Report: 3d Movies Boost Headaches, Not Enjoyment

My friend, who suffers migraines, and I went and saw Bayformers 3 last week, and he didn't get a headache. I don't get headaches watching 3D. My dad learned to take his regular glasses off while watching 3D and he doesn't get headaches anymore while watching.

S~
 
I'm not a big fan of 3D, but when reading that article, the 3 films they used to test on; "Alice in Wonderland," "Clash of the Titans" or "How to Train Your Dragon." were not the best 3D films to use. They should have done A/B testing with "Avatar". I truly felt "immersed" in the forest all around me...and those little floaty things made my head move a number of times to get out of it's way!
Ghpr13:)

 
Im a migraine sufferer, and I agree that staring at a PC monitor for 5-6 hours a day is worse than watching 3D. My wife does not get headaches, it actually makes her eyes get red and start watering. 2D vs 3D, could care less. It might live, but I still think it stays niche. Lotta folks get wound up for it, then when you watch it and realize there are tradeoffs, the luster can wear off.
 
What’s a headache? Seriously, in my 26 years on earth, if I’ve had more than a half a dozen headaches in my life, that’s a lot. I just don’t get them, never have. Last one I got was maybe 10 years ago. I’m extremely near sighted, with astigmatism in my left eye and have no problems with the 3D images produced on my TV, laptop or cell phone. I’m extremely proud to be part of the third dimension of digital video entertainment, even though everyone wants the technology to fail. And I can't say I have an issue with wearing the 3D glasses on top of my own prescription glasses.
 
3DTV a Bust, Industry Can't Admit it Yet - Everything's Fine, Insists ESPN. | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

3DTV marketing ramped up significantly this year, though the vendor sales pitches continue to fall on deaf ears for a number of reasons. Despite the hype, data suggests people generally find the technology expensive, 3D content limited, and the glasses annoying. 3DTV set sales haven't taken off, and they show no sign of doing so -- as many simply see the functionality as an uninteresting gimmick. You can ad HDNet CEO Mark Cuban to that mix, the CEO telling the New York Post that "3-D on TV is a bust." Neither ESPN or set top vendors appear ready to acknowledge this reality just yet, both insisting they remain in it for the long haul. Some set makers insist there's limited interest because there's not enough programming, and there's not enough programming because there's not enough interest. Or, more simply, few consumers are interested in 3DTV.
 
These people who write negative articles about 3D don't get it!

3D movies is not about how to make a movie more educational or memorable, or even make you feel more engaged in the action. I don't want to be engaged in the movie at all. I paid to watch it not be in it. 3D is only about entertainment. It IS about a bigger experience than the 2D alternative.

But, I would agree that 3D is not for everyone. Many people today don't even go to the movies to watch the movie. In a casual observation I've made I see many people at the movies for other social reasons. Kids go to annoy others including their parents. Young teen couples go to make out in the dark. Young adults go to conduct business by texting and discussing business. Some go mistaking the place for a restaurant for really bad food that is not served by a waiter but rather where they can just dump what they don't eat on the floor and the person next to them. etc etc.

So for those few who do get it, a place to be entertained by some film. the question should be is 3D a bigger version of that entertainment than 2D? I say yes just for the geometry of the experience. Good 3D fills the room and extends the size of the room off into the distance using a simple illusion. 2D is just a large flat picture on one of the walls.
Does 3D make some sick, get headaches as opposed to 2D? I have to ask- Does a modern highly intense roller coaster make some people vomit while a ride on a tram is relaxing and can put you to sleep? Doesn't seem to cause writers to author negative articles about roller coasters. I think there is some paranoia among people with 3D phobia that the industry will end all 2D and only show 3D. That is just silly. We heard the same thing about HDTV. Just because we have roller coasters, never resulted in no more tram rides.

Personally I don't like paying lots of money to ride something that makes me sick and vomit. I can appreciate that some people like that and others will ride and just be entertained. 3D is no different. Some people will still go to the movies for a place to conduct their texting and making cell phone business calls annoying others, and some will just enjoy the story, others will go to be entertained by the movie and like the idea that 3D offers more entertainment than 2D.

What I like is we have a choice. So go write about roller coasters make some people vomit and stop with the articles that 3D gives some people headaches. Its getting really old and definitely boring.

Are 3D movies too dark, bad color? Sure, some are, some aren't. I can find many 2D movies that are too dark and bad color too. That is the fault of the director. Bad choice in how he did the story.
 
I have only seen one movie, Avatar, where I felt 3D significantly added to the story. I have seen several others, and generally felt that I could have saved the additional money. In many cases, I felt that the 3D actually detracted from the story. I also see it as a way of extracting another $20-30 from me to bring the kids.

My concern is that 3D has the potential to raise prices without adding value TO ME. We are at a point at my local multiplex where it is actually cheaper to buy the BluRay than to buy an opening week ticket in 3D and in their "premium seating" locations (the center of the theater).
 
These people who write negative articles about 3D don't get it!

3D movies is not about how to make a movie more educational or memorable, or even make you feel more engaged in the action. I don't want to be engaged in the movie at all. I paid to watch it not be in it. 3D is only about entertainment. It IS about a bigger experience than the 2D alternative.

But, I would agree that 3D is not for everyone. Many people today don't even go to the movies to watch the movie. In a casual observation I've made I see many people at the movies for other social reasons. Kids go to annoy others including their parents. Young teen couples go to make out in the dark. Young adults go to conduct business by texting and discussing business. Some go mistaking the place for a restaurant for really bad food that is not served by a waiter but rather where they can just dump what they don't eat on the floor and the person next to them. etc etc.

So for those few who do get it, a place to be entertained by some film. the question should be is 3D a bigger version of that entertainment than 2D? I say yes just for the geometry of the experience. Good 3D fills the room and extends the size of the room off into the distance using a simple illusion. 2D is just a large flat picture on one of the walls.
Does 3D make some sick, get headaches as opposed to 2D? I have to ask- Does a modern highly intense roller coaster make some people vomit while a ride on a tram is relaxing and can put you to sleep? Doesn't seem to cause writers to author negative articles about roller coasters. I think there is some paranoia among people with 3D phobia that the industry will end all 2D and only show 3D. That is just silly. We heard the same thing about HDTV. Just because we have roller coasters, never resulted in no more tram rides.

Personally I don't like paying lots of money to ride something that makes me sick and vomit. I can appreciate that some people like that and others will ride and just be entertained. 3D is no different. Some people will still go to the movies for a place to conduct their texting and making cell phone business calls annoying others, and some will just enjoy the story, others will go to be entertained by the movie and like the idea that 3D offers more entertainment than 2D.

What I like is we have a choice. So go write about roller coasters make some people vomit and stop with the articles that 3D gives some people headaches. Its getting really old and definitely boring.

Are 3D movies too dark, bad color? Sure, some are, some aren't. I can find many 2D movies that are too dark and bad color too. That is the fault of the director. Bad choice in how he did the story.
Amen to this Don, seems like when the writers are at a deadline or have writers block, they p*ss on 3D ... and most of what they write are half truths at best for those that have been around 3D & enjoy ...
 
I have not gotten any headaches from watching 3D movies in the theater or at home.
 
I get a headache having to shell-out an additional $4 for a movie in which no "enjoyment" has been added by going 3D. Don't get me wrong...I don't mind paying for a good 3D movie (can be an excellent visual experience), but there is just a lot of bad 3D out there.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)