes. too many 3d films are "LOOK AT US WE'RE 3D!". Avatar threw something at your face once (the gas grenade) and then for all of the rest of the film it was simply there. The scene with the ash falling through the air was stunning /because/ it was 3D
3D also seems to be at it's best when its helping a sense of place, giving depth and character to a location. We lose this automatically when watching a widescreen film on a smaller TV screen. Without 3D the "Amazon" in "Creature From the Black Lagoon" looks just like (and as easily dismissed) as the studio setting like Gilligan's Island. In 3D the other-worldliness of the place comes alive, just as it does in the great underwater sequence's. Same with the long desert vistas in "It Came From Outer Space". Their enhancement of the setting is directly tied to the storytelling. This film also shows the awkward issues of 3D when it comes to building suspense and then having a "coming at you" effect ruin it. Richard Carlson approaches a closet after he learns the aliens have entered his home. The music builds, his expression tightens, he reaches for the door handle with us expecting something terrible on the other side. Door opens! No one there, a near miss. But the shot sees him from inside the closet, and the hangers on the rack are now 60' long and dangling right under our noses. The audience bursts out laughing at the "got ya" moment, but it throws the whole mood off which they spent some effort trying to build!
@@enemixius This exactly. I love 3D, if I have the chance to watch a movie in 3D I'll do so, even love my 3D TV (which can be amazing) and am trying to find a decend used 4k 3D TV (they were only produced for a short period of time). One of the most amazing 3D effects I've ever seen is the circus sequence in the last Madagascar film. I was totally stunned when watching it in cinema and also when rewatching it on my TV a few months later.
In my oppinion what really killed 3D was that it was never supported by mainstream TV and most streaming platforms and the prices for 3D BluRay were just incredibly high. Disney+ has the entire Marvel library and all movies after 2009 in that universe were shot in 3D, but you don't even have 3D as an opiton on D+.
What ruined the 3D in Avatar for me was the subtitles when the Navi were talking. They just looked too crisp and floaty and kinda ruined the immersion
*"Nothing spells money like re-releasing a movie that's already been made"*
Disney's motto right there
TrashPanda Raccoon Now upgrade to Blu-Ray! For a limited time only!
😂 Disney even own the apples I eat.
Maen M. Stop eating juicy red poison apples! We already saw what Disney apples did tic Snow White. LOL.
@@MaeV808 so you stole them xD?
@@MaeV808 qqqqq@@@@@@
I didn't know 3D started so early in film's history.
I took a film history class, and the instructor failed to mention it.
1890s
1920s
1950s
1980s
2010s
Notice the 30 year gap. Thirty = Three-Dee. ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED FOR 2040.
It's like what was the first robot. The first instance of a thing, is almost always the most terrible, and impractical implementation of it. People just rush to be the first, without spending the time necessary to make it any good. Or perhaps it's just a novelty to say, "Hey I was the first" or "Hey isn't this neat?". Practical implementation always occurs much, much later. Robots in this case, have yet to find a practical place in people's homes, but one day they will be, and people will be surprised how old the tech predates to. But of course, it was anything but practical back then and even today.
First electric car was built in 1884
In fact, 3D goes all the way back to ancient civilizations. They're called plays.
1890's, 1920's, 1950's, 1980's, 2010's
It's like horror movie, the monster returns every 30 years.
Qwerty Bear. Like PennyWise the dancing clown from Stephen Kong’s IT.
See you in the 2040s.
I did not realize how long a history 3-D movies had and how often people tried to make a commercial success of them. But what seems to be a major problem for 3-D movies is human physiology which has not changed over the period. My prediction for the 2040's is it will be a fad for a few years with the same complaints occurring (you could probably quote people verbatim from the earlier attempts).
@@Fire_Score_Maximum I think more like The Creeper
Just to full a new generation to this sh... This will never work because it requires glasses. Extra optical barrier always reduces light and resolution, do not mention poor interaction with correction glasses that many needs to were out.
-the glasses affect the brightness of the film. everything looks dark
-wearing glasses over glasses is uncomfortable
-accidentally smudge your glasses with popcorn butter and you're in for a bad time
-extra cost on an already over-priced activity
-objects in foreground look like cardboard cutouts. it's distracting to the actual movie
And people don’t want to spend money on something that isn’t even that exciting
Imagine eating buttered popcorn.
Americans don't even think about it, but it's extremely unconfortable to read subtitles in 3D movies. Almost every movie in Brazil started being dubbed because of this 3D fad.
The darkness is actually an issue created by the theatres and not a problem of the process itself. Projector bulbs are expensive (especially for IMAX), so rather than increase the brightness to correct for 3D viewing, they keep the brightness down (in fact many theatres actually have the bulbs down even on regular movies).
Enrique Garcia That’s lame. I remember 3D movies in the early 2000s’ were brighter but recent 3D movies have “regular” brightness and much dimmer once putting on the glasses
As a glasses-wearing dork... 3D glasses are no fun.
rawkinghorse as a dork who doesn’t need glasses 3D still sucks. Gives me a headache.
Watch 2D then.
I wear glasses too and even if I didn't, it makes me nauseous. No thanks.
You can get clip on 3D lenses with 2D conversion clips also available when you want to see a film in 2D but only the 3D showing is available. ( That isn't such a problem these days.)
I wear glasses simply to see, and my glasses also correct for colorblindness, so I don't think I can see it correctly with or without my glasses.
The only time I remember enjoying a 3D movie was Tangled. Seeing those lanterns all around it was like you were really there, I’ll never forget it.
I remember seeing Tangled in 2D and wishing I’d gone to a 3D showing.
One of the few movies I watched in 3D and loved
I have the Tangled 3D Blu-ray. It’s great.
Pornos are not very enjoyable either
Cloudy with a chance of meatballs was another good one
The problem with 3D is that most of the 3D is added in post production. That leads to foreground looking like cardboard cutouts.
Instead of that, filming with two cameras is much more realistic and looks like real life with VR.
But the downside is filming with two cameras is very expensive, and cgi on that is much more expensive and difficult.
That's why there are only a few short films that are filmed this way. And they don't have any cgi or sets.
Most animation movies are created in 3D and therefore can always provide a great 3D experience.
I noticed that too. It looks to flat. Actually VR 3D feels a lot more real.
The problem with 3D is showing it sequential. left picture to the left eye, while right eye gets black. Than right picture to right eye while left eye gets black. All cinemas with RealD or Dolby ColourWheel work this way. On a home cinema with dual projection, the post produced 3d movies look much less than cardboard cutouts (but of cause not as good as real 3d film).
This is the most common explanation. It makes a lot of sense. Half-assed post-production attempts at 3D never showed what the medium was capable of and shoot repeated the problems of gimmicky 1950s 3D. And all of that seems to have been driven by corporate concerns about cost and profit margins.
I think there are, however, other reasons why 3D failed. After all, technicolor was incredibly expensive but still managed to do incredibly well in the films that were filmed in it. Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, all those postwar Vincent Minnelli film musicals, Douglas Sirk melodramas... So being expensive isn't *necessarily* enough to make 3D filming impractical, within reason.
