3D at the cinema

[Catawampus]

Seeing as how this forum seems to be home to technology geeks, movie fans, and camera enthusiasts, I suppose that it's as good a place as any for me to ask this. So, just how much can the current 3D effects add to movies these days? Obviously some movies will use them wrong, or have low-budget effects, or whatever else. But when they're done right, how much does it make the viewing more immersive or impressive?

I was wondering because a little while ago I was planning a trip to the cinema with some friends, and we were debating whether or not to spend the extra money for a 3D version or to just watch the 2D.

[AnotherFairportfan]

It varies - most films i don't pay the up charge for, but i really enjoyed the 3D versions of "Coraline"' Wreck It Ralph" and "The Incredibles". I've seen them since flat, and they were fine, but the 3D was fun. (Oh - also "The Avengers")

[Dave]

I agree, "it varies". In some movies it seems rather overdone, as if it's being used mostly for the "Wow!" effect - stuff leaping out of the screen towards you. In other films, it really does add to the experience of being immersed in the story.

I'm one of those who sometimes has a physical problem with 3D projection systems. As I understand it, my optical system is wired up with a strong binding between eye convergence (looking "inwards" towards something that it close) and eye focus. A "3D" movie system screws with this... an object which is "out towards me" requires an inwards eye convergence, but the eye focus needs to remain at infinity (the distance to the actual screen). My eyes "work against themselves", trying to converge-close and not focus-close, and this causes some eyestrain. It's worse for images that "project out a lot" from the screen, and that may be why I dislike the more in-your-face 3D movies. I had a difficult time with "Avatar", due to all the bits of "fluff" flying around in the air "towards me"... my eyes insisted on trying to track them, and it hurt.

I've been told that this is a familial (genetically-linked) trait. Other people seem to find it much easier to decouple eye convergence and eye focus, and don't have the difficulty I do.

I tend to find that a high-definition movie image (digital, high resolution) adds more to the experience than 3D does. And, of course, the cinematography trumps both of these.

[Catawampus]

. . .i really enjoyed the 3D versions of. . ."The Incredibles".

The Pixar movie from about ten years ago? I didn't even realise that there was a 3D release of that. Huh.

I agree, "it varies". In some movies it seems rather overdone, as if it's being used mostly for the "Wow!" effect - stuff leaping out of the screen towards you. In other films, it really does add to the experience of being immersed in the story.

Somebody who I know said that it was often used rather subtly in the recent Godzilla movie, and that it really helped to convey the sense of scale and to make the viewer feel like he is actually there watching a giant lizard stomping by.

A "3D" movie system screws with this... an object which is "out towards me" requires an inwards eye convergence, but the eye focus needs to remain at infinity (the distance to the actual screen).

I've actually wondered a bit about that. Peoples' reflexes tell their eyes to move to focus on incoming objects, but the screen remains at a fixed distance from the viewer. I never quite figured out how people adapt their vision to it. Apparently, some don't!

[shadowinthelight]

Dave, that stinks but it's great you recognize the issue. Too many people blame the technology and refuse to consider it is their own physiology failing to take in the effect. The Nintendo Virtual Boy was infamous for supposedly causing headaches but I remember playing the store display quite a bit while my parents shopped without feeling a thing. I have always loved 3D stuff as long as they don't make it blatantly obvious when they are throwing or pointing things at the audience. Of course it makes more sense for CGI cartoons and special effects blockbusters, though. No one needs to see Keanu Reeves in The Lake House 3D.

[AnotherFairportfan]

I think the best advice i can give is that if you're ambivalent about paying for the movie at all, you definitely don't want to spring for extra for 3D.

[Jabberwonky]

I really enjoyed the 3D in 'Winter Soldier', 'Godzilla' and 'Guardians of the Galaxy'. I have been a long time fan of 3D and tend to fanboy over it, but luckily missed the worst of the new round of 3D by being out of the country. I have a bit of what Dave goes through. I get a much better sense from things that 'go into' the screen and the further 'out' they go, the harder it is for me to focus on it. 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' still has some of my favorite effects, though.

Just my 2cp.

