Are 3D converted films stil a "thing"
Or has the novelty passed? I can only think of a single movi3 i liked in 3D, and it wasn't Avatar.
-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®
Avatar was not converted into 3D. It was filmed in 3D.
There has been a great number of films in 3D since Avatar. Only a handful of them are conversion jobs. Most were shot in 3D.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Im sure youre right, but you know good & well what i mean, consarnnit! Are 3-d films still a "thing", or are audiences just not particularly caring about them, anymore? I have never cared for them at all.
-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®
Yes, they are still a thing and yes, a great many people love them.
We recently went through a short period where there happened to not be any 3D films currently showing, but right now there are several actively showing in the theaters.
You claim to never have cared for them at all...
When was the last time you actually saw a 3D film? If your idea of 3D films are those horrid cardboard red/blue cellophane glasses... Then think no more. Modern 3D is perfectly fine. No more purplish false color miasma, but true color. The glasses even fit fine over someone wearing actual glasses.
There is nothing wrong with today's 3D.
The only REAL issue is the additional price and whether a particular film is worth that extra price.
Some films are a must see in 3D given the choice (Gravity, for example). Other films are perfectly fine in 2D or 3D and there, judge by your pocketbook.
A converted 3D film as opposed to one shot in 3D is naturally going to be poorer quality (depth of field, for example).
The only other bad thing about 3D is not about 3D itself, but its misuse by a director. Directors who are filming a 3D film need to take care in not using gratuitous 3D gotcha shots like we have to be forcefully reminded we are watching 3D.
You know... where something long and pointy deliberately sticks out at the audience in a camera angle that would have never been used had they not been filming 3D.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Dude, i am not bashing them (or you, for that matter). I'm just saying 2 things:
1) questioning is their popularity waning, and
2) stating that the theatrical experience of 3-D is visually unpleasant for me.
Also, glad you have the option to enjoy movies in the way that's best for you. I personally elect to see them in 2D cuz that works better for me.
-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®
Dude, i am not bashing them (or you, for that matter).
I never said or even thought you were.
Trust me... Had I thought you bashing me You would have known it. I will shut that sh!t right down. (As Negan would say)
I was asking about when you last saw a 3D film because believe it or not, there are a lot of people who dont like it because of decades old experiences with decades old 3D technology. And they presume today's 3D is more of the same.
Even the 3D of today is improved over the 3D from even Avatar's time. (Though Avatar broje ground in the tech leading to today's tech)
Even most of the physical troubles some people experience (dizziness, headaches) are mostly a thing of the past. Most of those troubles stem from 2D to 3D conversion, not shot in 3D.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
The main reason I avoid 3-D screenings, is that they give me a splitting headache.
share