I think the audience complaints of nausea and headaches do a lot of damage. But even if that problem were solved, you still need directors and cinematographers who can THINK in 3D, understanding it as its own medium with its own abilities, quirks and limitations. I don't think even James Cameron accomplished that, sadly.
It’s also very dark to see through 3D glasses
It ruins the effect as well if you wear glasses
Two things that should never be in 3D film:
1. Requiring audiences to take their 3D glasses on and off for parts of the film
2. Post-production adaption of non-3D video into 3D
So, most films marketed as 3D are crap because a) Sturgeon's Law i.e. most films are crap regardless of having any 3D in them, b) those 3D films that aren't crap regardless of 3D were not shot in 3D originally, and had to be made 3D in post, and c) those that were shot in 3D originally were not fully shot in 3D.
Sohan Dsouza> Two things that should never be in 3D film: … 2. Post-production adaption of non-3D video into 3D
You'd be amazed how 2D images can look 3D. Take a single regular 2D image, tile it horizontally (put them side-by-side), then do the magic-eye thing of looking "through/past" it until they overlap, and they'll look 3D.
@@user-vn7ce5ig1z That results in a "flattening" cardboard cutout effect that only looks right in a universe where all objects in your 3D view are flat, in the same plane, and facing you (and even then, you have to interpolate the background where you have shifted the objects for each 2D view). Our visual hardware has the ability to pick out when something is converted like this. It looks disastrous when you have multiple complex 3D objects at multiple distances, especially with free-moving cameras.
www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/debate-waging-over-2d-3d-22262
Never seen #1
not true, all of the MCU movies are post production 3d. infinity war and end game are the some of the best 3D movies ever I've seen, flying ships look like they are hovering off the screen. the issue isn't post production, its how much money the company is willing to put into post production 3D. Another example is the first Pacific Rim movie, most people think that it was shot in 3d but Guillermo del Toro pointed out in interviews that the 3D had its own separate 6 month post production pipeline. The 3d in that movie looks better than some movies actually shot in 3d like transformers dark of the moon for example.
I thought Nightmare Before Christmas was very good remastered in 3D and my wife said Top Gun was one of the best 3D experiences she had--I suspect it's the same thing that helped Avatar: Seeing distant objects through nearby glass is an effect you cant get from red/green glasses and makes a very immersive experience.
I mostly don't like 3D because the glasses don't sit properly on my face, when I'm already wearing my own glasses..
Toto I’ve never even noticed an improvement in my experience. Not worth the extra cost, or even the hassle of the glasses. No thanks.
And I’ve noticed they are cheap so if they get dirty or smudged it doesn’t wipe off so I usually take like 3
They make clip on versions that flip up. They're relatively cheap on Amazon, and usually a better quality lens than what you get at the theater anyway. Just make sure you get the right ones (circular polarized vs. linear).
@@markmarshall6438 The clip ons are great! When I went to the movies in China they always had then there. I don't get why don't have them on hand in western countries
Have you tried prescription 3D glasses?
Anyone remember when even UA-cam had a 3d function?
i have made a 3d video for youtube, it's finished and ready to upload right before i realized they have discontinued that feature.
@@Dawn-Shade Comvert it into Blue and Red 3d, It should still work
It has vr mode
@@Dawn-Shade wait, really? They removed 3d? First polls, then community captions, and now this. What is it with UA-cam and removing the features that make them so special...
@@Kapin05 What?!?! They removed polls??
Im a glasses wearer and still love 3d movies- i loved in the hobbit when they used the 3d to make the landscape so much deeper- or in the great and powerful oz where the 3d was stylized to look like layers on a stage. I remember watching jurassic world 1 and 2 in 3d and surround sound- was so freaking real and thrilling for me.
The Hobbit in theaters, if you saw it in the High Frame Rate and 3D version, was something I can't even explain to people, to this day. I saw the second one like this. There is NO theaters experience like that film. It was just mind blowing. It was almost too real in a sense. But if people saw that, they might have their minds changed.
Man now imagine lotr in 3D
I saw Endgame for a second time in IMAX 3D and it was amazing. Even if it was a 3 hours movie I didn't have any problem like headache or nausea. I remember seeing the scene with the spaceship, Captain Marvel and Titan (Thanos' planet) in the same shot and really feeling the actual depth of the scene and the distance from each other like I was really in space. This scene (along with some others) was really mind-blowing for me to watch in 3D and with the amazing resolution of IMAX proving that this technology can really help tell a story if it's used correctly.
The problem with 3D movies is the brain uses more that the image offset to determine distance. It also used eye convergance angle (cross-eyed), the focus effort, etc. Without ALL the effects of viewing a solid object, some people feel sick.
Eye-convergence is the one thing 3D movies _do_ get right - and provided the viewer keeps their head straight, that alone actually serves the purpose quite well. But yeah, ultimately those other aspects do matter too, and they're not feasible to implement in cinemas but we may well get there with VR headsets.
*MORE PEOPLE* report feeling sick after watching a 3D move than after watching the same movie in 2D. 3D films give a majority of people who watch them discomfort.
@@simonmacomber7466 over 50% of people experience discomfort while watching 3D?
Simon Macomber are you sure about that? I’ve never heard that before. Always a minority
@@AnonymousUser77254 It's actually closer to 56%. Especially if they are viewing it longer than 60 minutes.
3D also fails because it doesn't really add that much value to most films. It's like watching a sporting event live vs on TV, it's not 3D that makes live better.
Also it's sort of 2.5D. It looks 3D but you can't look around things, when you move your head the image doesn't change.
... and it is 2.5D also because not everything is in focus anyway.
I have to disagree. It adds plenty of value to films. It adds extra depth to the image and creates a sense of scale and grandeur that flat projection does not have. I recently rewatched Titanic 3D and the scale of the ship really comes through.
Plenty of movies benefit from the effect such as Pixar, Star Wars, and Marvel films. Blade Runner 2049 is far superior in 3D to the flat projection.
Yeah i remember watching the disney remake of the jungle book. there was a scene where the bear had his snout pointing at the audience. We all thought it would be 3D but no, it was just another 2D part of the 3D movie.
Damn animates movies, especially into the spiderverse, are the only ones worth to include 3d imo.
I'm still shocked how great it looked
This is the main reason people are overlooking I think, even if 3D were perfect technically it's not clear to me what it adds cinematographically. It adds depth, sure, but how does that improve the shot, how does that help convey story? It just sort of makes things look... separated, but it's not like it makes things look life-like or anything actually remarkable.
I usually barely notice 3D effects. Even when I do... it’s not enough to warrant the higher price tag.
They usually use it just to add depth to scenes, which...DOES look cool but isn't really "wow" enough to justify how much more expensive it is.
Yeah my husband forgot we saw the last star wars in 3D because there were no moments that actually utilized the technology
I value the experience I get and the depth leads to immersion and the immersion is worth the costs for me.
It's funny to read these comments, because I want to watch a film in 3D to actually get a depth of field; that things far away should look far away. Film in 3D should not "wow" you, just like how a film in colour should not "wow" you with its colour*. The film should be recorded in 3D, but not made to show off that it is in 3D. It should just be a passive effect.
