[..El Nino..]

I saw final destination 4 in 3d and as a '3d experience' it was alot better than avatar, also have 3d capable display at home with nvidias shutter glasses and the movie samples are 10 times better than anything in the cinema for the 3d effect i.e no headache and no blurring out of focus etc etc.

If these characteristics are applied to home cinema 3d then the future looks great for it. If not, and its just like the cinema...??? maybe a niche marlet at best IMHO!

[Boxinghris]

Originally Posted by ..El Nino..

I saw final destination 4 in 3d and as a '3d experience' it was alot better than avatar, also have 3d capable display at home with nvidias shutter glasses and the movie samples are 10 times better than anything in the cinema for the 3d effect i.e no headache and no blurring out of focus etc etc.

If these characteristics are applied to home cinema 3d then the future looks great for it. If not, and its just like the cinema...??? maybe a niche marlet at best IMHO!

Just a thought, but there was a lot of discussion about how the porn industry was going to embrace HD and how important the porn industry was.

They must be absolutely orgasmic at the thought of porn in 3D.

[ALTSELGREEN]

Very fortunate to have seen Avatar in Las Vegas at the Palms Hotel IMAX theatre.
We all thought it was stunning. Only cost $12 a seat too-we are truly ripped off at home

[dreamylynda]

if you have experience on watching for both 2D and 3D, you will find out that 3D is briilant!

[smokingreen]

I saw Avatar in 3D a few weeks ago, I thought the effect was ok, but after an hour or so, I really wanted to take the glasses off to rest my eyes.

I thought the film was spectacular in it's presentation, but I think I would have thought that without the 3D effect. I guess I can't be sure of that point.

At the moment I really see 3D as a gimmick, I would much prefer to see higher frame rate standards being adopted rather than 3D or even higher resolution. 60 fps films, that would be sweet.

[MarkyMark70]

I found the storyline too predictable, which was a shame. As for the 3D, I thought the effect was amazing, but I only voted "OK". The reason for this was...

When watching the trailers before the movie, films like Shrek 3D looked stunning. Playful movies that didn't really engage me as an adult - but looked fantastic. When it came to Avatar, I found the effects almost had a layered effect. Some went 'deep' into the screen (worked really well), others floated just in front of the screen (also worked well), and some floated about in the middle of the theatre! It was these effects that ruined it for me... The technology was so fantastic, things really did look like they circled about in the middle of the theatre - but they were so far from the screen, I disengaged with the film and found myself back in a room full of people - the 'fantasy' was broken.

[awhb]

I saw Avatar a couple of weeks ago and, rubbish story-line aside, I was underwhelmed by the visual experience; the 3D was for the most part unnecessary and actually more of a distraction for me.

The 3D effects had a very poor depth of field, flickered noticeably (compared to the 2D) during panning and had an unnatural "shimmer" when "close". For me, it was a gimmick, something to see just because, but until we get proper R2D2-style 3D technology , I for one will be looking forward to the 2D releases for a good few years yet.

[Optimas Frag]

Ok, first of all let's make one thing clear. Avatar as a piece of design and how it was produced is nearly flawless. I was witness to the creation of a new world. I felt I was there.

Avatar as a story was slightly above average. There was not ONE single element of the plot that I'd not seen or read before and more importantly where I'd seen them before they were done much better WITHOUT the 3D and half billion dollar budget.

A man called horse, Little big man, Dances with wolves, An inconvinent truth, the first Dune book, Thundercats...

It's also the first James Cameron I've no desire to see again. And I saw Titanic four times at the cinema.

And as for 3D in the home... what weed are Sony, Panasonic and the rest smoking? 3D at the cinema is an event, a night out and more importantly BIG.

3D at home requires at least a 60 inch screen before you get any form of wow factor. On a 32 inch screen and even a 42 inch, the depth of field one might percieve is so small it renders it pointless. And you still have to wear the silly glassses.

And the other thing? Cost. I love my gadgets. I'm waiting with baited breath for whatever Apple are cooking up for the end of the month. But there is no way, no way in hell that I'm shelling out for another Hi-def TV and blu-ray player that can do 3D. And if a geek like me is saying that, then selling it to the masses is going to be a tall order.

[ozzzy189]

when they get hd right at home, then i may be a little more unthusiastic about 3d. so i aint bothered about it at all. get hd looking better first ! no more bitrate cuts.

