I wanted to share this as I found it was an interesting article:
I find it interesting as I fundamentally disagree with the statement. I was incredibly impressed by the 3D in Avatar and to a lesser extent the 3D in TRON that enhanced the experience not by hands reaching out at you but by creating depth through atmospherics and the like.
I agree on some of the points made in the article. With 3D conversions, I am totally in agreement with him. I have a very hard time watching the conversions from 2D to 3D because halfway through I get a headache and I end up with my eyes closed during a lot of fast action scenes. The biggest flaw in this guy’s argument is that he categorizes all 3D movies the same way. Movies like Avatar, and Up, and Tron were created using native 3D processes and you can really tell the difference in quality. When 3D is done right and not in some add on conversion tacked on at the end of production just to make some extra cash on the ticket prices, a lot of the visual problems he describes are not an issue.
Thanks for sharing the article Solai!
well i wouldn’t say 3d doesn’t work in general. i will say it doesn’t work for me. i inevitably get a headache; and one statement i agree with completely is a good story, that makes you forget your in a theater does a better job than 3D. by a long shot at pulling you into the experience. but would that same good story with 3d move it even further? maybe, but i’m not sure; like he said it makes a dream like state, so once your in, your in. but i could very well be wrong; i just cant experience it cause of the headache.
Personally i think we really need to give 3D three to five years to work out the kinks. Content will be there in the home market, the movie industry will start making good 3D movies in technical terms. and we wont have to wear glasses
and than we all have to buy the white album again.