* There are films that do interesting effects, like how Sin City is a black-and-white film that only has red. It's okay to make a film with a certain 3D gimmick, if that is the style you want to go with. The issue is that almost all 3D films add 3D gimmicks, which takes me out of the experience. But very few films use colour gimmicks.
You paid for the 3D subtitle
3D is great. I don't know why it isn't more successful. Avatar proved it could improve the viewing experience...
It's because film studios kept cheaping out by doing the 3d effects in post production instead of shooting the movies in 3d. There are only 2 true 3d live action movies from the most recent 3d era. Avatar and Jackass 3D.
Life of pi was shot in true 3d also
Other reasons is because not everyone can actually enjoy it. I have eye problems and 3D gives me headaches and most of the time I’m more comfortable seeing it flat. :/
@@thedrawerkring yet you live the rest of your life in 3-D anyway
@@thedrawerkring that sucks ‼️ because true 3D IS SO IMMERSIVE AND BRILLIANT ‼️
I feel like the 3d we want is alive and well in VR. After the headsets hit enough people it can actually get a audience
At least, it has found its place. Same with motion controllers, it’s much more enjoyable with VR, I despise motion controls outside VR.
3D glasses are so dark , that it ruins the movie itself. Movie looks so dark.
The best part is that theatres are too lazy/cheap to change the lenses on the projectors, so non-3D screenings end up super dark for no good reason.
Especially if you smear your glasses with your finger or u take ur glasses off and all the screen looks like is blurry
rajan lad
I’ve never had this problem
They're dark because of how the technology works. As briefly stated in the video, modern linear polarized 3D glasses only accept two directions of light: Vertical waves to one eye, and horizontal waves to the other. The other, less common polarization, circularly polarized, produces much brighter images, but unfortunately never really caught on.
@@ryanandrews3053 Yeah I know , but that kinda ruins the movie experience and 3D movies are not cheap. It's like any unpolished tech , we should appreciate the tech and people working on it,but also acknowledge it drawbacks. They have movies in a dome. Best experience ever.
In Switzerland, almost every movie is shown in 3D too. Cinemas are hideously expensive anyways, so why not show it in 3D. Combined with moving chairs, wind and all that fancy stuff, it's actually pretty nice. But again, such an experience costs 30$ for one person.
We have these they are called 4dx they cost like 35$ while average 2d equals like 11$
4dx, IMAX cost 7$ here in Mongolia. Normal 3d cost about 2$
@@durururururururu was wondering the same. In Kenya 3d is also 7-8 dollars and when the movies run their cycle you get all summer blockbuster movies for like 3 movies for the the same 8 dollars
@@mercynamikoye9084 That sounds amazing. The standard of living must be way different than the US though.
@@J-wm4ss yes but rising exponentially day by day but wages and salaries remain stagnant
Before the video, My thought: "because studios kept doing shit 2d-3d digital conversions"
After the video, My thought: "because studios kept doing shit 2d-3d digital conversions"
I love 3d... it was so frustrating to watch it go down in popularity because of cheap cash grabs making the technology look bad. The tech works, but every shortcut you take with it makes it significantly worse, to the point its worse then a 2d showing. Audiences can and will conflate the shit with the good.
Yeah some movies overdo the 3D as well. As in the difference in depth is way more than it should be which completely breaks the illusion.
@@merren2306 Some of that could be due to different inter-pupilary distances. If your eyes are much closer or farther apart than the distance they optimized for, then the distances between objects can feel off. This is more obvious when something is closer to the lens (like the "pop-out" gags so many 3d movies like).
Of course, if the movie was originally filmed in 2d, then the conversion was probably just poorly done.
Sheep
And keeping in fake background blur on CG movies instead of letting people focus on things naturally.
@@bryanferguson3157 That isn't "fake background blur" it's something known as bokeh. It's basically the way a high-end camera with a large sensor gets a naturally blurred background (this varies camera-to-camera and lens-to-lens). Since many movies use RED cameras (costing as much as a brand new car) the bokeh is omnipresent
Great video, I think I can add one detail. The quality of the polarized glasses.
I can in fact report on what long term use of 3D feels like. I worked for a company for years who made maps in a 3D environment, our source data would be made into a stereopair and we would extract an entire map using some fancy polarized lenses. In truth the expensive version of 3D glasses. Even these though with 8+ hours a day would induce headaches and dizziness. While it was common to take frequent breaks and spend some time looking at distant objects in regular daylight they still had a major flaw. The plastic parts that go from the lenses to the ears. These were of course what set the angle of the lenses to the face, not just one angle, but several. Distance from the lens to the eye, pitch of both lenses, yaw of both lenses, how far above the nose or lower down... a ton of possible angles. If one angle was off, it made the experience even less enjoyable. I would go to a 3d movie and look at the extremely cheep polarized glasses available, would try on several pairs and compare. Some of the pairs were so bent up that unless you had a severely deformed head to match them, there was no way they would even work for a few minuets. Even the best pairs though, would sit on the face like an unsteady pair of glasses, slipping around and constantly needing adjusting. While at work I could go about 2-3 hours in stereo before it got to much, the movie grade glasses I could get 30 min. max before needing to step out of the theater and look at something far away. Spend more on the glasses? well you could, but audiences also are at fault for man-handling them. In short... plastic cheep polarized glasses don't help either.
The type of 3D technology implemented on the 3DS could never be implemented in a theater, as you seem to suggest. Its relies on eye tracking for the *individual* viewer and the fact that the person using the 3DS is always positioned within a narrow range in front of the display. Projecting 3D images made of only light, visible simultaneously, from any angle in a theater, without glasses...that requires holograms made of harry potter magic.
Catch 22; if I wear my glasses it's uncomfortable to wear the 3d goggles over them. If I don't wear my glasses, I can't see shit.
Contacts?
Yes! Glad someone said it
Got a pair of 3D clip ones which worked with my passive 3D tv and Real D theaters. They may still be available. 3D died because too many bad films flooded the market. Besides Avatar check out Cameron’s conversion of Titanic, The Martian, Life of Pi, Hugo, Prometheus.
Anyone else notice the two dudes together at 4:36? They must have been best friends /s
So gay and people around don't give a sh.
You see in cultures where homosexuality is less openly prominent that men are more physically affectionate in public in a strictly platonic way (see middle eastern/Armenian hand holding)
What does /s mean?
Strange Animations Sarcasm
In India and most of the rest of Asia, hand holding and hugging is extremely common between heterosexual males who have nothing except friendship for each other.
And never goes beyond 3D... Went to a 4DX once with my wife watching Thor...
Hoooboy... She went home seasick after watching a movie in theatre ....
I love 3D and have had a 3D home theater for years, with many 3D Blu-rays to play on it. It doesn’t suck at all.
How can I do this?
3D, when done right, can be amazing. There have been times when I've literally flinched or jumped as something headed towards me. Tron: Legacy and Avatar are two examples for me.
3D in cinemas and on the 3DS was impressive, but it's VR that made me love it. Giving 3D view of the surroundings with actual response for head movement.
