# Confused about 3D



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Saw Alice in Wonderland today,

The Disney/Pixar adverts before hand looked great in 3D. But the film may as well have been filmed in 2D as I didn't get any effect at all apart from the final scenes which actually looked immense in 3D.

I seemed to 'zone' in and out of 3D tbh. The wife said the 3D effect was great throughout. Was my mind 'correcting' the 3D effect or do you have to relax or screw up your eyes like the old magic eye pictures lol!

And before you ask yes we were in a 3D cinema with the glasses!


----------



## Maggi200 (Aug 21, 2009)

I don't think it's all about launching itself at you like the old 3d films used to be. I think it's all about adding that subtle dimension to a film, when I saw avatar it wasn't in your face, but certain scenes were just epic in 3d without leaping off the screen at you and making you jump.


----------



## NeilG40 (Jan 1, 2009)

Alice in Wonderland wasn't originally filmed with 3d in mind, it was added as an afterthought following the success of Avatar.


----------



## MeganeChick (Apr 9, 2009)

maggi112 said:


> I don't think it's all about launching itself at you like the old 3d films used to be. I think it's all about adding that subtle dimension to a film, when I saw avatar it wasn't in your face, but certain scenes were just epic in 3d without leaping off the screen at you and making you jump.


except some films have done, such as My Bloody Valentine, that was all about making things leap out to make you jump


----------



## Maggi200 (Aug 21, 2009)

MeganeChick said:


> except some films have done, such as My Bloody Valentine, that was all about making things leap out to make you jump


Yeah but that's more cheap and tacky and when 3d was a novelty IMO. It's now about adding something to the film that's worth something I think. Like the scene in avatar when the ash if falling. You can tell it's between you and the characters because it's in 3d. But it's not leaping out at you in a scare you half to death kinda way. I quite liked it actually


----------



## MeganeChick (Apr 9, 2009)

maggi112 said:


> Yeah but that's more cheap and tacky and when 3d was a novelty IMO. It's now about adding something to the film that's worth something I think. Like the scene in avatar when the ash if falling. You can tell it's between you and the characters because it's in 3d. But it's not leaping out at you in a scare you half to death kinda way. I quite liked it actually


yeah it was a totally different sort of 3D wasnt it - i got to say i loved Avatar!

I did also watch some 3D films at Futuroscope in France - was fantastic! the animation type films seemed to work the best and did really pop out of the screen, they also had this under the water sealife recording in 3D which was so real it blew me away! it was the best 3D I have ever seen


----------



## PaulN (Jan 17, 2008)

For films to be true 3D they need to be filmed with 2 identical camera and Lens setups from slightly different angles. Then 2 projectors are need to show the film giving you the 3d effect.

It felt like Avatar went back into the screen rather than out of it. only a very few scenes came out for me.

Cheers

PaulN


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

3D for me should be like surround sound. It's there but you don't really notice it unless looking for it.

When i watched Avatar, at first, my eyes and brain were fighting against the 3D as it wasn'r 'right'. But, as i relaxed into the film, i had flies going around my head and a depth to the scenery that was un-real.

The only think that spoiled it was that 3D does in-focus stuff very well but the blurr used to create DOF can be very poor. Like looking through dirty glasses as opposed to something being OOF.

3D aside, is Alice in Wonderland any good? I'm a bit sceptical of another Tim Burton/Johhny Depp wierd fest.


----------



## robj20 (Jan 20, 2009)

PaulN said:


> For films to be true 3D they need to be filmed with 2 identical camera and Lens setups from slightly different angles. Then 2 projectors are need to show the film giving you the 3d effect.
> 
> It felt like Avatar went back into the screen rather than out of it. only a very few scenes came out for me.
> 
> ...


2 cameras are needed to film but you only need one projector for RealD 3D which is what most are using now.


----------



## PaulN (Jan 17, 2008)

robj20 said:


> 2 cameras are needed to film but you only need one projector for RealD 3D which is what most are using now.


Ahh ok, the stuff on the end of the camera is my knowledge base not the end user bits.

Cheers

PaulN


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Gruffs said:


> 3D for me should be like surround sound. It's there but you don't really notice it unless looking for it.
> 
> When i watched Avatar, at first, my eyes and brain were fighting against the 3D as it wasn'r 'right'. But, as i relaxed into the film, i had flies going around my head and a depth to the scenery that was un-real.
> 
> ...


