Why I Hate 3-d (and You Should Too)

[Tweedledum]

Way back in the 50's when radiograms were the in thing for listening to "serious" music, stereo audio players were just coming into being, that is those devices that had a record player with radio and two seperate speakers on each side that you could remove and place to get better stereo seperation.

Casette recorders hadn't been invented yet, but 1/4" reel to reel tape decks had, all valve models etc.

The problem was they were astronomically expensive.

I paid 80 pounds (a months wages for a fitter and turner in the 50's) for a Grundig TK28 open reel tape deck which had 2 speeds, 1 7/8" and 3 1/4" per sec recording and playback speeds with 4 track recording too (mono), and if you wanted stereo you had to get an external amplifier and preamp to handle the second tape track via the output.

This scenario is the same as present day 3D output, it's all too new, not old hat like common or garden High def TV now is, if it aint 1080P it aint worth buying, or owning, or watching, how blase can you get.

I've still got a tape deck in my car, but last year my son bought me a new car radio with not a CD player, that's old hat with whiskers, but an MP3 player, it also plays CD's too, but with the capability of having several hundred tracks on a single MP3 encoded disc, who carries a bundle of CD's around.

I recently went to see a Christmas Carol in 3D, and was suitably impressed at a big cinema experience with life like images moving around the set, not too life like but good to watch.

I next went to see Alice In Wonderland in 3D, and although the story line was vaguely similar to lewis Carol's books I was so taken with the display I went several days later to see it again.

I haven't seen a TV display yet with 3D, but given that stereo audio is now old hat when you consider that 5.1 ( and 7.1 too) surround sound is the in thing, who can imagine that 3D won't be the In Thing once the format is established.

Blue Ray killed off the high def other format once it was established and VHS did the same for Beta, and to name drop a bit further, who remembers super 8 cine film compared to standard 8?.....(you must be old), LOL, and Compact Casette tapes versus those big bulky 4 track cartridge players.

They're now down grading Plasma screen TV's so low 'cos nobody wants them, and only those not in the know buy one when the equivalent screen size is half the price of a 1080P LCD model.

A salesman once told me, when I went to buy a TV in the 80's, (24" Sanyo model) that the rotary dial tuner was the very latest design on TV's and the preset push button type were old technology, yeah, and he wore braces on his pants too.

Anyone ever own a Viewmaster Stereo viewer with those round discs with all the photos of wild animals from Africa and far away etc?

I had boxes of them and my mates and I spent hours on afternoons going through them, 3D or stereo is too cool by far.

I expect to get true 3D or stereoscopic vision, you'd have to have one of those eye piece viewers, like a Viewmaster, with two seperate LCD screens, like a Digi camera back display, one for each eye that showed the seperation as your eyes see it, about 125mm apart, taken with a camera from two viewpoints also 125mm apart, your brain interprets the images as one with depth when they merge.

I bought one on Ebay for $300, but it's not 3D....awwwww geee, but it gives you DVD viewing, from say a portable DVD player, of all your movies on an 80" screen size at a metre distance impression, so if some one comes out with one in 3D it'll be stereo as you'd expect to see it, just like a Viewmaster.

Watching a regular Cine movie in the old days at 24 frames per sec never left me walking around with a dazed look for hours, and if it did nobody noticed, so if a 3D movie flashes a scene on the screen and each eye sees 24 slightly different frames per sec, what's the problem?

Ian.

[Wing Nut]

That’s a bad analogy, colour was a huge improvement over B/W, however 3D is arguably an improvement over 2D for a small proportion of content and obviously inferior for a large proportion, sort of 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards, and that’s before the “problems” are taken into consideration.

Agreed. In my opinion 3D will be about as popular as those quadraphonic LPs and their accompanying clunky headphones or huge speakers in every corner of the room. 3D in it's present form is somewhat clumsy compromise that enhances some visual forms of electronic entertainment for some people.