Yup. Here's hoping "going to the movies" will be like VR or AR today, but on steroids: ua-cam.com/video/iwUkbi4_wWo/v-deo.html
I'm vision impaired in one eye so the 3D experience is completely lost on me anyway.
Something like 5% of people are meant to not be able to see 3D properly due to eye problems
k
I can't see movies 3D due to strabismus. But at least I don't struggle with geometry anymore, as a child I couldn't see drawings of 3D shapes made of cubes as three dimensional so it was hard to understand how many cubes they had
@@stephenbmassey its actually much higher as eye limitations increase with age. It’s a bit like that ‘emperors new clothes’ in that regard.. people got very excited but statistically many of them wouldn’t be able to see it correctly. :)
@@stephenbmassey not just eye problems. A shitload of people's brains don't actually see 3d. Which is normally not even noticeable in regular life, cause a trees distance is easily discerned by it's apparent size, and for stuff at larger distances than a few dozen feet, the eye seperation distance isn't even enough to see 3d anyway.
That's also why current 3d movies are recorded with much larger distances between the lenses. It intensifies the 3d experience.
But even with the intensified 3d experience, it doesn't take more than 30 seconds for someone to get used to the effect and their mind just turning it out again.
And that's why 3d will always go through bust and boom cycles: it's great if you experience it for the first time, but after the 5th movie you'll not experience any difference anyway. So why watch the darker movie version for more money?
It's great for looking at the moon in 3d though, which usually far too far away for our eye seperation to provide 3d I formation. But if you take two cameras the distance of a football field apart, the seperation lets you actually experience the moon in 3d, rather than it looking like any 2d painting.
But again the feeling lasts for less than an hour.
Same with yellow tinted glasses against blue light. That's noticeable when putting them on first, but go snowboarding with them, and snow will just appear perfectly white as it always did. Only when you suddenly take off the glasses will the snow suddenly be much more brilliant... For a few minutes.
So really, 3d is only good for novel entertainment for short times, or for those cases were the added 3d information is essential. Like stereoscopic war time aerial photos that allow you to easily discern flat shapes on the ground from actual 3d objects like real planes.
And it's great for photos in general, cause it really makes them pop, and since you will only look at each photo for a short time, your brain doesn't make 2/3s of the viewing experience a waste.
3D is a very exciting experience! It’s just so amazing it started a long time ago!
I'm a fan of 3d and would still watch things in 3d if I could.
Me too....I saw Dawn of the Dead 1978 3D recently
.pretty awesome 3D surprisingly😛
Watching some older movies in 3D when they had a more pronounced effect I thought was great. I think that VR will be the next big thing for movies because then movies can be flat yet with elements directly implemented to be 3D, making the film a better experience overall.
Remember when 3D TVs were a thing? So you could watch the 3D movie at home?
I bet you could do it in VR. Seems like overkill on the computing side of things though.
Aren’t they still 3D capable?
1890's, 1920's, 1950's, 1980's, 2010's
It's like horror movie, the monster returns every 30 years.
I've got a 3D TV
I still got one and is passive natural 3d I bought like 8 3d movies even espn and other 2 channels from directv back in 2010 I used to watch.,it was awesome that's what I think.
I love 3D movies and have only once ever had an issue... It's the only time I actually go to a theater anymore.
I loved 3D games on PS3. We had active shutter glasses that used watch batteries too quickly, however, so I often played in 2D. 3D could be as immersive as virtual reality if you were the perfect distance from the screen. It had none of the complications of a VR game (rig, headset, clunky movement through game, limited controls, etc) while allowing players to feel deep in the game world.
(9:40) Polaroid glasses aren't tinted.
The reason why older glasses are tinted is to filter out the colours, because they aren't based on specific occelations. But polaroid only filters based on occelations and does not use tint. (The polaroid does give a tinting effect, but that's not what I'm talking about).
Hey, I'll go to a good 3D movie any day.
Splendid history of 3D! I learned about its problems from the horses mouth. When I was a child I made the acquaintance of our local manager at the Everett Mall Cinemas, Mr. McKinney. He generously let me watch the backstage work, including going upstairs to sit with the projectionists. Learned a lot about the business end of movie theaters, and the actual running of the shows. The projectionist (at least by 1972 they had a Union) once described the trouble with running 3D movies in the early 50's. He said it was a lot of extra work to keep the twin projectors synchronized. Remember, projectionists had to lug these huge, heavy film reels to the projectors in a hot narrow space of a projection room, synch the projectors with key cards which were left and right slides, set the film going on time, start rewinding the previous two reels, prep to restart and re-synch again. That was just for one theater screen, this was before the multiplex type came in. The old film stock was fragile and easily damaged when passing through the projector gate near the hot lamp. If the film broke in one reel and you removed a torn, or fried frame, you had to find the same location on the other reel (very tedious) to remove that as well, otherwise they would be out of synch, causing the "ghosting" effect. Towards the end of a film's run the medium was so dehydrated and brittle that these breaks were happening all the time. Very time consuming and frustrating in a job where the "show must go on" regardless of inconvenience. He thought it was the projectionists who helped doom the experience in the early 50's. The tech end of the business just wasn't there to handle 3D efficiently, and projectionists seemed threw up their hands and let it fail.
As one who collects 3D on Blu-ray I've noticed several aspects of how it behaves to an audience. Everybody is different in how our heads work processing the visual image. I have usually no difficulty with 3D, but you're right about the fatigue that comes with a long, 2 hour viewing. Best recent 3D films like "The Avengers" have the most eyepopping bits at the beginning and the end so you have time to "rest" in the middle. I also think our minds after awhile do a sort of natural self adjustment to the 3D visual image. Our perception begins to realize that it's being fooled into a sense of depth by what it sees, so as the experience continues our brain works to "flatten" the image to what it really is, making the coming at you experience less pronounced. Our heads turn it back to 2D. To prevent this, try taking off the glasses and let the eyes relax. For me that seems to refresh the quality of it.
Also, I think 3D needs size to be effective. I have a Benq digital projector that short throws a 120" image on the downstairs white wall. There is much more of the visual image to work with, and my experience with 3D at home is very much comparable what I have seen in a good, properly synched theater showing. Still, whenever "Creature From the Black Lagoon" or "It Came From Outer Space" come to the area I get in the car drive!
In the last few years much good work has gone into restoring the classic 3D films and making them available on Blu-ray. Would love to see "Hondo" with John Wayne, and even "Bwana Devil" which got the ball rolling in the 50's. The latter was an early telling of Patterson and the Man-eaters of Tsavo, same story as "The Ghost and the Darkness".
Christopher Summitt are you from mass?
I see you put a little effort into research, which makes your video slightly better than most 3-D hit pieces I've seen. But your idea that projectionists in the 1950s were underpaid teenagers is woefully out of step with the facts. You should peruse an issue or two of "International Projectionist," a trade journal from that era available online. You might be surprised to learn that the vast majority of booth personnel in 1953 were respected professionals, decently paid, who often made a long career in the projection booth.
Polarized lenses, incidentally, are not tinted yellow and brown. I am not sure how you arrive at this conclusion.
