3D hobbits

I just saw The Hobbit in 3D. Generally, I wait until after the crowds die down for a big movie release and usually go on a night when few people are going to be in the auditorium with me. Such as New Year's Eve. While I'm not going to comment on the content of the movie other than to say it was excellent, I will comment on my 3D experience. I think that P.J. got it right in this one. Very few things broke the plane on the screen in this movie. Which is really the way that it should be. The effect was very subtle and rarely did it draw attention to itself

There has been a lot of controversy over 3D since Avatar made it's big splash in 2009. And quite honestly, a good portion of the subsequent movies released in 3D abused the technology or were 2D movies hastily converted to try to capitalize on Avatar's success. Some were just gawd awful and made me want to close an eye just to get rid of the effect. Unlike previous attempts at 3D, I think that this time the technology is around to stay. If done correctly I will continue to embrace the idea of 3D movies. And even some conversions if properly done such as the Titanic conversion. Top Gun received the conversion treatment but it has not yet been released and I expect it will be awhile out of respect to the director, Tony Scott, who recently took his own life. A Top Gun sequel had been in the works but that is not going to happen now most likely.

But anyway, one of the biggest complaints I hear about 3D movies is by those who wear glasses such as myself. I hated the theater issued glasses. Uncomfortable and didn't seem to work all that good. I took a pair home with me and modified them so that they actually stayed put and didn't sag down over my nose requiring me to hold them in place during the show. It worked but just passably so.

A few weeks ago, I found out that they make clip on 3D glasses. You can get a pair fairly cheap at $6-8 on Amazon. They just need to be compatible with RealD which most theaters are using. There is a Dolby 3D that is NOT compatible but I have not seen any theaters that use it yet. If you have an LG passive 3D TV you can get same type of clip-ons for your TV and they will work for 3D in the theaters. I purchased the more expensive LG glasses figuring that I didn't want to get a cheap pair that may not have proper lens alignment or poor coating. The result, absolutely worth it. I did some experimenting during the previews of switching back and forth and the 3D effect in my clip-ons was definitely better than the glasses the theater gave me. No ghosting of the other image in either eye while the theater glasses did have some. They were comfortable to wear, out of sight and I quickly forgot that I had them on once the movie finally started (after 21 minutes of previews and other junk).

So if you wear glasses and like to watch 3D in the theater, get a pair of clip-on glasses. Absolutely worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solitaire

But anyway, one of the biggest complaints I hear about 3D movies is by those who wear glasses such as myself.

---

It is becoming harder to find showings of movies not in 3d - not because I don't like the 3d, but to accommodate my other half's blindness in addition to glasses. Its pretty tough to watch with one eye and not get a headache. :eek:

In a really interesting discussion with a theatre staffer once - the staff mentioned that a lot of people actually wonder about the aavailability of non 3d showings. Many don't seem to like the 3d at all (which made getting into a non-3d showing of a movie interesting), but the theatre is forced to play this format.

Actually, I think that is more common than you think. At my local theater, they are running 2 copies of The Hobbit in 2D on their two largest screens/auditoriums and one copy in 3D in a smaller auditorium. Which kind of irritated me cause I would rather have seen the 3D presentation on the largest screen they have when I watched it. I like 3D IF it is well done. But too many movies are just absolute crap.

For people with vision problems, I have wondered about it. Like if they are blind in one eye. In theory, they should be able to see a 3D movie (in 2D) perfectly well though they would still have to wear the glasses. I don't think that there will come a time very often when a 3D version will be the only one available at a theater. I can see discrimination lawsuits popping up real quick in that case. I think that it is likely that they will continue to show it on multiple screens or perhaps alternate 2D and 3D showings on the same screen.

3D is a great tool to enhance the presentation of a show but it is not a mature technology as far as I am concerned. Especially for the home market. Hopefully someday they can figure out high quality glasses free 3D that won't bother those with vision issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solitaire

For people with vision problems, I have wondered about it. Like if they are blind in one eye. In theory, they should be able to see a 3D movie (in 2D) perfectly well though they would still have to wear the glasses. I don't think that there will come a time very often when a 3D version will be the only one available at a theater. I can see discrimination lawsuits popping up real quick in that case. I think that it is likely that they will continue to show it on multiple screens or perhaps alternate 2D and 3D showings on the same screen.

---

As much as I really want to go see the hobbit in the HD 3D that its been done in, I'm pretty much blind in one eye. It can cause a migraine to watch stuff in HD for long periods and 3D is impossible. I can't even do steroscopic pictures properly so 3D isn't going to work for me. If the cinema isn't offering it in 2D I just wait until the movie comes out on DVD. Even then although 3d might not take completly over, I've noticed that where I live it is getting difficult to find movies that are blu-ray but not in 3D in the shops. If you can get a 2D version its usually in a more expensive bundle that includes a digital copy, 2D, and 3D version.

You know, that might be one area where a class action suit could be brought if enough people got ticked off. I thought it very stupid that they could program the java on a 3D blu-ray to check and find out if the player, TV and AV system were capable of 3D playback and if one component was not then the player would refuse to load the movie. There is no reason what so ever that it could not recognize it was playing either on a 2D system or one capable of 3D then choose the proper menus and playback mode for that format. From what I understand, converting a 3D movie to 2D is as simple as only playing the left eye image. I have PowerDVD installed on my HTPC (Home Theater Personal Computer) and it can switch back and forth between the formats on the fly at the click of a button. I've turned off 3D during a movie a couple of times because they were so gawd awfully made and/or converted that it was painful to watch in 3D. So why lock out 2D only systems? Both versions can easily fit on a single disc without extras. Except for really long movies like the converted Titanic which was split into two discs for the 3D home release. "Extras" belong on a separate disk anyway and should be optional in a purchase. Sounds like it may be yet another sneaky way for the studios to try to double dip out of people's pockets.

Have a 2D system? You can only buy the 2D version of a movie to run on it. And if you upgrade to 3D capable, well too bad you have to buy the movie again. Sorry. ($ cha-CHING $)