[Basil1503559642]

I haven't seen a TV display yet with 3D, but given that stereo audio is now old hat when you consider that 5.1 ( and 7.1 too) surround sound is the in thing, who can imagine that 3D won't be the In Thing once the format is established.

Watching a regular Cine movie in the old days at 24 frames per sec never left me walking around with a dazed look for hours, and if it did nobody noticed, so if a 3D movie flashes a scene on the screen and each eye sees 24 slightly different frames per sec, what's the problem?

Ian.

I can't go back as far as you Ian but i think your correct in that its just the next generation technology(Video this time),the only thing compared to the past is that its affordable to the majority of consumers.Like everything in life some people will think its great,some will sit on the fence and others will disregard it completely but in MPO 3D technology is here to stay this time,only thing i'm wary of is the current technology just seems to me the "first draft" and is sure to change(again IMPO) in a relatively short time,i'm sure the FTA stations will eventually want to run 3D broadcasts in DVB-T2 so where will that leave the current sets in 5-10 years time.

[Tweedledum]

I can't go back as far as you Ian but i think your correct in that its just the next generation technology(Video this time),the only thing compared to the past is that its affordable to the majority of consumers.Like everything in life some people will think its great,some will sit on the fence and others will disregard it completely but in MPO 3D technology is here to stay this time,only thing i'm wary of is the current technology just seems to me the "first draft" and is sure to change(again IMPO) in a relatively short time,i'm sure the FTA stations will eventually want to run 3D broadcasts in DVB-T2 so where will that leave the current sets in 5-10 years time.

Hi, 5 to 10 years!!!! in present technology terms that's going from the stone age to present day.

In 5 years digital cameras went from $2000 for 3.2 Mp to under $300 for more than 5 Mp and more features than you could figure out what the knobs and dials were for.

I get the feeling that if I wait for the ultimate viewing experience, I won't be able to see or hear the thing anyway, or maybe remember the movies all the way to the end that were playing.

The way present technology is going to cope means that the viewing medium be it PJ or TV, will have to be cheap as and throw away, otherwise the junk stalls and auction houses will be bulging with yesterdays wonders at throw away prices, note the amount of CRT Tv's being dumped in full working order on the nature strips.

I recently bought three 15" LCD monitors 4:3 format at a local auction joint for $5 each, as the current trend is to widescreen format....what can you do with so many monitors, just can't give them away.

Plasma screen TV's are going the same way, and soon it will be the same for LCD when the price of LED types comes down, so 3D will follow the same road, getting better and better, just don't look back.

One thing I'll never succumb to and it'sthe push button tuners on FM radio receivers on my Hi Fi set up, I prefer flywheel type analogue display with twin meters for signal strength and peak tuning........ idiot lights never turned me on.

Ian.

[CCRider]

WARNING 3D is EVIL

JUST KEEP your girlfriend or wife away from it

Read this

http://www.news.com.au/technology/white-wo...0-1225866816861

Just keep loading the Cr@p

Other possibilities

3DTV will turn you gay or straight.

3DTV blamed for the drought

3DTV sends Australia into recession.

3DTV killed Elvis

Edited May 26, 2010 by CC Rider

[purpleninja]

WARNING 3D is EVIL

JUST KEEP your girlfriend or wife away from it

Read this

http://www.news.com.au/technology/white-wo...0-1225866816861

Just keep loading the Cr@p

Ms Johnson said her 3D baby was "very much like the black porn star in the movie".

Err... that's the umbilical cord ma'am

[DrP]

Coloured television?

[Tweedledum]

Coloured television?

Duhhh, My girlfriend jus' bought a 3D lCD TV, but the screen is a bit dry.....how often does she have to re-water the liquid crystals?

Does 3D mean 3 times daily, and can I use tank water?

I'm thinking of getting a 3D projector, do I have to water the projector or the screen 3 times daily?

[Inferno]

I'd be interested to see a serious movie try 3D (Avatar is just another cartoon). In fact, there was Dial M for Murder which I was fortunate enough to see in the 90s. It looked great, but then its a great film in 2D as well. I wonder what David Lynch could do with 3D?

