So I just got back from watching Avatar in 3D in an IMAX theater and had to walk out with an hour left. The 3D never 'worked' for me (this was also my first 3D viewing experience). Thankfully I'd already seen it in 2D, but I was really disappointed because I'd heard great things about the 3D. My problem:
The 3D never worked correctly. My eyes would try and focus on one element and the entire rest of the picture would look terrible, blurry, or out of focus. I tried unfocusing my eyes, only looking at a single element, even closing a single eye to see if that'd make it watchable. Nothing I tried worked. Whenever the scene would cut or there would be fast movement everything would go wonky and I'd have to refocus and it would never look as good as it did on a regular 2D screen. After about an hour and a half of this nonsense my eyes were so fatigued that they gave up on trying to focus and everything became a blurry and jittery mess that started making me nauseous and I had to leave.
Anyone else have this problem with 3D movies (not just Avatar)? Is there some 'trick' I'm missing? I think part of the problem is that I'm extremely right-eye dominant. My regular vision is decent but not perfect. I normally only need glasses to read a board to take notes in large lecture halls and have never needed them at the movies. I was at about the 1/3 mark off center for seating. Thoughts?
|
I had a little fuzziness with everything on the left side, but I could still see the 3D. It was really bad during the indoor scenes with people and faces, that was way too much, probably because too much was going on in the picture for me to focus so fast.
I have seen 3D before, but never for a regular movie since it became popular. I'm glad it was Avatar I saw, because I would have walked out otherwise.
I have no idea if where you are sitting affects it or not.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Some people just can't do 3d through polarized glasses. It sucks, but it is what it is. Some people can't hear movies, either, and need to use open captioning.
My problem with 3d movies up until Avatar (and maybe Coraline) is that they often use the technology for gimmicks that they wouldn't if it were in 2d. The technology should support the mise-en-scene, not the other way around. I don't want to see a film that seems to exist solely so that they can justify making things pop out of the screen at me. I want to see a story where the technology adds depth to the world, which is what Avatar did. The 3rd dimension went into the screen, not out from it. I hope other filmmakers take a lesson from it, because too often 3d movies are just too campy for me to get into, in either 3d or 2d.
|
I might also add that I am near-sighted and allergic to contact lenses. Lasik, maybe one day, but for now 3D glasses are not good for me. I wear corrective lenses that are pretty much flattened with modern technology. Otherwise I would have coke bottles for lenses. The only drawback is that spectrums of color move when I tilt my head. I am not completely confident that I am seeing things as accurately as "real eyes" do, so I think 3D isn't the quality most audiences receive.
Given that, I notice 3D to be less colorful and fuzzy at times. The 3D effect does work, but I am not convinced that the experience is any better. In fact, I prefer not to see something in 3D for the reasons mentioned above.
I did see Avatar in 3D IMAX recently and enjoyed the sound system more than the screen. I really enjoyed the sound system presentation too.
|
Haven't had any problems with seeing Avatar in 3D...
FYI, there are AFAIK three different systems currently in use for 3D movies: regular polarisation, circular polarisation and shutter glasses. IIRC, Avatar uses circular polarisation, so you might get better effects with one of the other two kinds of 3D technology...?
|
Given that, I notice 3D to be less colorful and fuzzy at times. The 3D effect does work, but I am not convinced that the experience is any better. In fact, I prefer not to see something in 3D for the reasons mentioned above.
Some of that is due to the fact that an insanely large number of theaters turn down the brightness on their projector bulbs to try and extend the life of them. I've seen Avatar twice now, once at an IMAX theater and once at a local theater that goes out of its way to promise that they don't turn down the brightness, and the difference in color was very noticable.
[...]I did see Avatar in 3D IMAX recently and enjoyed the sound system more than the screen. I really enjoyed the sound system presentation too.
I agree with this completely. The sound was extremely good in the theater. I think if it had been 2D but still on the IMAX screen it would have been absolutely incredible. But alas, it was not to be.
I feel for you dude. I am half blind in my right eye so 3D movies just don't work very well for me. I would like to try the flickering shutter glasses type 3D someday-I think that would help.
|
Creative Director
|
I had a similar problem, either because I sat too close to the screen, because my glasses had a coating to them that interacted poorly with the 3D glasses, or because my vision defects simply make it awkward for me to watch 3D. It took me about an hour to "re-learn" how to look, which basically meant not looking at parts of the screen that weren't the focus of the shot, which was a little weird (since I often like to check out what's going on in the background of a shot, especially in a movie like "Avatar" where there's so much to see). It was, in the end, more distracting than immersive for me. I'll be trying to see the movie again (in 2D and in 3D but sitting in the back of the theater) so I can decide for myself what version works best for me.
Or maybe it's just time to switch back to wearing contacts.
One of my friends has the same problem, he just can't 'do' 3D at all. It doesn't work. Don't think he's tried the shutter system though.
The 3D showing was sold out when I went so I only saw it in 2D. I wonder if I'd also have issues as, although I'm short-sighted in both eyes, my left eye is significantly stronger than my right (to the point where my opticians have a hard time getting the correct lenses in my glasses). Didn't really want to risk £10 finding out. Could be useful if they had some kind of 'test run' facility to see if it will work for people.
|
|
I had a similar problem, either because I sat too close to the screen, because my glasses had a coating to them that interacted poorly with the 3D glasses, or because my vision defects simply make it awkward for me to watch 3D. It took me about an hour to "re-learn" how to look, which basically meant not looking at parts of the screen that weren't the focus of the shot, which was a little weird (since I often like to check out what's going on in the background of a shot, especially in a movie like "Avatar" where there's so much to see). It was, in the end, more distracting than immersive for me. I'll be trying to see the movie again (in 2D and in 3D but sitting in the back of the theater) so I can decide for myself what version works best for me.
Or maybe it's just time to switch back to wearing contacts.
I saw Avatar in 2D in Sacramento at a fairly decent theatre. I really feel the flight around the tree looked a little more fake than in 3D. As an added slap, the sound system in the theatre was overwhelmed during the chase scene with the leopard beast thingy. Between the lunging and tree smashing it was too much, and I heard the sound literally cut out and in. I agree with the 2D IMAX idea, sound is insanely important for a film like this. I really did enjoy my 3D experience when they awoke from deep sleep. That was amazing to see the people floating about in 3D.
There are dozens of factors that can potentially ruin a 3d effect, but one that has nothing to do with mechanical or optical variables is the uncanny ability of our brain to 'adapt' to its environment and make it appear like it is 'supposed' to be perceived.
In other words, if the 3d effects are subtle and not jumping at your face all the time, your brain will simply forget about them or even worst, make them look 2d because that's what its used to see. One could argue that subconsciously, your theatrical experience has been better than otherwise (that the point of good lighting and sound engineering during live shows for example), but nevertheless, you may not have perceive the 3d so much even if it was there to be perceive.
There's a good chance that you have seen a lot of strong 3d effects in the beginning of the movie (perhaps even exaggerated ones) and can't really remember if there was any during the final fight scenes. That would be normal.
For a similar experience, wear pink glasses for a few hours. In the beginning, everything will be bright pink. After a while, you won't even realize that you are wearing pink glasses and you'll see things as usual, until you remove the said glasses. Then you'll see that everything's blue as you brain was overcompensating for the pink overload.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
For a similar experience, wear pink glasses for a few hours. In the beginning, everything will be bright pink. After a while, you won't even realize that you are wearing pink glasses and you'll see things as usual, until you remove the said glasses. Then you'll see that everything's blue as you brain was overcompensating for the pink overload.
That's essentially what cinematographers do with filters. They will place a colored glass over the lens and then compensate for that color when they process or color time the film. Adding a blue filter and then balancing out the blues will dull the daytime sky but make a magenta shirt seem exceptionally bright and vivid. I think that Cameron did a great job of using 3D in subtle enough ways that the brain can easily make these adjustments in the film, and I can only think of a single shot that seemed designed around the 3D effect. But just thinking about wearing pink sunglasses around is giving me a migraine. Thanks a lot.
Wow, this thread made me feel so lucky: I wear the 3d glasses over my glasses and haven't had any problems with this generation of 3d movies. But remember that stupid hidden 3d picture craze of the 90s? I must have spent a year of that decade looking at those dumb things and following all the instructions of what to do to see them -- never saw a bleedin' thing.
The best 3-D experience wasn't so much how I enjoyed the film, but seeing my wife's reaction. We went to a U2 3-D movie/concert (my wife is a big fan, I'm blah, but it was her birthday). At one point my wife almost told some woman to put her damn hands down, only to realize that the woman wasn't in the theater at all but on the film. That was pretty funny.
I wear glasses when I'm awake and with the 3D glasses on top that, I had no problem with the movie.
For a similar experience, wear pink glasses for a few hours. In the beginning, everything will be bright pink. After a while, you won't even realize that you are wearing pink glasses and you'll see things as usual, until you remove the said glasses. Then you'll see that everything's blue as you brain was overcompensating for the pink overload.
Even better, do it after smoking pot.