What do you think about 3d as a film format? ============================= 💭Join our Discord Channel💬 ► discord.gg/3aeNPU7GHu 🐦Twitter ► twitter.com/frame_voyager 📷Instagram ► instagram.com/framevoyager/ 🎵TikTok ► www.tiktok.com/@framevoyager Join our RUclips channel 📺 ►ruclips.net/channel/UCmXGDFnFh95WlZjhwmA5aeQjoin
I wouldn't say 3D is nothing but a gimmick That's used to get more money out of the consumer, good 3D conversions exist as you have said and they tend to have a lot of work put into them to make them good. My personal go-to for a 2D film converted into 3D that I like to bring up is the original Doctor strange, The movie was shot in 2D but the 3D version is phenomenal and I think it is a film that I will never watch in 2D. Another one of my favorite 3D conversions is Pixar's Monsters Inc, the establishing shot of the door vault in the film's final act is amazing as all of the rails of the doors ride on are able to draw the perspective for the viewer.
Also in case you're curious, I watched 3D movies in my VR headset on my PC which requires me to rip the movies to my PC and convert them to siide by side 3D, so I do get a bit of quality loss on the horizontal axis but it's worth it in my opinion just to be able to watch it
@@chrisfratz I don't think it's nothing but a gimmick, just that lazy studios looking for money have converted so many movies to 3d for the gimmick. And that's what a lot of people remember, at least general audiences.
@@FrameVoyager That's fair, I still haven't run into a poor 3D conversion but I have heard of some films getting a really bad conversion, but I remember hearing of a 3D conversion from DreamWorks where they only gave the team a few weeks to do it and it was apparently absolutely garbage quality.
@@chrisfratz exactly! I love 3D, when it's done right. But really in the video was trying to show that studios have just left a bad taste in the mouths of audiences over the years.
See that's a great use case of it! 3D, like any tool or technique, should be used with some sort of purpose to it. Similar to how the movie The Whale used aspect ratio to it's advantage in the film.
Completely false. 3D itself is amazing. 3D in movie theaters isn’t. And so are bad conversions. But you always have 2D option, so it’s better to have 3D than not. BTW, 3D movies in VR look absolutely gorgeous
Any 3D movie experience causes me to hear the voice of James A. Janisse from Dead Meat, going “WhoOaA!”, as he does when talking about 3D bits in horror movies.
QUICK NOTE: In this video we are not saying 3D SUCKS, just that studios being cheap with post conversion and using it as a money grabbing gimmick has left audiences feeling that way. It's a viable format but one that has been abused a lot.
@@dr.wolfstar1765 That's because that's the general consensus by a lot of audiences. So it's addressing "why it sucks" but we quickly explain that premise in the intro of the video as well. It's a good title
the 3d trailer for guardians of the galaxy 3 that played before avatar 2 was jarringly bad post conversion. It was like watching paper cut outs. It certainly made Avatar more impressive by comparison. I think if more films were properly shot in 3d then it would be more incentive for going to a theater for that experience, but with crummy conversions it isnt worth it.
Speaking of VR, watching films in 3d SBS on my oculus rift s has been one of the best experience i've had in cinema for years, using the headset completely erases the luminance problem and you can virtually watch the movie on a screen twice the size as an IMAX screen. Yes, you lose a bit in resolution due to the sbs encoding of the files but it's so damn great compared to the other solutions (and cheaper in some aspects too.)
@@idkanymore3382 I'm also planning on getting a 3D projector at some point, but right now I don't have the space or the money for a projector. So using my VR headset to watch 3D movies is a better option at the moment.
@@goggishdrute2874 it all comes down to the film you're watching, but yeah there's some pretty good depth, and I watched Spy Kids 3 in 3D which is absolutely gimmicky and there was a lot of pop out. And I absolutely loved it, it's like junk food for me, it's not good but it's fun.
ABSOLUTELY! 3D movies on a VR headset are amazing. No luminance loss as you said, but also no ghosting. Apparently the PS5/VR2 can't play 3D Blu-rays which is just *IDIOTIC.* I was ready to buy one until I heard that.
@@chrisfratzIf you're looking into 3D projectors, You should look into getting two projectors and polarization filters. Because of how niche 3D projection is it may end up being cheaper to get two projectors. At least if you want to do a passive 3D setup. I never got to do an a/b test So I can't directly compare image quality.(I'm guessing there's not a huge difference besides the glasses themselves) Active 3D is probably less expensive but can be very difficult to get the correct equipment/components for. This can make it more expensive, but probably not.(assuming you can find what you need) I've done this sort of setup before. The set up it's not too bad as long as you don't have to move it very much. Otherwise the setup's a bit fiddly each time you move them unless it's all hard mounted with screws. Even then you may have to do minor adjustments depending on how you mount them. Passive 3D is also more sensitive to screen material due to the need to preserve light polarization. Some random knowledge on 3D projection knowledge I've acquired. (I kind of got off topic, but I couldn't bring myself to delete it because it might be interesting) I've also done some peppers ghost style digital projection setups as well. Trying to get that working with 3D was an interesting physics and material science problem. The only solutions I found was cost prohibitive for the size required. At least on our budget. I left the project/group and don't know if any progress has been made.(I'm guessing there has been) This is where the idea for multiple projectors came from. These setups generally have a ton of loss of image intensity which requires bright projectors, and generally multiple ones converged for increased brightness.(It really depends on screen size and loss) So trying to add passive 3D was an interesting idea. That wouldn't be too difficult to implement if it worked. Considering we were already converging multiple projectors for increased brightness, it's not really much more work. Essentially the core of the problem is you need to preserve the light polarization for the 3D effect to work properly. It also helps a lot if you render/record proper stereoscopic 3D, otherwise it just looks worse than 2D affect.
If all videos had 3D made so well like Avatar 1 and 2 from James Cameron... Some movies are so bad in 3D. I'm not entirely sure which movie was that, but I remember it was a great movie with awesome visuals, but 3D was so bad that it ruined whole quality of it.
The titan movies? I'm pretty sure I remember people complaining about headaches after watching that movie. And it came in right after Avatar and was quickly up-converted.
Laser 3D is the bomb! I just saw the last Avatar movie in it. There was no saturation loss at all. I thing they should all be moving towards this tech.
Modern stereo conversions cost the same as doing it Native. Its not about being cheaper its about have more control over the stereo space. Most of big tentpole films are 3D by nature due to the vast amounts of digital environments and creatures.
True! Like we said, not all post converted 3D movies are created equal. Some will rush to convert it to 3D and others will take the time to make sure it's done well. There are a few examples of that.
180 VR motion (there is no right word yet I think, it is not a movie, or a video and not interactive game) will make all today's cinema obsolete soon. 3D movie people can see clearly the four screen borders, human eyes will not see any borders..
Shortsighted view, once lenticular TVs (or Light field) will become standard, those 3D movies will become relevant whithout any need to reprocess them artificially. Same as we get some amazing UHD 4K rescanned versions of 80s and 90s movies today, the raw master still had a lot to offer for the future generations beyond CRT displays.
the issue is we never have a choice to see it in regular because they put the regular screenings on during the day and the 3rd screenings on in the evening
The first and only movie I have seen in 3D was the Lego Movie when it came out. I saw the option to see it in 3D so thought "why not?" from what I remember, I was impressed by the parts that "jumped off the screen" and had the 3D effect but I don't think the colors looked as good as the normal non 3D version. I have seen part of David Attenborough's Kingdom of Plants in 3D and thought it looked amazing seeing the plants in 3D, maybe as it was shot in 3D, not just edited in 3D in post.
Animations are way easier to pull off as well. You don't have as much of the "uncanny" valley feeling because you already know it's not real. Actually want to go see the Mario movie in 3D for fun lol
I 100% AGREE! 3D MAKES BIG SCREENS LOOK SMALLER. It literally takes the 'big' out of 'big screen' - as you are both windowing the experience through glasses, and 3D makes individual elements of the screen 3D and not others. Eg: in a 3D film a subject and foreground are mastered to 'jump out' while the rest is flat. In a standard 2D film; your eye is free to wander every frame in its glory!
I think IMAX helps with some of this, but that's a good point. Though some would argue that it helps to immerse you more. Depends on preference I guess
I saw Avatar 2 in 3D HFR … and it was exhausting. The changing frame rates were distracting, the „small box effect“ was annoying, there was nothing immersive for me - quite the opposite. Had I seen it in 2D, I would have appreciated the visuals more. Maybe this works in IMAX. But so far, going all the way back to the first Avatar, 3D-Movies have done nothing for me - and Avatar 2 was my worst experience yet
I saw Avatar 2 in 2D for the first viewing experience and then 3D for the second time watching it. I enjoyed the 3D more than I thought I would, but it definitely took me at least half the movie to get used to it. I wonder sometimes if it's just our exposure to 3D content is so limited and that's why it's so jarring to us.
I don’t know. But I don‘t see the benefits for a „normal“ movie. Virtual Reality, Gaming, some special documentaries like „Cave of forgotten dreams“ - yes. But as long as you make a movie with all the visual conventions for 2D and use 3D as an add on, it is little more than a gimmick. One would have to create a whole new visual language for 3D films. Something that demands to be seen in 3D. We need pioneers like Eisenstein or D.W. Griffith back in the day to do that. It would take real artists to make something that would free 3D cinema from being a technical layer at a premium price.
I think 3D is great, if done well. Sadly there are weary few "true" 3D movies. Therfore 3D never achieved its full potential. I really cant blame people to dislike bad an cheap made 3D films. There is no + to the experience. Just hope that 3D will stand its ground an gets the attention it needs to be good and that the audience is less "forced" to 3D screenings for the extra money.
i honestly believe thats why movie theatres don't have new young customers because of how bad the 3d is most movies are 3d but suck and you can hardly even find a regular screening or the regular screaming is at a horrible time like 1pm rather then the evening
Haha appreciate it! We actually have a team of writers and researchers we work with now that help do a lot of heavy lifting on the episode. I'll come back through and help with insights and re-write it to fit the style I want and then check as much of the research as I can. These take a lot of effort to put together and it was really hard when I was the only one doing it haha
@@FrameVoyager yeah, that’s incredible. Your videos are always top notch. I was up till 6AM this morning working on my next video and I’m not anywhere near done. It just blows my mind how much work goes into these. Well done! I need to improve my editing skills. Lol
@@CNC-Time-Lapse haha appreciate it! A lot of it is really getting down your porcesses and then setting up stuff so you don't always have to repeat steps in the editing process. Templates and custom hotkeys help a lot
@@FrameVoyager just curious, does your team use Premiere or Resolve for your workflow? I have licenses for both but have been just sticking to Premiere (I don’t shoot in BRAW, but ProRes due to file size). I have been thinking of switching to Resolve and buying some kind of DAW. Haha I should probably become an expert about both.
I feel like 3D is one of those weird things to me where when a movie does it right and naturally I kind of just forget about it? Even in VR, in the moment I tend to find the 3D cool, but as I get used to it I don’t find it leaves an impact where I need to comment on it. Maybe it’s just because I’m near sighted or some other biological thing with me? The only 3D experience I legitimately remember was one ride at Disneyland where a lion legit came a couple inches away from your face. That left an impact on me for basically my whole life lol. It’s also worth noting that it’s not just post converted 3D that’s an issue. Lots of theaters use projectors that are straight up not bright enough for 3D. I saw Avatar 2 in a Dolby Cinema and I kind of thought that was the bare minimum brightness to do 3D justice. Most theaters barely get 1/3 of the brightness Dolby Cinema projectors can output.
That's a decent point about the theatres not having the projectors to do it justice. That's becoming less of an issue lately, but in certain areas I bet it's still not great.
I basically see out of one eye (even then, not that well). Everyone says 3D sucks, but I would at least like to see it so I can decide it sucks for myself!
We mention this towards the end of the video about stereo blindness and how for a portion of the population, they can never experience it. But we don't think 3D sucks! We just think studios being cheap made it suck
don't listen to the clown talking about 3-D that he doesn't understand. Do you wanna make sure you're watching an active 3-D my AWOL vision LT 3500 is outstanding in 3-D. I've had yet to have a single person see my system and not want one. the problem is is there's just not enough content I personally on about 253 D movies all of them are Blu-ray except for some of the specials and one Star Wars but it's thoroughly enjoyable. Don't let this guy turn you off. He's just one of these people that wants to talk crap about something because he either doesn't understand it or doesn't have a system worth watching it on, he started out with the blue and red glasses that was gonna be crap. Also, he doesn't understand the difference between passive and active.
@@FrameVoyager Sometimes I wonder if people even realize that they SEE IN 3D ALL DAY LONG (assuming they have normal vision.) They just don't want to do it while watching a movie or TV for some reason.
You kind of left out Dolby 3D. Many years ago, I talked to the people who invented the technology in East Germany. It basically works on very specific wavelengths for Red, Green and Blue. It doesn't have the problem of requiring a polarization-maintaining screen (the real reason polarization technology is so problematic) when used with cinema projectors.
@@FrameVoyager Correction, it was in south-west Germany where we reviewed an Infitec video processor and the necessary color filters, before they had licensed their technology to Dolby. I confused it with a manufacturer of auto-stereoscopic monitors in East Germany.
People still cared about 3D in mass back in '09 for Avatar. Considering over 65% of all tickets sold were for the more expensive 3D version, it was still a big deal. Why do you think it is the all-time highest grossing movie (which I really don't get)?
I've been really enjoying your videos, Frame Voyager. Keep it up! I love Avatar: The Way of Water. Thought the 3D was great. I also caught Titanic 3D a few weeks ago and though that was spectacularly well done for post-conversion.
We just use Channel Memberships instead of Patreon 😅 about to revamp that but makes it easier to see who's a member and who's not within RUclips! You can check that out here --> ruclips.net/channel/UCmXGDFnFh95WlZjhwmA5aeQjoin
The only movie that I really loved 3D in that enhanced the story in a way I cannot explain was Tron Legacy. Seeing that movie in 3d on opening night is an experience I will never forget.
3D conversion simply doesn't work and I/m not sure why. Part of it is the paper cutout effect where the elements don't themselves have depth but other than that, there's no correct parallax for bigger scenes like of a big landscape and mountains, somehow you can clearly see the depth difference between 10 and 100km away which is just impossible because that difference can't be distinguished from parallax between the distance of your eyes. Surely they can get that part correct in 3D conversion, but somehow they just don't.
Flies and wasps are stupid because they keep banging their heads against the picture window and they don’t bother to look for another source of daylight, which might be an open door, to the balcony. 3D has been tried numerous times by Hollywood, and has always failed to launch. There is a good and simple reason for this. Most living beings on land, underwater and in the air, have two eyes, fairly close together. Why? It is a similar reason that angular measurements are taken of a telescope at the bow and stern of a ship, observing a coastal landmark, in order to determine the distance from the shore. But this is only reasonably accurate, if the distance is less than ten times the length, of the ship. Our brain needs to process two distinct perspective views, simultaneously: one from the right eye and one from the left. Our brains have evolved to be able to intuitively sense the relative distances between different objects, in front of our eyes, so that we have a sharper understanding of our immediate environment. This was necessary for things like knowing which branch of a tree, is within reach or the proximity of danger, from a potential predator. But this depth perception is only effective, inside a radius of about ten feet or three meters. Our eyes cannot perceive depth, outside of this radius. We lose the ability to determine a sense of distance, through this parallax effect, for objects and subjects, which are further away. Movies try to impress audiences with cinemascopic panoramas. When you try to put very large objects such as an Imperial Battle Cruiser into 3d, paradoxically, it will come off as a small toy, from the point of view of the audience, whether the audience is consciously aware of the fact, or not. The perception subverts the cinematic intent. It doesn’t work because it goes against our brain’s experience of natural depth perception. Movie makers are not architects, they are superficial investors, trying to make a pile of dough, who don’t have time for careful reflection.
Yes, _bad 3D_ sucks, but *3D is FREAKING AMAZING.* I blame the failure of 3DTV on overheated marketing wanks who tried to sell 3DTV as _"The NEW way you'll watch TV!"_ instead of _"An amazing ADDITIONAL way to watch SOME specific things on your TV now and then if you want to."_ People thought they were going to have to wear special glasses to watch TV and said: *NOPE.* I absolutely *LOVE 3D* when appropriate and when done well, but some people "don't get it" and call it a gimmick. Some people just think calling things gimmicks makes them cool, but I think there is also some fundamental, underlying difference in how people perceive the world around them even if they do have normal vision. Perhaps the perception of depth is too subtle a thing for them to comprehend or appreciate.