[DrP]

Duhhh, My girlfriend jus' bought a 3D lCD TV, but the screen is a bit dry.....how often does she have to re-water the liquid crystals?

Does 3D mean 3 times daily, and can I use tank water?

I'm thinking of getting a 3D projector, do I have to water the projector or the screen 3 times daily?

Ah say no boy. You can't jus use any ol wahter. Ya hafta use wahter than has been distilled 3 times. Thas what the 3D stands fer.

[Tweedledum]

Ah say no boy. You can't jus use any ol wahter. Ya hafta use wahter than has been distilled 3 times. Thas what the 3D stands fer.

Why to be sure now, I know wot cool worter is, just can't get it to stand still.

3D, what will they think of next....I suppose it's not a good idea to wait for the ultimate display medium, the HOLOGRAM....makes 2D and 3D look like a magic lantern show, with the smoky chimney and hand painted glass slides...LOL, where can I see one, maybe Ebay.

Hey here's a fun trick, I just got a 3D(stereo) post card viewer, I can only describe it as such.

What it is, is a hexagonal card tube with two lenses in one side and two small photos of some Dolphins underwater in the surf, inside, on the opposite side, lenses and photos spaced about 65mm apart and 60mm between lens and photo.

Sort of like a one shot Viewmaster.

It came as a flat pack and you opened it to form a hexagonal tube.

The effect is incredible, the Dolphins, being on a true stereo format at eye spacing, really stand out and don't appear to be 2D pasted against a 2D background, there is real depth and contour.

The trick is now to make your own hand drawn fun sketches on a piece of paper, 65mm apart, and slip them into the tube to be viewed by the two lenses.

You have to understand the nature of a stereo image, and how two hand drawn 2D sketches can simulate an image that stands up from the paper, lots of fun, hours of it, LOL, it's probably old hat to regular cartoonists who do cartoons for a living.

So now we have a poor man's 3D TV, two portable DVD player side by side with a synchronised display on each player that gives you the stereo image, just need a pair of binoculars to view the combined image and hey preso 3D TV on the sly.

I bet a Nintendo could be modified to make a real 3D hand held for the kids, another big money maker?

Hey what's new?......a 3D note book, not a computer note book but a hand held write in note book with a cover that has a Fresnel type plastic cover with a head of a lion on it.

The trick here is hundreds of vertical lines impregnated into the plastic that, like a polarised image, only show you a view at a certain angle when you look straight at it.

Even if you move your head to the side the lion's head stays still but you get to see around the side of the head too, very holographic and crafty and has amazing depth.

If that can be done on a simple plastic note book cover (without using special glasses to get the effect), the same principle could be applied to a TV screen so that you get 3D (or holograms) without specs, and viewed by anyone from any angle, almost life like.

The question is what is the difference between 3D and a Hologram, both stand out.

I think the 3D image stands out but is a fixed in space image, whereas a hologram has image depth plus all round visibility when you look to either side of it.

I could imagine a TV with a holographic screen as being the last word in reality TV (LOL), whereas the 3D type is getting there but not quite making it.

Heck, about a hundred years or more ago, someone clever, (who?) demonstrated a set of images on a revolving drum and the world of movies was born.

Ian.

[Bazzaa]

wheather 3d takes off or not people can jump on board with the technology for very little more than a standard TV

Erm, >$3000 versus ~$1000? Our definitions of "very little more" are clearly at odds.

I feel sorry for all the people who really can't afford yet another format change, yet are being sucked in by this piece of largely pointless marketing hype (specifically the elderly). Am I the only one who remembers the first couple of times we tried the Emperor's New Clothes known as 3D movies?

[digimark]

Erm, >$3000 versus ~$1000? Our definitions of "very little more" are clearly at odds.

So it would seem.

