Neal Scanlan Studio doing the creature effects

[Corporal Hicks]

Found it pointless. And distracting, more than immersive -- things disappearing because they passed off the side of the frame becomes really incongruous when it's floating in mid-air three feet from the screen itself.

Comparing 3D to 7.1 sound is the most accurate analogy I've heard. People keep trying to compare it to the introduction of sound, or colour, but that's bullshit; those things genuinely changed how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres could be communicated. 3D is an embellishment -- if anything it's closest to Imax vs. regular screens. It's a nice touch, yes, but take it away and all you lose is a bit of "Ooh, aah" factor.

Completely agree. Spot-on, SiL.

[JaaayDee]

I could care less about 3D either.  It's just the larger size if the screen that's going to get me to the imax showing.

[SiL]

And to me, adding depth does genuinely change how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres can be communicated just as much as shift from BW to colour.

How.

No. Really. How.

3D is still limited to what can be recorded and projected onto a two-dimensional plane. Good conventional photography already creates a sense of depth within the frame; all 3D can do is take something which already exists and enhances it -- much like how 7.1 sound gives you a bit more surround detail, or IMAX gives you a larger image. But you can knock 5.1 speakers off of 7.1 and get a good effect with stereo, and you can watch IMAX on a ten-inch screen. You lose some of the experience, but your ability to tell your story has in no way been affected.

3D is cosmetic because of how inherently limited it really is. It's an exaggerated sense of depth, taking something we already have and making it a little more obvious. No real depth has been introduced. When they can create true depth, with images overlapping, where the audience can focus on objects they choose, where your position to the screen can actually affect the perspective of the image you're viewing, then we'll have reached a truly revolutionary age in cinema.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

Yeah...the whole 3D is important argument is a thin one. I saw Avatar twice in 2D and once in 3D and the latter experience was the worst and distracted me from everything else.

By the way....I dont know a single film that was inherently better because it was in color.

[Ghostface]

And to me, adding depth does genuinely change how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres can be communicated just as much as shift from BW to colour.

How.

No. Really. How.

3D is still limited to what can be recorded and projected onto a two-dimensional plane. Good conventional photography already creates a sense of depth within the frame; all 3D can do is take something which already exists and enhances it -- much like how 7.1 sound gives you a bit more surround detail, or IMAX gives you a larger image. But you can knock 5.1 speakers off of 7.1 and get a good effect with stereo, and you can watch IMAX on a ten-inch screen. You lose some of the experience, but your ability to tell your story has in no way been affected.

3D is cosmetic because of how inherently limited it really is. It's an exaggerated sense of depth, taking something we already have and making it a little more obvious. No real depth has been introduced. When they can create true depth, with images overlapping, where the audience can focus on objects they choose, where your position to the screen can actually affect the perspective of the image you're viewing, then we'll have reached a truly revolutionary age in cinema.

Agreed. The reason I back up 3D is because of what it can lead to. If they can create real depth and 3D was the stepping stone then it was all worth it.

[SiL]

By the way....I dont know a single film that was inherently better because it was in color.

Even if you could, I fail to see what it has to do with anything said. The argument isn't whether something's better with these things, just if they allow one to do things differently. Colour does. 3D doesn't.

[Fujimaster]

But I didnt think Promethius was even coming out in 3D. Why are we even having this conversation?

[azrael55]

But I didnt think Promethius was even coming out in 3D. Why are we even having this conversation?

because wherever you've got your information from, it's wrong.

[Fujimaster]

err... this website. Main Page posts. Ridley doesnt like 3D. I assumed nothing had changed, my bad if I have missed the update.

[azrael55]

err... this website. Main Page posts. Ridley doesnt like 3D. I assumed nothing had changed, my bad if I have missed the update.

they have even gone into as much details as letting us know which cameras are being used, called RED epic... don't ask me for a reliable source, but it's been said like half a year ago and i've never heard ANYTHING stating the opposite. Scott supposedly was quite excited about avatar when he visited cameron at the set - that's probably where he got the idea from.

