Personally I don't ever go to the cinema now, i actually prefer to watch stuff at home, the big screen doesn't interest me enough to justify $15-20 a ticket.
Anyway for all you people who want to go to the movies but hate the 3D this should solve all your problems: http://www.2d-glasses.com/
I can confirm after trying a pair they really do work, although i guess the technology behind them isn't complicated.
jbard: Personally I don't ever go to the cinema now, i actually prefer to watch stuff at home, the big screen doesn't interest me enough to justify $15-20 a ticket.
I don't "get" 3D movies. I find the effect to be irritating and it ruins the immersion, it's never "smooth" transitional 3D, but looks more like the parallax effect that they used to implement in video games in the Atari/Amiga days. 2D looks more "natural", particularly on the big screen.
The glasses also make the movies look quite dull, do they ramp up the brightness to compensate for the glasses?
I'm very tempted to try those 2D glasses, just watching it without any glasses looks fuzzy, but at least bright.
3D is still a gimmick, all I can hope is that viewers vote with their wallets and it goes away, the studios will undoubtedly see any reduction in ticket sales as a result of piracy however rather than people getting fed up with 3D and simply not buying them.
Hobchild: While I feel sorry for your brother and anyone else who can't see 3D I disagree, the film makers made the film in 3D to be watched in 3D much like Steven Spielberg made Schindler's List to be watched in B+W. While a cinema playing the 2D version is nice if it's not profitable it's not practical and it wouldn't surprise me if producers stop releasing the film in 2D at all to the cinemas.
+1. I quite like 3D movies.. Guess some of you guys were against sound and color when it came out..
stevenz: I don't "get" 3D movies. I find the effect to be irritating and it ruins the immersion, it's never "smooth" transitional 3D, but looks more like the parallax effect that they used to implement in video games in the Atari/Amiga days. 2D looks more "natural", particularly on the big screen.
The Hobbit is being filmed at 48FPS. That might make a difference.
stevenz: I don't "get" 3D movies. I find the effect to be irritating and it ruins the immersion, it's never "smooth" transitional 3D, but looks more like the parallax effect that they used to implement in video games in the Atari/Amiga days. 2D looks more "natural", particularly on the big screen.
The Hobbit is being filmed at 48FPS. That might make a difference.
I hope it is better than the lord of the rings. The filmmaking was reasonably good, but the story was kind of boring and it was so long. I recall the hobbit was a far better story than the lord of the rings, but I don't think they need to break it up into two movies, apart from a getting more money from have two movies instead of just one.
I hardly go to the movies, apart from social occasions. Too expensive, and th experience is not much better than you can get at home these days. Plus it is often too loud.
richms: Sound and colour dont expect your eyes to do unnatural things and cause eye fatigue and headaches in people.
Actually it probably did, it will all depend on what your eyes are used to.
Depending on your age, do you not remember your parents telling you to sit further away from the TV. That was back when the average screen size was 21" now I ask you how big is your computer screen and how far away are you from it? Does it give you a headache? It gives some people headaches and sore eyes.
I personally don't get headaches from watching 3D and don't see what is so unnatural about it but that's just me.
3d for the home market is struggling to make an impact, partially because of the additional requirements for hardware (3dtv and 3d blu-ray player, plus compatible HDMI lead and possibly av receiver) but also because of content.
Of the approx 70 titles that we are stocking this month as new releases, approx 1/2 of those are available on blu-ray, of those 1 is being released in 3d (Immortals, big whoop), next month there are a few more (Tintin & Puss n Boots + some 3d docos), but the breakdown is similar (a few more titles IIRC, but again, just over 1/2 on BR).
The customers that have 3d tvs etc all seem to like the effect and are looking for 3d content. Personally, I can't watch it. I watched about 5 mins of Avatar in 3d at a Harvey Normans once, felt it in my eyes for hours afterwards, but I don't see 3d going away anytime soon.
Unfortunately, as as been pointed out somewhere above, the 3d gimmick is being used to get people in the door, because the script and storylines sure as hell arent.
Wow I am quite surprised that only 1/2 the movies you are stocking are on blu-ray. Is this because they aren't on blu-ray or are you not stocking the blu-ray versions for fear they will not sell? If they aren't on blu-ray were they major motion pictures or direct to DVD movies?
k1w33d: I don't go to the movies much anymore. I always fall asleep and when I fall asleep sitting up, I usually snore and/or do the head nod thing :( Best 3D experience I have had was the 4D Shrek featurette at Movie World.
Get some sleep before watching a film then.
I think 3D is a fad, it has been tried twice before and failed each time. Until it can be viewed without glasses it will never take off.
I simply do not watch 3D films, that way they do not get my money and they will likely stop producing them if more people act in the same way.
stevenz: I don't "get" 3D movies. I find the effect to be irritating and it ruins the immersion, it's never "smooth" transitional 3D, but looks more like the parallax effect that they used to implement in video games in the Atari/Amiga days. 2D looks more "natural", particularly on the big screen.
The Hobbit is being filmed at 48FPS. That might make a difference.
I hope it is better than the lord of the rings. The filmmaking was reasonably good, but the story was kind of boring and it was so long. I recall the hobbit was a far better story than the lord of the rings, but I don't think they need to break it up into two movies, apart from a getting more money from have two movies instead of just one.
I hardly go to the movies, apart from social occasions. Too expensive, and th experience is not much better than you can get at home these days. Plus it is often too loud.
That's because - and this is going to garner much hatred - LOTR was a painfully boring book (well, 3 books). The Hobbit is a lot less so given that it was essentially intended to be a childrens book. There is no reason why it needs to be made as 2 movies though other than as a money grab.
Also, if they flew on the owls back from Mt Doom, why didn't they fly on the owls _to_ Mt Doom in the first place? Would've saved a lot of mucking around...
If you really want some literary torture, try reading Tolkeins "The Silmarillion". It's basically a bible for middle earth. I'm sure for those that like to wear chain mail on weekends it's wonderful, but for the dabbler it's pretty mind-numbing stuff.
3D has mainly turned up again as a simple attempt to try and get more people to go to the theatres, or at least to get the same number of people to pay more. It hasn't resurfaced because it adds extra layers of realism or enables them to tell a better story, it's all down to the almighty buck. Until they get holodecks working, it's a pointless gimmick IMO.
sen8or: 3d for the home market is struggling to make an impact, partially because of the additional requirements for hardware (3dtv and 3d blu-ray player, plus compatible HDMI lead and possibly av receiver) but also because of content.
Of the approx 70 titles that we are stocking this month as new releases, approx 1/2 of those are available on blu-ray, of those 1 is being released in 3d (Immortals, big whoop), next month there are a few more (Tintin & Puss n Boots + some 3d docos), but the breakdown is similar (a few more titles IIRC, but again, just over 1/2 on BR).
The customers that have 3d tvs etc all seem to like the effect and are looking for 3d content. Personally, I can't watch it. I watched about 5 mins of Avatar in 3d at a Harvey Normans once, felt it in my eyes for hours afterwards, but I don't see 3d going away anytime soon.
Unfortunately, as as been pointed out somewhere above, the 3d gimmick is being used to get people in the door, because the script and storylines sure as hell arent.
I don't use my 3DTV for movies very much at all.
However, for gaming it is excellent - Killzone 3 in 3D is well worth it, as is Wipeout, and some older games like Splinter Cell have been re-done in 3D and look superb. Quite lot of new games are in 3D. For gaming it makes so much more sense. The feeling of immersion is more real, and to convert games to 3D is relatively easy (compared to the requirements to film a live movie in 3D)
PS3 is also a 3D blu-ray player - so other than the TV itself I didn't need to buy other hardware for 3D action
also, I can watch youtube in 3D on my 3D tv. Not a lot of content so far, but the functionality is there. mostly proof of concept type vids at the moment.
Hobchild: Wow I am quite surprised that only 1/2 the movies you are stocking are on blu-ray. Is this because they aren't on blu-ray or are you not stocking the blu-ray versions for fear they will not sell? If they aren't on blu-ray were they major motion pictures or direct to DVD movies?
I was never happy with the quality of DVDs from day one, mostly because the earlier ones had visible compression artifacting which I found really irritating. The more "extra" stuff that they put on the disks rather than using a higher bitrate for the main feature, the worse the artifacts.
BluRays I'm perfectly happy with though. I don't anticipate ever buying any 3D movies though, even if I were to end up with a TV that supported the feature.
Even playing 3D games on the PS3 is a waste of time, it just makes things look confused.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