Having had time to think about it, I propose you go back to the drawing board and invite the participation of people who actually know the subject.
Mike Ballew yeah I raised an eyebrow at that claim too as I recall, at least in Canada, being a projectionist used to be a highly paid, union job requiring a lot of skill to splice in adverts/trailers and splice the reels onto the platter. Quite a sophisticated/technically skilled job and not the sort of minimum wage job that this video presents it as, especially in the past with all the film and hot lights. Not sure how it is these days, it might be simpler. I get the feeling the producer of this video made a completely incorrect assumption. That often happens when looking at history of anything when people don't understand the full context of something.. they end up projecting their modern-day assumptions on the past and the result is they get it wrong.
I had a quick scan of the comments here to see if it was full of the usual ill-informed nonsense and anti-3D rhetoric, so it was good to find your comment Mike and see that someone here actually knows what they're talking about!
I always wondered if it was jus me but i hardly ever noticed the difference between a regular movie and 3d
Nope, I see it mainly in animation, but normal video, it's just "meh", heck even 4D is sort of "whatever" for me (personally)
I felt the same. Learned I have no depth perception lmao I can’t see the effects
@@thetrllrt And a problem is also that alot of movies are not shot in 3D they are just converted so its even worse Since 2015 there are less and less real 3D movies (just check realorfake3d.com)
3D will never die in my home theater! I review 3D movies! It's still alive and well everywhere but the US.
I live in the US and have a great 3D home theater, but have had to import most of my discs now for years.
The trouble is the 3D craze got out of hand. I mean, in San Francisco I remember seeing some 3D CARTOON advertised at the IMAX theatre. Tickets for this CARTOON were like $20 a piece. Um, no.
If you're going to make it 3D, it better special like Avatar (which had a horrible script but amazing effects)
Avatar was a 3D-demo film, same as Gravity.
Only good because of the effects.
I think cartoons can probably take advantage of the 3D post-conversion better than a real life movie. Since the characters are still flat, you only need to calculate a single depth position for the character. If you do that in real life, everyone would look like cardboard cutouts.
Not that I’ve watched a cartoon in 3D, but I played the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy on the 3DS and the 3D effect was excellent. And that’s a game was originally made for 2D.
@@danielevans7439 I can see the immense benefits in a video game, but not in a theatre where I'm paying an extreme premium for the technology.
David Weber Yes, well, IMAX in San Fran is already expensive. Most standard 3D movies I’ve been to were $10-12, depending on the state.
I also don’t see the benefits of $6 popcorn, but people buy it. I will never understand theater prices. :P
Or volumetric filmmaking: ua-cam.com/video/iwUkbi4_wWo/v-deo.html
3D is "cute" the first few times but after a while not only do you realize how better movies look without the glasses but you also find out the 3D did absolutely NOTHING for the movie besides raise its price
Pretty sure TRON: Legacy was pretty sweet in 3D at the theatres.
Because of cheap 3D
@@TheMeanArena oh it was‼️especially in IMAX 3D 👓🕶
3D Renaissance? That term aged well
Oh, supreme leader kim, i didn't know you knew 3D
I love 3D movies and will always gladly defend their place to anyone who will listen. I think that the problem now is that the novelty wore off for most people following a slew of bad mainstream releases.
- It's unrelegated so every studio banged a conversion on their picture, some used more care than others. But 3D as a label is the same for all, so audiences never really knew what quality of 3D they were getting.
- The money side sucks. I am convinced if you only had to pay for the glasses (but could always reuse ones you already own) and the theatre screening price was the same, most would actually choose 3D. But because they're more expensive and actually less social because you can't really see who you're beside, most people choose the cheaper option.
+ Obviously all the James Cameron releases are great - Avatar, and the conversions on Titanic and Terminator 2 were done with great care over a period of many years.
+ The Disney 3D releases across Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and their own animated movies have all been really good and have actually shown continuous improvement over time.
+ I gladly keep buying any 3D blu ray discs I can get my hands on. I hope Pixar's Soul gets a 3D release but I think it not getting a theatrical release and Disney wanting to push everyone towards streaming stacks the likelihood against it. Interesting 3D doesn't exist as a home streaming format, only home video. Which is actually good for slowing the decline of physical media. If you have a good screen, good sound, you have an excellent home 3D experience.
I hope James Cameron is working on something big with the Avatar sequels (glassesless?) to revitalise the format again. It's worth it.
I remember getting emotional when people thought that 3d was a fad. I loved it, it really made movies and games look like they were a tangible universe. It was also easier on depth perception, since it didn’t leave your brain guessing where everything is.
It was cool until they made EVERYTHING 3D.... that just didn’t need to be made in 3D
@@timmoe3370 good point but I think it should still be there, like how HD color video and stereo sound are everywhere now, even though many shows/movies don’t reeeally need it
I never got headaches or felt nauseous watching a 3D movie.
I did once but it was my fault for sitting off-centre. I'm not going to blame the format for my poor planning.
It's caused because your eyes do more than parallax focusing. When you look at something closer to you, your eyes want to change focus. By making your eyes change their relative angle to each other (parallax vision) while maintaining the same focal distance, it will always cause eye strain to some people. It's the same effect that happens with stereoscopic images. (Cross your eyes to see the picture)
Here you go - 🍪
@SPECTRE working with VR for over 4 years now I can tell you that the headsets are a lot less to blame than the content makers.
There are countless studies on how a range of visual effects or gaming techniques might be particularly harmful to audiences.
Designing and building a virtual environment for VR is something from ground up, like with 3D movies. Unfortunately most content is a VR camera pushed into a 2D game, a poor conversion like with 3D movies.
3D is *never* worth the extra 3$ on your ticket. Like, yeah, it's better - kinda. But not better to the point I'd want to pay more.
You paid only extra 3$. It was a lot higher over here, _and_ you had to bring your own 3D glasses!
Disagree. Well worth the price if it's the correct movie. Anything 3D animated, with big set pieces or grand visuals.
But people should have a choice.
To me, 3D is a premium for a specific showing time. There's been multiple occasions where I've planned a night for family. Dinner, movie, other stuff. Showing time and playtime are my concern. So if a film happens to have 3D at that showing, then well it's a nice bonus.
My point is that I'm indifferent to 3D, and don't mind the price since the premium couldn't even cover a small popcorn anyways.
I guess I’m the only who likes 3D movies and doesn’t get sick from watching them.
you're not alone, before covid I still kept seeing packed halls with people wearing their 3D glasses ready for a showing, the industry keeps making 3D movies because we do in fact watch them. There's just this attitude I've noticed since 2004 to bash 3D just to make a headline, one thing I keep seeing popping up over and over again is this tired old phrase "dorky glasses", which I believe is the basis of all this, people are too self aware of their appearance in a darkened theater where noone is actually looking at them, and then the excuses start piling up.
I love 3D movies
!
"Low tech" parallax 3D is pretty cool as a novelty effect, but "true 3D" will come via VR/AR experiences and volumetric filmmaking: *ua-cam.com/video/iwUkbi4_wWo/v-deo.html*
3D is fine and some over exaggerate the problem.
@@matthewgaines10 I watch 3D movies in VR all the time. best way to see them.
How are they shoving 3d in our faces when every movie in 3-D you can watch in 2D
3D, my least favorite gimmick. I wear glasses and I cannot see it
Me too i cant see a damm diffrence
I wear glasses too but I can see it. Just put the 3D glasses over your regular ones.
I was never into the whole 3D craze😂 hurt my eyes and made me nauseous😆 I was lame like that
it didnt get nauseus but its sure as hell hurt my eyes, if i wear them its a 50/50 usage on the actual 3d parts of the film.
3D just added to the cool animation of Avatar. Pandora is so breathtaking and beautiful. I'm glad they brought it to life at Disney World
3d works in your own home when you can project on an entire wall, floor to ceiling, ideally with some spill over the sides.
and when youve taken lsd.
The issue is clearly still with the technology. If implemented in a way that is comfortable to most and works with the story telling, I believe 3D is the ultimate format of video considering the immersion opportunity. Avatar was subtle enough to feel real, the others were just over the top and killed the hype.
I never had a problem with the technology in RealD 3D theater experiences. The problem was when it wasn't used correctly. Cheap annoying 3D makes stuff pop out of the screen for spectacle. Good 3D, and Avatar was the best example of this, utilizes depth. The world of Avatar felt huge and it gave a sense of awe that no other film quite managed to duplicate
I like 3D movies. Star Wars in 3D really made me feel like I was going to get hit by a star destroyer.
I think 3D movies will live on in VR
Then it will become Virtual movies
They may be the future
I hope so
I love 3D movies and the 3DS. I watched several 3D movies in theaters, I never got a headache, I always loved the 3D movies!
The 3DS was only good because it was an overall upgrade from the normal DS. I never turned on the 3D thing because it didn't change the viewer experience and yeah it gave me nausea...
EL QUE NO HAYA TIRUNFADO EL CINE 3D ES SOLO POR LA CUESTION ECONOMICA YA QUE ES MAS CARO EN TODOS LOS SENTIDOS QUE EL 2D Y LA DESAPARICION DE LA VENTA DE TELEVISORES 3D, QUE NO ES LO MISMO QUE DECIR QUE YA NO EXISTAN PORQUE LOS QUE TENEMOS LA FORTUNA DE TENER UNA TV3D Y UNA COLECCION DE PELICULAS BLUERAY 3D AUN LAS UTILIZAMOS EN LA ACTUALIDAD 2019 Y ESPERO SEA POR MUCHOS AÑOS MAS, (YO USO ESA TV3D LG EXCLUSIVAMENTE PARA VER PELICULAS BLURAY 3D NO PARA EL DIARIO PARA QUE ME DURE MAS AÑOS) SE DEBE UNICAMENTE AL FACTOR ECONOMICO QUE IMPIDIO QUE SE MASIFICARA SU USO EN EL MUNDO. LOS TELEVISORES 3D ERAN MAS CAROS QUE LOS NORMALES YA QUE COSTABAN HASTA EL TRIPLE QUE UN TELEVISOR NORMAL, ES MUCHO MAS CARO FILMAR EN 3D POR LO QUE UNA MINORIA DE PELICULAS SE FILMAN EN 3D NATIVO LA ULTIMA DE ELLAS GEMINI MAN FILMADA EN 3D+ HFR SE ESTRENO EN CINES EN OCTUBRE DE 2019 Y EN 3D ES ESPECTACULAR CUANDO EN 2D NO ES MUY BUENA ESE ES EL PODER DEL CINE 3D, LA ENTRADA AL CINE 3D ES MAS CARA, ADICIONAL AL TELEVISOR PARA VER PELICULAS 3D HABIA QUE COMPRAR FORZOSAMENTE BLURAY 3D QUE CUESTA HASTA 3 VECES MAS QUE UN DVD O QUE UN BLURAY NO 3D Y ADICIONALMENTE LAS PELICULAS EN FORMATO BLURAY 3D CUESTAN HASTA 5 VECES EL PRECIO DE UNA NO 3D.ADEMAS ESTOS TELEVISORES EN MI OPINION DEBERIAN DE USARSE SOLO PARA VER PELICULAS BLURAY 3D NO PARA LA PROGRAMACION DE TV DE TODOS LOS DIAS NO PARA VER LAS NOTICIAS POR EJEMPLO, ES DECIR MUCHA GENTE CREIA QUE ERAN PARA VER LA PROGRAMACION DE TODOS LOS DIAS Y ENTONCES SI ES RIDICULO USAR GAFAS 3D PARA VER TV TODOS LOS DIAS PERO PARA VER PELICULAS 3D EL USAR GAFAS 3D EN EL CINE O EN LA CASA ERA INDICIO DE QUE ESTABAS VIENDO ALGO ESPECIAL NO COMUN Y LA VERDAD POR EJEMPLO CON MI TV LG CINEMA 3D LA IMAGEN SE VE MUY BIEN NO OBSCURA Y SI VALE LA PENA PONERSE GAFAS PARA VER PELICULAS EN CINE 3D, Y ESO QUE YO USO LENTES PARA MIOPIA Y ASTIGMATISMO, ME PONGO LOS LENTES 3D SOBRE MIS LENTES NORMALES Y NO ME OCASIONAN NINGUNA INCOMODIDAD Y SI QUE VALE LA PENA PARA VER LOS EFECTOS 3D COMO PROFUNDIDAD Y SALIR COSAS DE LA PANTALLA .Y AL IGUAL QUE MUCHOS YO SOLO USO MI TV3D PARA VER PELICULAS LO QUE SI CONVIERTE LAS TVS3D EN UN PRODUCTO COSTOSO, QUE NO ESTA AL ALCANCE DE CUALQUIERA. EL 3D DESAPARECIO DE LAS TVS NO POR LA TECNOLOGIA EN SI QUE ES FABULOSA MARAVILLOSA Y ESPECTACULAR UN AUTENTICO ESPECTACULO NUNCA ANTES VISTO EN EL CINE Y LA TELEVISION MODERNAS VER COMO SALEN LOS OBJETOS DE LAS PANTALLAS ETC.LA
VERDAD NO ENTIENDO PORQUE MUCHA GENTE NO APRECIA EL 3D YO ME VOLVI CINEFILO CON LAS PELICULAS 3D, TENGO 48 AÑOS Y NO HABIA VISTO QUE LAS COSAS SE SALGAN DE LA PANTALLA NUNCA EN MI VISTA NI ESE EFECTO DE PROFUNDIDAD Y ALTA DEFINICION QUE SON CARACTERISTICOS DEL FORMATO BLUE RAY 3D, SI HE LEIDO QUE EN LOS 50S SE PROYECTABA 3D ANAGLIFO (NUNCA VI UNA PELICULA DE ESA EPOCA) PERO LA VERDAD ESA TECNOLOGIA NO SE COMPARA CON LA ACTUAL DE LOS CINES 3D Y TVS 3D CON BLUE RAY 3D. MUCHOS DE LOS QUE ESTAMOS AQUÍ NUNCA HABIAMOS VISTO SALTAR COSAS DE LA PANTALLA NI ESE EFECTO DE PROFUNDIDAD, SI ESO NO LES PARECE ESPECTACULAR ALGO ESTA MAL, YO ME ENAMORE DEL 3D CUANDO VI SALTAR LAS COSAS DE LA PANTALLA TANTO EN EL CINE COMO EN TV3D ES ALGO ESPECTACULAR ASOMBROSO BRILLANTE MAGICO UNICO CUANDO SE SALEN DE LA PANTALLA Y LLEGAN HASTA A TI QUE CASI CREES PODER TOCAR LAS COSAS, IGUAL CON LA PROFUNDIDAD E INMERSION, VAMOS AL CINE A ASOMBRARNOS BUSCAR EXPERIENCIAS VISUALES Y AUDITIVAS Y EL CINE 3D ME DA ESO, COSA QUE NO DA EL CINE 2D, MIS FAVORITAS SON LAS PELICULAS 3D, ESPERO NUNCA DESAPAREZCAN Y EN VERDAD ME SIENTO AFORTUNADO