Special and Visual Effects : 2D or 3D? What do you think?

2D or 3D? What do you think?

What are your thoughts on the 3D revolution which has dominated cinema in the recent years? Are you for or against? Why?

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

for me it really depends on how the 3D is done, if a 3D movie is released it better be shot in 3D, cause so far i have only seen 1 2D-3D conversion that looked great and that wasn't even a movie but a 3D commercial for T-Mobile.

basically in my opinion it goes like this:

do you have a lot of fast paced imagery in your film ? do not use 3D, you either can't afford good 3D or you don't care enough to make good 3D (its estimated that it costs anywhere between 1.5 million - 6 million to convert 1 hour of movie material into 3D)

usually fast paced scenes hurt in 3D, 3D works best in slow motion (which adds to the "we're gonna include 1 Scene in the movie to justify why we charge 5 bucks more for 3D" scheme) or on general in movies that are plot not action driven and do not require fast pacing.

As a rule: if you have to go into bullet-time during a fight scene to make it 3D compatible, don't use 3D.

on the upside though, 3D can work really really well in gaming, Portal 1 & 2 are great when playing in 3D, adds a whole new layer to the game.

the obvious advantage here, games (at least current ones) are by default already in 3D and are converted onto a 2D screen, so if you use a 3D TV, the driver that renders the 3D images already has the correct depth perception as its rendered whether you see it in 2D or not.

Going with the Portal example, all the clutter on the ground in Portal 2 that looks flat when playing it normally has 3Dimensional properties and as portal is not a fast paced game in general, 3D really works great here.

as the opposing example: games like witcher 2/skyrim etc. where one would think 3D could really add to the immersion in the RPG world, it only causes pain. these games are to fast paced (during combat) to be entertaining in 3D.

So I'm not against 3D as long as 3D was the gameplan to begin with and not tacked on at the end to make more money. not everything that is/can be in 3D should be.

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?


Having seen a few films in 3D I don't think it adds much, if anything to the experience. It really doesn't justify the price hike.

My biggest complaint is the glasses make the image really dull.

Having just got back from the pictures to see John Carter (very average) could have really done with out it. From the trailers the film looked very colourful and vibrant, we didn't have the option of 2d so what we saw was dark and dingy and just a bit rubbish.

I caught the end of Avatar on TV as I came in and it looked just as good as I remember it in the cinema without any 3D.

A good film (and I'm in no way saying Avatar is brilliant) is good with or without 3D, a crap film will still be turd whatever you do it.

Its just a studio gimmick that people will tire of sooner or later, I hope.

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

Just came back from seeing Brave at the cinema and saw it in 3D just cause it had a later showing, I usually choose to not see a film in 3d. I've seen several films in 3D and most of the time it's crap! Brave was quite good, you want to know why? I barely noticed it was in 3D! 3D only works when it just adds a little bit extra to the film so no, the large price increase isn't really worth it for what you get.

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

I'm for it, but it really has been validated as of yet expect for in Prometheus which I thought used it very effectively. It all has to do with planning though. You can't just add 3D in thinking it'll add depth, no, wrong! 3D is about embracing the gimmick, this is why Avatar did nothing for me... Prometheus had floating motion graphics which looked fantastic in 3D, along with some set pieces( the crash near the end) that just worked better in 3D.

On a artistic level, I think Pixar's cloud short (i forget the name) has been the only creative use of the format thus far...

In terms of what works and what doesn't, Transformers 3 is a great example of good and bad use of 3D. Quick cutting, and up close shots are pointless in 3D... But the wide effects shots showing off the robotic worm chewing a building were breathtaking....

So far, 3D hasn't added anything to storytelling, it's all been visual fluff. This doesn't mean it's not possible to aid a story with 3D, and I'm thinking it'll be a Sci-Fi or animated film that finally does.

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

3-D can never replace a decently written story.

Hoarse whispers are not suitable for a desert environment.

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

3-D can never replace a decently written story.

This. But they sure try...

