Are We Close To 3D Movies Without The Ugly Glasses?

Actually most likely this in just another lenticular method that has been around for a very long time.  This method is extremely limited in that only a few people can watch such a screen at one time.  Theaters will probably not adopt such a method because they need to maximize the amount of people they can fit in a theater at one time.  I suspect 4 years from now we will be like “whatever happened to that 3d screen out of Korea?  Have heard nothing since.”  The 3d glasses are around for a long time to come, at least in theaters.  For tv this would work better.

You get no sympathy from me for having to wear glasses to watch a 3D movie.  If you hate wearing glasses to watch a 3D movie, think what it’s like having to wear glasses to watch ANY movie (and before you say it, some of us cannot wear contact lenses).

I love 3D, though, and used to hate having to wear a second pair of glasses, but not any more, because I no longer have
to wear them.  I wear my prescription glasses and have clip on polarized
lens sets for both RealD and IMAX 3D.  As a bonus, the RealD set works with my LG 3DTV as well. So bring on the 3D!

As I implied just yesterday, I can’t wait for for the 3d fad to die again

 I doubt it will die out.  To many people still buying the 3d tickets of 3d movies for studios to stop making them.  Even though they play in 2d at the multiplex, many choose the 3d showing instead.  Hollywood is just giving these people what they want, a 3d showing.

Honestly, I think it’s a gimmick to get people to pay more for a movie. I saw Beowulf, Thor, and Captain America in 3D. Love the stories, thought they looked great, but don’t remember anything about the 3D experience itself other than the mild eyestrain. So when it came time to see the Avengers, we skipped the 3D. The movie was awesome, the effects were awesome, and I don’t think it would’ve looked better or been more entertaining in 3D. 

My theory is that HD TV sales have leveled off, and now that people have replaced whatever DVDs they now want in BluRay format, manufacturers are pushing 3D. Music tried to do the same thing with “enhanced CDs” and “DVD audio” but they never took off. Hasn’t Nintendo backed off hyping the 3D part of the 3DS in their sales because it’s not really a draw?

For me, 3D has always been a “What does it add to the movie?” option. Too often, the answer has been nothing. I think the only movie I’ve seen in the last few months that could even improve a little in 3D (that actually was in 3D) was Avengers, and then only slightly. But twice the price for a small improvement isn’t worth it.

Not necessarily:
Peter Jackson’s ‘Hobbit’ Won’t Save 3D Movies and That’s a Good Thing
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/21/peter-jacksons-hobbit-films-wont-save-3d-movies-and-thats-a-good-thing/
“3D showings have accounted for a dwindling portion of the viewership for hit films,” 

Why 3D movies are a waste of money
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57455593-93/why-3d-movies-are-a-waste-of-money/

3D film: have the wheels fallen off?http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/conversation-3d-films-decline
“The number of films being made in 3D is falling – and so are ticket sales, it emerged this week.”

First thought: “So, 3D contact lenses?”

I’m all for pushing this technology forward, even though I harbor few fond memories of it. It was all right in Avatar. It was barely there in Tron: Legacy. I heard it was nonexistent in Clash of the Titans. I now skip the option every time I see a movie (not that I need to, as I see most movies at my theater and we got rid of 3D over a year ago). I already wear glasses, too, so they are also a cumbersome nuisance that detract from the experience.

I would’ve loved to have seen Legend of the Guardians and Hugo in 3D, though, for the boundaries I’ve read they’ve pushed. 

3D is sadly treated more like a desperate gimmick for more money than as the unique immersion it should be. Even though I don’t care for it now, this is a step in the right direction, I think. 

Yeah, that’s right.. I have to wear glasses to watch any movie since I’m near sighted. What sucks though is having to wear double glasses for 3D movies. I wouldn’t mind having a pair of prescription 3D glasses to cut down the pair to one. :)

Also I’d rather have glasses than have to be stuck to a narrow field of view for the 3D or halve the resolution and have it look terrible just to have 3D. I’d rather watch 2D than that. Hell, 3D is uncomfortable on the eyes in general to me although when done well it’s pretty cool… and it’s even better in games.

I did get some clip on ones of different kinds for my glasses here. Still not a perfect solution as they seem to have different properties from the paperplastic ones. But it was a good idea! 

I sort of resent 3D at the theater though because it’s the carrot in front of the horse to get us to be not satisfied with just HD any more. My sister didn’t want to watch a HD movie with me at home last year because she was like “It’s not like it’s 3D or anything”. :P

I don’t have much of a problem with the 3D glasses; it’s only moderately annoying to have to wear them over my real glasses.  I’d rather have a movie with glasses and good resolution than one with poor resolution and no glasses.

My problems with 3D are that most of it is post-filming conversion and not very good, and that it’s too expensive.  I just don’t like paying $15 to go see a movie, so I typically look for 2D screenings unless I hear that the 3D is particularly good.  I liked the 3D for Avatar and for Up, because it was well-used.

Any new tech for 3D without glasses would probably only make 3D movies more expensive, exacerbating the problem.

(Oh, and there’s one way to see things in 3D without glasses – go to one of the theatres that are in domes, the kind you generally find in natural history and science museums.  I love the Omnimax at Science World in Vancouver.  But I don’t think they screen feature films there, though.)

