Watching Resident Evil: Afterlife on DVD... its a crap film but i'm in the mood for dross tonight however jesus...

Whatever process they used to make it "3D" ruined the cinematography.

1. The staged "3d" scenes and special effects, they're crap.
2. The weird HDR effect that is apparent throughout the movie.

Really irritates me that the industry has decided we need a gimmick like this. It's crap. :|

Gives me headaches in the cinema, annoyingly causes all directors to be dicks and require everything to be thrown, flown, kicked and shot at the camera for that "effect" and is not needed at all for drawing people into the movie.

</rage>

for your viewing pleasure, I present the solution:

well, partial solution anyway (alas it doesn't prevent directors from being idiots)

http://www.2d-glasses.com/

I couldn't agree more M3ta7h3ad, thankfully I've managed to avoid 3D films, but every time time I've watched a demo of it in a store it's been utter crap and is a total gimmick, it does nothing to add the the viewing experience, other than distract you from everything else in the picture.

What's annoying is that this want even meant to be a 3d version of the film but the cameras they used to film it and the staged "3d friendly" camera angles ruin the overall look of the movie.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2

I think it partly comes down to the way it was filmed, if 3D is being used for the sake of 3D or actually being used to it's potential. 

I find it odd you are complaining about Afterlife as it supposedly used Cameron's Fusion 3 Cameras.  But I would imagine a lot of the events are generated 3D.  Not one I saw in the cinema myself.

The worst are films that are post converted and not actually shot with 3D cameras. You can tell straight away when it is post converted, the distances between background and foreground are rigid and feels like a simple 2 layer distance effect.  Nor do 2 cameras stuck to each other work well.  The issue is is that it is not natural for the eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=142gTbBDzWM

There are only 3 films in my recent memory that I really enjoyed in 3D, either technically or for the purpose of the film, Avatar, Tron Legacy and Hugo.  Tron especially as the "real world" was shot in 2D and made a fantastic distinction between  the digital and real world.

Off to see Titanic 3D at the O2 today ... I'll let you know.

I've not been impressed by 3d either, I'll always go to the 2d showing if thats on instead. I have noticed they are intentionally showing the 2d films at worse times and fewer showings to force you to go 3d.

The only thing I have watched in 3d and thought WOW was football and that was on a 50" tv in the pub.

Not sure what "Fusion 3 Cameras" are but according to the wikipedia entry for the film the directors were cursing the 3D cameras for making things too light and having too restricted a colour pallette.

The two things above really come across in the film.

Everything looks like a geisha or just plain wrong like trying to view the world through sepia (wrong colour but the shift in colours illustrates the effect) lenses.

The best way I can describe the Fusion camera system is that the cameras move in and out like your real eyes do.  Unlike systems which just use two fixed lenses.  I've always noticed the difference almost immediately when something has either been post processed or done poorly.  If I know in advance it wasn't done properly from the set, I won't watch it in 3D.  I personally think it makes a huge difference to the result. 

Quote from: Cypher on April 22, 2012, 02:34:24 AM
I find it odd you are complaining about Afterlife as it supposedly used Cameron's Fusion 3 Cameras.  But I would imagine a lot of the events are generated 3D.  Not one I saw in the cinema myself.

The worst are films that are post converted and not actually shot with 3D cameras. You can tell straight away when it is post converted, the distances between background and foreground are rigid and feels like a simple 2 layer distance effect.  Nor do 2 cameras stuck to each other work well.  The issue is is that it is not natural for the eyes.

Thing with afterlife, other than colours (I thought the bleakness helped tbh) was it suffered from the classic "this movie is 3d so lets make loads of things jump at the camera" problem. The (re)invention of 3D has been almost as bad as "shakeycam" in action films. Gone are the days of carefully choreographed action sequences. Now they cobble together lesser sequences and shake the camera about a bit to simulate "being in the action" and cover up the poor acting.

And I found Avatar to suffer from your background and foreground problem. I felt it was like watching an animated pop-up book. Everything seemed to be in layers of varying degrees of closeness. Everytime something was noticeably 3D it pulled me out of the film. The only good thing I can say about Avatar 3D, is that if that was the best they have to offer I now know to save my money and watch 2D where possible.

When I watched Avatar, despite watching it in 2D, I felt totally detached from the film most of the time and couldn't really get with it. Whether this was because of the techniques used to make it work for 3D or whether it's just because the film suffers from the same mediocrity as Titanic - yet is still as unfathomably popular - remains a mystery to me.

Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on April 25, 2012, 18:56:03 PM
When I watched Avatar, despite watching it in 2D, I felt totally detached from the film most of the time and couldn't really get with it. Whether this was because of the techniques used to make it work for 3D or whether it's just because the film suffers from the same mediocrity as Titanic - yet is still as unfathomably popular - remains a mystery to me.

I think it's because the film is gash to be honest.