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

Avatar had good 3D on it even though it was a conversion. Finding Nemo and Monsters VS Aliens were good too. Saw Iron Man 3 the second it came out in the US IN 3D. Iron Man 3 had good 3D with floating debris in the air after explosions. It also didn't make you wan't to throw up. The coolest part about it for Iron Man fans was that at the end of the movie they had clips from all three movies, so they converted scenes from the first two into 3D.
I think if you are not person how likes 3D you probably should just not watch it and not say it is bad. There are a lot of good 3D films you just need to look at reviews and see if the people writing the good or bad reviews about the 3D on film actually know a single thing about 3D,because half of the people that say that films 3D was bad probably just don't like 3D.
3D is awesome and not bad. Yes, it can easily be bad, but most of the new 3D movies are not that bad.

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

When a flick is filmed in actual stereo is can be really great but most flicks these days are converted in post, and yes they've come a long way from a couple of years ago but it still doesn't look right.

I say, if you're going to make a 3D flick go all the way and use real stereo.

Brought to you by Carl's Jr

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

2D 4 me. 3-D is nothing but a gimmick, and it will probably will stay that way long after I'm dead. I know, the holy grail for some is to remove the "looking glass" and make it a totally immersive experience. I have my doubts that can actually be achieved. (Certainly not when I see so many factual and continuity errors in recent films!) I also don't see the "looking glass" as a Bad Thing that must be destroyed either. The bottom line is that film IS fake -- embrace it!

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

As you say, 3D is a gimmick. So is the rest of film. You basically said this yourself when you say all film is fake. Saying the point of 3D being to "remove the looking glass" is just as ridiculous as saying live action, as opposed to animation, was also removing the looking glass.

3D is just as valid a technique as any, and, personally, I like the variety. It's good to have 2D, 3D, animation, live action, puppetry, cgi AND everything else--preferably mixed into as many combinations as possible.

My films: https://sites.google.com/site/westernroadmovies/

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

There's no question that it's not real watching 2D, not so with 3D.

I find the opposite is true.

This is probably due to it having been done badly in post production, but a lot of 3d films totally destroy the illusion of 'reality'.

This is because our eyes have evolved to perceive depth of field without the use of some stupid glasses. What you get instead of the subject being in focus and the background out of focus is objects in the foreground and the background in focus. Its a totally false and unnatural effect that looks more like a toy theatre with people waving around cardboard cutouts on sticks instead of a film. My own term for this is 'multiple planes of focus'.

With a well written and directed 2D film you forget you're watching a film and engage with the story and characters etc in a similar way as when you read a book.

With a crappy 3D post process that same film will be ruined because every other shot will be forcing your brain to process visual stimuli in a totally unnatural way. You might as well have someone at the front of the cinema with a megaphone bellowing 'LOOK!!!! LOOK AT THE 3D!!!! LOOK AT IT!! WE SPENT ALL THIS MONEY ON IT SO LOOK!' all the way through.

For me I find this takes me away from the story and any other aspects that might be any good and leaves me with nothing, apart from maybe a bit of a headache and a feeling I've just been robbed.

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

What I don't understand is why so many people argue exclusively about whether it looks more or less real. It's a movie. It's fiction. Shooting in 3D adds cinematic techniques. The obvious one is changing the interaxial distance from scene to scene to change the mood. In Hugo, for example (one of the few 3D films I found significantly better than the 2D version) the 3D factors into the storytelling.

Arguing about realism is honestly quite stupid, as realism is not the point of film. Playing music in films is unrealistic, but it helps tell the story. Bad music is a headache, just as bad 3D is. But good music changes emotions and gives more options to the director, just as good 3D does.

Obviously, poorly done 3D is just as annoying as a bad actor. And most 3D I've seen was poorly done. Also obviously, 3D is more expensive and maybe not worth it, but that has nothing to do with the actual art itself. Neither of those points take away 3D's value as a cinematic tool.

My films: https://sites.google.com/site/westernroadmovies/

Re: 2D or 3D? What do you think?

Post stereo has gotten much better due to deep compositing from Weta. However, the best instances of stereo are animated films.