DE PODER DISFRUTAR DE ESTA TECNOLOGIA COMO NUNCA SE HABIA VISTO ANTES EN LA HISTORIA DEL CINE NI DE LA TV, IGUAL CON MI TV3D NO SUFRO DE MAREOS LO QUE NUNCA SE MENCIONA AL MENOS EN EL CASO DE LAS TVS3D ES QUE HAY CONTROLES PARA AJUSTAR LA PROFUNDIDAD DE LAS PELICULAS EN 3D QUIZA ALGUNAS PERSONAS QUE SUFREN MAREOS ES PORQUE NO CALIBRAN BIEN LA TV3D O ACUDEN AL CINE CANSADOS LO CUAL ES UNA CONDICION PARA NO VER CINE 3D. ES UNA LASTIMA QUE ESTA TECNOLOGIA NO ESTE AL ALCANCE DE TODOS, POR SU ALTO COSTO, CUALQUIERA TIENE HOY EN DIA UNA TV PERO NO CUALQUIERA TIENE UN SISTEMA DE TV 3D CON BLUE RAY 3D CON PELICULAS BLUERAY3D, UN SISTEMA ASI POR SU COSTO TIENE SU GRADO DE EXCLUSIVIDAD Y POR LO TANTO NO CUALQUIERA DISFRUTA ESTE TIPO DE CINE 3D EN CASA Y NI EN EL CINE YA QUE EN EL CINE TAMBIEN EL BOLETO ES MAS CARO Y NO TODOS ESTAN DISPUESTOS A PAGARLO. HOY DISFRUTE EN MI CASA UNA PELICULA 3D Y ESO SI ME EMOCIONA, MAS QUE UNA PELICULA 2D.HAY QUE TENER APERTURA A LAS NUEVAS TECNOLOGIAS Y NO MANTENERSE CERRADOS PORQUE DE LO MISMO NO SE VA A PASAR.YA SE ANUNCIO AVATAR 2 EN FORMATO 3D Y CAMERON DICE QUE SERAN SUNTUOSAS Y A CAMERON SI LE CREO.AUN 2020 Y 2021 DISFRUTO EL 3D AUN VENDEN PELICULAS 3D EN LINEA EN SEARS SANBORNS MIXUP AMAZON ETC . EN CHINA SI TRIUNFO EL CINE 3D HASTA LA ACTUALIDAD MUCHOS CINES EN CHINA SIGUEN PROYECTANDO PELICULAS 3D. SALUDOS DESDE MEXICO
3D in the sense of "monsters and explosions jumping out at you" from a 2D viewing experience will either be forever a fad, a niche tool for special entertainment venues, or will be made obsolete by a more effective film medium(s).
Something like this: *ua-cam.com/video/iwUkbi4_wWo/v-deo.html*
I believe that storytelling through virtual reality and augmented reality experiences will transform or replace existing movie-going formats altogether. The fact that you can "teleport into a movie" with family and friends, interact with the surrounding environment like it is real, and live the life of any character you want for few hours (or a few days) could mean the death of sitting in front of 2D screens on a commercial scale.
I completely disagree...virtual reality will always be a gimmick when it comes to narrative storytelling. The magic of cinema comes from the shared experience with the director's and cinematographer's vision. If everyone is viewing from a different angle or looking at a different part of the environment, you're no longer sharing the experience or seeing the story in the same way. Look at the millions of UA-cam videos that review and break down movies...none of that will be possible if we all see the film differently. That frame and the arbitrary control by the filmmaker of what images fill it are what separates filmmaking from gaming, and it is what makes filmmaking an art form. I'm sure there will be some interesting forays into VR storytelling, but they will likely stay gimmicks rather than the norm.
Also disagree. The things you describe may become very popular but they can't replace movies because they don't serve the same function. there will long be a place for a passive movie watching experience
@@kmaru80 I agree, but here's a TED Talk demonstrating what I mean: *ua-cam.com/video/iwUkbi4_wWo/v-deo.html*
I am a massive fan of all things 3D and the movies which used 3D to enhance and not as a gimmick which takes you out of the movie were awesome, it's a shame that it is dead because some directors overdid it and audiences couldn't figure out to focus on the screen and not on the projection. I have a 3DS, I have only played without 3D a couple of times when playing new games to see a comparison to 3D, I love it so much and can play on it all day without any eye issues (just need to focus on the screen, if you focus on the screen you won't have eye strain, it's your fault you have eye strain and not the medium). I much prefer 3D over high resolution (I have the "New 3DSXL" and the screens are low resolution but in 3D mode the pixels disappear and appears much higher resolution), but I rarely even watch movies or TV and games are still 3D so it's fine - 3D movies may be dead, but 3D is not.
Guardians of the Galaxy was great in 3D! I'd love to watch it again in 3D
Dr. Strange was cool in 3D
Alice in wonderland was fire in 3d
I though Avatar, Life of Pi, and Gravity were all good uses of 3D. I also wish I'd seen Hugo in the cinema.
Tron legacy was pretty cool too.
I was waiting for you to explain how 3 D without glasses works. I've seen it on the internet and would like to learn more about it. Also I'm interested in laser 3 D, there was a museum in NYC where they showed striking 3 D photos made by a process of interference patterns created by lasers. But they were simply still photos not movies. I would like to see more 3 D and hope someday they will perfect the process.
Someone PLEASE tell this man he doesn’t have to try so hard to emote with his narration, something about it is makin me itch
I say the major issue is that there are very few films that make good use of the 3d effect. The only two I have seen that really use the 3d effect well are AVATAR and the 50th Anniversary special of Dr. Who (Day of the doctor). In Dr. Who not only did stuff come at you but you had a whole world in a painting, the went into the screen. Also loved the motorcycle ride into the TARDIS.
I liked playing some video games in 3D. Uncharted 3 for example plays really well in 3D. The addition of the "depth" component over the "stuff coming at your face" novelty is what makes the difference to me when thinking of good vs bad implementation of 3D.
