# I don't get 3D



## MikeinSalem (Oct 24, 2012)

So the wife and I went to see "The Hobbit" the other day at the local theater, after buying our tickets the young man reaches under the counter and hands us 3D glasses. I had never seen a movie in 3D and have been avoiding them. They did not have the standard version playing so we went ahead on in. Well we were the first people in the theater so had our choice of seats. I chose about 2/3 the way back in the middle of the row. Let me say that I have been wearing glasses for almost 50 years and have had "no line" bi-focals for more than 10. The movie starts and after the first 10 minuets I wanted my money back. It was the worst movie experience I think I have ever had. The movie was dark, I spent most of my time moving my head around trying to find a focus point. There was a massive amount of white light pouring out from the projector room. And the sound! Well it was thin and unimpressive. More like a cheap transistor radio piped thru a high school PA system. 

That said, am I missing something? Or has Hollywood foisted this 3D thing upon us as the "latest and greatest" of the emperors new clothes? 

Mike


----------



## JQueen (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm not a huge fan of 3d myself after about 15minutes I get a headache.. I've never been to a theater to watch a 3D movie I feel it's more a distraction waiting to see what is coming at you then to actually watch the movie. My daughter on the other hand(3) thinks its the coolest thing ever and runs back and forth behind the tv to see where it's coming from


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

While I do prefer the 2D version most of the time I must also say when done right the 3D experience is great. Check out Avatar, Tron, or Hugo and then if you still don't enjoy it then it's just not for you.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

My first 3-D movie experience was Jaws 3-D back in the stone age. It was an awful movie, poorly filmed, and poorly aligned at the theater. A chameleon's independent eye control was called for. I was not impressed.

It has gotten a lot better, I have seen a few 3-D movies where it added something and wasn't too distracting.

For what it is worth, different people prioritize the use of the senses differently. For those who are highly visual by nature, 3-D may be more important (or they may be far more picky visually and may dislike it for that). I personally am more auditory, so the sound has to be great for me and I am not quite as particular about the visuals. This is an interesting Nero Linguistic Programming topic,.

To each her/his own, for now I will sit through 3-D, perhaps even enjoy it, but don't miss it when it is not there.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

I'm in the "don't like" camp on this one. It makes me feel sick after about 20 minutes. I saw Up and How To Train Your Dragon in the theaters w my kids. There were moments that I thought looked neat. But in general the reduction in brightness and color vibrancy along with feeling lousy are detractors that outweigh the benefits.


----------



## typ44q (Apr 7, 2008)

It is hard to say based on one experience in one theater but if the audio was that bad on a movie that is widely regarded as having excellent audio there is a chance that the video was not all it should of been either.
I am not saying to rush out and try to see another 3D movie but if you find yourself in a similar situation (at a different theater) you might want to give it another shot.


----------



## pharoah (Jul 21, 2012)

when they do 3d that looks like a star trek holodeck im in.till then i can say im not a big fan either.


----------



## WRYKER (Jan 23, 2009)

I, for one, and in the LIKE camp. I have a Sony HW30 projector and love watching 3D movies. I don't get eye strain though some people might experience it. It's true some 3D movies are better then others. When it comes to 'live' movies the ones that look the best were filmed using 3D cameras (The Hobbit is one of them). I have not seen it in 3D yet - I'm going to wait for the extended version later this year. As a prior post suggests: Avatar, Hugo, Pi, Tangled, Despicable Me, Toy Story 3, and others look great in 3D.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

I'm in the "like camp."

When done correctly it is very nice. During Avatar I completely fogot it was 3D & from time to time would focus on it & go...yep, it's still 3d. You have to read the label like any product. I refuse to go see any offering that is "3D post processing." This is where they take a 2D movie & with computers, convert it into 3D. I have never seen one done well. But shot with a 3D camera & done well, they are enjoyable.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Tonto said:


> During Avatar I completely fogot it was 3D & from time to time would focus on it & go...yep, it's still 3d. You have to read the label like any product. I refuse to go see any offering that is "3D post processing." This is where they take a 2D movie & with computers, convert it into 3D. I have never seen one done well.


If you've seen Avatar, then you've seen several 2D to 3D conversion shots "done well". One of the opening shots, where you see a close up of the main character's eye, was shot 2D and post-converted to 3D. No one can tell. 

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni2287284/

Another movie "shot in 3D" was Transformers 3, which many people said was the best 3D since Titanic. Except about half the film was shot 2D and post-converted to 3D. Again, no one could tell.

http://variety.com/2011/digital/news/biz-crosses-blurry-line-on-true-3d-1118040081/


----------