[Atomic]

Agree that 3D is worth it only when it adds to the immersion of plot, situation, or activity. The Best 3D for me was the original How to Train Your Dragon. The flight scenes where Hiccup and Toothless flew together and went "over the top" -- oh, my! I was getting the feelings I'd had from snow skiing and cresting a rise at speed.

There's a story about Howard Hughes in the 1930s filming "Hell's Angels" (a must see, way ahead of it's time movie*) where he was disappointed by the aerial battle scenes, but he couldn't put his finger on what was so flat. Answer? Blue sky, so no apparent movement. Solution? Wait and film the scenes during cloudy days. That's what Train Your Dragon got right, and 3D made it more so!

* Star Wars fan? Check out the burning Zepplin!

[Typeminer]

I haven't seen anything in 3D. I wear heavy prescription lenses in the first place, and don't want to spend a premium for a gimmick that I suspect will make the movie harder to see.

But a good friend is a big Imax fan. He saw Godzilla in Imax and said it was quite a trip, especially considering that the film itself was, well, a Godzilla movie.

[scantrontb]

I agree, "it varies". In some movies it seems rather overdone, as if it's being used mostly for the "Wow!" effect - stuff leaping out of the screen towards you. In other films, it really does add to the experience of being immersed in the story.

I'm one of those who sometimes has a physical problem with 3D projection systems. As I understand it, my optical system is wired up with a strong binding between eye convergence (looking "inwards" towards something that it close) and eye focus. A "3D" movie system screws with this... an object which is "out towards me" requires an inwards eye convergence, but the eye focus needs to remain at infinity (the distance to the actual screen). My eyes "work against themselves", trying to converge-close and not focus-close, and this causes some eyestrain. It's worse for images that "project out a lot" from the screen, and that may be why I dislike the more in-your-face 3D movies. I had a difficult time with "Avatar", due to all the bits of "fluff" flying around in the air "towards me"... my eyes insisted on trying to track them, and it hurt.

I've been told that this is a familial (genetically-linked) trait. Other people seem to find it much easier to decouple eye convergence and eye focus, and don't have the difficulty I do.

I tend to find that a high-definition movie image (digital, high resolution) adds more to the experience than 3D does. And, of course, the cinematography trumps both of these.

I don't know how true it is or how well it works if it IS true, but: I've heard that a possible solution to this would be to get a second pair of the glasses (IE don't turn them in at the end, or get your buddy to give you his in addition to yours) and then pop out the left lens in one pair and the right lens in the other and swap them, by flipping the lens over so they will fit back into the frame. this will put the polarization filters into the same direction for both pairs, and when wearing them you will only see one half of the frames they project, with each different pair seeing the opposite frames, thus eliminating the 3D effect... granted, why would you be seeing it in 3D in the first place if you had these goggles, rather than the 2D version for a few bucks LESS... well, no clue. maybe the rest of the family wants to see it and you are just going with the flow, so as to not disappoint them, whatever.. but i think it might work for those home version 3D movies on DVD/Bluray as well, so you can do the same thing at home too...

[Jabberwonky]

I like to wear my red/blue glasses into the theater telling the ushers "No thanks, I brought my own."

[shadowinthelight]

I have the 3D version of Coraline that uses cyan/magenta lenses. The effect worked well enough with an ignorable amount of crosstalk. The problem is how it messes up your color vision for at least an hour after the movie is over just like how staring at hot pink paper will make people turn green.

[Catawampus]

I think the best advice i can give is that if you're ambivalent about paying for the movie at all, you definitely don't want to spring for extra for 3D.

For me, it's purely a matter of pricing, not of quality. Since I got the nerves in one eye burned out, 3D effects that depend on using two eyes don't do anything for me. I'm just hoping that they don't start releasing movies only in 3D any time soon. Right now I have the choice of paying $4 to watch a movie in 2D, or $10 to watch a movie in 2D while wearing silly uncomfortable glasses. It would be annoying to be limited to only the latter option.

Or maybe there will also be some major and affordable advances in optic surgery before 3D becomes standard, and then I can enjoy the thrill of getting migraines whilst watching characters on the screen wave things in my face!

It's nice that the technology is becoming good enough that (when used properly) it does improve the whole experience for people, though.