Dredd (2012)

[Bubba Zebill]

bovine spongiform shame...
[/quote]

[MR. ELIMINATOR]

I think the problem with 3d is that is it is a gimmick, but it probably won't go away because they can charge extra for the glasses, and if cinema's only screen 3d versions of the film, then you have no choice but to pay more.

I really hope it does go away though, the only way 3d is effective is when something sharp is being fired at the screen, then you flinch. But to have a whole movie of things being fired directly at the screen I don't think would be very good. But who knows, as I haven't seen one yet.

[Bubba Zebill]

3D is no good. I saw Avatar a few times, in different theatres. As Joe Soap pointed out, it was dark. I think the images are dulled by the eye overlaying those images. Where I live all the 3D films are dubbed and un-dubbed films are never shown in 3D (so far). No skin off my nose, I don't like it.

[shaolin_monkey]

I love 3D. I find it very immersive. I always have loved it, ever since that Terrahwks 3D green/red photo in Look-In all those years ago.  I was hooked, and have 3D things covering my house: the Tomytronic 3D binoc games, those green holograms, 3D lenticular bookmarks and posters, a Nintendo 3DS, and my absolute pride and joy, a computer and monitor capable of running nVidia 3D Vision, with active shutter glasses (has to be seen to be believed).

So yeah, I'm an advocate of 3D, and I am VERY glad Dredd has been filmed in 3D, rather than having it tacked on rather shoddily at a later date (The Last Airbender, I'm looking at you).

I will be seeing it in 3D, preferably in one of the biggest IMaX's I can find. 

[Stan]

I really hope it does go away though, the only way 3d is effective is when something sharp is being fired at the screen, then you flinch.

Which ironically happened in Jaws 3D. The first, and probably last, moment I had a positive experience with the format.

[A.Cow]

I will be seeing it in 3D, preferably in one of the biggest IMaX's I can find. 

Would it not just be easier to sit very close to the screen?

[Bubba Zebill]

I love 3D. I find it very immersive. I always have loved it, ever since that Terrahwks 3D green/red photo in Look-In all those years ago.  I was hooked, and have 3D things covering my house: the Tomytronic 3D binoc games, those green holograms, 3D lenticular bookmarks and posters, a Nintendo 3DS, and my absolute pride and joy, a computer and monitor capable of running nVidia 3D Vision, with active shutter glasses (has to be seen to be believed).

I mean in recent films - I was just not impressed by 3D in Avatar, I saw it in Imax in Paris and I found it soon wore off and was too dark...and I don't like the glasses. But as tech it's fascinating, I've even made a few of my own 3D pictures over the years. I also have a cool wee 3D planet earth postcard above my desk...that nVidia 3D Vision sounds very cool by the way. I also saw it in Disneyland years ago (CAptain Eo...with Jacko) and that I remember being pretty astounding. But the recent Toy Story film seemed undermined by it.

[Michaelvk]

I reckon the only reason 3D isn't impressing a lot of people is because, as said before, it's not being used properly. For me, the 3D in Avatar really helped immerse me. I don't want gimmicky poke-in-the-eye stuff happening all the time, because it's cheap. I want to feel the depth of the world I'm in.

It's like the early days of CGI. All of a sudden CGI was the end-all and be-all visual effect solution. That led to volumes of proper shit looking creatures, bad composites and overall shabby looking movies because everyone was clambering over themselves to get their latest masterpiece out.. as soon as everyone calms down, film makers will appear that'll know how to use 3D to their advantage..

As for upping the framerate having an effect on the VFX.. Well, within the span of 2 years my desktop 8 core mac pro has been surpassed by my macbook pro. Rendering is handled by render farms that're being equipped with better and better stuff. I don't see the higher framerate being that big an issue for VFX. For the first few movies it'll be marginally more expensive, but in a few years time 48fps will be the norm.

[radiator]

I reckon the only reason 3D isn't impressing a lot of people is because, as said before, it's not being used properly.

No, it's because it generally looks like a blurry, dingy, ghosting, strobing mess whenever the camera moves at anything quicker than a gentle pan. The cons far outweigh the pros.

Upping the fps might help with the strobing, but it also has the side-effect of making everything look like a weird soap opera.

[Michaelvk]

I dunno.. the FPS will definitely help with the blurry/strobeyness.. I hooked up a 3D monitor to my PS3 and it was the smoothest 3D I've ever seen, at 60hz.

It's a new technology (3D's a forgotten technology) that needs to find it's feet.. By the way, have you actually seen the 48fps Hobbit trailer? I haven't. I've just read about it.

[Steve Green]

I reckon the only reason 3D isn't impressing a lot of people is because, as said before, it's not being used properly. For me, the 3D in Avatar really helped immerse me. I don't want gimmicky poke-in-the-eye stuff happening all the time, because it's cheap. I want to feel the depth of the world I'm in.

It's like the early days of CGI. All of a sudden CGI was the end-all and be-all visual effect solution. That led to volumes of proper shit looking creatures, bad composites and overall shabby looking movies because everyone was clambering over themselves to get their latest masterpiece out.. as soon as everyone calms down, film makers will appear that'll know how to use 3D to their advantage..

As for upping the framerate having an effect on the VFX.. Well, within the span of 2 years my desktop 8 core mac pro has been surpassed by my macbook pro. Rendering is handled by render farms that're being equipped with better and better stuff. I don't see the higher framerate being that big an issue for VFX. For the first few movies it'll be marginally more expensive, but in a few years time 48fps will be the norm.

And it would be nice to grab some breath and not be running to stand still.

I just seem to hear a lot about VFX studios bankrupted by greedy producers, or insane deadlines, or wanting students to pay to be interns (Digital Domain I'm looking at you)

Yes, computers will get quicker, but with the economy in the shitter, it seems like the last thing anyone needs - and it doesn't address the soap opera argument against 48 or 60fps.

[Steve Green]

I dunno.. the FPS will definitely help with the blurry/strobeyness.. I hooked up a 3D monitor to my PS3 and it was the smoothest 3D I've ever seen, at 60hz.

It's a new technology (3D's a forgotten technology) that needs to find it's feet.. By the way, have you actually seen the 48fps Hobbit trailer? I haven't. I've just read about it.

Not seen the Hobbit but I know what 720P@50fps looks like natively, I really don't imagine it's going to look much different movement-wise. Double 24 or 25fps is always going to have that feel of interlaced studio cameras for me.

[JOE SOAP]

Judging by the nea universal total shock registered due to the 'soap opera effect' at the Hobbit demo, 48fps is all ready on shaky ground before it even hits the theatre. I'd say the execs are nervous.

[Michaelvk]

I'll happily watch 2D in 24fps.. 3D i'll be wanting 48.

[Stan]

What do people mean by soap opera effect?