Your thoughts on 3-D?

[ChrisFL]

Are there any movies that have been, or are going to be, released in 3-D only? I really don't see what the issue is. If you don't like 3-D then see the non 3-D version

I'm really not sure, but I think a few movies have been in 3D only, like Journey to the Center of the Earth.

 

[kimmar067]

.....hmmmm, BRING ON THE 3-D FLICKS!!!!

.

 

[JenM]

Titans, fine. Harry Potter? Eh...no. the other films aren't in 3-D and I think the feel of all 7...I mean EIGHT flicks should be pretty similar.

That's not entirely true. If you saw either of the last two Harry Potter films at the IMAX theaters, you did get to see parts of each film in 3D.

I did see Order of the Phoenix in IMAX with the 3D scenes, and it was pretty awesome. No, Deathly Hallows doesn't need to be in 3D, but I have no problem watching it in 3D. In fact, I'm looking forward to it.

To answer your other question, of course Hollywood is overdoing it. They're making a fortune off of 3D, and they're a business just like any other, and they're going to milk it for everything it's worth. It will run it's course and the novelty should wear off eventually.

I don't have a problem with it. I'm someone who loves seeing the 'big' movies in theaters, and the technology is incredible, so this just makes it an even better experience. I have no problem paying the extra cash for it if it's a movie I really want to see.

But the should always have a 2D option as well, since some people do have problems with the motion issues in 3D, and it is a cheaper option for families.

Otherwise, bring it on. 3D is fun.

 

[Golf4food]

I still think Blu-Ray is overkill for most people, but the manufacturers are pushing it like everyone needs it. I know a lot of people running Blu-Ray through small HD systems with stereo sound. Trust me, they're getting no advantage over an upscaled DVD at that point. But they're certain the picture is so much better

Bluray IS better. Bluray is true HD and multiple times better in video and audio quality than DVD, especially if you have a surround sound system. If you have an HDTV but not a Bluray it is like having a Lamborghini and driving 35 mph everywhere - why have it? On small HDTVs it isn't a big deal, but those smaller sets are not the issue. Anyone with a 37 or 40 inch or larger HDTV will gain appreciable quality via Bluray compared to DVD. Not to mention the streaming capabilities of most decent Bluray players to stream Netflix, etc. straight to the TV.


As for 3-D, it is cool in theaters, but I don't think we'll be upgrading for the house any time soon. Our TV and Bluray home theater are pretty new and I'm not about to shell out another $1,000-$1,500 just to get a 3D capable TV and Bluray player when I'm perfectly happy with what I have now.

What if I want to lay down on the couch to watch a movie? Oh, wait - you can't, it will skew your 3D glasses. You have to sit up. No thanks.

Wake me when home digital entertainment systems create a 3D holographic environment in my living room.

 

[Ceila]

While I don't care if movies are made in 3-D, I hope there will always be a 2-D option. 3-D gives me a wicked headache.

 

[elgerber]

I am just curious, and I don't mean this rudely, but those of you who say it gives you a headache etc, have you seen any of the new Digital 3d movies in the theater? I get very easily nauseated, etc by visual things, but not at all by the new 3d, it's truly amazing!!! The old red/blue glasses, those were awful, but this is a completely different technology and it's so much better.

 

[JenM]

Bluray IS better. Bluray is true HD and multiple times better in video and audio quality than DVD, especially if you have a surround sound system. If you have an HDTV but not a Bluray it is like having a Lamborghini and driving 35 mph everywhere - why have it? On small HDTVs it isn't a big deal, but those smaller sets are not the issue. Anyone with a 37 or 40 inch or larger HDTV will gain appreciable quality via Bluray compared to DVD. Not to mention the streaming capabilities of most decent Bluray players to stream Netflix, etc. straight to the TV.

Exactly. I have an older HDTV, but there's a definite improvement over the regular DVDs with the blu-ray. The picture is far less grainy and the colors are outrageously good.

