5 Biggest Misconceptions About 3D

Published 2 years ago by , Updated February 17th, 2013 at 7:51 am,


Life of Pi 3D 5 Biggest Misconceptions About 3D

3. “Subtle” 3D Isn’t Worth the Extra Money

Consumers remain split on what constitutes quality 3D – with many claiming that subtle use of the format isn’t worth the upgraded ticket price. Yet, taste in 3D is subjective – making it extremely difficult to measure “good” versus “bad” 3D. As a result, many viewers have turned to the fallible “Glasses Off” test to self-determine how much of the onscreen projection is distorted at any given moment. Previously, we clarified why this “Glasses Off” test isn’t a good metric for determining 3D quality – since filmmakers often adjust the strength of the 3D effect in every single shot: backing off during intimate drama scenes and ramping up in large-scale action set pieces, for example.

Similarly, some of the more celebrated examples of 3D filmmaking rely on subtle use of the format. Fans of Martin Scorsese’s Hugo claim the effect helped draw them into the film, whereas detractors maintain the director’s use of the effect wasn’t noticeable – and, therefore, not worth the added ticket price. This dichotomy places 3D in an tricky gray area, since filmmakers have to find a balance between making 3D worth the money, without allowing the effect to distract from onscreen tension and emotional drama – or even worse, making it uncomfortable to watch.

Since 3D films have long relied on “pop-out” effects, it’s not surprising (or unfair) that some moviegoers aren’t interested in more subtle implementations of the format. However, that doesn’t mean that subtle use of 3D can’t also be worth the added ticket price: Ang Lee’s Life of Pi rarely used pop-out effects, but managed to deliver a rich visual experience that, for many moviegoers, successfully enhanced the impact of Pi’s adventure at sea.

Like anything in this industry, 3D preference is personal and there’s room for many types of experiences.


NEXT: Is “Gimmicky” 3D Bad?

« 1 2 3 4 5 6»

Follow Ben Kendrick on Twitter @benkendrick
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I’m not a 3D hater, and not a 3D fanboy either. I don’t think every movie needs to be in 3D, but some definitely benefit from it. I have two main complaints about 3D. One is that it seems to enhance the strobing/stutter of 24fps so it’s worse than 2D films in that regard (HFR 3D doesn’t have this limitation though – darn you Peter Jackson for spoiling me like that).

    The second is that studios force 3D on us, and it can be hard to find 2D versions of a movie because theatres like to be able to charge extra too and will often only show the 3D version. One example was GI Joe Retaliation. It was delayed 8 months or so to be post-converted, so I did not want to support studio greed and refused to see it in 3D (I generally don’t want to support post conversions anyway). However, I had to really try hard to find a theatre that was showing it in 2D, and I live in a big city. I can only imagine what it’s like for people who can’t see 3D or get headaches from it.

    It would be nice if there was a way to show 2D and 3D in the same theatre (e.g. glasses=3D, no glasses=2D), so people could have the best of both worlds, and wouldn’t have to complain any more. You could technically do it now by just putting 2 left frames in a set of glasses, but people would still complain about dimmed colours or having to wear them over prescription glasses.

  2. I get mild headaches from 3D, but don;t have anything against the technology per se. My only issue is that not EVERY movie should be in 3D (Street Dance in 3D? come on). As for post-conversion – Avengers was converted and I didn’t find it distracting or poorly rendered. I think as long as the use is well thought out and used appropriately then it can become an amazing cinema experience. However, if the movie itself is bad, no amount of 3D, CGI or other technology can make the viewing experience better.

  3. For someone like me who already has to cope with a pair of spectacles 24×7, 3D is nothing short of a 2-3 hour ordeal.I feel that the studios have learnt this little art of gimmickry where they are advertising every second movie as a 3D experience.Except movies as AVATAR or LIFE OF PI where 3D is a genuine demand of the story and goes a long way in enhancing the spectacle on the screen, much of the lot is filled with half baked 3D visuals that do not really contribute to the experience.I feel that Christopher Nolan has a very clear and correct stand on the issue.He believes in enriching the picture quality through the use of better cameras rather than concentrating on lame attempts at throwing the picture out of the screen.I watched THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and although the movie could have easily excused itself into a 3D production, it chose to make the visuals more clear and vivid that worked wonders, with the audience feeling that they are watching a grand story unfold itself rather than having the experience of reading a pop out book.Those who watched IRON MAN 3 in 3D would share my concern.

  4. A while back there were some movies i wanted to see in theaters, but most of the ones i wanted to see where only in 3d. without seeing ones i wanted to see in 2d, only had in 3d, i felt left out. i told my mom that i wish they put out 3d and 2d as options for people who didn’t want to see in 3d. i guess i wasn’t the only one who said this and probably the industry listened to the general public. so happy they went with this option. i think i remember when toy story 3 was to only shown in just 3d at first before the trailers came out. then they decided to show in 2d and 3d. i could be wrong about this information. anyway, by looking through history of 3d, this is not the only time 3d became a big thing, to a headache, to a fad and to be forgotten. as early to the 1950s when 3d was really introduce. history repeats. the 1950s 3d is exactly the same feelings and problems of what in the 1980s, some in the 2000s and now. the reason why many people won’t know the early 3d movies, is because they’re forgotten. which is exactly the same line this generation of people are seeing. 3d is not something new to people. the older generations had experience this and now a new generation is experiencing this. i think 3d can be an experience, but the technology is not there yet. even though technology is really advancing now, people are not fully to accept 3d as a trade mark. There are too many technical problems with 3d, i’ve heard from so many people and my friends. maybe in about 50 to 100 years, 3d might work again. why this long? because of the possibility of more and heavily advance technology to support 3d as a real experience. So far, i’ve been to Walt Disney World, saw a couple of 3d shows at the parks and thought they were 10s better than the couple of ones i saw in theater. the ones at Walt Disney World were just cool, an experience, and i don’t know why this 3d is working for them but not in to the general public, around the world. anyway, these are just my thoughts about 3d.