[Ghostface]

err... this website. Main Page posts. Ridley doesnt like 3D. I assumed nothing had changed, my bad if I have missed the update.

they have even gone into as much details as letting us know which cameras are being used, called RED epic... don't ask me for a reliable source, but it's been said like half a year ago and i've never heard ANYTHING stating the opposite. Scott supposedly was quite excited about avatar when he visited cameron at the set - that's probably where he got the idea from.

My cousin is a director for Vision3, a 3D consultancy firm in the UK. He indeed said they have spoken to Ridley about using 3D in what he referred to as the "alien prequel". He found this surprising as he didn't think Ridley would move over to 3D.

[Space Voyager]

No. Really. How.

3D is still limited to what can be recorded and projected onto a two-dimensional plane. Good conventional photography already creates a sense of depth within the frame; all 3D can do is take something which already exists and enhances it -- much like how 7.1 sound gives you a bit more surround detail, or IMAX gives you a larger image. But you can knock 5.1 speakers off of 7.1 and get a good effect with stereo...

With all due respect Sil, and I do have it, but I guess you don't know how brain processes 3D. No photo can ever do what 3D imagery does. Simply because in 3D you see two photographs at once. In most cases it is not exactly at the same time but at a speed high enough for the brain to never notice the difference, as it is able to "smooth" the image just like it is able to fill the blind spot.

You can do all sorts of photography stunts and will never get a true 3D effect. So no, it can not be called enhancement.

In 3D movies each of the eyes is given a different picture and the brain combines it into REAL 3D. I wrote real because what you see in your everyday life is the exact same thing. Two photos at once, all the time. The base (distance between the shots being taken) dictates how noticeable the 3D effect will be.

Truth be told, movies definitely make the effect larger then reality as they want it to be noticed and if you overdo it it makes it look fake. Avatar IMO did not overdo it to that extreme.

I hope this explains HOW 3D is different from 2D. To me it is bery alike to the difference between B'n'W and colour. If you do not WANT to see the difference between 2D and 3D, I really don't care to pursue this discussion any further. It would be just like persuading a deeply religious person that there is no god.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

Different doesn't equate better. Your argument has lost its merit.

[Fujimaster]

No. Really. How.

3D is still limited to what can be recorded and projected onto a two-dimensional plane. Good conventional photography already creates a sense of depth within the frame; all 3D can do is take something which already exists and enhances it -- much like how 7.1 sound gives you a bit more surround detail, or IMAX gives you a larger image. But you can knock 5.1 speakers off of 7.1 and get a good effect with stereo...

With all due respect Sil, and I do have it, but I guess you don't know how brain processes 3D. No photo can ever do what 3D imagery does. Simply because in 3D you see two photographs at once. In most cases it is not exactly at the same time but at a speed high enough for the brain to never notice the difference, as it is able to "smooth" the image just like it is able to fill the blind spot.

You can do all sorts of photography stunts and will never get a true 3D effect. So no, it can not be called enhancement.

In 3D movies each of the eyes is given a different picture and the brain combines it into REAL 3D. I wrote real because what you see in your everyday life is the exact same thing. Two photos at once, all the time. The base (distance between the shots being taken) dictates how noticeable the 3D effect will be.

Truth be told, movies definitely make the effect larger then reality as they want it to be noticed and if you overdo it it makes it look fake. Avatar IMO did not overdo it to that extreme.

I hope this explains HOW 3D is different from 2D. To me it is bery alike to the difference between B'n'W and colour. If you do not WANT to see the difference between 2D and 3D, I really don't care to pursue this discussion any further. It would be just like persuading a deeply religious person that there is no god.

What about those pics and youtube vids where they have two images at slightly different angles and you cross your eyes to merge the images to get 3D, it really is cool. Search 3d in youtube and have a look a t some. Hurts your eyes after a while.

[Space Voyager]

Different doesn't equate better. Your argument has lost its merit.

Better in this case is a matter of personal taste. If anyone finds 2D better I have absolutely nothing against it.