Alice in Wonderland was superb imo, it has however had mixed reviews. As long as you know your getting a slightly weird 'kids' fantasy film for 'adults' you'll love it!!


----------



## ianFRST (Sep 19, 2006)

i fell asleep 25 minutes in, and got woke up 10 mins form the end  thats what i thought of it. my mates said it was good though? :lol:


----------



## AmoB (Aug 4, 2009)

I have to say I'm not a fan of 3D films. The only time I have really felt anything looks 3D is the picture of glasses at the start of the film that tell you to get them ready for the film... Could be due to my poor eyesight in one eye though! :lol: 
Plus the glasses get quite uncomfortable.


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

AmoB said:


> I have to say I'm not a fan of 3D films. The only time I have really felt anything looks 3D is the picture of glasses at the start of the film that tell you to get them ready for the film... Could be due to my poor eyesight in one eye though! :lol:
> Plus the glasses get quite uncomfortable.


It's exactly due to your poor eyesight in one eye.

Binocular vision is needed for depth perception. My friend loves his movies and has never been bothered about being blind in one eye until very recently.


----------



## Mirror Finish Details (Aug 21, 2008)

Is Toy Story 3 going to be in 3D, can't wait to see it.


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Mirror Finish said:


> Is Toy Story 3 going to be in 3D, can't wait to see it.


Yes.

To 3D and beyond.

:tumbleweed::tumbleweed:


----------



## ianFRST (Sep 19, 2006)

Mirror Finish said:


> Is Toy Story 3 going to be in 3D, can't wait to see it.


oh yes! :thumb: cant wait :tumbleweed:


----------



## Mike_182 (Mar 22, 2007)

I'm not sold on it yet. Not to mention it's all good and well people saying 'well the panels are only going to be ~£2000', but I'll have to replace my amp. And get a 3D source. If it's Sky I'll probably have to find another £20 a month. And pay for the box? For what? For me to have to buy 6 sets of glasses, 4 sets to collect dust in case I have friends round?

No thanks.


----------



## AmoB (Aug 4, 2009)

Gruffs said:


> It's exactly due to your poor eyesight in one eye.
> 
> Binocular vision is needed for depth perception. My friend loves his movies and has never been bothered about being blind in one eye until very recently.


Ah, I thought that was the problem. A bit annoying!


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Mike_182 said:


> I'm not sold on it yet. Not to mention it's all good and well people saying 'well the panels are only going to be ~£2000', but I'll have to replace my amp. And get a 3D source. If it's Sky I'll probably have to find another £20 a month. And pay for the box? For what? For me to have to buy 6 sets of glasses, 4 sets to collect dust in case I have friends round?
> 
> No thanks.


HD was ~£2000 several years back but now it's everywhere.

Just give it time, like with everything it'll come down. HD will become the norm and 3D will be the next thing.

Wonder whats after that? 4D????


----------



## robj20 (Jan 20, 2009)

Sky 3D is free for those with HD, PS3 will be 3D soon enough as well. Dont know why you would need a new amp either.


----------



## Leodhasach (Sep 15, 2008)

3D gives me a headache


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

ardandy said:


> HD was ~£2000 several years back but now it's everywhere.
> 
> Just give it time, like with everything it'll come down. HD will become the norm and 3D will be the next thing.
> 
> Wonder whats after that? 4D????


If only someone knew there was a British invention that allows 3D to be viewed without glasses? Maybe you could also look 'around' the subject by changing your viewpoint too. So there is actual depth as opposed to generated depth on a flat plane.


----------



## Mike_182 (Mar 22, 2007)

ardandy said:


> HD was ~£2000 several years back but now it's everywhere.
> 
> Just give it time, like with everything it'll come down. HD will become the norm and 3D will be the next thing.
> 
> Wonder whats after that? 4D????


Exactly why I qualified it by saying it doesn't make sense at the moment. Of course it'll get cheaper - technology always does! I work with it all day every day...



robj20 said:


> Sky 3D is free for those with HD, PS3 will be 3D soon enough as well. Dont know why you would need a new amp either.


