114
I missed out on 3D movies, but they're back in VR
(www.spacebar.news)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
114 points (93.2% liked)
Technology
60319 readers
4323 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd be watching all my shit in 3D...
If they actually sold 3D TV's that used the polar glasses and streaming services streamed 3D movies.
People say they were a gimmick, but a basic polarized TV's for a reasonable price were never a thing.
I used to do a lot of research in 3D imaging, and my take is that passive stereoscopic glasses were always destined to fail because they cause eye strain for too many people. And that eye strain is usually caused by the fact that the focal point is fixed, and a lot of eyeballs fight that when they see a three dimensional image. We’re used to being able to shift focus at will with real-world 3D space.
This problem doesn’t impact everyone, and it’s not as bad with immersive experiences that keep items sharp in the foreground and background, or with films that don’t have interesting shit happening the background.
That said, it’s a really old and well documented problem, and I don’t believe we have affordable varifocal viewing solutions on the market yet.
It was a gimmick. Half the movies released in 3D during the last wave were poorly done conversions not even shot for 3D.
It's always fun to watch some cheesy action or horror movie from when 3d was being pushed super hard. All of a sudden there's a scene where things are being flung at the camera for no apparent reason and you say, oh yeah, this was supposed to be 3d.
Yeah, that's not quite the "shot for 3D" I was talking about. Those are the worst 3D films that don't even hide that it's a gimmick.
I don't know if they're shot in 3D, but I enjoy the nature and science movies shown at my local planetarium. There's nothing gimmicky about them, just subtle depth.
I think that's a different beast.
Only half? -_-
I've only seen a few movies that were actually filmed in 3D. Even Gravity was filmed in 2D.
The problem is that actually filming in 3D requires using different (and expensive) hardware, and different creative direction all across the board. You can't just upgrade to a 3D camera and call it a day. Not many studios will put in that kind of effort for something that is not proven in the market. And not many filmmakers are actually skilled at working in 3D, simply due to lack of direct experience.
I saw the Hobbit movies in high framerate 3D in the theater, and while they were not good movies, they looked absolutely amazing because they were committed 100% to the format from start to finish — not just with the hardware, but with the lighting, makeup, set design, everything. It's a shame the movies sucked, and it's a shame that there has never been a way to watch them in HFR 3D outside of select theaters.