Let's take the Samsung PS50C7000 for example. A 50" full HD 3D plasma, currently offered for <$2,000 (street, RRP $2,499) with "bonus" 2 x 3D glasses. For a limited time, this includes an additional "bonus" 3D Blu-Ray player and another 2 x 3D glasses. The Blu-Ray player is valued at $495 (street, RRP $599), so even excluding any value arguably or not attributable to the 4 x 3D glasses thrown in, that is $1,500 for a current gen. 50" 3D HD panel (which also does 2D->3D conversion, initial reports of which are returning surprise at just how how well it works with suitable material). This TV also offers network/internet, PVR and other functions out of the box.

You can of course continue to argue, arguments by nature have no end, but the person to whom you were replying had at least some basis for their comment.

[Tweedledum]

So it would seem.

Let's take the Samsung PS50C7000 for example. A 50" full HD 3D plasma, currently offered for <$2,000 (street, RRP $2,499) with "bonus" 2 x 3D glasses. For a limited time, this includes an additional "bonus" 3D Blu-Ray player and another 2 x 3D glasses. The Blu-Ray player is valued at $495 (street, RRP $599), so even excluding any value arguably or not attributable to the 4 x 3D glasses thrown in, that is $1,500 for a current gen. 50" 3D HD panel (which also does 2D->3D conversion, initial reports of which are returning surprise at just how how well it works with suitable material). This TV also offers network/internet, PVR and other functions out of the box.

You can of course continue to argue, arguments by nature have no end, but the person to whom you were replying had at least some basis for their comment.

Plasma?......I thought Plasma was a dying entity, as current Plasma normal TV's are almost cheaper than give away.

If this were related to LCD TV's, I think the price for the 3D TV model alone without any add on's would be around $3,000.

It appears the Plasma TV is not the choice for side by side LCD/Plasma comparison, so why do the new 3D TV's come out in Plasma, or is this just another ploy to get the Plasma TV's out of the shop no matter what.

As a matter of interest, what makes a 3D TV a 3D TV?

Is it a special screen?

Is it a new circuit or tuner card inside?

What componentry makes the difference between normal and 3D?

Ian.

[diesel]

Plasma?......I thought Plasma was a dying entity

It appears the Plasma TV is not the choice for side by side LCD/Plasma comparison, so why do the new 3D TV's come out in Plasma, or is this just another ploy to get the Plasma TV's out of the shop no matter what.

As a matter of interest, what makes a 3D TV a 3D TV?

Is it a special screen?

Is it a new circuit or tuner card inside?

What componentry makes the difference between normal and 3D?

Plasma's apparently display a better quality 3D image as well as 2D.

What makes a 3D TV is the ability to show the two images at a faster refresh rate and sync it up to a pair of shutter glasses.

[Tweet]

Plasma?......I thought Plasma was a dying entity, as current Plasma normal TV's are almost cheaper than give away.

If this were related to LCD TV's, I think the price for the 3D TV model alone without any add on's would be around $3,000.

It appears the Plasma TV is not the choice for side by side LCD/Plasma comparison, so why do the new 3D TV's come out in Plasma, or is this just another ploy to get the Plasma TV's out of the shop no matter what.

As a matter of interest, what makes a 3D TV a 3D TV?

Is it a special screen?

Is it a new circuit or tuner card inside?

What componentry makes the difference between normal and 3D?

Ian.

A TV head-up display with a built-in 3D capabilities, move your head and the image moves with you and it goes wherever you go.

The standard 2D panel can still be there for those that want to keep their sanity.

C.M

[digimark]

Plasma?......I thought Plasma was a dying entity, as current Plasma normal TV's are almost cheaper than give away.

And more expensive means better? Sometimes. Other-times the price is dictated by commercial imperatives (eg, perhaps they need to clear plasma stocks due to a, rational or otherwise, swing by consumers to LCD/LED), and sometimes even just opportunity (eg, perhaps a, rational or otherwise, swing by the consumer to LCD/LED means they can just just charge more for it).

