3D Movie: Difference between revisions
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta9)
(Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta9)) |
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta9)) |
||
Line 12:
Thanks to the proliferation of 3D movies, studios naturally have jumped at the chance to [[Money, Dear Boy|get more money out of their audiences]] by converting movies into 3D which were shot "flat" (with only one camera). However, this often turns out imperfectly, due to having to squeeze a lot of intricate post-production work (imagine having to cut out a piece of an image in Photoshop, then adjust it to move twenty-four times a second—now imagine doing it for multiple layers of an image, for the entire length of a feature film) into the short period before a fast approaching release date. Critics such as [[Roger Ebert]], already pretty biased against 3D, are even more venomous towards fake 3D.
It has been noted by several of these critics that, like the other big periods of 3D movies in the 1950s and 1980s, the recent boom of 3D releases comes when Hollywood's profit margins are significantly under threat by an outside force (television in the first case, home recording and VHS in the second, downloading and DVD today) with the consequence that studios are desperately looking for any old gimmick that will get people into movie seats. There has also been some recent [https://web.archive.org/web/20110501035944/http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html concern] about 3D movies wreaking havoc with the focus and convergence of people's vision. Another issue has been a few theaters being too lazy to change out the 3D lens of their projectors when they put on a 2D movie instead, leaving those patrons stuck with a very dim image on the screen to watch.
See [[Three Dimensional Episode]] for non-3D series with episodes in 3D. (Which can overlap with 3D movies if it's a series of movies.)
| |||