[aceq]

Originally Posted by Optimas Frag

3D at home requires at least a 60 inch screen before you get any form of wow factor. On a 32 inch screen and even a 42 inch, the depth of field one might percieve is so small it renders it pointless. And you still have to wear the silly glassses. .

I watched a 3D TV at CES without any glasses. They will be using a different technology for home.

Originally Posted by Optimas Frag

And the other thing? Cost. I love my gadgets. I'm waiting with baited breath for whatever Apple are cooking up for the end of the month. But there is no way, no way in hell that I'm shelling out for another Hi-def TV and blu-ray player that can do 3D. And if a geek like me is saying that, then selling it to the masses is going to be a tall order.

A geek like you perhaps, but I've seen many more non-geeks than geeks going for the latest gadgets at any given time at a store. So when 3D comes in to your store nearby you may well be with your 3-year old HD TV and player, but I bet you 3D TVs will be flying off the shelves at pretty much same rate as LCDs were sold in the last 5 years. Especially when the content catches up.

[McPhee]

I'll probably go for 3D at home on the PC. Not likely to replace the TV though, my TV and BD player are barely a year old. Also, the glasses problem. I like to lounge around when watching movies and glasses just get in the way.

I'll go for it some time in the future. Probably once they get that glasses-less 3D system in to the market and Blu-Ray has made way to downloads.

[Phill1978]

Originally Posted by aceq

I watched a 3D TV at CES without any glasses. They will be using a different technology for home.

no, the tech being pushed is with glasses. the 3d tv`s are not what everyone is talking about in this thread although they are the real future.

A geek like you perhaps, but I've seen many more non-geeks than geeks going for the latest gadgets at any given time at a store. So when 3D comes in to your store nearby you may well be with your 3-year old HD TV and player, but I bet you 3D TVs will be flying off the shelves at pretty much same rate as LCDs were sold in the last 5 years. Especially when the content catches up.

i bet they will simply because of the logo and the fact that all new LCD`s will be 120hz capable not because people will sit with glasses on in their room.

i can see some slightly geeky middle class familes sit with their children regardless of the pain and strain it may cause on their eyes to wow them. I can see the rest of society waiting for proper 3D tv without glasses, eyestrain and bluring.

its interesting. people have talked on AV forums about all sorts of image traits and calibration down to the N'th degree to get perfection but now we see 3D there are many new artifacts with this type of 3d that seem to be ignored ? and more importantly they are a fixture of this technology

[signs]

Just got back from the Imax in Birmingham all i can say is.. WOW!!!

[Sten Guns]

Thought the film was brilliant.

Im not a fan of 3D in general. So i thought it was 'ok'.

The time flew in, so no sore bum!

[PSM1]

I have to say I was a little unimpressed with the whole 3D thing. Yes it did give some depth to some of the scenes which was good but in general as mentioned before looked a little false. Also due to the glasses the picture lost brightness and the colours also changed slightly (surely this should be compensated for but did not seem to be).
I have not seen a comercial 3D TV yet but if it gives a similar experience I will not be rushing out to get one nor will I subscribe to Sky 3D. I hope it gets better as I feel this technology has potential just not sure it is there yet.

[Boxinghris]

Just received my copy of Home Cinema Choice and it turns out that not only would you need a new 3D Tv and 3D Blu Ray player, you'd also need a new receiver as present receivers wouldn't be able to handle the audio codecs over 1.3 HDMI.

[bazonix]

dunno about that as some of the people at ces 2010 are telling us that if the receiver has absolute bypass ('through') it will be possible... dunno though.... but the fact that panasonic's new 3D/BR player will have a 1.3 and 1.4 port, i think my 1.3 amp will be ok

[JamesMalin]

Avatar was a good film and i would have felt hard done by seeing it only in 2D.

BUT...it wasn't as great as the hype.

pretty long and not the whole film was in 3D anyway.

[Begonia]

Am I alone in thinking that I experienced TWO TYPES of 3D experience in Avatar?

eg,

1. Early on in the film when disabled soldier Jake first arrived on the planet and there were 'from front to back' shots of him and his fellow passengers seated inside the aircraft. This 3D seemed to be very 'tiered'.

2. The 'very special artificial effects graphics' parts of the film (eg, those of the planet's flora and fauna). I thought these kinds of 3D shots were not so 'tiered' and were 'smoother and much less layered', thereby making for a much smoother 3D experience.

In other words, I think I liked the 'synthetic 3D stuff more' than the 'old fashioned 3D stuff'.

Anyhow, after all that. WOW! I thought Avatar was possibly THE BEST FILM I've ever seen.