You've obviously not looked into it in any depth then. For 1080p 3D you require HDMI 1.4. My Denon only does HDMI 1.3 (of some description).

Therefore I'm required to buy a new amp which, given that my current amp set me back £2,500 you can safely say will cost a small fortune, is way beyond a sensible idea. Plus having a million sets of glasses for people that might come round.


----------



## PaulN (Jan 17, 2008)

Gruffs said:


> If only someone knew there was a British invention that allows 3D to be viewed without glasses? Maybe you could also look 'around' the subject by changing your viewpoint too. So there is actual depth as opposed to generated depth on a flat plane.


If you can blink fast enough one eye to the next you could view 3D films, as im aware the glasses simple trick the brain to view the images one eye at a time.....

Ps i can view 3d without glasses already...


----------



## robj20 (Jan 20, 2009)

Mike_182 said:


> Exactly why I qualified it by saying it doesn't make sense at the moment. Of course it'll get cheaper - technology always does! I work with it all day every day...
> 
> You've obviously not looked into it in any depth then. For 1080p 3D you require HDMI 1.4. My Denon only does HDMI 1.3 (of some description).
> 
> Therefore I'm required to buy a new amp which, given that my current amp set me back £2,500 you can safely say will cost a small fortune, is way beyond a sensible idea. Plus having a million sets of glasses for people that might come round.


You dont need HDMI 1.4 for 3D at all, the PS3 only has 1.3 and can output 3D. 1.4 adds listed support for 3D, doesnt mean the other standards cant do it. 1.4s only hardware change is integrated network support.
Most 1.3 devices should work as it only involves some firmware tweaks.
Also for those devices that cant be upgraded, there are players that have both a 1.3 and a 1.4 output to get round the problem.


----------



## Mike_182 (Mar 22, 2007)

robj20 said:


> You dont need HDMI 1.4 for 3D at all, the PS3 only has 1.3 and can output 3D. 1.4 adds listed support for 3D, doesnt mean the other standards cant do it. 1.4s only hardware change is integrated network support.
> Most 1.3 devices should work as it only involves some firmware tweaks.
> Also for those devices that cant be upgraded, there are players that have both a 1.3 and a 1.4 output to get round the problem.


Hi. Let me introduce you to the FAQ on the HDMI standards site:

*Can older HDMI (v.1.0 - 1.3) devices be firmware-upgraded to take advantage of the new features introduced in HDMI 1.4?*
Probably not. Most of the new features introduced in HDMI 1.4 will require a new HDMI chip to enable, and cannot be upgraded via firmware.

Also I'd like to point out that the reference to the HDMI 1.3/3D thing. For 1080p 3D, the requirements for meeting the standards for HDMI 1.3 DO NOT cater for 1080p 3D. The PS3 and Sony's generation of '3D-ready' (who's ready for another mass confusion of '3D-Ready', '3D-1080p' in the marketplace!) devices DO NOT meet all of the criteria required for full HDMI 1.4 certification however the ability to play 1080p 3D is met.

However, all this does is throw confusion into the marketplace (as you've demonstrated!) because now there is a belief that you can do 1080p 3D over HDMI 1.3, where in fact strictly speaking you can't - only when the device significantly exceeds the specifications listed for HDMI 1.3 can it actually do this. What I think they've managed to do is make a whole new problem of people returning goods because their 3D is 'jittery' and 'slow' because it's not able to process the data at the rate it's going...


----------



## robj20 (Jan 20, 2009)

Most people will be happy with 720p 3D though or 1080i in the case of Sky.
I should have made myself clearer i was trying to say you dont NEED to have 1.4 to have 3D.
I think untill 3D is well implemented without glasses it wont take off in a big way at home.
All this HDMI version crap is just asking for people to be getting confused.


----------



## Mike_182 (Mar 22, 2007)

My bad then - I was saying for people to get this 'now-requirement' 1080p in this much hyped 3D format, they'd need 1.4.

Versions are a very bad way of doing things, but unfortunately unavoidable for the way things are moving. People would be mighty f*cked off if they had to tear everything out to be able to even plug in their 3D TV because they ditched HDMI!

And yes on the glasses - hence my comment about having 4 sets of these extortionately priced glasses sitting collecting dust in case my mates pop over to watch the football!


----------