People have been conditioned to think of 3D as bad because of the cheap gimmicks they were exposed to for a long time. So totally agree with you. 3D can be AMAZING
For me, 3D is a failed film-making technique. The reason is that it is a failure is that it has rarely added anything to the story. Unlike if a film is photographed in Cinemascope or Academy, B&W or colour or Technicolor..... those techniques can change the story. If a film comes out in both 3D and 2D, then the 3D effect is not needed. The only 3D film that has worked for me was Imax "Speedway".
Well balanced documentary. I have a lovely JVC laser projector with active shutter glasses and there are about 50 of the 350 3D films I have that are superb - Hugo, Tangled, The Walk,,,,films you might not consider for 3D. The downside is that SONY are cutting 3D projectors and have eliminated 3D TV’s altogether and as a major film studio appear to have cut the creation of 3D films. The SONY influence is bad news for us remaining 3D film fans.
James Cameron is truly the only director in hollywood that understands the true brilliance of 3D no one does it better than him other directors like Michael Bay, Ang Lee, Tim Burton and Ridley Scott also have done great 3D in there movies I'm someone who really loves the visual enhancement of 3D in movies that work best for it and i think its a dame shame that studios and not enough other directors consider it just an afterthought elemental Disneys new pixar film has to be the best 3D movie I saw this year equally as good as Avatar and thats high praise
this past Halloween I went to go see dawn of the dead converted to 3-D. I think the last rerelease I had gone to see in 3-D was the Phantom Menace, which came out like 10 years earlier. While I was impressed with how much better the conversion process has goteeb, especially considering the Phantom Menace was only a roughly 15 year old movie at the time of the conversion, and dawn of the dead is like 45 at this point, almost none of the gore effects get the 3-D money funneled toward them. I wanted zombies popping out of the screen when Stephen gets attacked in the elevator, instead, the only shot that made me jump out of my seat was of a tennis ball Peter was hitting on the roof…
3D sucks! I'm glad I'm no longer forced to see movies in 3D and this fad is finally over. I even built my own 2D glasses (two left lenses or two right lenses) to make it a bit more bearable.
Eh... I nev er got the appeal for Avatars 3d, it was very plain and flat looking, sure some sweeping paralax and stuff but like thats been a thing since the MegaDrive and before. It still felt extremely fake and more like multiple flat images just sliding around. So with that in mind the benchmark for "Good" 3D is not even worth it because it still feel sfake and flat but like layers of flat.
I think a lot of times it does come down to personal preference or what projector and theatre you see something on. I personally wouldn't want to go see every movie in 3D, but every once in a while it's fun.
@@FrameVoyager I can totally agree with that. It has just never wowed me or actually felt "3D" and I was thinking more about it, I think its because even with depth in a movie it is still fixed perspective, its 3D but not the same way as being able to actually look around things, so for me the illusion never fully works. I can see the effect and what they are going for with it, but it still feels like the old stuff flying at you, but now its more peaceful stuff far away from you effect, an upgrade and more impressive but still not really "3D".
I have a video projector capabile of 3d. And is amazing. 3D Looks so good...Most of the media say over the years cuz 3d is a gimmik. Wtf... My video projector is capabile of projecting Dolby vision. And what I consider a gimmik is dolby, hdr, imax enhanced, bla bla bla. ghive me deph to images, and this is absolute format in tehnology... I don't care about dolby vison and krap like this... Sdr with good calibration is ok. From what I consider, beeing able to see depth in images, seeing the hole, when Thanos or Hella(Thor Ragnarock) enter the screen, This is what I call a immersive experience when whatching movies. I hate when I hear people saying"I'm glad cuz 3d movies die".Yah... I wil be glad if you will die...
Saw Way of Water in IMAX 1.43.1 3D HFR and it was AWE-INSPIRING.. for about 15 minutes. After an hour I was exhausted, bored, and ready for it to end. 🫠
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you think about 3d as a film format?
=============================
💭Join our Discord Channel💬 ► discord.gg/3aeNPU7GHu
🐦Twitter ► twitter.com/frame_voyager
📷Instagram ► instagram.com/framevoyager/
🎵TikTok ► www.tiktok.com/@framevoyager
Join our RUclips channel 📺 ►ruclips.net/channel/UCmXGDFnFh95WlZjhwmA5aeQjoin
I wouldn't say 3D is nothing but a gimmick That's used to get more money out of the consumer, good 3D conversions exist as you have said and they tend to have a lot of work put into them to make them good. My personal go-to for a 2D film converted into 3D that I like to bring up is the original Doctor strange, The movie was shot in 2D but the 3D version is phenomenal and I think it is a film that I will never watch in 2D. Another one of my favorite 3D conversions is Pixar's Monsters Inc, the establishing shot of the door vault in the film's final act is amazing as all of the rails of the doors ride on are able to draw the perspective for the viewer.
Also in case you're curious, I watched 3D movies in my VR headset on my PC which requires me to rip the movies to my PC and convert them to siide by side 3D, so I do get a bit of quality loss on the horizontal axis but it's worth it in my opinion just to be able to watch it
@@chrisfratz I don't think it's nothing but a gimmick, just that lazy studios looking for money have converted so many movies to 3d for the gimmick. And that's what a lot of people remember, at least general audiences.
