3D STAR WARS for the masses...has ARRIVED! — Page 16

doubleofive said:

All it does is show the same image to both eyes by blocking the other image (instead of just blocking it for one eye). There's no reason why they wouldn't work. I saw a video on how to make your own somewhere.

All it does is nothing since they don't exist. This was an April fool's joke yet people keep bringing it up for some reason...

Not having a go at you Fives, just saying.

There are 3D>2D glasses available on Amazon cheap, and they are not an April Fools joke. They are custom made with 2 left lenses which cancel out the 3D effect. Look up "2D glasses" on Amazon and you will find them. I imagine they are great for when somebody goes with friends to see a 3D film, since they can see 2D without having to see the 2D version all by themselves while their friends see it in 3D.

Myself, I've always loved 3D. It doesn't bother my eyes in the slightest, even with red/blue anaglyph glasses, as long as the 3D is done competently. That is the key. And I wear regular glasses too. The polarized 3D in the Imax and RealD theatres nowadays can be amazing if the director knows what he is doing with the 3D. I've seen several newer 3D films - Avatar, My Bloody Valentine, Up, Saw - most of them were awesome but Saw was terrible because it was too dark all through the film and not filmed at all well with 3D in mind. You don't need to constantly throw things out of the screen at the audience to have good 3D - while that can be fun for certain films like My Bloody Valentine, good 3D can just mean using sets and cameras to make the most of the 3D technology. Film with 3D in mind. Even in the 50's there were great polarized 3D films made, like House of Wax just for an example.

On the other hand, I feel some 3D films today are a bit too restrained. House of wax had fantastic depth that really pulled you into the film, as though you were really there, without constantly tossing things out at you. Some 3D films today have such a restrained use of 3D that it doesn't even feel 3D, which just disappoints the audience. The trick is finding a balance of 3D techniques that work together to immerse you in the film. Just because you have a 3D camera doesn't mean you can film good in 3D. I used to take stereoscopic pictures for a hobby, and just because you point a 3D camera out the window doesn't mean you're going to get a great 3D picture. You need to compose your shot. Same thing with movies.

I'm usually dead against 2d>3D conversions because they are usually crap. I will admit that I've seen Piranha 3D and it looked really fantastic in 3D, and that was a conversion. I honestly don't think I would have known that it was a conversion just by watching it. The filmmakers said they took their time with the conversion and wanted to get it right, and I think it shows. They filmed it knowing ahead of time that they would convert it to 3D in post, so they filmed as though they were actually filming in 3D. I still think filming in true 3D is the way to go, but I'll be curious to see what James Cameron does with Titanic next year. He knows what he's doing.

As far as Star Wars, that's another thing altogether. Even if the 3D looks great (I have my doubts because the company he chose, out of several different 3D companies, is the one who did the conversion for Clash of the Titans which was atrocious), it will most likely still be blue and will most definitely still be the special editions. Plus I hated the prequels so I have zero interest in seeing them again, 3D or not. The only ones I might be interested in slightly is the OT, but it will be years before those are out.

One thing I'm getting really sick of is all the animated G-rated kid's flicks. Who can possibly afford to see them all even if they wanted too? Over-saturation. These things are a dime-a-dozen now and they're getting old quick. They all look the same and studies show that kids have a hard time sitting still with the 3D glasses on anyways, and tend to keep taking them off.

skyjedi2005 said:

I wish around where i lived there were illicit showings of the original versions in 35mm.

Harmy said:

CP3S said:

You could make them just buy grabbing two pairs of sunglasses and popping and popping the lenses out and making one pair with two right eyes and one pair with two left eyes, right? Or am I over simplifying it?

 

That's definitely oversimplified. The lenses have to be polarized in a specific way, they're not simple sunglasses. And those 3D-2D glasses wouldn't work everywhere because for example one of the cinemas in my town uses active LCD glasses, (the same technology most 3D TVs use) so these 3D-2D glasses would be useless for that, the only thing that could help is an eye-patch ;-)

Oops, just caught this. I fear that post made me sound incredibly stupid thanks to a staggering number of typos (even for me) and accidentally using the word "sunglasses" when I intended to say "3D glasses". Silverwook mentioned "sunglasses" so that was obviously still on my brain; I intended to write "by grabbing two pairs of 3D glasses and popping the lenses out to make one pair with two right eyes and one pair with two left eyes, right? Or am I over simplifying it?"

