Do you prefer watching movies in 3D or 2D?

Scroll to see replies

3D. I like to look hipster. xo

Gravity is the only film I've seen where 3D added to the film, in every other case it has very much made the film a worse experience for me.

That said most of the films I watch either don't come out in 3D or being in 3D is entirely irrelevent.

Reply 42

Twenty Three

2D for me, it just seems more natural/normal and 3D to me is just a gimmick, more about showing what can be done rather than what should be done. Worst in when films are made specifically for 3D, like they put a scene in it JUST for the purpose of showing off the 3D element. Films are all about telling a story for me not some sensual overload of the senses.

Reply 43

Mr_Sinister

An actually properly filmed 3D film such as Tron Legacy then there is no contest... Tron in 3D and full surround sound is a visual and audio jizz fest. Animated films are also great... Films with 3D conversions after are meh.

I like that it exists...cannot wait for the BBC to do an amazing wild life documentary in 3D

Reply 44

asif007

Depends really... In a normal cinema I hate watching films in 3D because I need to wear reading glasses to see the screen anyway, and wearing another pair on top of them is uncomfortable. The effects are not that impressive anyway, plus it gives me headaches and makes my eyes water. Unless it's a film specifically made in 3D (e.g. Avatar) then I avoid most films in 3D and go straight for the 2D versions - cheaper tickets, easier on the eyes and more enjoyable. Usually the post-production 3D-conversion films don't turn out great anyway so 3D is a bit of a gimmick to me. I've only seen one film in 3D (Toy Story 3) and sadly I reckon I would have enjoyed it more had I seen the 2D version.

On the other hand, IMAX 3D films knock it out of the park. Went to see Man Of Steel in IMAX 3D last year (because the 2D version wasn't available) and it pretty much blew me away. So overall, for me, several criteria need to be met before I would consider 3D again: screen size/quality, type of film and whether or not it was made specifically for 3D. :s-smilie:

Reply 45

mojojojo101

Original post by Mr_Sinister

I like that it exists...cannot wait for the BBC to do an amazing wild life documentary in 3D

Considering the BBC seem to think the key to good science programming is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY long, slow shots of a mouse eating a bean, I wouldn't get too excited...

Original post by mojojojo101

Considering the BBC seem to think the key to good science programming is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY long, slow shots of a mouse eating a bean, I wouldn't get too excited...

off topic... but what's happened to the sound on wildlife docs - now you get a deafening squelshing noise if a frog winks in ultra slow mo. doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the actual sound of nature imo.

not sure if they're faking these sounds up in the studio post production or what.

Reply 48

Alfissti

That glasses makes me feel a bit dizzy and I find the picture to be unnatural.

If I wanted to see 3D I guess I'd go see something real rather than on screen.

Reply 49

Alistair Mac Tir

I cannot see the current 3D technology.The images just don't synthesize in my brain, so I don't really have a choice on this matter. In any case the story is what really counts.

Reply 50

Joinedup

Original post by Alistair Mac Tir

I cannot see the current 3D technology.The images just don't synthesize in my brain, so I don't really have a choice on this matter. In any case the story is what really counts.

Original post by Alfissti

That glasses makes me feel a bit dizzy and I find the picture to be unnatural.

If I wanted to see 3D I guess I'd go see something real rather than on screen.

apparently you need to go in a pair and swap the left (or right) lenses in your 3d glasses - then everything is back to normal again.

Reply 51

bluemax

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

2D, 3D films make me dizzy.

Plus I've to wear the 3D glasses on top of my regular specs. Life gets tough then

Reply 52

username402722

Most of the films I watch are indie low budget films or what might be described as arthouse (French, directors such as Mike Leigh or Ken Loach). None of them are in 3D. So its 2D for me.

Reply 53

jo7777

Definitely 2D, its so much cheaper! (Student problems)

Unless its something like Gravity... which probably wouldn't make sense in 2D...

Reply 54

mojojojo101

Original post by Joinedup

I think it's part of a greater sensalisation of science programming on TV, it seems, to me at least, that TV prodicers don't trust that the actual science is interesting / engaging enough so they have to wrap it up in a load of technical rubbish. Going to leave this here, as it kind of explains why I don't watch science programs on TV anymore.

[video="youtube;NvpbW7JRu0Q"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvpbW7JRu0Q[/video]