Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shameless Avenger
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 14:34:00 -
[1]
I'm gonna watch "How to train your dragon". Undecided if I should go 3d or 2d. I haven't watched a 3d movie in over a decade. Are they still giving the cheapo 3d glasses that break before the movie ends? Are modern 3d effects most likely to scare a 3yo girl and make her cry? |
Simvastatin Montelukast
Qui dormit non peccat Arkai Confederation
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 15:07:00 -
[2]
Recently took our 6 and 8 yr old daughters to see Alice in Wonderland. The effects were pretty good. Glasses are different than the ones I used as a child and much stronger (which is not saying much as the old ones were paper).
From the looks of that movie, it should be fine for a 3 year old. If she has seen Kung Fu Panda, Shrek, Surf's Up or any of those type movies, this one should be fine as well.
The best part about these movies, is the people making them are putting things in for the adults who have to sit through them as well.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 15:12:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Akita T on 29/03/2010 15:13:24 __
Take a look at this youtube vid. Look below the vid at the "3D View Style" selections. Ok, you don't get that many methods for cinema-going options, but they're past the "only cheap blue/red plastic over cardboard" stage. I guess it would highly depend on what cinema you go to (which type of 3D they have), and if you have to give back the glasses at the end or if they're all disposable (or, alternatively, if you have to buy them separately once, then come back as many times you like with them on you).
As for the second part... 3D is only ever so slightly more likely to make a small child react in any way. Small children perceive the world radically different from adults (they're even immune to some forms of optical illusions, while being susceptible to many others an adult would not even smile at). The smaller the child, the less of a difference 3D vs 2D makes... at 3 years old, I'd say it's unlikely she'd notice much of a difference... but for a 7 year old, it will probably make a huge difference.
I even doubt you could make a 3 year old keep its glasses on properly... and also, I doubt you could keep her quiet during the movie, no matter what movie it was. And I don't mean it in a "she's usually unruly" way, just that the sheer loudness of the cinema room will make her scream instead of mumbling when she wants anything from you. I seriously doubt bringing a 3 year old to the cinema is a good idea, no matter what movie it shows. Unless the vast majority of the audience is parents with their own kindergarten and pre-kindergarten kids, you'd better not bring a pre-schooler to the cinema. Seriously. Age 6 or 7, yeah, maybe. But 3, nah. Better go see it alone, and wait for the DVD to show her the movie at home later.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Kirra Liu
Echelon Holdings Echelon.
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 15:13:00 -
[4]
Haven't been to see a 3d movie for over a decade but I have heard that the 3d movies have changed a lot. The glasses are not the crappy red and blue ones, they are now similar to this I believe. Also the way movies are filmed are different now I believe to match advancements in technology so overall it should be a much better experience than years ago.
Some friends went to see Avatar in 3d and they said the 3d effect was subtle, making it seem more real.
Kirra Liu / Lord Windu |
Shameless Avenger
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 15:31:00 -
[5]
Yeah, the blue/red cheapo glasses made out of paper is what I remember. I'm thinking I'm gonna give the 3D a try on this one.
The girl is a theater veteran and behaves nicely, provided a steady flow of candy is supplied. I doubt she will keep the glasses. But given she likes to emulate older 9yo brother (who of course is also going), probably she will keep the glasses. |
Culmen
Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 16:36:00 -
[6]
Saw Avatar in 3D. The problem with 3D is that unless you are focusing on the center, everything blurs out. I don't feel it adds anything significant to a movie with today's technology, so I'd say go 2D. and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Velistner
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 19:35:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Velistner on 29/03/2010 19:36:35 Digital 3D used in cinemas these days is much more advanced than the often thought of "peice of cardboard with red/green lenses" The technology has advanced way beyond that to a much more useful and realistic effect. Its the movie itself that determines how good the effect is - recently i watched Avatar in 3D and thought that although not really necessary, the 3D added something to the film, but you do have to be focused on what they want you to be focused on. Your brain gets confused when you try to pull something into focus that is inherently pushed out by the 3d effect.