@@FrameVoyager That's fair, I still haven't run into a poor 3D conversion but I have heard of some films getting a really bad conversion, but I remember hearing of a 3D conversion from DreamWorks where they only gave the team a few weeks to do it and it was apparently absolutely garbage quality.
@@chrisfratz exactly! I love 3D, when it's done right. But really in the video was trying to show that studios have just left a bad taste in the mouths of audiences over the years.
I loved the 3D in Monsters vs Aliens, they started by parodying bad 3D tropes and then went on to use it right. :)
See that's a great use case of it! 3D, like any tool or technique, should be used with some sort of purpose to it. Similar to how the movie The Whale used aspect ratio to it's advantage in the film.
Completely false. 3D itself is amazing. 3D in movie theaters isn’t. And so are bad conversions. But you always have 2D option, so it’s better to have 3D than not. BTW, 3D movies in VR look absolutely gorgeous
Yep! If you watch this video this is exactly what we talk about
Any 3D movie experience causes me to hear the voice of James A. Janisse from Dead Meat, going “WhoOaA!”, as he does when talking about 3D bits in horror movies.
😂😂😂
QUICK NOTE: In this video we are not saying 3D SUCKS, just that studios being cheap with post conversion and using it as a money grabbing gimmick has left audiences feeling that way. It's a viable format but one that has been abused a lot.
Oh that's so odd you hide that in the comment section because in your thumb nail, your actual quote is "3D SUCKS. " .......weird
@@dr.wolfstar1765 That's because that's the general consensus by a lot of audiences. So it's addressing "why it sucks" but we quickly explain that premise in the intro of the video as well. It's a good title
@@FrameVoyager it will get alot of clicks for sure
It sucks.
the 3d trailer for guardians of the galaxy 3 that played before avatar 2 was jarringly bad post conversion. It was like watching paper cut outs. It certainly made Avatar more impressive by comparison. I think if more films were properly shot in 3d then it would be more incentive for going to a theater for that experience, but with crummy conversions it isnt worth it.
EXACTLY. Had the same reaction to it like you did when I went to see Avatar in 3D.
Speaking of VR, watching films in 3d SBS on my oculus rift s has been one of the best experience i've had in cinema for years, using the headset completely erases the luminance problem and you can virtually watch the movie on a screen twice the size as an IMAX screen. Yes, you lose a bit in resolution due to the sbs encoding of the files but it's so damn great compared to the other solutions (and cheaper in some aspects too.)
@@idkanymore3382 I'm also planning on getting a 3D projector at some point, but right now I don't have the space or the money for a projector. So using my VR headset to watch 3D movies is a better option at the moment.
@@chrisfratz do the images actually pop how's the depth look like
?
@@goggishdrute2874 it all comes down to the film you're watching, but yeah there's some pretty good depth, and I watched Spy Kids 3 in 3D which is absolutely gimmicky and there was a lot of pop out. And I absolutely loved it, it's like junk food for me, it's not good but it's fun.
ABSOLUTELY! 3D movies on a VR headset are amazing. No luminance loss as you said, but also no ghosting. Apparently the PS5/VR2 can't play 3D Blu-rays which is just *IDIOTIC.* I was ready to buy one until I heard that.
@@chrisfratzIf you're looking into 3D projectors, You should look into getting two projectors and polarization filters. Because of how niche 3D projection is it may end up being cheaper to get two projectors. At least if you want to do a passive 3D setup. I never got to do an a/b test So I can't directly compare image quality.(I'm guessing there's not a huge difference besides the glasses themselves)
Active 3D is probably less expensive but can be very difficult to get the correct equipment/components for. This can make it more expensive, but probably not.(assuming you can find what you need)
I've done this sort of setup before. The set up it's not too bad as long as you don't have to move it very much. Otherwise the setup's a bit fiddly each time you move them unless it's all hard mounted with screws. Even then you may have to do minor adjustments depending on how you mount them. Passive 3D is also more sensitive to screen material due to the need to preserve light polarization.
Some random knowledge on 3D projection knowledge I've acquired. (I kind of got off topic, but I couldn't bring myself to delete it because it might be interesting)
I've also done some peppers ghost style digital projection setups as well. Trying to get that working with 3D was an interesting physics and material science problem. The only solutions I found was cost prohibitive for the size required. At least on our budget. I left the project/group and don't know if any progress has been made.(I'm guessing there has been) This is where the idea for multiple projectors came from. These setups generally have a ton of loss of image intensity which requires bright projectors, and generally multiple ones converged for increased brightness.(It really depends on screen size and loss) So trying to add passive 3D was an interesting idea. That wouldn't be too difficult to implement if it worked. Considering we were already converging multiple projectors for increased brightness, it's not really much more work. Essentially the core of the problem is you need to preserve the light polarization for the 3D effect to work properly. It also helps a lot if you render/record proper stereoscopic 3D, otherwise it just looks worse than 2D affect.
If all videos had 3D made so well like Avatar 1 and 2 from James Cameron... Some movies are so bad in 3D. I'm not entirely sure which movie was that, but I remember it was a great movie with awesome visuals, but 3D was so bad that it ruined whole quality of it.
The titan movies? I'm pretty sure I remember people complaining about headaches after watching that movie.
And it came in right after Avatar and was quickly up-converted.
Laser 3D is the bomb! I just saw the last Avatar movie in it. There was no saturation loss at all. I thing they should all be moving towards this tech.
Laser 3D is AWESOME!
Modern stereo conversions cost the same as doing it Native. Its not about being cheaper its about have more control over the stereo space. Most of big tentpole films are 3D by nature due to the vast amounts of digital environments and creatures.
