Need True 3D!

Discussion in 'General 3D and Stereoscopic Discussion' started by Wrightway Stone, May 9, 2011.

  1. Wrightway Stone

    Wrightway Stone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I was in teenage period, the year 1953 I had the good oppotunities to enjoy 3D movies at theater. Many astonishing scenes occupied my memories strongly, like: pad ping pong extrudes to your face, actress' breasts beat rushedly in the dark corner near your front (House of Wax), the Cheyennes ride horses and throw their spears rapidly at you (The Charge at Feather River), John Wayne and actress stand in the yard (Hondo), when I saw these scenes, temporarily I put away polar glasses, and viewed they appear very large in the screen, and re-put polar glasses, the whole scenes shrinked, John Wayne and actress appear small, because it is the effects of strongly 3D vision.
    58 years passed, I felt the new generation of 3D movies shot by producers not good enough to compare with 1953's, the reasons are:
    1. Too many cheating 3D, Fake 3D movies, especially 2D converted 3D, although the storyline of 3D Jaw 3 is normal, but they shot it real 3D whole movie insistedly.
    2. Too many dark scenes in new generation 3D, no deep visions appeared but all dark, reversely 1953's 3Ds that the backlightings are very suitable for 3D effects.
    3. Too many animation 3D movies, by my impression the best one is the Polar Express.
    4. Contents! the producers need to find best movie writers, let the 3D movies not only to have marvelous 3D effects but also heart-shaking, suspenseful, surprising to all the audience.
    Suppose as "The Lovely Bones" movie is shot by twin lens 3D, and combined with real 3D left and right angles CG, maybe it will strongly raise the power of 3D movies, let viewers something to feel after movie end.

    That all, thank you to read my opinions.

    Wrightway Stone
    [email protected]
     
    Wrightway Stone, May 9, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wrightway Stone

    Gleneagles Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Napa Valley, California
    Great comments, Wrightway! I agree that much 3-D content in today's films is exploitative (daggers, cliffs, etc.). Watching 3-D should be painless and it must look "natural", the way we see the world. The Polar Express was generally in that vein, except for a few obligatory special effects scenes.
    A video professional has told me that he thinks today's 3D looks too dark, but I have not seen enough films of my own to confirm that. Disney's 'Alice in Wonderland' was not.
    As for 2D-to-3D conversion, it has its place and I support it. It should never substitute for true twin lens 3-D, but there are some logistical and continuity problems with filming entirely with twin lenses. I think if it is spliced in sensibly with the rest of a film, it can only enhance it -- but as in all else, it must be done competently.
    I'm "new" here, too. Nice to have you aboard!
     
    Gleneagles, May 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wrightway Stone

    5Deck.com Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, 3D is not just a matter of it 'existing' but in using it right. The fact that Anaglyph movies use two relatively bright colors may have contributed some to the apparent relative darkness of modern movies, but if it turns out that brighter is better (personally, I'd have to watch the same movie side-by-side with enhanced and reduced brightness to decide) than they really should aim to increase it when it's shown in 3D. The other things you mentioned to me are also invaluable. Although there may be a place for 2D to 3D conversion, I actually would rather just watch something only as it is originally captured (except in the case of CGI, because the original environment is available to draw the new images) simply because anything else has to make assumptions and will invariably appear less natural. So even if a 2D movie is available in 3D from conversion, I still like to watch the 2D one in all cases. Great points!
     
    5Deck.com, May 24, 2011
    #3
  4. Wrightway Stone

    bobby Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    the title Need True 3D change to Need True 3D content is suitable.
    :-)
    want better 3D effect, not only more natural 3D movie is OK, but also 3D product such as 3DTV, 3D projector is important.
    Personally, I like the polarized 3D projector to show the 3D movie. naturally, breathtaking.
     
    bobby, May 28, 2011
    #4
  5. Wrightway Stone

    insman1132 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think everyone realizes that the problem today for 3D TV is lack of content. I too enjoyed the movies of the 1950's and have often wondered why some company has not come out with these 3D films on Blu Ray discs. Should be quite simple with today's technology and digitizing, and not all that expensive.

    I have been patiently awaiting the TV networks doing some major events in 3D. World Series, SuperBowl, Stanley Cup, etc. 3D TV sales are on the rise, with, I think, most TV buyers summizing that a 3D TV shows outstanding 2D TV, and at the little price difference, why not go ahead and be ready if the 3D phenom really gets rolling.

    I see now that some of the 3D Blu Ray players will up convert 2D DVD's and Blu Ray's to 3D. Have not seen it, yet, but is an interesting concept to me. Hopefully someone has seen it and can report to us as to how it looks.
     
    insman1132, Sep 29, 2011
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.