SvennoJ said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
I love your enthusiasm for 3D :)
My opinion is that most movies, particularly those with 3D effects added in post-production, are not really worth it -- especially considering movie tickets are more expensive when the screening is in 3D.
If the movie is designed with 3D in mind, and filmed with 3D cameras, it's a different story. Avatar is the most obvious example. That movie, above all others, proves the usefulness of 3D movie technology. But no one has really built upon its success in the past three years. |
I don't really like movies designed with 3D in mind. A lot of the visual trickery that's possible in 2D doesn't work in stereographic 3D and I haven't seen any cool 3D tricks to compensate that loss. Just a bunch of annoying wave stuff in your face shots. I found Avatar quite boring film style wise. It's a cool trick, but still more of a limiting one then one providing more options.
Maybe I'm getting old. I'm not all that happy with the current trent of shooting movies with multiple aspect ratios in mind either. How is Star trek going to work in 2.35:1 and 1.44:1 at the same time. Plus it's another converted to 3D in post production job.
|
Actually, a lot of movies are not design with 3D in mind.
Even 60 fps per image stereoscopic 3D movies in the 1950's like "Dial M for Murder" was just made as any black & white movie was back then but with a really good script and directing both by Alfred Hitchcock.