True! Like we said, not all post converted 3D movies are created equal. Some will rush to convert it to 3D and others will take the time to make sure it's done well. There are a few examples of that.
180 VR motion (there is no right word yet I think, it is not a movie, or a video and not interactive game) will make all today's cinema obsolete soon. 3D movie people can see clearly the four screen borders, human eyes will not see any borders..
"There is no traffic jam along the extra mile." *Roger Staubach
Shortsighted view, once lenticular TVs (or Light field) will become standard, those 3D movies will become relevant whithout any need to reprocess them artificially.
Same as we get some amazing UHD 4K rescanned versions of 80s and 90s movies today, the raw master still had a lot to offer for the future generations beyond CRT displays.
We aren't saying that 3D sucks, just that studios being cheap made it suck and that's what audiences remember
I was NEVER able to see anything in 3D on a flat movie screen.
Now we have a new gimmick to sell the audience: 4K HDR.
YES INDEED! Higher resolution, higher peak brightness, better contrast and better color are just SO STOOPID!
3D with 4K HDR would be amazing.@@StubbyPhillips
the issue is we never have a choice to see it in regular because they put the regular screenings on during the day and the 3rd screenings on in the evening
The first and only movie I have seen in 3D was the Lego Movie when it came out. I saw the option to see it in 3D so thought "why not?" from what I remember, I was impressed by the parts that "jumped off the screen" and had the 3D effect but I don't think the colors looked as good as the normal non 3D version. I have seen part of David Attenborough's Kingdom of Plants in 3D and thought it looked amazing seeing the plants in 3D, maybe as it was shot in 3D, not just edited in 3D in post.
Animations are way easier to pull off as well. You don't have as much of the "uncanny" valley feeling because you already know it's not real. Actually want to go see the Mario movie in 3D for fun lol
I reject your dimension and substitute my own!
😅😅😅
I 100% AGREE! 3D MAKES BIG SCREENS LOOK SMALLER. It literally takes the 'big' out of 'big screen' - as you are both windowing the experience through glasses, and 3D makes individual elements of the screen 3D and not others. Eg: in a 3D film a subject and foreground are mastered to 'jump out' while the rest is flat. In a standard 2D film; your eye is free to wander every frame in its glory!
I think IMAX helps with some of this, but that's a good point. Though some would argue that it helps to immerse you more. Depends on preference I guess
I saw Avatar 2 in 3D HFR … and it was exhausting. The changing frame rates were distracting, the „small box effect“ was annoying, there was nothing immersive for me - quite the opposite. Had I seen it in 2D, I would have appreciated the visuals more. Maybe this works in IMAX.
But so far, going all the way back to the first Avatar, 3D-Movies have done nothing for me - and Avatar 2 was my worst experience yet
I saw Avatar 2 in 2D for the first viewing experience and then 3D for the second time watching it. I enjoyed the 3D more than I thought I would, but it definitely took me at least half the movie to get used to it. I wonder sometimes if it's just our exposure to 3D content is so limited and that's why it's so jarring to us.
I don’t know. But I don‘t see the benefits for a „normal“ movie. Virtual Reality, Gaming, some special documentaries like „Cave of forgotten dreams“ - yes. But as long as you make a movie with all the visual conventions for 2D and use 3D as an add on, it is little more than a gimmick. One would have to create a whole new visual language for 3D films. Something that demands to be seen in 3D. We need pioneers like Eisenstein or D.W. Griffith back in the day to do that. It would take real artists to make something that would free 3D cinema from being a technical layer at a premium price.
I think 3D is great, if done well. Sadly there are weary few "true" 3D movies. Therfore 3D never achieved its full potential. I really cant blame people to dislike bad an cheap made 3D films. There is no + to the experience. Just hope that 3D will stand its ground an gets the attention it needs to be good and that the audience is less "forced" to 3D screenings for the extra money.
i honestly believe thats why movie theatres don't have new young customers because of how bad the 3d is most movies are 3d but suck and you can hardly even find a regular screening or the regular screaming is at a horrible time like 1pm rather then the evening
Try it in VR! It's an entirely different experience!
Totally different! I feel like AR or VR will be the way we consume content in the next 50 years.
3d is awesome U got 3 dimensions who ever cannot understand that he is stupid like a brick
Great job! How long does it take you to write an episode and develop an episode like this one? So much source material to sift through! I am in awe.
Haha appreciate it! We actually have a team of writers and researchers we work with now that help do a lot of heavy lifting on the episode. I'll come back through and help with insights and re-write it to fit the style I want and then check as much of the research as I can. These take a lot of effort to put together and it was really hard when I was the only one doing it haha
@@FrameVoyager yeah, that’s incredible. Your videos are always top notch. I was up till 6AM this morning working on my next video and I’m not anywhere near done. It just blows my mind how much work goes into these. Well done! I need to improve my editing skills. Lol
@@CNC-Time-Lapse haha appreciate it! A lot of it is really getting down your porcesses and then setting up stuff so you don't always have to repeat steps in the editing process. Templates and custom hotkeys help a lot
@@FrameVoyager just curious, does your team use Premiere or Resolve for your workflow? I have licenses for both but have been just sticking to Premiere (I don’t shoot in BRAW, but ProRes due to file size). I have been thinking of switching to Resolve and buying some kind of DAW. Haha I should probably become an expert about both.