Still not interested in 3D. 

These type of articles have been coming out for the past 6 years.  Yet 3d hangs on.  So you have done nothing new.  I have seen people reference these articles for years and still 3d is around.  Don’t know what to tell you.

Barely there in Tron Legacy? I thought it was used beautifully, especially in the games when Sam first enters the computer.

Hugo’s effects were spectacular though, especially with the long steadicam shots (or, at least, digitally stitched-together facsimiles thereof) through tunnels of pipes and gears.

Thor and Cap were fake, post-production 3D, and I agree they should have been left alone. But Hugo, Brave, Coraline, Pirates: Band of Misfits, Toy Story 3, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Avatar, and Tron Legacy benefited greatly from the technology. As the technology becomes cheaper and more widespread, I think you’ll find a lot more experimentation with the possibilities of the third dimension for artistic expression.

Just gonna leave this here. A list of which movies are shot in 3D, and which have been given the far inferior treatment of post-conversion:

http://realorfake3d.com/

Okay, here’s why your argument doesn’t work. You provide no facts or figures. This is just your opinion, impression. Assertion, unsubstantiated by any actual data.
I provided links to articles that state such things as this:
“Only 38 percent of those who watched ‘Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides’ this year paid extra to see it in 3D.
That’s down from the 80 percent of moviegoers who opted to visit Cameron’s Pandora in all its 3D glory.”

Numbers don’t lie. You can’t argue with sales that aren’t there. You can’t argue with studios releasing fewer 3D films.

Sony Puts Another Nail In 3D’s Coffin

http://www.tvpredictions.com/sony3d092911.htm

I’ve linked to several articles saying that 3D ticket sales are shrinking, and that movie studios are releasing fewer movies in 3D.
It’s simple economics. If there’s less demand and less supply, it’s going to die a slow death. Even Roger Ebert says it’s a gimmick AND that people are catching on to that fact.

I doubt your average moviegoer keeps track of which movies are genuine 3D and which are faked 3D. I sure don’t. I’ve seen 3 movies in 3D and even the one that was “real” 3D didn’t leave me with the impression I need to shell out extra cash. The technology can only become cheaper if it continues.
The problem is that a lot of the “cool” stuff you can do with 3D is the exact same stuff that gives people eyestrain. Compare a 3D movie from the 70s to one produced today. There’s less stuff jumping out at you, or flying straight at your face –because that’s the stuff that messes with people’s eyes the most. Yes, they’re using 3D in films, but everyone’s playing it conservatively to avoid that affect on viewers. Nobody’s pushing the envelope because with twitter/FB/etc those eye-popping affects are going to lead to headaches and eye aches and lots of online rants about it.
In effect 3D is too limited it has too many downsides and it’s not worth it. However, 48fps movies (double the standard frame rate) are apparently able to deliver a more immersive feeling that is authentic. And no funky glasses or eyestrain needed.

Everyone’s experience is different, of course, but I also saw Thor and Cap in 3D, and those were far inferior experiences to Hugo, Avatar, TRON, etc. (well, as far as the 3D. Quality of the scripts and characters is a separate matter). In Thor the depth was barely noticeable, while in Cap it was distractingly bad, with areas of the screen bulging arbitrarily. The real 3D movies I’ve seen since didn’t shove stuff in my face (if anything, I find that more distracting than immersive), but the sense of depth made the settings more expansive and physical, the action more viscerally powerful, and the scale more palpable. I thought Beowulf actually mishandled some depth cues in ways that detracted from the effect, and the uncanny valley animation left the whole thing feeling unreal anyway. I’d strongly recommend giving a more recent, shot-in-3D live action film a watch, or a more polished animation like Brave or Paranorman. It makes a difference when it’s done right, which is why I’m such a stickler for real 3D. It’s comparable to the difference between a film shot in color and a black and white film colorized after the fact.

As for the higher frame rate, though it’s technically closer to the way we see in real life, most viewers report its effect on film to be the opposite, emphasizing the artificiality of the medium and making it look more like something shot on home video. It seems we’re so used to seeing things move at 24 fps when we’re sitting in a cinema, that the greater precision pulls us out of the moment. The primary reason for doubling the framerate is to ameliorate some of the negative effects of 3D, such as the headaches and eye-strain you mentioned, or a noticeable jutter in fast-moving action. I haven’t seen the test footage from The Hobbit that aired at Comicon, so I can’t judge for myself, but I’ll definitely do my best to see it in 3D and 48 fps when it comes out in December, since that’s the way the filmmakers envisioned it.

I’m telling you these articles that 3d is about gone because of ticket sales have been coming out for 6 years. I can not link to them because articles are almost always taken down after about 4 months. You can not link to them anymore. They have been saying this for years, and still 3d comes out, that was my point. News articles saying 3d tickets sales can not sustain the format where even coming out 3 and 4 months after avatar was released in theaters. I’m not holding my breath on this tired old argument.

In the 3 months since I was here already we have learned about several more movies that will be in 3d in 2013 and 3014. Man of Steel, The new Star wars movies, and a few others. See this is what I am talking about. People always link me to these news articles, have for the last 6 years, then 2 years later they are still coming out. Like I said I am not holding my breath on these claims.