• IronKrill@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      I found 3D theatre experiences underwhelming and sometimes headache inducing, but watching Transformers on a friends’ TV with all the properly rendered depth was fantastic.

    • metaStatic@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      anything that was shot in 3D was fucking amazing, if you where underwhelmed it was because you watched some flat post production 2D conversion cash grab garbage, which I assume was the case for most people since no one makes 3D televisions anymore (yes, I know projectors are still being made with 3D capabilities)

      • AmidFuror@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I bought a 3D TV and liked watching movies on it. Agree that being shot in 3D is better, but anything released in 3D in theaters was good enough.

        I don’t know why they died. Too bad. Did streaming kill 3D perhaps?

        • Blemgo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Based on what I heard it was mainly cost vs benefit. It was mainly an expensive gimmick, as not only you had to buy more expensive equipment that had its limitations (expensive glasses that had to synchronise with the TV or very narrow fields of 3D), but also had to have channels with 3D (which might’ve cost extra) or more expensive media that was capable of delivering 3D.

          While streaming could have been a contributing factor, due to it killing traditional TV channels and basically DVD sales, it seems that overall 3D cinema declined very fast as well. This is probably because how expensive it was for both cinemas and production companies, and production companies often resorted to cheaper alternatives rather than equipment that would actually film in 3D, leading to a much less satisfying effect. So as the 3D effects got shallower, the whole gimmick in theaters died, and probably the whole 3D fad.

        • metaStatic@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          movies are inherently passive entertainment and the friction of needing glasses for everyone watching was probably enough to kill it for the average user. I think some people got headaches from the effect too and you couldn’t really have some people watching without glasses at the same time.

        • TheRedSpade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 days ago

          The glorified pop-up books killed 3D. That’s most of what people saw, so that was their perception of it.

      • 🧟‍♂️ Cadaver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I never was able to see in 3D because my eyes can’t bloody focus to produce stereoscopic images. 3D movies were hell for me and there was nothing amazing about the headaches it gave me.

        • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          I was the opposite and it was detrimental working in a lab with stereo 3d. One of the main guys could not see 3d and he was great at perfecting the calibration because of it. I was awful at calibration because 3d shot into view so easily.

    • Hawk@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      The 3d stuff was great! The NVIDIA glasses were wild!

      It’s a shame it died off tbh.