So...what's this new fangled 3D all about then?

[Beakerzoid 10]

Dang, I ended up doing it after all

 

Some of you may have noticed the advent of Real-D 3D over the past years, and particularly last year when Cineworld was blessed with a bit of dosh to invest in the technology. Some of you again may have a few questions about it, so here I will answer (to the best of my ability) any queries you have on the new fangled tech.

 

First, let me cover a few common questions.

 

*Hasn't 3D been done before?

 

Yes, every 15 years or so the fad returns. However, this time the tech has improved a great deal. The system utilises the digital projectors in use at more and more cinemas worldwide to show a new 'polarized' 3D film, alternating images at 72 frames per second, for each eye to pick up seperately, combining the images to add layers of depth to the image. The extremely high resolution of the digital projector, and the polarization effect mean that the image your brain recieves is sharp, and retains all the colour of the film (unlike with the blue/red lenses which distorted the colour scheme of the film)

 

In addition, whereas in the past the 3D effect was limited to things jumping out the screen at you (meaning it was mostly gimmicky), the new 3D allows things to go INTO the screen, lending depth to the film. Anyone who watched Beowulf in 3D last year would have been as captivated as I was with the scenery shots. U23D was spectacular, making you feel you could actually run into the screen and shake Bono by the hand (or the neck....your choice).

 

*Do you still have to wear silly glasses?

 

Yes and no. Glasses still need to be worn. The two lenses are set to recieve the images seperately. However they are not the cardboard mess that they used to be, and the tinted lenses are more akin to sunglasses (but do not use them as such - they are not designed to be sunglasses). The old coloured ones used to cause me terrible migraines after 10 inutes, but the new ones don't. The glasses are set in sturdy plastic frames, so are quite comfortable and rigid.

 

*What if you already wear specs?

 

They fit beautifully over them. A few customers asking me about this were not convinced when I told them this, so I demonstrated it for them and popped a pair on over my own specs. Perfect fit, and comfortable to wear for the whole film (Beowulf, Nightmare Before Christmas, and U23D....for some reason I avoided Hannah Montana)

 

*Why does it cost more?

 

The extra charge is not so we can line our pockets more, but it is the payment to the company that transfers the image to 3D - RealD. They want some cash from it, so they take their share from the takings for the film.

 

*Do Unlimited card holders have to pay more?

 

Not at present. This is still up in the air, and at present Cineworld are taking the cost and paying out on behalf of the card-holders (whilst it is free for card holders to watch as many films as they like, we still have to pay out to the distributors for every film a card holder goes to see. This means that in the case of our most regular devotees we actually lose out each month as we pay the distributors more than we get from the card subscription - but that is another topic for another day).

 

The terms and conditions of the Unlimited card were amended to state that the card may not be valid on certain performances such as 3D, but the Marketing team are still to make a final decision on it. The general feeling was that we would upset a huge proportion of the customer base if we refused to let you all see it on the card, and so for the time being you get in with no charge. They may choose to add a surcharge on top sometime in the future (say £1 or £1.50 extra payment when watching a 3D film, as it is with the standard tickets), and chatting with some of the regular card holders it seems that many of you think this is actually quite fair as you are getting a different experience.

 

I will let you all know if there is any changes to this.

 

 

So, that's the basics. Next week (11th July 08) we have Journey To the Center Of The Earth in 3D - the film looks terrible, but the 3D looks ace, so I'm there! Worth seeing for the 3D alone

 

Over the next few years practically every animated movie is getting 3D options, and we hope to get as many of the as we can. For me the most exiting prospect is that Pixar have gone back to the source code for Toy Story 1 & 2 and are in the process of re-imaging it all in 3D for re-issue next year ready for Toy Story 3 (in 3D) in 2010!!!

 

To infinity....and beyond!

[EdnaKrabappe 14]

Thanks for that Beakerzoid. I enjoyed that. When 3D first came out I was a bit obsessed with it, remember the Jaws 3D film...

 

My question - what is it like to watch a 3D film WITHOUT 3D glasses? Is it still a pleasant film to watch or is it blurry round the edges like the old ones used to be.

[Beakerzoid 10]

My question - what is it like to watch a 3D film WITHOUT 3D glasses? Is it still a pleasant film to watch or is it blurry round the edges like the old ones used to be.

 

Without the glasses on the image is blurred and doubled as you do not have the different polarized lenses to seperate the multiple images, so you see them both.

 

We do get normal prints of some 3D films (such as Beowulf) which can be watched without glasses (and have no 3D element).