Obviously the exercise of making a pair of sunglasses with two right eyes or two left eyes would be like doing nothing and quite ridiculous. But I am still under the impression a pair of polarized glasses with two of the same lenses would do the trick.

xhonzi said:

adywan said:

CP3S said:

Still, seems kind of silly to have to wear a pair of stupid glasses just to watch a movie.

I, along with many other people, have to wear glasses to watch a regular movie, so i don't see the problem with the glasses

 Hmm... who are these "people" you speak of?  ;)

As a non glasses wearing-person, I would have thought that people already wearing one pair of glasses wouldn't mind so much wearing two pair to watch a 3D movie, but these "people" seem to be the most violently opposed...

Whoa! Quote taken out of context. When I said it "seems kind of silly to have to wear a pair of stupid glasses just to watch a movie", I wasn't talking about 3D glasses, I was talking about 3D to 2D glasses. The idea I was trying to convey was that it would be silly to have to wear a pair of 3D to 2D glasses to go and watch a film at the cinema in 2D. Especially when you pay extra to see it in 3D.

I don't care one bit for 3D, I think it is gimmicky. It is honestly the only part I enjoyed of Avatar, so I am not going to say it isn't kind of fun to experience, but even by the end of that unnecessarily long movie the novelty had worn off for me. I wouldn't want to see every movie in 3D. But I think the requirement of 3D glasses to see the film in 3D is more than reasonable and don't understand why so many people complain about it.

And for the record, I am extremely near sighted. Without my contacts, my computer screen is just a blur of color. So I'd be one of those who need glasses just to watch any film... though, I actually don't even own a pair of glasses... Hmmm, has anyone ever thought of inventing 3D contact lenses?

I can't imagine putting in contact lenses just to watch something in 3D, especially as you would be blind driving to the theater...or walking to your couch.

Meant for people with glasses, or for people with good vision.

Screw people with good vision :p

But seriously, I can't picture taking off my glasses and putting in 3D contacts when I get to the theater or to my couch.  And I've found that the people I know with good vision are really eye squeamish and don't even want to watch me put in contacts, let alone put in their own.

Sorry dude, DREAM DESTROYED.

Well, I did mean it as a bit of a joke... so...

JOKE DESTROYED

greenpenguino said:

THE PIPES ARE BROKEN!

HAHA.... I must respond with "ouch, those things are bad for you"!

I love me some H*R... so much so that I created an account just to comment on this!

As for the 3D, I'm glad to see that it's going to be done... seeing as I've become 3-D-tarded over the last year and a half or so (couldn't pass up a 3DTV deal on Amazon before this past Superbowl) and I have an overwhelming compulsion to see every crappy animated movie that has been released in 3D... even "Shrek the Third".  It's pretty bad. ;)

I also hope that (before the official theatrical releases) someone/some group comes up with a quality "hand-made" 3D conversion of the original trilogy... or at least some of the most awesome scenes from the films.

I wouldn't hold your breath for that home-made conversion you're hoping for. I've already seen one done for the OT and it looked awful. Home-made conversions are terrible, hell the major studios can barely get it done well.

I'm still waiting for an awesome 3D conversion of the 1984 A New Hope VHS.

The 3D bubble seems to have reached bursting point.

The real test will be, Prometheus, if that is a 3D success the gimmick may be here to stay but if not there will be a lot of blood of the dancefloor.

Erikstormtrooper said:

I think further changes are in store for the 3D versions. Lucas will want something new to get people in theaters.

Something I haven't seen people ask: Will this be ONLY in 3D? There's always a 2D option - will that be the case with the Star Wars movies?

Yes, I think it will exclusively be in 3D because GL is a prick. I second the belief that the movies will be changed even more than the Blu-rays.

From what I have read that 3D/HDTV's are not selling well, and I honestly think it is a fad in theaters right now and will be an afterthought in 5-10 years.

I don't blame the movie studios for trying to increase revenue anyway they can, because they are essentially a business that looks at its bottom line.  But this is masking a larger problem in the industry that movies overall just aren't as good as they were 10-20 years ago and they have to try anything get people in the theaters.