Misuse of 3D lenses to Blame for Dim Movies?

According to the Boston Globe, some theaters in that area are not swapping out 3D lenses when showing 2D films, resulting in darker images. I've seen quite a few people complaining about dim pictures in theaters lately (I recall quite a few in the Thor thread), and I'm wondering if this might be a likely culprit. What do you all think?

I don't think I've ever been in a theater with images too dark to see (even the one 3D movie I have seen), but I would definitely complain if I couldn't see things on the screen: movies are expensive to go to.

I think poor writing is to blame for dim movies

I think that 3D should be done away with all together

Huh, so it really is widespread theatre management incompetence. As I said a few weeks ago about the Thor issue, I would not have put my money there.

why not Ironik, it's most likely the reason.

I figure the next big move after 3D is restricted VR where you can see all that is happening in the room instead of just a minor fraction of it or experience the movie in first person. Imagine being trapped in a person's mind for 2 hours. The technology after that would have to be where the movies are more real than reality.

I am not certain if 3D lenses causes 3D movies to dim, but I do know that it is mostly the 3D glasses fault due to polarization. Would make more sense to have the same projector used to project 2D and 3D movies than having to switch out a lens each time since people forget. If you take 2 3D glasses and rotate one of the lenses, then all light is blocked off. Regular 3D glasses reduce the image intensity by 50%.

3D won't be universally accepted until the technology actually works for everyone. Right now, you need the glasses and that's a stumbling block. Also, many people get headaches or are nauseated by the effect.

There are designs for direct view 3D TV sets, but I can't say how good they look. As I understand it, they also have viewing angle and size limitations and aren't yet applicable to movie theaters.

All current 3D technologies depend on a trick -- presenting a different image to each eye -- rather than actually rendering a "solid" 3D image that you can view directly with your own eyes.

What's the difference? If you watch a contemporary 3D film and move from one side of the screen to the other, you'll see the same image from every angle. In a real 3D presentation walking from one side of the image to the other would show you the left side of a character's face in profile, then the face straight on, then the character's right profile.

The problem is, directors wouldn't want to use real 3D, because they couldn't control the exact presentation of the image to all viewers. They also wouldn't be able to play the "jump out of the screen" trick in a real 3D system that projects the image in a tank or on a stage.

When you come right down to it, 3D isn't really very important. When we view real life the 3D effect is extremely small -- our retinas are basically flat and the parallax effect at the distance we sit from a theater screen is vanishingly small. That is, the distance between our eyes is a couple of inches and we often sit 50 to 100 feet away from the screen. Only when we get really close to things do our eyes actually perceive two substantially different images.

Systems like IMAX give you a more immersive experience without the need for glasses. Being surrounded by the image gives a more visceral sensation than having sharks pop out of the screen at you. But that system has its own problems, too -- the curvature of the screen often distorts the image.

Until the distortion problems are resolved I'm not going to bother with 3D. And that's going to be another two or three generations of technology, at a minimum.

You may try to argue it's a piracy counter measure, but it's actually it promotes it.

There is always going to be one theater that does things right and they are going to have a pirate that gets a good quality of a movie. With theater only offering crappy 3D for more money which is reduced quality imo for most films because the hassle with the glasses and the lack of ability to do anything good with 3D OR reduced quality 2D versions people are finding they aren't willing to deal with the crappy crapped up 3d glasses, crappy brightness, crappy gimmick effects, crappy seats, or crappy viewing audiences when they can get a reduced quality pirated version from the comfort of their own homes.


Personally I think theaters are dumb in this era. And the only reason they are still around is because people think that it's a bad thing to get rid of jobs. Jobs that aren't needed SHOULD go away. The problem is that when a job is removed that savings that the company gets isn't reflected in the cost the customer pays so that when a machine takes a person job the price stays the same, the employer makes more money, but their consumers make less and can't buy their goods or don't see them as worthwhile. Theaters are have been killing themselves for ages and I don't think I've hear them do 1 smart thing... they always do take the route that tries to screw over the customer and as such I see no reason to patron theaters.

I avoid 3D showings like the plague. I feel they add nothing to a movie other then lightening my wallet. While I would accept that some films have actually used 3D well, the majority of the current trend is simply a gimmick. Paying extra $3-$5 for 3D is just stupid, IMHO.

While I've occasionally regretted not getting "the movie theater" experience for a film, I've never felt I missed out by not watching a movie in 3D.

3D-Only views = me waiting for the Blue Ray release.

re: piracy prevention? Easily defeated: Use one or the other lens of the glasses in front of the camera, and it's 2d. Tada.

My sister uses this, she can only see out of one eye, so she only sees one side of the 3d picture, but she still wears the glasses so she can see that side correctly.

Not that I advocate the piracy, of course, but I am just pointing it out: No stopping it.

---

I'm now thinking about taking some of those glasses and putting two lefts or rights in them so I can see 2D when everyone else wants to see the 3d crapfest.

/Only James Cameron's Avatar has done 3D correctly.
//Tron Legacy sucked a little because it's 3D wasn't all that.
///Got it home, 2D, fantastic.