Like most technology, final choice has a lot to do with the end users priorities. Plasmas are supposedly "better" with high speed movement like sport and PC gaming (LCD/LED catching up), LCD/LED's can have more "pop", plasma is still often considered desirable at larger screen sizes, and the viewing angle considered superior for when larger gatherings are watching the TV and not everyone can park virtually straight-on. Someone could easily present a different range of criteria in which LCD/LED comes out looking better.

For me, the endless techno-swings-and-roundabouts is tiresome. Spending heaps on the latest, virtually redundant before it gets through your door, technology is a poor catch 22. I'm much happier paying the prices I quoted above for what we're getting here. Come time to change the pain will also be a lot less. In the meantime, for a relatively reasonable cost, my family can sit around and go silly over what are undeniably very pretty pictures

As someone else mentioned, initial reports were very positive over plasma 3d, and less so over LED 3D. There was even mention of to viewing problems when watching LCD 3D (glasses variety) and deciding you'd like to lie down. Ooops, up you get. Not observed with the so with plasma version. But I don't expect these or similar distinctions to remain...as with everything else, much changes with each firmware revision, technical development etc etc. Always a moving target, but if the manufacturers want to virtually give away a sweet looking 50" plasma I'll take it with thanks (also helps sweeten the less tasty lack of support when you find yourself needing it, so prevalent these days from all these companies), and this time I'll pass on the, what to me seem, too expensive LCD/LED equivalents.

[Tweedledum]

And more expensive means better? Sometimes. Other-times the price is dictated by commercial imperatives (eg, perhaps they need to clear plasma stocks due to a, rational or otherwise, swing by consumers to LCD/LED), and sometimes even just opportunity (eg, perhaps a, rational or otherwise, swing by the consumer to LCD/LED means they can just just charge more for it).

Like most technology, final choice has a lot to do with the end users priorities. Plasmas are supposedly "better" with high speed movement like sport and PC gaming (LCD/LED catching up), LCD/LED's can have more "pop", plasma is still often considered desirable at larger screen sizes, and the viewing angle considered superior for when larger gatherings are watching the TV and not everyone can park virtually straight-on. Someone could easily present a different range of criteria in which LCD/LED comes out looking better.

For me, the endless techno-swings-and-roundabouts is tiresome. Spending heaps on the latest, virtually redundant before it gets through your door, technology is a poor catch 22. I'm much happier paying the prices I quoted above for what we're getting here. Come time to change the pain will also be a lot less. In the meantime, for a relatively reasonable cost, my family can sit around and go silly over what are undeniably very pretty pictures

As someone else mentioned, initial reports were very positive over plasma 3d, and less so over LED 3D. There was even mention of to viewing problems when watching LCD 3D (glasses variety) and deciding you'd like to lie down. Ooops, up you get. Not observed with the so with plasma version. But I don't expect these or similar distinctions to remain...as with everything else, much changes with each firmware revision, technical development etc etc. Always a moving target, but if the manufacturers want to virtually give away a sweet looking 50" plasma I'll take it with thanks (also helps sweeten the less tasty lack of support when you find yourself needing it, so prevalent these days from all these companies), and this time I'll pass on the, what to me seem, too expensive LCD/LED equivalents.

Yes I know what you mean about chasing the technology, having bought the item only to find out the latest and greatest is coming to a store near you, and your model whatever is being considered old hat, LOL.

Then there's the other side, waiting for the latest and greatest to finally get superseded so's you can get them on Ebay at rock bottom, and the wait can go on for a couple of years.

I don't think I'll last that long....LOL.

3D is going to have to prove itself viable for home users, as the big theatre experience will make the occasional picture in 3D more of an option, plus you get to go and eat out for a change.

My choice is now, to go for the Sonique 46" LCD 1080p TV at JB for currently $984, or keep my old 32" Teac CRT TV and wait for the 3D stuff to get down to my level.......come Tuesday next I'll pay them a visit and see what deals they're prepared to make, apparently Tuesdays are a quiet time and the sales mob get anxious in getting their quotas in, might get lucky.