The loss in visual fidelity to achieve this effect was the killer for me. A novelty for sure, but impractical and didn't add value to many films
I feel like 3D is one of those weird things to me where when a movie does it right and naturally I kind of just forget about it? Even in VR, in the moment I tend to find the 3D cool, but as I get used to it I don’t find it leaves an impact where I need to comment on it. Maybe it’s just because I’m near sighted or some other biological thing with me?
The only 3D experience I legitimately remember was one ride at Disneyland where a lion legit came a couple inches away from your face. That left an impact on me for basically my whole life lol.
It’s also worth noting that it’s not just post converted 3D that’s an issue. Lots of theaters use projectors that are straight up not bright enough for 3D. I saw Avatar 2 in a Dolby Cinema and I kind of thought that was the bare minimum brightness to do 3D justice. Most theaters barely get 1/3 of the brightness Dolby Cinema projectors can output.
That's a decent point about the theatres not having the projectors to do it justice. That's becoming less of an issue lately, but in certain areas I bet it's still not great.
We don't have a good 3D films like we use to nowadays
I basically see out of one eye (even then, not that well). Everyone says 3D sucks, but I would at least like to see it so I can decide it sucks for myself!
We mention this towards the end of the video about stereo blindness and how for a portion of the population, they can never experience it. But we don't think 3D sucks! We just think studios being cheap made it suck
@@FrameVoyager To be honest, I'd just be happy to see normal films clearly too 😁.
@@izzieb I bet! I can only imagine what that would be like...
don't listen to the clown talking about 3-D that he doesn't understand. Do you wanna make sure you're watching an active 3-D my AWOL vision LT 3500 is outstanding in 3-D. I've had yet to have a single person see my system and not want one. the problem is is there's just not enough content I personally on about 253 D movies all of them are Blu-ray except for some of the specials and one Star Wars but it's thoroughly enjoyable. Don't let this guy turn you off. He's just one of these people that wants to talk crap about something because he either doesn't understand it or doesn't have a system worth watching it on, he started out with the blue and red glasses that was gonna be crap. Also, he doesn't understand the difference between passive and active.
Listen dude, your content is awesome!
BTW, I like mixed dimensions in animation, it's really cool and looks different.
I saw this and thought there was a "but" coming 😂 appreciate it!
Hurts your eyes and doesn't feel 3D.
It's that simple
Depends on the method for sure. I've seen good 3D and downright AWFUL 3d and I think everyone has experienced the AWFUL more than the good.
@@FrameVoyager Sometimes I wonder if people even realize that they SEE IN 3D ALL DAY LONG (assuming they have normal vision.) They just don't want to do it while watching a movie or TV for some reason.
You kind of left out Dolby 3D. Many years ago, I talked to the people who invented the technology in East Germany. It basically works on very specific wavelengths for Red, Green and Blue. It doesn't have the problem of requiring a polarization-maintaining screen (the real reason polarization technology is so problematic) when used with cinema projectors.
You're right. Dolby 3D does fix a lot of those issues.
@@FrameVoyager Correction, it was in south-west Germany where we reviewed an Infitec video processor and the necessary color filters, before they had licensed their technology to Dolby.
I confused it with a manufacturer of auto-stereoscopic monitors in East Germany.
People still cared about 3D in mass back in '09 for Avatar. Considering over 65% of all tickets sold were for the more expensive 3D version, it was still a big deal. Why do you think it is the all-time highest grossing movie (which I really don't get)?
I've been really enjoying your videos, Frame Voyager. Keep it up! I love Avatar: The Way of Water. Thought the 3D was great. I also caught Titanic 3D a few weeks ago and though that was spectacularly well done for post-conversion.
Appreciate it! Those were also movies made by a director who is in love with 3D. So of course they would be great!
Where’s the patreon bro? I want to support the channel!
We just use Channel Memberships instead of Patreon 😅 about to revamp that but makes it easier to see who's a member and who's not within RUclips! You can check that out here --> ruclips.net/channel/UCmXGDFnFh95WlZjhwmA5aeQjoin
Oh boy, this is something that I go and have some words about, but I'm going to save those for after I finish watching the video
😅😅😅
The only movie that I really loved 3D in that enhanced the story in a way I cannot explain was Tron Legacy. Seeing that movie in 3d on opening night is an experience I will never forget.
3D conversion simply doesn't work and I/m not sure why. Part of it is the paper cutout effect where the elements don't themselves have depth but other than that, there's no correct parallax for bigger scenes like of a big landscape and mountains, somehow you can clearly see the depth difference between 10 and 100km away which is just impossible because that difference can't be distinguished from parallax between the distance of your eyes. Surely they can get that part correct in 3D conversion, but somehow they just don't.
Flies and wasps are stupid because they keep banging their heads against the picture window and they don’t bother to look for another source of daylight, which might be an open door, to the balcony. 3D has been tried numerous times by Hollywood, and has always failed to launch. There is a good and simple reason for this. Most living beings on land, underwater and in the air, have two eyes, fairly close together. Why? It is a similar reason that angular measurements are taken of a telescope at the bow and stern of a ship, observing a coastal landmark, in order to determine the distance from the shore. But this is only reasonably accurate, if the distance is less than ten times the length, of the ship.
Our brain needs to process two distinct perspective views, simultaneously: one from the right eye and one from the left. Our brains have evolved to be able to intuitively sense the relative distances between different objects, in front of our eyes, so that we have a sharper understanding of our immediate environment. This was necessary for things like knowing which branch of a tree, is within reach or the proximity of danger, from a potential predator. But this depth perception is only effective, inside a radius of about ten feet or three meters. Our eyes cannot perceive depth, outside of this radius. We lose the ability to determine a sense of distance, through this parallax effect, for objects and subjects, which are further away.
