io9 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #stillmorethanmeetstheeye more → 
Coming Soon in 3-D: All Your Favorite Movies
San Francisco, 6:11 PM
Sun Nov 8
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
| posts about #stillmorethanmeetstheeye more → |
Coming Soon in 3-D: All Your Favorite Movies |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04/05/09
04/05/09
uncomfortable..........
04/05/09
04/05/09
Right after the Superbowl, NBC ran an episode of Chuck that was done with a new two-color 3D. It used a dark indigo lens paired with a light amber lens, and the result was that your eyes don't receive such jarring signals as they do with any of the red-cyan/green/blue variations of anaglyph 3D. I can barely make it through a 20-minute short done in red-cyan, but I had no problems (even during the 2D commerials) with the hour-long Chuck ep, or the 45-minute replay I did the next day online (I was tuning it in with rabit ears, so the first view didn't come in as clean as it was online, so the 3D effect didn't work so well).
04/05/09
3D at theaters is MUCH better done than 3D at home.
04/06/09
Lazy eye probably will still be a problem with polarized lenses, especially depending on which type and how bad it is. One type is where one eye has trouble focusing, resulting in blurry vision with that eye. There you tend to get reduced depth perception as the symptoms get stronger, so a really bad case of that type will cause just as many problems with artificially-induced depth perception, regardless of what type of glasses it involves. The other type is where one eye doesn't aim properly, and I'd imagine that would cause its own special problems with depth perception.
The point is that if you can't see in 3D in normal life, you aren't going to have any better luck with polarized lenses, _but_ they shouldn't create any new problems for you if you can.
04/05/09
"You will believe a man can fly...towards you!"
That could be gold.I would pay to see that.
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
[www.slate.com]
Basically that your eyes cross to view something closer with a 3d movie - but they still have keep their focus far back to the screen - which is an unnatural combination for us.
Personally I havent felt much strain at 3d movies, but maybe once the novelty wears off it will become a problem.
04/05/09
3D is, and always will be a gimick.
04/05/09
Eyestrain is a huge issue for anaglyph prints, where each eye gets a drastially different view of the screen, but I don't see how it would matter with polarized lenses. See, each eye can independantly pivot around in your eye socket. Distance-focusing is not at all tied to how each eye is aimed when taken independantly. It is possible, if you turn your head at the right speed, to refocus one eye without changing the direction as something is either approaching or retreating. As long as you're not super tired (in which case going to the theater is probably not such a great idea anyways), and you're not going every single night, polarized-3D should never be a real problem for people with two functional eyes (people who are blind in one eye will just be screwed for having to pay a surcharge for glasses that will only allow them to watch the movie in 2D).
04/05/09
The entire thing's already 3D models in a computer, you just create another camera viewpoint a couple inches to the side of the one from the 2D version, and then run the results through a bit of software that combines it with the original into the 3D format of choice. Where's the work?
04/05/09
[www.usatoday.com]
the movie actually was originally rendered for being displayed in 3D. The additional $15M weren't required for turning a 2D film into 3D one, but for the special (and apparently much better than the traditional) way of 3-dimentionalizating things. Probably it involves many new and patented techniques, and possibly they also factored in distribution and marketing related things like handing out 3D glasses to the (potential) audience.
04/05/09
The glasses don't add anything to the production cost. Firstly, unless they make a special "collector's edition" bag for a specific movie (Nightmare Before Christmas got a generic Disney-branded bag, but the glasses themselves only had a different RealD logo on the temples than the ones handed out for Beowulf), the glasses probably all just come out of a standard stock. Also, RealD pays to have them manufactured, and the theaters add a $2 surcharge on each 3D movie to cover the cost of glasses...whether you need them or not (don't bother bringing your old pairs with you unless you really want to keep a sealed bag for some reason).
As for the cost of the processing, some of that goes to RealD whether they're involved in the process or not. They own the patent, they get to profit off of every use. The thing is, it really doesn't make sense that it would cost as much to do this with a CGI animated movie and a live-action or 2D animated movie. I'm not saying it would be significantly less expensive (heck, it might even cost more), but with CGI you do have the option of rerendering the entire film with a second camera POV instead of taking the finished 2D version and extrapolating a second POV from that (like they have to do with older non-CGI movies). That alone will cost money, though. I doubt it costs more than RealD's 2D-to-3D trick, but it sure doesn't happen for free.
That said, it can't be prohibitively expensive either. Pixar went to the trouble of _reframing_ every shot of A Bug's Life so they could squeeze the entire visual experience of the Scope release into a 4:3 field. If you saw 100 ants filling the entire frame in the theater, you see the same 100 ants, arranged differently, filling the frame on a non-widesreen TV...and without having to letterbox the 2.35:1 cut. They did the same thing for Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo, but after that they stopped including both widescreen and fullscreen versions on the same DVD so I'm not sure they kept reframing the next three movies.