Ian.

[Eth Nick]

The rant on Good News Week about 3DTV was classic. Tongue in cheek, but hilarious.

Here, from 1:42...

http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?channel...w316-310510-sg4

Edited June 1, 2010 by Ralfi

[Tweedledum]

Yes I know what you mean about chasing the technology, having bought the item only to find out the latest and greatest is coming to a store near you, and your model whatever is being considered old hat, LOL.

Then there's the other side, waiting for the latest and greatest to finally get superseded so's you can get them on Ebay at rock bottom, and the wait can go on for a couple of years.

I don't think I'll last that long....LOL.

3D is going to have to prove itself viable for home users, as the big theatre experience will make the occasional picture in 3D more of an option, plus you get to go and eat out for a change.

My choice is now, to go for the Sonique 46" LCD 1080p TV at JB for currently $984, or keep my old 32" Teac CRT TV and wait for the 3D stuff to get down to my level.......come Tuesday next I'll pay them a visit and see what deals they're prepared to make, apparently Tuesdays are a quiet time and the sales mob get anxious in getting their quotas in, might get lucky.

Ian.

Well Tuesday came and went, didn't go to JB...now it's saturday 26th, end of the month nearly, itching to make make a move on the old CRT to make room for the new big screen, so went on 'net, looked at LG 42's, $1000 + everywhere.....saw HISENSE 42" LCD, LED, 100Hz and went to JB and bought same, got a deal on the display model for $1120 with manf wty 3yrs and ext wty 2 years.

Didn't get much sleep Saturday night watching football till early hours on new toy.

I couldn't give a rats if'n it ain't 3D, just as long it'll show Hi Def and a bigger screen to boot compared to my old Teac 32" CRT TV.

Ian.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Tweedledum

[sSslayerRr]

Well this sucks (3D I mean)

I must be broken or unable to let myself enjoy 3D. My brother a mate and myself went and watched Avitar 3D, we sat down all excited put the glasses on and the advertising came on in 3D. We had bars pushing out over our heads and images dancing around the theatre, then the movie started..........we watched.......not much happened. I thought there would be arrows and missiles flying around the theatre but no all three of us thought it was crap and as we left we could overhear other dissapointed people with the occasional "that was awesome" thrown in.

I am dissapointed, the marketing hype did its job well. Later...I got the movie for free from JB-HiFi on Blu Ray and thought it was an ok film in 2D (crap in 3D). WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS this movie dragged on forever and then people who can fly accross space, jump in the worlds biggest bomber, somehow fly it at 2km per hour and get taken out by arrows that earlier in the movie did no damage?????????? but that is a crack at this so called masterpiece.

The 3D aspect of it i dont get either now please I invite critisism here (and corrections for my next) but isnt 3D less colourfull, has less clarity, has a worse viewing angle, need expensive glasses for a guest (so $250 for something your friend will use for 2 hours), has a lower resolution and has bugger all titles that support it properly. Just to clarify, would I be able to see any of batman begins on 3D it is very dark to begin with.

Why should I get it????? Well because my missus wants it but aside from that I dont see why there is a need for it at this time.

And I am looking at a 3D projector so dont punish me for that I'm just keeping the missus happy so I get a bigger budget for my home theatre

Give me a Hi Def quality 2D movie anyday

Edited June 28, 2010 by sSslayerRr

[MLXXX]

The 3D aspect of it i dont get either now please I invite critisism here (and corrections for my next) but isnt 3D less colourfull,

No.

has less clarity,

No.

has a worse viewing angle,

No. If you're that far off to one side that the 3D is poor, the 2D would be poor too.

need expensive glasses for a guest (so $250 for something your friend will use for 2 hours),

Not quite that expensive, but yes shutter glasses are expensive. [How many friends you have and how many hours they will watch in 3D at your place is hard to estimate. ]

has a lower resolution

In the test TV transmissions yes, but not with 3D Blu-ray.

and has bugger all titles that support it properly.