Plus the streaming features are fantastic. I can stream stuff from Netflix and Blockbuster straight to my player, and even play Pandora radio and watch YouTube videos on my TV. And it updates when new features are available.

The streaming feature also lets you watch live events - the week Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was released on video, they held a live screening from London which you could log into. Daniel Radcliffe and one of the HP producers were online for the entire movie answering questions people were submitting through the WB website and providing commentary.

It was was cool - it was like watching the movie with them.

I love blu-ray, I don't regret upgrading at all.

 

[bicker]

A note about that though: Video streaming (such as Netflix Watch Instantly) is not "true HD", at least not in the same way that Blu-Ray is. For example, HD streaming for Netflix Watch Instantly is encoded via Microsoft VC1AP encoding at a bitrate of between 2,600 kbps and 3,800 kbps. By comparison, Blu-Ray often provides between 20,000 kbps and 40,000 kbps, i.e., regularly ten times as much detail. (For completeness, DVDs average around 4,500 kbps, so basically, a DVD, even though it isn't HD, provides more data for the player than HD streaming over the Internet.)

 

[chisnpeke]

nope. Without the glasses it looks blurry.

Thanks

 

[Liberty Belle]

I hate them. They make my head hurt and make me sick to my stomach. I know they're fun for kids (and some adults), though, so I have nothing against them.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I am just curious, and I don't mean this rudely, but those of you who say it gives you a headache etc, have you seen any of the new Digital 3d movies in the theater? I get very easily nauseated, etc by visual things, but not at all by the new 3d, it's truly amazing!!! The old red/blue glasses, those were awful, but this is a completely different technology and it's so much better.

The old technology was worse, but the new still makes me sick. I can watch for a little bit (a la Philharmagic, etc), but not for too long.

 

[bicker]

I believe Philharmagic still qualifies as old technology. (There are several orders of "old".)

 

[JenM]

A note about that though: Video streaming (such as Netflix Watch Instantly) is not "true HD", at least not in the same way that Blu-Ray is. For example, HD streaming for Netflix Watch Instantly is encoded via Microsoft VC1AP encoding at a bitrate of between 2,600 kbps and 3,800 kbps. By comparison, Blu-Ray often provides between 20,000 kbps and 40,000 kbps, i.e., regularly ten times as much detail. (For completeness, DVDs average around 4,500 kbps, so basically, a DVD, even though it isn't HD, provides more data for the player than HD streaming over the Internet.)

But here's my rule: if I don't understand the technobabble, then most likely I'm not going to notice the difference. So far everything I've watched via streaming has looked just fine. I don't need everything streamed to be blu-ray quality if it's just a rental or a TV show I want to see. If I need something in blu-ray that badly, I'll just go out and buy the disc.

I was watching episodes of the original Star Trek series through instant play, and it looked better than I've ever seen. When I watched the Harry Potter livecast, which used the streaming version, it looked just as good as the blu-ray. Even my HD-crazed friends were impressed with the quality.

The Netflix/Blockbuster feature is great because I like being able to watch stuff without waiting for a disc to show up in the mail. I'm using the Blockbuster feature to watch Inglorious Basterds tonight because I'm tried of it being stuck on "very long wait" in my Netflix queue. Even if it's not blu-ray quality, it's still a good quality picture. And it's easier than running out to a video store.

 

[bicker]

But here's my rule: if I don't understand the technobabble, then most likely I'm not going to notice the difference.

Don't let the technobabble confuse you. Translating it into terms that you can surely understand, if you watched the first five minutes of a movie four ways (as below) you would have no trouble, whatsoever, seeing the difference, and you would rank the four as follows:

• Blu-Ray
• HD television broadcasts
• DVD
• SD television broadcasts
• HD Internet streaming (like Netflix Watch Instantly)
• SD Internet streaming

The difference between 20,000 kbps and 2,600 kpbs is so big that you will absolutely notice the difference. You may not care about picture quality, to let the difference prompt you to make a specific purchase, but you will absolutely notice the difference.

