SvennoJ said:
Kaizar said:
SvennoJ said:
Except you still get all the downsides, less color saturation and contrast, restrictions in film style, mostly in composition and editting of the content.
I'm not opposed to a good 3D CGI blockbuster fest, but I don't see it as an evolution of movies, only another style. Just like b&w, hand-drawn/computer/stop motion animation, documentary, hand-held, film noir, expirimental, stylized, hyper realism, and whatever I forgot. 3D is suited to mix with some styles, not most.
The price hike for 3D tickets is currently forcing directors to opt for 3D with theaters heavily promoting the 3D version. They either don't show the 2D version or have very limited 2D viewings. This current trend is restricting the richness of film making.
Movies like Cloverfield, District 9, Natural born killers, Moonrise Kingdom, City of god to name a few are all incompatible with stereoscopic 3D in their intended form.
Get rid of the premium price, let the content do the speaking again instead of theaters pushing 3D.
|
The bold is happening.
And you forgot that its e filmakers who love 3D, which is the real reason so many movies are being done in 3D.
Not that many movies are being done in 3D for the premium prices which are going away later this year or during next year. (they are going to increase the cost of 2D movies, and decrease the cost of 3D movies, and the ticket prices will literally be the same, but I'm guessing IMAX will still screw people LOL)
The people who run studios are clearly fanboys of 3D (I'll even name some: Warner Bros. & Paramount & 20th Century Fox & Disney & Dreamworks), and it's these same people who wanted to reboot Superman in movies, and had the power to do so, so they did.
A minimum of most directors are currently big giant fanboys of 3D (for example: George Lucas & Steven Speilberg & Martin Scorsese & the director of Watchmen & Man of Steel & so way toooo many many more).
You should read what George Lucas said about 3D, instead of going out of your way to find one of the few directors that opposes 3D. (that was a pretty bias move you did, to find one of the few directors who says anything bad about 3D)
|
You're certainly entertaining, but you never address my problems with 3D.
Despite such an extreme gap created by 3D depth, you still see all of the backgrounds & foregrounds fully focus all at once
How is that in any way natural, that is not how your eyes work. Having everything in focus with all the elements at different ocular depth is just as straining on the visual system as having to focus at the wrong depth in the first place.
About my bias move... Guillermo del Torro didn't want Pacific rim in 3D, Warner Bros. is convinced a 3D up-conversion will bring in a bigger audience, despite del Toro’s opposition to the new technology. http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/pacific-rim-converted-3d.html
JJ Abrams wasn't planning on ST2 in 3D, I did not fight for the 3D. It was something that the studio wanted to do, and I didn’t want to do it. http://screenrant.com/jj-abrams-star-trek-2-3d-casting-kofi-146519/
Christopher Nolan doesn't like 3D, “Warner Bros. would have been very happy, but I said to the guys there that I wanted it to be stylistically consistent with the first two films and we were really going to push the IMAX thing to create a very high-quality image. I find stereoscopic imaging too small scale and intimate in its effect. 3-D is a misnomer. Films are 3-D. The whole point of photography is that it’s three-dimensional. The thing with stereoscopic imaging is it gives each audience member an individual perspective. It’s well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you’re looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace. I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life. When you treat that stereoscopically, and we’ve tried a lot of tests, you shrink the size so the image becomes a much smaller window in front of you. So the effect of it, and the relationship of the image to the audience, has to be very carefully considered. And I feel that in the initial wave to embrace it, that wasn’t considered in the slightest.” http://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-imax-3d-cgi-mlee-164945/
I'm happy he's continueing to shoot in IMAX format for his next movie Interstellar. (Another bugbear of digital cinema for me has been the drop in clarity. 2K masters only offer about 65% of the resolution of a good 35mm print)
Neil Blomkamp isn't a big 3D lover, I prefer 24 fps. I definitely prefer 2D over 3D, and that’s a personal preference thing. But, the closer I am to cinema that I grew up with, where I feel like I’m watching a film and I’m in the state of mind that I want to be in when I’m entering a different world, I feel like some of that really crazy hi-res, high frame rate stuff separates me from it. And 3D sometimes has the same affect. http://collider.com/neill-blomkamp-elysium-interview/
So yes it's the studios pushing 3D movies.
Michael Bay seems to have come around though, but Transformers 4 I could care less about anyway.
3D is fun occasionally for a few styles of film making, but it's not something I care for in feature length movies. I used to love going to amusement parks in my 20's to experience all the 3D movie rides, Futuroscope was amazing. With movies I rather sit back and get lost in the subject matter, forced stereoscopic 3D is not helping that for me. Samsara looks more 3 dimensional to me without having to resort to stereoscopy, while at the same time providing the most beautiful images in 2D that would be ruined by the 3D effect.
|