Correct.

Just to clarify, would I be able to see any of batman begins on 3D it is very dark to begin with.

It wasn't made in 3D. Simulated 3D is not a patch on the real thing. The screen will operate at a higher brightness level for 3D. Dark movies like Batman Begins should be no harder to see in simulated 3D than in original 2D.

Suggest you look at recent posts in 3d Tv - Why So Much Hate? for explanations.

Regarding the movie itself at the cinema I'm assuming you saw it projected in good quality 3D. It's not supposed to look exaggerated with its 3D, more like a real life degree of 3D effect.

I agree the movie is a bit long and predictable. It helps if you like the athletic look of the Na'vi, and enjoy the colour and variety of the fauna, flora and landscape of their world.

I must be broken or unable to let myself enjoy 3D.

Around 5% of people do not see in stereo properly. Could possibly be that. But it seems more likely to me that you were expecting an exaggerated 3D effect and were disappointed that it looked more like everyday 3D.

Cheers.

Edited June 28, 2010 by MLXXX

[automan]

People bagging 3D are looking at way too one dimensional.

[Owen]

The screen will operate at a higher brightness level for 3D. Dark movies like Batman Begins should be no harder to see in simulated 3D than in original 2D.

A digital cinema projector has a limited light output and cannot deliver more for a 3d title so 3d movies will be darker due to the glasses.

What you loose in brightness with the glasses is made up for by better black levels so its not all bad and the picture I saw at the cinema was still bright enough.

Regarding the movie itself at the cinema I'm assuming you saw it projected in good quality 3D. It's not supposed to look exaggerated with its 3D, more like a real life degree of 3D effect.

There was nothing "real life" with the Avatar presentation I saw, it was obviously an effect and a long way from being realistic. Normal 2d cinema presentation is however very flat and two dimensional so 3d does look better in some ways, especially for an animated effects movie. If the 3d effect was toned down to look more realistic people would not be wowed by the effect and not be impressed. A more realistic look is no doubt possible but reality is not the aim of the game so its not likely.

I agree the movie is a bit long and predictable. It helps if you like the athletic look of the Na'vi, and enjoy the colour and variety of the fauna, flora and landscape of their world.

I'm a fan of computer animation and found Avatar visually spectacular and a credit to the animators and artists, it takes the art form to a new level. The 3d effects certainly did not hurt and suited the surreal nature of the movie, pity about the story line.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Owen

[MLXXX]

There was nothing "real life" with the Avatar presentation I saw, it was obviously an effect and a long way from being realistic. Normal 2d cinema presentation is however very flat and two dimensional so 3d does look better in some ways, especially for an animated effects movie. If the 3d effect was toned down to look more realistic people would not be wowed by the effect and not be impressed. A more realistic look is no doubt possible but reality is not the aim of the game so its not likely.

I think realistic 3D was the basic goal with Avatar. At times the production crew might have erred on the side of more 3D effect than less.

Perhaps too, early Technicolor movies capable of rendering three primary colours (instead of just two) might have erred on the side of more colour than less. (Of course the control of colour was not all that exact a science in the 20s and 30s.)

In Avatar, there is much use of acrobatic flying on the backs of huge birds. And much use of vibrant colour.

If anyone attempted to screen the movie in 2D, and black and white, they would reduce its appeal to a small fraction. It is not a movie that can fall back on dialogue for strength. The African Queen though produced in colour is powerful if viewed in black and white. Hepburn and Bogart make the movie powerful with their acting.

Avatar relies heavily on both stereoscopy and colour to deliver its powerful visual impact.

But even everyday movies can benefit from stereoscopy and colour; i.e. there is no need for actors to be performing acrobatic manoeuvres, or for unusually colourful environments.

We see the world in stereo and in colour. Movie makers who can offer both, will move to the head of the queue; all other things being equal.