"Heavy Machinary"
I always liked 3-D movies and would try to see a movie in 3-D whenever I could, I never really had an issue with the effects and it honestly kind of saddened me that they dropped off like they did.. they definitely seem better suited for theme parks and what not tho as the experience is much shorter and viewed by many more, implementation still makes a big difference though as I’ve heard some not so favorable stories about some of the 3-D rides..
I love 3D movies. One of the most memorable scenes I remember is the opening to all of the Great and The powerful. The scene is right at the opening there's flowers and snow in 3D it look like it was snowing in the theater it was just beautiful. When I watched Star wars the Force awakens there's a scene where they are inside a wreck of a vast spaceship. In 3D this scene made the inside of the theater looking men's the screen went on forever. I hope 3D continues.
I like 3D movies too, and I don't see what the problem is. I never experienced headaches or nausea.
I did have trouble understanding your second-to-last sentence, though: _"In 3D this scene made the inside of the theater looking men's the screen went on forever."_
Huh???
@@Milesco need to have on 3D glasses to understand it😃
@@leachjason111 Hahahaha! Yes, _that_ must be the problem! 😄
The tech used in the 3DS to create a 3D will never work on more than one person at once. It displays 2 images at a time and determines the distance between those 2 images by the position of your head relative to the screen. It needs to track your head in order to display the image correctly. It wouldn't have been that hard to look that up. If they had read up on the New 3DS most articles would have explained this.
This made me realize a time where 3D TV’s were being sold and displayed at places like best buy, now they’re almost non existent on the market
The older i get the my eyes have gotten worse and i cant see the 3D, it isnt worth it
9:44 "one oscillation of light" - worst explanation of polarizing glasses ever.
One lens filters out everything not polarized vertically and the other - everything not polarized horizontally.
Are you kidding?
LOVE 3d movies. Especially since they started getting a the hang of it, so it was not so sickening. I have several good 3d televisions.
I am an avid movie goer and I used to go to 3d Imax movies whenever it was an option especially for the biggest releases and I always loved it. Its not always available both 3d and imax tho and often I choose imax sound over just 3d. I am looking forward to going to the movies again when they reopen after covid.
I love 3D in VR. I love everything being life-sized, actual distance and 3 dimensional, even if the resolution or focus could be better, I actually went and bought a 3D camera so I can take my own pics and videos. But just like with movies, it's hard to share them because most people don't have VR headsets. I can and do make anaglyphs that I can show on tablets or TVs but again, most people don't have the glasses. Still in VR at least, that sense of being there and perceive things in all their complexity just can't be beat. You can guess people weights, and a lot of things like textures, translucence, transparency, and size are just soooo much more obvious in 3 D, like when you look at water and can see the surface, depth, reflections, and glare all on different levels that are just lost in 2D.
3D will always be amazing in my head.
only film I saw where 3d was actually "needed" (as in, i watched in on dvd later and it was rly meh in comparison) was doctor strange...
When a movie is released with the 3D option, I always buy the ticket for the normal version.
3D is annoying.
@Dust My Broom
Well......if its on IMAX......I go for 3D....lol.
But now I live in the most boring place in the world (Wyoming)....and entertainment is all in Colorado.
3D in the 1950s was even done for a Three Stooges short; as I saw one on TV a few weeks ago that I had never seen before in all the decades of Three Stooges shorts I've seen on TV. It had Shemp as the third stooge and it took place in an automotive repair shop. The short itself was not shown in 3D, but it had all the elements of it, such as thrown objects towards the camera's view.
Sharkboy and Lavagirl is still the best 3d movie I've seen. i like how you don't have to wear the glasses the whole time and they very creatively let you know,
9:38 is there any source which claims that polarized lenses are also tinted? I don’t see a reason why they should be, since they’re already polarized.
I think he made it up. They are just a neutral gray. A few inaccuracies in this video.
he also doesn't bring up active shutter glasses. which imo are better in every way than passive. they don't mess with the color of the movie and you also see the "full" image in each eye. not like polarized which each eye is only getting half of the image making it look lower resolution.
@@thomas-tv7ev He was mostly referring to movies at the theatre. All movies at theatres use passive polarized glasses. Both eyes see a full image, since there are two full images being projected on the screen at once.
As far as TV, passive glasses can be better depending on which TV you have. I have two 65 inch 4k 3d TVs with passive glasses. Each eye sees either odd or even lines, but because there are 2160 of them, each eyes still sees a full 1080p picture. Whereas on a 1080p TV, you only see 540 lines with each eye.
With active glasses they do have some flicker and require heavier glasses with electronics in them.
3D is amazing when content and picturisation is correct.
Personally I prefer the red/blue 3D glasses. Had the best experience with those specific one.
Part of it is the fact that many 3D movies weren’t even done that well- the 3D wasn’t very high quality. So many times, I didn’t even realize the movie I was watching was 3D- it seemed 2D.
There's 3D and then there's 3D. Most “3D” movies I encountered only have increased depth on screen, more like an aquarium than an immersive room.
Very few times I experienced elements appearing to move towards the audience, creating a more interactive appearing sensation.
It's that sense of being more of a witness to the story than a mute, caged onlooker, that feeds people's expectation of 3D. That's what I think.
I just like wearing the 3D glasses, it just gives that childhood cinema feeling
Best 3d experience...live-action theatre :)
Lionheart Publishing and it is actually 2D, unless you are standing at the adage of the stage. Good resolution, though
Even Nintendo gave up on the 3D screens, and that was a huge investment for them.
I still want 3D to make a comeback, as the depth is just as important and incredible as the “pop”. I believe the technology will advance to the point:
+ no longer need to wear glasses
+ has a wide viewing angle
+ can see “around the sides” of objects
I like the Real D 3D system we got at our cinemas here. It just needs a continuous stream of new movies. To me, 3D is still the future of cinema. Especially now home TV's don't seem to go this route. This makes 3D in the cinema something special.
you guys need to buy this guy a new mic
2:29 were getting into politics right here aren’t we
/s
sample?
Are you trying to format the text? I think UA-cam dropped that function.
Jokes on you, I still always watch my movies in 3D cinemas if I have a choice.
Stfu kid
@@PracticalExperts I'm 20 years old as of today. Don't just assume things because of an old profile picture.
Also, Spy Kids 3D ftw! My favourite movie. Never had a chance to see it in 3D tho.
@@genyakozlov1316 😂😂 spy kids
Genya Kozlov
I also chose 3D when given a choice. It’s a better experience in theatres
The Spiderman ride at Universal Studios was AHEAD of it's time. I love it EVERY time.
You can see why sound was successful added to movies, why colour was successful added to movies, but what does 3D add to movies ? Spectacle ? If the spectacle is drawing attention to itself that’s not adding to the movie, it’s a theme park ride, if it’s inconspicuous it’s not doing its job. Does it add to story telling ? Does it convey more emotions ? Does it help with the feels ? Often it gets in the way. There are cuts and speeds of camera motion that the director is constrained from using, because of the motion sickness wooziness problems.
The projectionist was not typically a teenager in the 1950's during the golden age of 3-D, but a trained professional who worked with delicate and expensive film prints. Prints needed to play many theatres and required careful handling.