[kevshed]

Timely thread.

So - i'd not seen Avatar, but am currently in the US, having been to CES.

Given the insane amount of 3D tech coming, and having played with a lot of it at CES - little of which i actually liked at the show, i went out last night to watch avatar, in a Cinema in portland, OR. My views below.

1) No doubt, the 'in theater' tech, was waaaaay above any of the domestic kit i saw in Vegas. Whether this is perception, based on the environments/screen size - I'm not sure yet. But the CES kit was pretty poor overall i though, fuzzy, focus not great, colors weak, lack of good sharp stable image, panning issues.... all things many of us simply wouldn't tolerate.

2) The 3D effect, definatly works... and it works well.

3) Did i feel more 'immersed' in the film, due to it being 3D.. no, absolutely not. In fact i spent most of my time being distracted by 'for effect' 3D shots that had no significance to the film. (branches in a forest for example).

4) For the first hour, i was distracted by the 3D element, but after a while, it became natural, even to a point where i'd forget i was watching 3D, until a very pronounced 3D effect came up.... most of it was quite subtle after a while.

For me, to be honest, i think its personally a bit of a gimmick. I think its lends itself well to 3D animated features like ice-age etc, and the upcoming films did look good in the trailers. But i honestly think i'd have preferred the film, in 2D. I certainly wouldn't pay more for 3D in general, though no doubt there will be exceptions where i'll go and watch anyway.

Is it the next big thing..... Probably.

will i be rushing out to change all of my kit in the next couple of years to get it.... highly unlikely !

as for the film...... i was disappointed - it was about a week too long, and the 'moral' story was not necessary at all.... $500M... sheesh. (great effects though!)

[awallafashagba]

didnt noticed my numb-bum as i was blown away by the 3D - paying extra is a bit of a swindle though ! still gimmicks always cost slightly more dont they SKY HD !

[Moolers]

I went to see Avatar 3D last night and I'm not impressed. The picture quality takes a severe hit i.e too dark, muted colours and poor motion. i regret not going to the regular show.
3D's not 4 me.

[Phil Hinton]

Myself and David just saw AVATAR in probably one of the best cinemas on the planet and it was underwhelming in 3D. It was the shutter glass technology so better than the usual Real D system, but still luminance levels when wearing the glasses was poor and colour balance went out of the window. Plus the glasses were uncomfortable and on a few occasions I had to move them. ANYTHING, that takes you out of the film is a bad thing.
On the other hand the sound system in the theater was the best commercial cinema system I have ever heard (the advertise as being the best on the planet and I can see why). The film was ok and enjoyable fantasy stuff, but ruined by the 3D(David has also seen the Real-D version on a flat screen and it was no better), I would have enjoyed it more in 2D.
The system was utalising two digital projectors on the world's only existing cinerama screen masked at 2.40:1 (not using the entire screen). Like I say the luminance and colour balance restrictions were not acceptable in my view, it was like looking through a fish tank (that was a deep green). 3D experience 4/10 Sound 10/10, film 7/10.
Cinema was the Arclight theater Cinerama dome on Sunset Blvd LA. It's THX certified and the World's only such existing theater. I was hoping that they might have been showing some Cinerama films (was a big success in the late 1950's and used three projectors which are still there for the odd AFI showing of 'How the West was Won' and 'This is Cinerama'.
Obviously for 2.40:1 films the curved screen (which is CIH) is masked at the correct ratio (the Cinerama screen ratio is approx 2.75:1 - 2.89:1).
Great place to watch films and the sound system is the best commercial cinema I have ever heard, no contest. Well worth a visit and also a great throw back to how cinema used to be but with a modern digital projection feel.

[Gae]

I have read and read and read posts on the subject of 3D and have come to this conclusion about it. Whether you like it or not is all down to personal taste and how you perceive it.

I think those people who are purely interested in the narrative of films have little interest in the 3D element....that's fine.

There are also those who enjoy the audio element of movies more than the visuals....that's fine.

There are those who enjoy the visuals too, but prefer to watch them in 2D over 3D....that's fine.

There are those people who enjoy all the above mentioned elements but prefer 2D over 3D...that's fine too.

Then there's people like me who enjoy all the above elements of a film but when they see it in 3D, get more drawn into the environment and really get a kick from the added depth of field in a way that really is emotionally rewarding.....not just from a visual, gimmicky perspective, but also from a narrative perspective too. The 3D actually enhances the storyline because for people who "get it", the emotional impact is magnified.