Movies try to impress audiences with cinemascopic panoramas. When you try to put very large objects such as an Imperial Battle Cruiser into 3d, paradoxically, it will come off as a small toy, from the point of view of the audience, whether the audience is consciously aware of the fact, or not. The perception subverts the cinematic intent. It doesn’t work because it goes against our brain’s experience of natural depth perception. Movie makers are not architects, they are superficial investors, trying to make a pile of dough, who don’t have time for careful reflection.
Yes, _bad 3D_ sucks, but *3D is FREAKING AMAZING.* I blame the failure of 3DTV on overheated marketing wanks who tried to sell 3DTV as _"The NEW way you'll watch TV!"_ instead of _"An amazing ADDITIONAL way to watch SOME specific things on your TV now and then if you want to."_ People thought they were going to have to wear special glasses to watch TV and said: *NOPE.* I absolutely *LOVE 3D* when appropriate and when done well, but some people "don't get it" and call it a gimmick. Some people just think calling things gimmicks makes them cool, but I think there is also some fundamental, underlying difference in how people perceive the world around them even if they do have normal vision. Perhaps the perception of depth is too subtle a thing for them to comprehend or appreciate.
People have been conditioned to think of 3D as bad because of the cheap gimmicks they were exposed to for a long time. So totally agree with you. 3D can be AMAZING
For me, 3D is a failed film-making technique.
The reason is that it is a failure is that it has rarely added anything to the story. Unlike if a film is photographed in Cinemascope or Academy, B&W or colour or Technicolor..... those techniques can change the story.
If a film comes out in both 3D and 2D, then the 3D effect is not needed.
The only 3D film that has worked for me was Imax "Speedway".
Well balanced documentary. I have a lovely JVC laser projector with active shutter glasses and there are about 50 of the 350 3D films I have that are superb - Hugo, Tangled, The Walk,,,,films you might not consider for 3D. The downside is that SONY are cutting 3D projectors and have eliminated 3D TV’s altogether and as a major film studio appear to have cut the creation of 3D films. The SONY influence is bad news for us remaining 3D film fans.
James Cameron is truly the only director in hollywood that understands the true brilliance of 3D no one does it better than him other directors like Michael Bay, Ang Lee, Tim Burton and Ridley Scott also have done great 3D in there movies I'm someone who really loves the visual enhancement of 3D in movies that work best for it and i think its a dame shame that studios and not enough other directors consider it just an afterthought elemental Disneys new pixar film has to be the best 3D movie I saw this year equally as good as Avatar and thats high praise
this past Halloween I went to go see dawn of the dead converted to 3-D. I think the last rerelease I had gone to see in 3-D was the Phantom Menace, which came out like 10 years earlier. While I was impressed with how much better the conversion process has goteeb, especially considering the Phantom Menace was only a roughly 15 year old movie at the time of the conversion, and dawn of the dead is like 45 at this point, almost none of the gore effects get the 3-D money funneled toward them. I wanted zombies popping out of the screen when Stephen gets attacked in the elevator, instead, the only shot that made me jump out of my seat was of a tennis ball Peter was hitting on the roof…
Understandable, have a nice day.
haha thanks, you too!
on point
im here bcuz i just got done watching some 3d trailers in vr on my quest 3
3D sucks! I'm glad I'm no longer forced to see movies in 3D and this fad is finally over. I even built my own 2D glasses (two left lenses or two right lenses) to make it a bit more bearable.
Just watch “Dune part one” in 3D
Eh... I nev er got the appeal for Avatars 3d, it was very plain and flat looking, sure some sweeping paralax and stuff but like thats been a thing since the MegaDrive and before. It still felt extremely fake and more like multiple flat images just sliding around.
So with that in mind the benchmark for "Good" 3D is not even worth it because it still feel sfake and flat but like layers of flat.
I think a lot of times it does come down to personal preference or what projector and theatre you see something on. I personally wouldn't want to go see every movie in 3D, but every once in a while it's fun.
@@FrameVoyager I can totally agree with that. It has just never wowed me or actually felt "3D" and I was thinking more about it, I think its because even with depth in a movie it is still fixed perspective, its 3D but not the same way as being able to actually look around things, so for me the illusion never fully works. I can see the effect and what they are going for with it, but it still feels like the old stuff flying at you, but now its more peaceful stuff far away from you effect, an upgrade and more impressive but still not really "3D".
that older version of 3D is BAD. Only Avatar started the period with good 3D movies. Like Ready Player One and Alita Battle Angel, Assassins Creed 👍
Lol captions.. ANNA GLOVE 3D.. not anaglyph lol
Black filter is 3d
I have a video projector capabile of 3d. And is amazing. 3D Looks so good...Most of the media say over the years cuz 3d is a gimmik. Wtf... My video projector is capabile of projecting Dolby vision. And what I consider a gimmik is dolby, hdr, imax enhanced, bla bla bla. ghive me deph to images, and this is absolute format in tehnology... I don't care about dolby vison and krap like this... Sdr with good calibration is ok. From what I consider, beeing able to see depth in images, seeing the hole, when Thanos or Hella(Thor Ragnarock) enter the screen, This is what I call a immersive experience when whatching movies. I hate when I hear people saying"I'm glad cuz 3d movies die".Yah... I wil be glad if you will die...
ABANDONED
Saw Way of Water in IMAX 1.43.1 3D HFR and it was AWE-INSPIRING.. for about 15 minutes. After an hour I was exhausted, bored, and ready for it to end. 🫠
😂