The Dwindling Novelty Of 3-D

[Phonedave]

3D does not seem to like my eyes either (or vice versa)

It always looks 'off' to me somehow. Those damn magic eye things never work for me either. It must be my eyes.

I look at 3D in attractions differently than I look at 3D in movies. In an attraction, the 3D can be part of the draw. You can showcase the 3D.

I find in movies that the 3D very often takes away from the movie. Instead of being a part of the storytelling toolkit, it becomes THE focus, and films seems to be loaded with 3D effects for the sake of 3D

It is sort of like surround sound. It can be an attraction - albeit a crappy one (Sounds Dangerous), but if you did something like that in a movie, it would be a distraction. Sound in movies is there, it moves around, it creates a space, but you really don't notice it. It enhances the movie without you realizing it is enhancing it. I think 3D in movies should be the same way.


-dave

 

[rsoxguy]

Very interesting. So Disney's 3D is of a higher quality, in terms of filming and applicable storyline, than the average film being offered at movie theaters?

 

[rsoxguy]

That might be a good thing as the 3D in movies like Avatar are far better than what you will find in Disney.

In your opinion, was that the only 3D film to top Disney's quality?

 

[fosse76]

I have not attended a movie theater in a very long time. Does the popularity of the 3D effect in films today "cheapen" the effect when you see 3D films at WDW?

Not really. The gimmick of 3-d is to have something look like it's right in front of you. Other than depth perception, MOST 3-d movies don't offer anything to justify the 3-d effect (and it is merely an effect...you still aren't seeing a movie in 3-d). I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if there weren't a surcharge...particularly if they don't offer a 2-d version.

 

[rsoxguy]

Again, very interesting. I have not been to a movie theater since the early 80's, so I have no frame of reference by which I can judge the uniqueness of Disney's 3D. Regardless, I agree with Master Yoda on the fact that I'm probably better off just enjoying the films offered by WDW. I think that it makes the experience better for me.

 

[Master Yoda]

In your opinion, was that the only 3D film to top Disney's quality?

Quite honestly nearly all of them but I am not referring to anything regarding story, use, etc. I am talking strictly image quality. With the exception of the now digital Muppet vision, the 3D in Disney attractions is somewhat blurry and the prominent element (the thing that is supposed to be closest to you) always seems to have a ghost image behind it. The current crop of movies that were intended to be in and therefore shot in 3D do not seem to suffer from those problems. Even Clash of the Titans had better image clarity, it just looked like cardboard cutouts because it was done after the fact.

 

[Mouse Man]

Honestly the push in the Movie industry is going 3D. Currently the movie industry is working on new movie projections and new projection screens that will have all the goodness of 3D with out having the customers to wear glasses. When I seen scrooge last year in 3D it was awesome. Honestly felt like it was snowing right in front of and on me. Now all movies are cut out for 3D. 2012 George Lucus is re-releasing all 6 Star Wars films in 3D. Lucus has been the industry leader in special affects and sound so I expect nothing but perfection from him. I am kind of excited in seeing this.

 

[rsoxguy]

Quite honestly nearly all of them but I am not referring to anything regarding story, use, etc. I am talking strictly image quality. With the exception of the now digital Muppet vision, the 3D in Disney attractions is somewhat blurry and the prominent element (the thing that is supposed to be closest to you) always seems to have a ghost image behind it. The current crop of movies that were intended to be in and therefore shot in 3D do not seem to suffer from those problems. Even Clash of the Titans had better image clarity, it just looked like cardboard cutouts because it was done after the fact.

Is this an issue that can be addressed by Disney, in relation to upgrade? I was not aware of the fact that better image technology was available for something like Philharmagic. I'm all for an attraction being shut down for a period of time if it yields an improvement to the image quality of the film.

 

[Master Yoda]

Is this an issue that can be addressed by Disney, in relation to upgrade? I was not aware of the fact that better image technology was available for something like Philharmagic. I'm all for an attraction being shut down for a period of time if it yields an improvement to the image quality of the film.

I am far from an expert on the subject but when Disney switched Muppet Vision to digital there was a vast improvement in image quality. The cliché "See it again for the first time" definitely applies.

 

[rsoxguy]

Excellent. Call me an optimist, but I look forward to any improvements made to the 3D films at WDW, including the possibility of technology that precludes the need for glasses.

 

[MissM]

I can deal with 3D glasses for 15 minutes in Philharmagic, but for an entire movie...? Ugh, no thank you! Between the difficulties in getting the 3D glasses to fit over my regular glasses properly, getting distortion from my regular glasses and the headaches 3D tend to give me, it's just not worth it.

Now, they ARE working on non-glasses 3D TV's. In fact, my work has one in it's lobby. It's a custom one-off piece made just for my company and it's really big - about 60" or so. Now, it's not a pop out at you 3D but a depth kind of 3D. It looks a little like one of those bookmarks that move? Like a high scale lenticular technology. There's almost no content in the format so it just loops some little demo animations, but it's still neat.