Having worked with twin projection 3d (polarised 3D) for a few months in a theatre (oh the fun of panto..) by comparison with the movies, these effects are far from good, but were a massive hit with the kids, but as a previous poster already said, at age 3 it wouldnt make a difference. The 9 year old brother will probably have to keep pinching himself to check he's not dreaming. If the production uses 3d for the sake of itself, it won't work. If, like avatar, it's simply there and not just a gimmick, it'll be great.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Anti Fundie Patrol
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 20:08:00 -
[8]
If you want real 3D you have to see it in IMAX 3D, it's like looking out a window
Originally by: Xen Gin
Originally by: FOl2TY8
I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence.
Yeah, I use that excuse too.
|
Shameless Avenger
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 21:05:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny If you want real 3D you have to see it in IMAX 3D, it's like looking out a window
I have IMAX nearby but it's usually crowded by tourists and requires me to use the interstate AND cross downtown. Local suburban cinema looks kinda small so I bought tickets for the 2d version. I'll probably check the IMAX version later on, alone, to satisfy my curiosity about the technology.
thx for the replies. Will report later about the awesomeness of the movie itself. |
Arianhod
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 23:23:00 -
[10]
Been watching quite a few films recently, I live right beside a Cinema so I got an unlimited pass for it.
So far... I am undecided on 3D, it just dosen't seem to do that much. A few peices of texture here and there was well done, but it allways seems blury when anything moves. Avatar for example seemed to be depending entirely on the premice of its 3D effects, which is perhaps why I thought it was quite crap.
I saw How to train your Dragon though, and that was pretty good though. It shows imho the difference between relying on and incorporating modern technology. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Supporting Linkification since 2008. |
|
Tobias Xiaosen
Gallente TX Holdings Company
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:31:00 -
[11]
I saw Avatar in 3D. Barely even noticed the effect, kinda wondering what the point of having it in 3D was... ~
|
Voxira
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:41:00 -
[12]
I'd go see Avatar in IMAX 3D before it's gone. Best movie I've ever seen, mainly because me and my friends were tripping our asses off at the time. If you want to see anything in 3D right now, stick with IMAX. Regular-sized screens are too small to get a good effect out of it.
|
captain kikaz
Selectus Pravus Lupus
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 08:19:00 -
[13]
the 3d on how to train your dragon is very good we went to see it the other day.
in contrast i have been told the 3d of clash of the titans is pretty pants depends on the film really.
alice in wonderland had good 3d avatar i found was more subtle.
|
Verys
Burning Technologies Cult of War
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 09:46:00 -
[14]
I saw Avatar in 3D, the movie is a piece of crap the 3d effect... it has potential. But for me it doesn't really add an effect of emergence. However it does look so much better than the old red and blue method.
The biggest problem I had is that the 3d effect is limited to the screen borders. Meaning that if per example a head comes out 3D and your looking at the border of the screen you will see the picture in 3D and where the border starts the 3D image abruptly ends, making it very weird to look at.
What I've heard people complain about is getting a headache or having their eyes ache after looking at 3D for a long time but this only seems to happen to a small group of people.
Add drone repair bays to carriers |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 14:32:00 -
[15]
new 3d is cool but makes my eyes want to scream and bleed after about 45minutes ---------- Anyway, I'm sorry, but that just happens to be how *I* feel about it. What do you think? |
Borza Slavak
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 16:05:00 -
[16]
From my experiences at various 3D films small kids tend to appreciate the effect far more than often blase adults, who usually dismiss it as a 'gimmick'.
|
Leilani Solaris
Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 19:18:00 -
[17]
I went to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D (don't ask, gf etc etc), it was pretty good except it made me feel like i was cross eyed all the time.
|
Exploding Tukey
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 21:34:00 -
[18]
Trippy!
Saw Clash of the Titans, great movie and amazing effects. 3d is very natural now.
You will love it.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |