-
-
Actually, theatrical 3D movies have always used clear, polarized glasses, the blue and red ones were used for 3D comic books and 3D television broadcasts (not very effectively). People watching 3D movies in theatres using blue-red glasses never happened but is something many misremember happening.Comment
-
The glasses I remember getting for Jaws 3D had two pale blue lenses.
But the ones I got for the theatrical release of Freddy's Dead had one red and one blue lens.PUNY HUMANS!Comment
-
Maybe it's me, but I can never see clearly with 3D glasses. It always seems so dark!
I miss the brightness of the colors, and very often I think "the 3D just isn't needed for this movie, it enhances so little".
Whenever I can, I choose a 2D showing. And for people wearing glasses, it's just too much bother....
.
.
"When things are at their darkest, it's a brave man that can kick back and party."Comment
-
I call the modern day 3-D movies a "Viewmaster effect". It's just a brain manipulation that gives artificial "depth" to films that don't really need it. With the development of high def resolution and CGI effects, the days of "3-D" viewing seem very passe to me. If anything it's a step back. It's a very generic effect that actually dampens the overall picture quality. So in my eyes people pay more for less. I think visually the most stunning use of the camera today is shooting with IMAX equipment. That to me is about as "real" as you can get. 3-D is very dated in comparison.Comment
-
I remember having the red/blue glassses for Treasure of the Four Crowns and Specehunter. Both 3D theatrical films of the 80s.
The biggest issue with modern 3D films is that they are converted in post production and not actually filmed in 3D as was Avatar. The problem is that the cinematographer is not able to properly adjust for lighting, etc. while on the set. Couple that with the modern 3D glasses which are slightly tinted and the film appears less bright than it was originally intended by the director. I saw the post converted Toy Story films and was not impressed enough with the effect to discount the fact that the movie itself was not as bright as it originally was.
On the same token I was not impressed with the 3D effect of The Phantom Menace. However I was glad just to see it in a big screen auditorium again. I am one of (what seems to be) the very few that don't have a problem with the prequels. (For what it's worth I also enjoyed Superman Returns) The best thing about the 3D rereleases was that I would have been able to take my 8 year old to the theater to see the Star Wars saga. After he saw TPM, he was giddy. He played Jedi v. Darth Maul for weeks after seeing it and it finally opened his eyes to the object of my lifelong obsession.
The offical word from Lucasfilm is, "We will post further information about our 3D release plans at a later date." However I have it on "decent" authority from a connected friend that the 3D releases are going to be bumped to home video and future films will be post-pro 3D. :(If I had only spent a tenth of the time studying Physics that I spent learning Star Wars and Baseball trivia, I would have won the Nobel Prize.Comment
-
I've only seen a handful of films in 3D that really seemed to enhance anything. I saw Captain America first in 2D, and then again in 3D (the only way that particular theater was showing it). There was one scene where he threw his shield at the camera that kind of worked. I could barely detect any difference throughout the rest of the film.
ChrisComment
-
Sorry, I stand corrected. I thought theatrical 3D films always used polarization but after doing a bit of reading it seems that anaglyph 3D (blue/red) was used in some showings after all (but those are in the minority). Next time I'll do more research before pretending to be an "internet expert".
Comment
Tweet
Comment