Here's an example...when a guy walks away from the camera towards something, in 2D, we perceive his action and interprete the depth.....in 3D we move with him and experience the movement, rather than perceive it. That's just one trite example.

As another example, when I see a 3D landscape scene, the fact that the mountains fctually feel like they are in the distance really affects me. I have a slight fear of open spaces in the real world and so perhaps I am more sensitive to 3D depth of field, but it affects me when I watch 3D movies and has an emotional impact on me as a viewer. People may say that 3D is just a gimmick, but if the narrative of a film is that a guy heads off into the vast wilderness or a desert landscape, then the feeling of openness and 3D depth becomes an integral part of the narrative and the character's onscreen feelings of entering into a barren and potentially threatening space.

And no, I don't smoke wacky backy...

Gae

[jakspaoo1]

3d is great but could you really imagine avatar in 3d on your 50" plasma/lcd...in my opinion its an experience that can only really be appreciated by a trip to the cinema and will be a poor second at best even on the best of panels.

[Phil Hinton]

Originally Posted by jakspaoo1

3d is great but could you really imagine avatar in 3d on your 50" plasma/lcd...in my opinion its an experience that can only really be appreciated by a trip to the cinema and will be a poor second at best even on the best of panels.

Funnily enough we viewed AVATAR footage at PHL on Panasonic 3DTVs that were correctly calibrated and it was a far better experience than the one we had last night in LA.

[mikeyp]

I thought it was a-bloody-mazing - the 3D definitely added to the experience.

I don't think it will be worth having in the home though unless you have a screen which fills a large portion of your field of vision....which sadly I don't think I'll be able to afford for a looooong time.

[jakspaoo1]

Originally Posted by Phil Hinton

Funnily enough we viewed AVATAR footage at PHL on Panasonic 3DTVs that were correctly calibrated and it was a far better experience than the one we had last night in LA.

That may well be the case Phil but in my humble opinion i cant see how the two experiences could compare.

Of the 3d movies i've watched at the cinema i'm really a big fan of those "jump out of the screen at you moments" such as in final destination 4 and my bloody valentine as well as some of the kids films....i think its purely an experience that can only be enjoyed to the full effect by a visit to the cinema.

Cornwall to Scotland in a Jaguar or Kia,both cars will get you there for sure but believe you me the Jag from my experience is the best way to go.

While this may not be regarded as the best of comparisons thats how i feel about it.

It may be that 3D tv will be a spectacle one day proving me very wrong but i remain unconvinced at present

[Phil Hinton]

Originally Posted by jakspaoo1

That may well be the case Phil but in my humble opinion i cant see how the two experiences could compare.

Have you seen the Panasonic VT25? or 103inch calibrated playing 3D using the shutter glasses? The system being employed using shutter glasses is arguably the better system than Real-D or Dolby's system using passive glasses in the cinema presentations.

Of the 3d movies i've watched at the cinema i'm really a big fan of those "jump out of the screen at you moments" such as in final destination 4 and my bloody valentine as well as some of the kids films....i think its purely an experience that can only be enjoyed to the full effect by a visit to the cinema.

You are welcome to gimmicks like that in my opinion, each to their own. I don't want silly instances of things jumping out the screen, I want to see innovative uses of teh technology if we are to be force fed it.
A bigger screen is also arguably better for the effect, but seeing it last night it distracted me more than immersing me in the movie. Anything that takes me out of the experience is a bad thing in my book.

Cornwall to Scotland in a Jaguar or Kia,both cars will get you there for sure but believe you me the Jag from my experience is the best way to go.

While this may not be regarded as the best of comparisons thats how i feel about it.

It may be that 3D tv will be a spectacle one day proving me very wrong but i remain unconvinced at present

Hang on, I have no idea what you are trying to say there, sorry. If its that 3DTV is a poor relation to the cinema experience, well apart from the size of screen and resolution they are identical tech in most cases, or arguably better with the shutter glasses.

I am yet to be convinced, I went in with an open mind, but it ended up being a distracting experience for me. I felt like I just wanted to watch the 2D version after a while. I wanted to be blown away and wasn't.
I have seen all the proposed and finalised home systems, the vast majority will use the shutter glasses and only after testing them will we know what to expect. So far the jury is still well and truly out for me.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by mikeyp

I thought it was a-bloody-mazing - the 3D definitely added to the experience.

I agree. It was a fantastic experience at our local Odeon and I would now like to see it again at the IMAX