By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SvennoJ on 14 February 2013
Edit Thread
Kaizar said:
SvennoJ said:
Kaizar said:
 

But I think 3D will go the way of audio & color in movies & tv, where it starts out being used like Batman series 1960's (starring Adam West), but go the way of being use like modern day live action shows where they don't even think about it being use anymore even though it's there.

I don't think so. Color and audio allow you to do more while 3D limits the artistic possibilities.


Actually 3D makes everything look much more crisper then HD could ever do visually.

 

Have you ever played a Nintendo 3DS with the 3D ON? It makes the graphics look more crisper then playing 2D HD 1080p games on a 2D 1080p HD TV does.

HD is the most useless thing ever made, I mean IMAX is a million times better then HD. But there will always be people in America making useless things for a quick buck with all the big corporations copying to make some quick money themselves.

And you clearly have not seen such movies as Cirque De Soliel 3D nor The Great & Powerful OZ 3D nor Hugo 3D and so fort, to be saying such lies about 3D.

 

2D has limit the artistic possibilities of film by condensing everything into a flat 2D image. Just compare 3D photos of Flowers to 2D Photos of Flowers and you will see what I am talking about. YOu can never show nowhere near the full beauty of plants in 2D and at is fact. (just turning the 3D OFF when viewing a 3D Photo of a bloomed flower on the Nintendo 3DS after viewing in 3D and you will see what I am talking about)

Actually I had 3D at the end of the 90's. Among other games I played Descent 2 entirely in 3D, played around myself with stereoscopic 3D and made a program to generate auto stereoscopic images. I even visited Futuroscope in France to watch all the 3D tricks.
So far I've seen nothing to suggest that stereoscopic filming techniques have drastically advanced.

You can do tons of things with perspective that you can't do in stereoscopic 3D. It's nice for close ups to look at objects, but for wide shots the effect is drastically reduced and you're better of with a flat HD image. Sure 1080p 3D basically gives you 3840x1080 resolution, (if actually filmed/rendered for both eyes seperately instead of post production) but I'm looking forward to 3840x2160 2D. (Or at least some super bit 1080p stuff)

The biggest problem with stereoscopic 3D for me is the fixed focal length. Here's something in front of you, but you have to focus on the screen behind to see it, which gets even more confusing when the director changes focus between fore and background. It's great for a 40 minute IMAX show, especially in one of those huge 150 degree dome theaters, but that's about as long as I can stand it.
On tv it's crap, everything looks like a miniature set. Fine for something like Coraline but live action loses all immersion for me.

Btw I do a lot of nature photography and never once thought a macro shot would look better in 3D. I'll give you one thing though, forest shots are really hard to get good depth in. For those 3D does add a lot.