http://www.techradar.com/news/video/it- ... ts-1272892

I actively avoid 3D at this point where I can help it. It's nothing but a distraction to me at the beginning when I could just be focusing on the opening scenes. It's irrelevant for me after that cos I don't care! Well, unless the 3D effect truly is coming across wrong... You?

I have to agree with the general gist of the article though; I've had some crap screenings as a result of darkness (whoever's fault it was), crap glasses, projection...

Have only watched in cinema rather than 3D TV screens. If poorly done it can induce a severe headache. If well done, it's just a mild headache.

The box Office for 3D movies is increasing because more screens are being used for 3D. Last time I went to the cinema, admittedly a while ago, it was actually quite hard to get into the single 2D screening of the film I wanted to watch whereas three screens were showing it in 3D. You can make people watch films in 3D but that's not the same as them wanting to.

And charging a fiver extra for the 3D blu-ray over the normal blu-ray isn't exactly a good idea either.

3D, for the majority of video, is an unnecessary gimmick. It always was and people have sussed that out. What will keep the format 'alive' is the bloody-minded stubbornness of movie studios and TV makers who can't accept that their great plan to drive everyone to buy a new TV & all their films all over again fell on it's arse. The public would happily tie 3D in a sack and chuck it in the river.

If you get at headache, then it's been done wrong. Most of the crappy 3D films I have seen have been where the 3D has been added in post production. You really need to shoot in 3D, and care about your audience when cutting, shooting, and tweaking the image.

It's bad enough seeing 3D pictures where you have to work your eyes to resolve the image (it should just happen), but when the same kind of mistakes have been made for moving images, then you're in trouble.

It's also not a case of getting a camera with two lenses and carrying in as before either. You really need to know what you are doing before you start. I think that I of all the films I have seen in 3D, I can say that only a small handful have been any good in the medium. Avatar (despite a crappy plot), Tintin (that worked really well - Spielberg had clearly got a handle on it), Prometheus and the Hobbit films. All those have something in common - seasoned directors with a clear understanding of what is needed.

Of course, that's part of the the battle. The other part is the cinema screening it. They have to get things right too. I am ignorant of the standards for screening a 3D film, but I expect there are test cards and other things to play with when getting a screen ready.

As for TVs - I have yet to see one that doesn't compromise on the image - either by heavy interlacing or darkening of the image. I am not interested in TVs where you have to wear glasses, but I DID see a good demonstration of a glasses-free screen in the Natural History Museum in London. Those could change my kind.

I doubt 3D is going to go away, no matter how much people would like it to.
When it's done well, it's superb. Of course, there's several in the chain and no matter how well it's captured, it can be thrown away by a negligent cinema.
I think we're lucky down here - both the local screens do it pretty well. Or I'm just used it. But I can't recall seeing a movie that was too dark, or that gave me a headache for a while. Alice in Wonderland was probably the last time - and that's possibly down to the fact the 3D was a post process. Given that there's a specific job for stereographers on things like The Hobbit, I think we'll see things improve steadily, as they have been.
As Paul says, there's a bit more to it than just having two cameras locked together - there's still quite a few techniques to get your head around.
Give it time for the skill set to grow, as it's doing, and it will get better.

I saw an excellent demo of 3D TV's at the gadget show that year using athletics. It worked alright on the Samsung TV's and was great on the LG ones. Much better 3D than the one time I saw a 3D film at a cinema.
But there's no way I'd fork out extra 3D Blurays. It's just not that important to me. If some Freeview were 3D I may watch it if my TV was 3D, but it isn't, and I'm not paying out for a new TV until this one dies.

Really? I thought that film was actually shot in 3D.

Mark

No. It was a post production job, and, from what I understood from people who saw it in 3D, only some of it was in 3D.

Right. Thanks for that.
I saw the film at the cinema, but as I actively avoid any 3D screenings, I never realised it was done in post (or if I did I totally forgot about it).

Mark

+1 I've only watched one film, but after 5 minutes I had eyestrain and a headache and I had to take the glasses off.

I agree, and that standard should be OFF.

I [LIFTED] hate 3D films. Have I mentioned that lately?

This might be of interest to some: http://www.technicolor.com/en/solutions-services/technology/technology-licensing/3d-excellence/certifi3d