[locket 10]

we have 3 D glasses that are from the hippodrome in sheffield. they are from about 1940's not sure when the hippodrome closed down

[funkyukgal 11]

I really enjoyed watching Journey to the Centre of the Earth. Only gripe I have was the 3D glasses, why couldnt the glasses be recycled again? Surely the customers dont mind wearing used glasses....?

 

I asked a member of staff if I gave them back, would they recycle it or more likely to be thrown away. The answer was thrown away, so Ive taken them home for them to gather dust.

[Beakerzoid 10]

I really enjoyed watching Journey to the Centre of the Earth. Only gripe I have was the 3D glasses, why couldnt the glasses be recycled again? Surely the customers dont mind wearing used glasses....?

 

I asked a member of staff if I gave them back, would they recycle it or more likely to be thrown away. The answer was thrown away, so Ive taken them home for them to gather dust.

 

The glasses, although sturdier than the old cardboard ones, still get damaged or scratches on the lenses which can taint the 3D effect. Plus grubby fingerprints don't clean off them very well - so in order to ensure everyone has the best 3D experience possible a fresh set in a sealed pack are provided.

 

Plus, the information on the packaging stating that they are not sunglasses and have no UV protection has to be provided each time a pair are handed out otherwise some muppet will blind themselves and try to sue us.

 

In addition, I wouldn't want to wear a used pair of glasses that has been sat on a grubby sweaty head and nose, and gathererd a fair portion of staphylococcus aureus bacteria which was allowed time to develop a tad in a box filled with other such grubby glasses. I'd much rather wear my own.

[earsthecat 10]

are films actualy any better in 3d?

[earsthecat 10]

never actualy seen one .... too tight to pay extra lol

[Beakerzoid 10]

are films actualy any better in 3d?

 

Sadly many at present are actually worse!

 

The films designed in a 3D environment (such as animations like Shrek or Toy Story) work well, without being too gimmicky or distracting from the film itself. With these films it just adds depth to the picture, making long shots look marvellous. In these cases it wont make it look odd in 2D (unlike, say, Monsters Vs Aliens last year which had the 'things jumping out the screen' moments which just look dreadful without a 3D system)

 

Films like Avatar, and the upcoming Resident Evil and Tron sequels were filmed with a new camera technology to capture the live action images in 3D, and look marvellous because of it (well, the trailers for Tron and Res Evil look great anyway).

 

Sadly, the knee-jerk reaction to how well Avatar was received led to distributors such as Warners (amongst others) insisting on turning all their output to 3D. So, Clash of the Titans - which was not filmed for 3D - was artificially 'enhanced' by adding a fake 3D element to it....and it looked awful! Similarly Piranha 3D was filmed in 2D and looks dreadful (like cardboard cutouts moving against a dodgy backdrop). The upcoming Potter film has been 'tweaked' for 3D, Last Airbender is poorly done too.

 

What makes this even sadder is that a badly transferred film will put newcomers to 3D off ever seeing them again, which will mean that the films that do look great in 3D will suffer because of it. As far as I am concerned 3D should be the occasional spectacle, not every new release. Now if only the movie big-wigs would realise that and calm it down a bit....

[Mantaspook 14]

Thanks for the concise summary Beakerzoid, that's very informative.

[Beakerzoid 10]

As an update to the original info...

 

*What if you already wear specs?

 

Well, if you find the idea of wearing two pairs of glasses a bit uncomfortable (or you just don't have a chunky nose like me and so they keep slipping), Cineworld have been selling clip-ons over the past month or so. Slightly more expensive than the standard specs, but with lenses which are sturdier and easier to clean grubby marks off, they offer an alternate choice for bespectacled folk.

 

*What's this 'Aviator style' thing about?

 

In addition Cineworld sell good quality 'Aviator style' 3D specs for those who want to look cool in the screen. On a more serious note, at £13 they seem costly, but are very sturdy, and will stand up to quite a lot of use and abuse. If 3D is a huge appeal to you (or you anticipate the deluge of 3D films in the next year or so) it may be a decent investment.

 

* My kids find it hard to keep the specs on, and they damage the lenses quickly!

 

Again, kids size glasses with stronger lenses (easier to clean) have been trialled (in a Shrek design). They were popular, and feedback was good, so Cineworld will be rolling out a generic kids design. Again slightly more expensive than standard pair, but they do shrug off the sticky fingerprints a lot better than the 80p pairs do, so will see repeated use for even the most testing of kids (I speak from experience )