So far everything I've watched via streaming has looked just fine. I don't need everything streamed to be blu-ray quality if it's just a rental or a TV show I want to see. If I need something in blu-ray that badly, I'll just go out and buy the disc.

I feel the same. For example, sitcoms -- who cares about picture quality? We watched them for a while on the dinky little kitchen television, downconverted from HD to analog, and it was no big deal at all. However, with Lost, I wish that it was broadcast in Blu-Ray quality (it isn't). The difference between how HD is broadcast and how HD is presenting on Blu-Ray, is so significant, and exposes so much of the extra care that the producers of Lost have put into filming their program, that I'm almost tempted to wait for the Lost BDs. (However, there's no way that I can keep from the ending being spoiled for me that long!)

I was watching episodes of the original Star Trek series through instant play, and it looked better than I've ever seen.

Garbage in; garbage out -- and with the original Star Trek, garbage picture quality is the best you can hope for, so there really is very little difference between the various option.

Note that they have remastered the original Star Trek, from the original film, onto Blu-Ray. It does make a difference but I don't believe it makes enough of a difference to force myself to rewatch all that badly-acted, tire, worn-out programming.

When I watched the Harry Potter livecast, which used the streaming version, it looked just as good as the blu-ray. Even my HD-crazed friends were impressed with the quality.

They can push the quality...that's one of the frustrating things about this: They can actually change picture quality on-the-fly, now, without you really having a choice.

 

[Sparx]

i hate 3d.

 

[karly05]

I really dislike 3-D, at least partly because I have an awful time keeping the 3D glasses on comfortably over my regular glasses. I saw Coraline in 3D (the only option I had), and was so distracted by constantly fidgeting with the glasses that I really feel I didn't appreciate the movie until I was able to watch it at home.

I saw Up in the theatre multiple times in 2D and 3D, and really felt that the colors and images were so much more crisp and vivid in 2D, and it was easier to just get immersed in the story and characters without (again) the distraction of the glasses (although I was smart enough this time to put my nerdy glasses strap on my regular glasses, which helped). The only reason I saw Up a 2nd time in 3D was because I was having "withdrawal symptoms" and it was the only option (yeah, when they started dropping screens, they dropped the 2D and kept the 3D), but the 2nd 3D viewing was somewhat improved because it was in a smaller auditorium and I had a better seat.

I will be at Deathly Hallows 1 & 2 on opening weekends, and I certainly hope my multiplex will be showing it in 2D.

 

[mouseforcemom]

Right now it's sporadic (affecting just a few critical scenes) in most movies. I like Imax a bit more without the 3-D effects. Dark Knight was awesome that HUGE! Would be an interesting experiment to take older movies and do 3-D and Imax (Star Wars, INdiana Jones, etc.) that I would pay good money to see!

 

[HOGFAN]

I posted my experience with Avatar several weeks ago over on the Disabilites Board. Disney 3D doesnt bother me(probably because of short length) but Avatar definitely sent me into a mild seizure. Not for epileptics

 

[JenM]

Garbage in; garbage out -- and with the original Star Trek, garbage picture quality is the best you can hope for, so there really is very little difference between the various option.

Note that they have remastered the original Star Trek, from the original film, onto Blu-Ray. It does make a difference but I don't believe it makes enough of a difference to force myself to rewatch all that badly-acted, tire, worn-out programming.

Hey, it's a classic. I'll take the Star Trek with the $10 special effects budget (at least it seemed that way) over any of the spinoffs anytime.

And it was absolutely not garbage picture quality in the slightest.

 

[mouseforcemom]

I posted my experience with Avatar several weeks ago over on the Disabilites Board. Disney 3D doesnt bother me(probably because of short length) but Avatar definitely sent me into a mild seizure. Not for epileptics

Good to know! I have juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and that would not be good period let alone on a theatre floor.