Sorry, my point was, you still had to hang the silly specs on your face, for little or no benefit.

I know, sorry, was being pedantic.

But the tech has moved on a hell of a long way though.

What a lot of you are talking about is something akin to a holodeck from Star Trek and isn't going to happen for a very long time.

The technology has changed, but the effect is no different to that achieved by Victorian photographers who mounted two cameras on one block and fired the shutter. The experience for the viewer is little different either: a blinkered, rather odd and curious form of flat photography which requires the use of lenses. It’s a very backward way of doing things at the moment - but until we can have a more Star Trek experience, I can’t see much benefit from a story telling point of view; you are still bound to one view point, and unless that alters or a Hitchcock type turns up with the definitive stereoscopic film, I remain unconvinced that it is nothing more than a parlour trick.

Proper, immersive, walk-around-see-it-from-behind 3D projection would be an absolute nightmare to produce, let alone project.
3D cinema is like these e-book readers everyone's falling for. Gimmicky, with little real substance or use for most people, and more than likely not about to replace the more traditional format.

Ok, I'm learning a few things reading this thread. But can I ask a question?

Why is Scorsese starting a new project in 3D, if it's only a fad that isn't going to replace "2D"? He's quite a substantial name after all...

Linky please?

Mark

Okay, Okenobi, so it's a fantasy film based on a book. It's hardly the hard subject matter the director made his reputation on is it?
I wonder if it was his choice or weather the studio pushed for it.

Mark

I'd say it's similar to colour in some respects. Specifically, it only enhances certain types of film.

A powerful film about personal relationships is usually all about the acting, and would be just as tear-jerkingly emotional in grainy low-res black and white as with the most life-like technology imaginable.

A block-busting roller coaster of an action movie is largely about visual impact. That's where 3D, colour and most importantly HUGE wrap around screens are important. I'd love to see the Death Star being attacked on a 360 degree real 3D total immersion cinema, if such a thing ever comes to be.


LOL, I was going to say that. It's been around for quite a while

Yeah, dunno. I wouldn't have thought he's the kind of guy to be pushed around. Who knows....?

Not disagreeing with what's been said. Avatar is where I'm drawing the line. I felt that Real 3D added depth and perspective. The stasis pods at the beginning are a classic example. Apart from that, I'm inclined to agree it's crap. But I'm not a fan of defacto hating of anything, 3D or otherwise.

Btw, that's the 2nd "weather" from you in the last week. Jus sayin....

He's maybe thinking it'll put extra bums on seats, though his last few 'big' films made pots of cash anyway (watch Shine A Light anyone who hasn't seen it, even if you're not a Stones fan, you might be by the end of it )...

Yahtzee!

Got it in one IMO.

There might be an element of curiosity to see if it adds anything to the cinematic experience. Though I guess it is the studio who are pushing it.

Here’s an interesting article on this subject.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/08/11 ... d-editing/

That whole series is actually a very interesting read.

The link is for the 4th part of the series.

I'd agree with that assessment - one of the more irritating things about Alice in Wonderland was the DOF - things up close blurry for no apparent reason, but still feeling closer to the audience than the actor in focus. Fine for 2D, sucks for 3D.
An interesting read though, cheers.