 

[imagineer boy]

I like 3-D and I don't mind paying exta for it, but I do agree that it is overrated. It's not THAT amazing IMHO. Its neat, but I woudn't go out of my way to see a movie in 3-D. I wasn't even that horribly impressed with 3-D Avatar (but then again I wasn't that impressed with the movie aside from the effects lol) .

The big difference with WDW's 3-D shows is the immersion with the smells, sounds, in theater effects, sensory effects, it all really adds to the experience and doesn't out date the shows.

 

[hth1917]

Because TSM is a simulator? What exactly are you agreeing with?

Because the rider on TSMM is just sitting in front of a 3D movie. To me, anyway, this lacks the appeal of the classic "ride" experience (where one is immersed into a detailed environment that actually exists in three dimensions). Just my .02.

 

[Kamikaze]

Quite honestly nearly all of them but I am not referring to anything regarding story, use, etc. I am talking strictly image quality. With the exception of the now digital Muppet vision, the 3D in Disney attractions is somewhat blurry and the prominent element (the thing that is supposed to be closest to you) always seems to have a ghost image behind it. The current crop of movies that were intended to be in and therefore shot in 3D do not seem to suffer from those problems. Even Clash of the Titans had better image clarity, it just looked like cardboard cutouts because it was done after the fact.

The image clarity has to do with the type of 3D being used. But that type of 3D also allows the image to appear to come much further out of the screen then the kinds that are used in movie theaters (and homes)

 

[UberMouse]

My boss only has one eye, and he complains because sometimes the theaters are only showing the 3d version of a film he wants to see. The good news is that the single lens polarizes it so that it appears 2D, however he still has to pay the 3D premium price.

-Jeff

 

[Mammymouse]

I would prefer a live show but some can't be done with live actors. :sohappy:As for 3-D, Disney is the only place I've seen 3-D and I'm in the camp that has problems fitting the 3-D glasses over my glasses. I can do it but sometimes I take my glasses off and just wear the 3-D's. I can see distance with almost no help - it is up close I can't see good (I can never remember if that is near or far sighted). So the movie screen - for example It's a Bug's Life - is pretty clear. But the effect that gets in your face then doesn't look right. I would be just as happy with 2-D. The other sensory items fill in enough for me. Then the rest of my family has problems because of getting headaches form the 3-D vision trickery thing if they watch a lengthy show. :hurl:

 

[PurpleDragon]

I like others get terrible headaches from watching a full length 3D film. The last one I saw in 3D was Avatar and my head was pounding when I left the theater. Partly cause the glasses are so uncomfortable, and partly because the glasses causes your eyes to focus in an irregular way to create the 3D effect which can cause terrible headaches due to eye strain(similar to wearing someone else's prescription glasses). Now attractions in WDW don't do this cause its a much shorter period of time and its not long enough to cause any major problems.

The glassless 3D technology is where we will be heading next, but its definitely a few years down the line. But believe it or not people have already been successful in creating small scale holograms, so the future of 3D entertainment looks bright its just going to take time to perfect the process and the ability to film in a way to present in this new medium.

But I agree with others here, the whole issue with all of Hollywood jumping on the 3D bandwagon has cheapened the overall effect.

 

[MaxsDad]

I may be off here, but here are the impressions I have.

The current tech for 3D TV's use something called "Active 3D". The glasses are actually powered themselves and interact with the TV's components to vary the image for optimal performance. WDW attraction 3D glasses are obviously powerless; therefore static. To me, that made a big difference when I looked at the demo in the store. The image clarity and depth were far superior to what I have seen on any screen, any where.

Will this lessen my WDW experience? Probably not. It is more than a movie. Will Disney use this tech or similar in the future? I believe so. I know that each 3D show at WDW has gotten better quality wise than the one before it, and I see no reason why they would not want to continue to improve.

 

[Monty]

Well, thankfully the 3D fad does not use red/blue glasses anymore. The clear ones are much nicer. But honestly, I love 3D. I don't really see the hate for it.

I don't "hate" 3D, I just can't get the intended effect, so can't watch 3D.

WDW-style duel-colour glasses don't work for me, primarily because I'm colourblind and the effect is lost.

The new 3D TV sets don't work because I have to wear the glasses over my prescription glasses to get the effect and it's uncomfortable and still doesn't work for me [I haven't delved into the science to determine exactly why].

For simple convenience sake, I find having to have sufficient sets of glasses for however many people might be watching another serious impediment to the current 3D TV versions. Are we all to be forced into anti-social tendencies because of a lack of glasses? :lookaroun

 

[Buried20KLeague]

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=559577

:lookaroun