3D has not yet established a long time! Only because this hype about AVATAR (one of the worse movies that I know) there, it means nothing. As long as you can see movies with a pair of glasses must be that takes 80% of the brightness and the colors completely distorted, it will remain a hype.
Antwort von killerspots:
@ Cocoa_Magazin:
The 3D technology is now so far progressed, that there is little or no color distortion is more.
complain it is clear the anaglyph process as the oldest synonymous pretty unsexy, but look to shutter one procedure or the Infitech / Dolby methods, we can both brightness or color problems not really.
Only the aspect of glasses is a negative point, I'll give you right.
Antwort von strike300xxx:
See the same way as Cocoa_Magazin. Still these glasses. Medieval Total. If established 3D without glasses, we can talk about it again, it that way. . . The colors are distorted. Not there where one looks, but always in the Augenwinckeln what annoys me personally extreme.
3D is a fairground attraction, the common people at the moment attracts the sofa into the movies.
But the mass accustomed s.Neues quickly. May well be that 3D is traversed next. But it will soon be no guarantee of a good box office more.
Antwort von vaio:
As ne bag of popcorn and cola are in this movie, why not have one (3D) glasses? For the home before the TV I would, however, give up something. My opinion.
Greeting Michael
Antwort von Axel:
The hype continues unabated, but the increasing complaints about blurred or double vision or headaches. Weed 3D like in "Alice" (slashCAM reported) supports these effects. Unfortunately synonymous seems hopeful the next blockbuster battle of the titans "to have been hastily reworked into a month-old trailers, synonymous digital, is still no talk of 3D.
As I wrote earlier: The good, what is left of 3D, the silver screens and the high-quality digital playback equipment.
Antwort von killerspots:
The problem is simple, as Axel has already said that currently many producers want to jump on this 3D train and quickly make up for what they missed during the shoot. Namely, to rotate in 3D.
Thus these nasty new 3D films like "Alice" or "Clash of the Titans" come into existence to muddy the Sehgefühl and so the fun.
But let's not kid ourselves: If you want 3D in the movies, you have to turn with two cameras. Everything is made in hindsight, is crap and not real.
Clearly this is currently one of extreme hype, but will go no longer. The Prices will adjust itself synonymous again. But then a 3D vision of the cinema and exclusivity is of course that is a bonanza for all.
The only problem is that there is still lack the proper content.
We have s.der HFF in Potsdam synonymous rotated a real-time 3D film to explore in how far the third dimension in a tragicomedy be useful.
If you are interested www.topper3.de provides some additional information. Premiere of the film is celebrating in May in Berlin.
Antwort von beiti:
I have big problems in the 3D movie, the focus of my eyes to maintain a longer time. I'm doing it as in a state of extreme fatigue, where it is increasingly difficult to focus on the main subject, and it all looks more and more blurred. I attribute this to the unnatural distance back: we see an object by illusion literally right before the eyes (or at least much closer than the screen), but the eyes must continue "to infinity focus.
The problem of nausea / seasickness in 3D movies, I personally know yet, but I was as synonymous to the ship never particularly vulnerable.
It is feared that the 3D movies only for medically appropriate audience is and go in a certain percentage can not - as already today may join such as roller coasters and suitable only healthy people (quite apart from the fact that Not everyone trusts).
"Strike300xxx" wrote:
Still these glasses. Medieval Total.
Yes, even the old knights have complained about the glasses compulsion in 3D movies. :)
"Axel" wrote:
The good, what is left of 3D, are the silver screens and the high-quality digital playback facilities.
I share your hope that the 3D boom driving the digitization of the cinema.
Silver screens are, however, because of their viewing angle is no benefit at all, and they are combined with modern shutter glasses are no longer synonymous necessary (for the simple polarizing glasses). So I'm hoping hard that the 3D boom does not lead to a large-scale conversion of cinemas on silver screens.
Antwort von ArnAuge:
AVATAR was my first movie-3D film and I must say: As long as the limitations associated with such, I can well do without it.
I was really because of the appetizers in Print and trailers looked forward to the really nice pictures made from the foreign world. The distortion of the colors you could just live, but so so dark they come over by the massive darkening.
Although I felt no health problems, but my wife struggled with headaches.
My biggest concern is that - should stop this unfortunate trend - which could mean death for many small cinemas or the big chains use it to get rid of unwanted competitors. You can see it would primarily only the whole Hollywood-ham, which are technically perfect, but all content produced in Schedule F. What an impoverishment!
I share your hope that the 3D boom driving the digitization of the cinema.
This is done in previously unimaginable proportions already difficult. I would be surprised at not a statistic, which testified that the number of digital cinemas in Germany for the last four months has doubled in the last 10 years, after hardly anything had happened. It would then "only" a double, because more and more rapidly at the moment simply can not be delivered.
Digital only means additional costs for the cinema operator. If they do a digital supplement, many viewers opt for the analog option, not the quality difference is dramatic. That was the situation.
With 3D the very significant investment in a few weeks have been run. The spectators pay the hefty legal charge, without batting an eyelid with the analog 2D alternative does not drag. Even a professional popcorn machine is not cheap, but silver is no longer enough to outweigh the profit of a handful of corn kernels, so does the purchase price is not so important.
"Beiti" wrote:
Silver screens are, however, because of their viewing angle is no benefit at all, and they are combined with modern shutter glasses are no longer synonymous necessary (for the simple polarizing glasses). So I'm hoping hard that the 3D boom does not lead to a large-scale conversion of cinemas on silver screens.
We see things differently. Outweigh the benefits, both for analog as synonymous for digital projection. Due to the weaker scattering the images appear sharper, high contrast, they are anyway. Also of the page. Active shutter glasses are a logistical nightmare. They are expensive and must be collected in full again. A professional cleaning in the movie itself is excluded, then the Committee itself and by defective eyewear is enormous, as others had to find been.
