This is topic Beauty and the Beast in 3D in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:;f=8;t=001701

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on September 02, 2010, 12:56 AM:
Last Sunday both my grandaughter she is 4yrs old and myself went to the movies to watch the 3D version as I have never watched this movie on a large screen. The first thing though was the cost $34 dollars I thought was pretty steep for one adult,one child and the glasses.

The image was bright and sharp with good colour however I noticed that say Belle or Gaston were to move across the screen left or right they looked quite jerky to the point of a blur and through out the movie you really became aware of it. I should add that coming to you or away was ok. I dont want to sound like a party pooper on this 3D craze thing but after we left I kept thinking that had we watched a 2D version, had there been one that might have been better.

I think the next time we will watch this version instead [Smile]
Posted by Nick Field (Member # 2132) on September 02, 2010, 01:22 AM:
Hmm, seems to be a big craze about this 3D all of a sudden,trouble is when all these films hit the dvd version the format will be useless without a 3d tv.Real 3d effect you can only get in IMAX cinemas where they use two projectors at the same time.
Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on September 02, 2010, 03:44 AM:
The "3-D" versions of animated films produced originally in "2-D"by a true Film process many years ago are "manufactured" by computer manipulation of the footage "captured" to a computer. Clever as they may be, they can never be more than a "bodge" as they can only achieve a "depth" separation of the individual characters and scenic elements relative to one another; there is no "solidity" in the elements of the picture.
The same is true of "computer generated" animated films produced from scratch today.
"True" 3-D can only be achieved by simulating the actions of the human eye and brain by using solid subjects, two cameras, two displayed (left and right) images, some means of ensuring that each human eye receives only it's correct image, two eyes and, most important of all, a brain to fuse properly those two images into the original solid representation.
If it were actually possible to start with a "2-D" image and manipulate it into a real "3-D" view a one-eyed man using the power of his brain would have learnt to do it years ago.

The current trend in "3-D" in the cinema is simply the latest attempt to revive the fortunes of the Cinema as opposed to the home use of DVD, just as the Cinema used "3-D" for EXACTLY the same purpose in the 50's and 60's.... but then they had the very good sense and intelligence to do it PROPERLY.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on September 02, 2010, 04:06 AM:
Quite right, Martin.

It's a fad which will pass.

Along with HD television it's an attempt to part us from our money by PR and Marketing companies whose business it is to make us think that our possessions are inferior and that in order to make our lives complete, we need to "upgrade"!!
It's purely an extension of the " whiter smile, blonder hair" culture.

I hope nobody is silly enough to fall for buying the 3D TVs.
Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on September 02, 2010, 04:14 AM:
I'm not personally critical of the concept of "3-D" TVs "per se" as long as the material available for display is "genuine" 3-D material, produced as in my last post. BUT.. a true effect can never be produced on a "Home TV" because the left and right image elements representing an Infinity point in space MUST be located about 65 mm apart on the display area for a "true" representation. Small screen sizes can only produce a fore-shortened version of the real thing, a sort of "window on the world" where the frame is visible. Of course, that limitation of TV has always been acceptable.


[ September 02, 2010, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Martin Jones ]
Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on September 02, 2010, 04:27 PM:
I heard there was a country western concert coming out in 3D.

If it outlasts the film, then it will be around for a very long time. 3D, that is. [Big Grin]
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 03, 2010, 01:48 PM:
A couple of months ago our friends gave us this nice standard definition Sony TV because they were upgrading to HD and got a new, bigger flat panel (about half the size of my movie screen...).

So I just saw this article about 3D TV and it said this:

Deutsche Telekom said subscribers wouldn’t need any new hardware from the service to view the 3-D content, as the media receiver is already equipped to handle it. They will need a 3-D compatible television, though.

You don't think I'm getting ahead of myself if I start making room down in the den for the set they have now, do you?

(Kind of like their new car too!)
Posted by Kurt Gardner (Member # 440) on September 17, 2010, 08:05 PM:
And they're still wrestling with the glasses problem. The 3D TVs for sale now require those expensive electronic glasses with shutters. Polarized lenses haven't been perfected for home use yet. I wouldn't jump in now.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on September 18, 2010, 03:25 AM:
You don't think I'm getting ahead of myself if I start making room down in the den for the set they have now, do you?

Start clearing a space now, Steve. [Big Grin] [Big Grin] They'll soon be coming a-knockin'.
It always amazes me how quickly people succumb.
Having seen that 3D television is the new thing now, they realise that they cannot possibly be living right with just an ordinary old HD set!!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 18, 2010, 03:09 PM:
I think 3D TV is going to fall flat (excuse the pun!) on its face. It is strictly a novelty item, and I cannot see anyone wanting to wear glasses to watch TV for any lenght of time. Gamers might go for it, but they are a different breed of people, with little interest in movies. The A/V forums and magazines would have you believe that 3D TV is the next revolution in home entertainment. I think that is all wishful thinking on their part, and if the launch of 3D TV, with its almost total unavailability of quality movie software, is anything to go by, it will all be forgotten 12 months from now.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on September 18, 2010, 04:50 PM:
I totally agree, Paul.
Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on September 19, 2010, 07:06 PM:
I don't disagree. But I'm sure that in the early 20th century people said the same thing about "the flickers", and around 1927 said the same thing about "the talkies."
Posted by David Erskine (Member # 1244) on September 20, 2010, 01:37 PM:
I was chatting to a computer builder today - and he said the final format for 3D TV would be decided by the porn industry! So - either don't hold your breath OR keep heavy breathing!
Cheers, David E

Visit for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation