3D movies -- are they survivable now?

March 27, 2009 1:13 PM

Is the theatrical 3D film experience (e.g. 'Monsters vs. Aliens') much better than it used to be? Eyestrain, headaches, nausea used to be what you suffered through in the old red-blue glasses days in order to say you saw a 3D movie...has that gotten good enough now that it's safe to take, e.g., a 7 year old boy to these things?
posted by felix to media & arts (26 comments total)

They still give me a little bit of eyestrain, but that's wearing the 3D glasses overy my own prescription glasses. No nausea, though.
posted by infinitywaltz at 1:16 PM on March 27

When were "the old days?" 40, 10, 2 years ago?

I've seen a few 3D movies over the last few years, usually in IMAX: the new Superman, HP5, and Beowulf. I had zero problems except that sometimes the glasses didn't fit me perfectly and so the image wasn't 100% clear, like the two images (not sure exactly how the 3D glasses work) didn't come exactly together, but that was annoying and not nauseating. Didn't detract from the movie.
posted by thebazilist at 1:17 PM on March 27

I just saw Coraline, and didn't find it nausea-inducing, but I agreed with the headache complainers that there are too many sharp cuts forcing your eyes to refocus continually. I had to work to keep focusing on what was happening, and at the end of the movie found that I felt like I'd missed a lot of what was happening outside of the center of the screen. If I looked at the background, I lost focus on the focal point of the scene, and had to refocus to capture it. A couple times I couldn't tell what I should be focusing on.

Overall, it wasn't a problem enjoying the movie, but I agree with John Scalzi that 3D filmmakers need to learn to account for the effort of focusing required by viewers and provide more seamless transitions.
posted by fatbird at 1:18 PM on March 27

I had some eyestrain with Coraline, but it wasn't nearly as nausea-inducing as the old blue-red glasses.

IMAX movies still make me want to hurl though.
posted by JoanArkham at 1:20 PM on March 27

I recently saw Coraline, and thought the 3D effects worked very well. I used to have a problem with that sort of thing (particularly with image doubling), but as it turns out, one of my eyes focuses differently than the other. Now that my vision is corrected, it doesn't bother me at all.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:25 PM on March 27

I'd say yes - I found Coraline in 3d to be really easy on the eyes, and very engaging - the depth really drew me in to the movie. I actually was just talking to a friend of mine who was finishing up work on the 3d part of the next harry potter movie, and he was saying that they have to take a lot of care when creating the 3d effect in order to avoid the headaches and nausea. Animation and visual effects is such huge business these days that everything is really gone over with a fine-tooth comb; a lot more effort goes into making these films watchable than back in the red/green glasses days. (I could probably go on about this, if anyone was interested...)
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 1:26 PM on March 27

My last experience with 3D movies was Treasure of the Four Crowns in 1982, which sent my group of four people crawling from the theaters with migraines and projectile vomiting...it was great! But I don't want to inflict that on my son. :)
posted by felix at 1:28 PM on March 27

I'm going to throw my honest opinion about 3d movies. Unless the 3D somehow serves the story, it's not going to be a success, regardless if the technology gives you less headaches.

The technology is better than blue/red, but some people will have headaches regardless.
posted by filmgeek at 1:33 PM on March 27 [1 favorite]

er, yeah, the movies have certainly improved since 1982, quite amazing actually. I adore the new 3D movies. I tend to wear my contact lenses to those kinds of movies now so I can make full use of those giant polarized glasses. Never had nausea in any 3D movies, but I'm also a person who can read in the car.

But honestly I wouldn't deny your son the experience of a 3D movie unless he is very prone to motion sickness in general. Better to give it a try and I'm sure you'll both be amazed. If he gets sick and you decide to leave, I'm fairly sure theatres are ok with refunding your money in those instances, if it's before the end of the show.
posted by lizbunny at 1:37 PM on March 27

I am a fan of 3d and polarized lenses. Does it serve the story? No, but color often doesn't as well, or nondiagetic sound. It's a pleasure in and of itself -- although I think it was exceptionally well-used in Coraline.

I have never experiened nausea or dizziness from 3D, even the cyan-blue lenses, so YMMV, but polarized 3D doesn't have much doubling, unless you turn your head sideways, and otherwise looks quite normal. If your kids want to hurl at Imax movies, streer clear. Otherwise, I'm sure they'll be fine with it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:45 PM on March 27

I have some convergence issues and couldn't see the older types of 3D (and I get motion sickness from quick-editing a la Bourne Supremacy). I had zero issues with Coraline, and enjoyed it tremendously.

Of the people I saw it with, the ones wearing (prescription) glasses under their 3D glasses had a harder time and couldn't see all of the effects. But they didn't complain of headaches or nausea, just that they could tell they were missing stuff.
posted by hydropsyche at 1:54 PM on March 27

I saw Coraline last night and was amazed at the difference. The old red/blue glasses never worked for me -- and it made me a little sick to try. But these new glasses -- which seem just like sunglasses -- were great.

(And to get film critical on the subject, it definitely served the art in Coraline and can't imagine an action-y cartoon that wouldn't be bettered by it. It's not just about "serving the story" but the entire film experience. What's on screen in a movie theater should, in some instances, be different than what you can see at home, and new 3D makes that happen.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:55 PM on March 27 [1 favorite]

The big thing about the new 3-D is that stuff doesn't POP-OUT! OMG I CAN TOUCH THE ZOMBIE! Rather, it has depth. It's more like looking at a picture frame that goes back into space.... like a diorama.

When I saw Bolt, I was mesmerized for the first 15-20 minutes, but eventually the novelty of the 3-Dness subsided and it became more like a texture.
posted by yeti at 2:12 PM on March 27

It depends, do you hold your head straight all the time when watching movies? If you tilt your head even a little you'll have problems with the polarization on the glasses not lining up, and that will bring bluriness.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:45 PM on March 27

Please allow me to quote from Roger Ebert, who knows much more about movies than I, and most likely, any of us :

""Monsters vs. Aliens" is possibly the most commercial title of the year. How can you resist such a premise, especially if it's in 3-D animation? Very readily, in my case. I will say this first and get it out of the way: 3-D is a distraction and an annoyance. Younger moviegoers may think they like it because they've been told to, and picture quality is usually far from their minds. But for anyone who would just like to be left alone to see the darned thing, like me, it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look."
posted by newfers at 2:55 PM on March 27 [1 favorite]

My boy and I saw Coraline in 3-D and neither of us cared for it. We both wear glasses and were able to fit the polarized lenses over them, but it wasn't super comfortable. We both noticed that the 3-D effect seemed to work fine (and even look cool) when the object on screen was basically still but movement made it look quite blurry. I suspect this may have something to do with the glasses over glasses thing but maybe not. This was irritating for us both and a bit motion sickness inducing for me. I also had a bit of the feeling that I was missing out on what was happening on screen because my eyes were so drawn to a single 3-D element or character.

All in all, we didn't loathe it and it didn't ruin the movie but anything cool about it was balanced out by the blurriness and nuisance of the whole business. I can't imagine I'll ever bother with it again.
posted by mostlymartha at 3:03 PM on March 27

I saw Coraline in Real3D and It Came From Outer Space in its original 3D in a theatrical setting, within one week, and I can say that the new 3D is faaaaar superior in terms of physical experience.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:16 PM on March 27

I saw Coraline in 3D and thought the effects were terrific -- by far the least-eyestrain inducing 3D movie I've ever seen.

However -- and I realize that this isn't necessarly part of your question, but just in case -- I don't know that I'd take a 7-year-old to see Coraline. The last part of the film may be pretty scary for children under 10 or so; several kids in the audience freaked out when we saw it, and not just the 5-and-under set.
posted by scody at 4:00 PM on March 27

I used to hate the old 3D, because it made me so nauseous. The new RealD technology (with the polarized glasses) is infinitely better. It doesn't make me want to throw up anymore, and the effects are pretty amazingly clear.

Most of the "gimmicky" 3D movies (and from the trailer, I would count Monsters vs. Aliens to be gimmicky) still look great and are fun to watch. But the 3D work in Coraline had a much more "one tool of many to give depth to the screen" feel to it, which is where I hope 3D movies go in the future.

It's definitely a whole other experience than it used to be. I'd say to go try it out. Just let him know that you can get up and leave together if he starts feeling queasy. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Perhaps he will love it!
posted by gemmy at 4:31 PM on March 27

I've seen Coraline and Bolt both in RealD. I wear glasses (also suffer from migraines) and I was OK with both movies. I would even go so far as to say that after the first 20 minutes or so, the effect wasn't really even that obvious to me - as in, the stuff doesn't really pop OUT at you as much as provide a little more depth to what you're watching. I think there may have been a handful of scenes in Coraline (really dark, dark movie incidentally) that seemed to take greater advantage of the 3D (if that makes any sense).

By the way, the movie theatres scam you and charge an additional $3US or so for the glasses that you 'recycle' at the end of the movie (no, you can't get your money back after returning the glasses, nor can you save them from the last movie and duck the fee). So, for a family of four, it ended up costing damn near $60 just for movie tickets alone. Honestly, I don't think the RealD was worth it.
posted by dancinglamb at 4:56 PM on March 27

I don't remember going to 3D movies as a kid, and I saw Coraline in 3D, so it was basically my first experience, and I really enjoyed it. I might have been a little overwhelmed / tired / slightly headachey (not painful, just bleahish feeling) afterward, but the effect was so cool that I did not mind. I am pretty sensitive to these kinds of things, get motion sickness easily etc, so if it were highly nauseating I bet I'd have felt it.

As for the "serves the story" thing, well, you could just read a book, too. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that part of what you go to a movie for is not the visual experience. In fact, many highbrow movies are beloved for their aesthetics, so why should a lowbrow movie not be loved for a visual component?

By the way, the movie theatres scam you and charge an additional $3US or so for the glasses that you 'recycle' at the end of the movie
we were charged a little extra to see a 3D movie, but not for the glasses in particular, which were just handed out for free & returned at the end
posted by mdn at 6:31 PM on March 27

Here's another opinion (two really).
posted by bwanabetty at 6:58 PM on March 27

I just got back from Monsters v Aliens.

I agree with Ebert. The 3D was fun for about 10 minutes, and beyond that I was annoyed with the ill-fitting plastic glasses.

The movie was moderately enjoyable and had some laughs. If you're interested in going, I recommend a matinee.
posted by Fleebnork at 7:45 PM on March 27

There is a lot of misinformation about "old" 3D floating around out there (much of it coming from the companies promoting the "new" stuff). A little clarification:

There have been many, many 3D systems over the years, even some dating back to before WWII.

One of the best systems came around in the 1950s, when Hollywood pushed the dual-strip system. It consisted of two synchronized 35mm projectors. It used polarized glasses, so there was no red/green or red/blue color filtration. The polarizers were linear, so tilting your head would cause the effect to be lost. Both left and right images were projected at the same time, so there was no extra temporal separation causing additional flicker. There are even occasionally modern revival screenings using the full two projector setup.

At various other times, there were indeed 3D films shown with red/green or red/blue color separation and/or just a single projector (which adds extra flicker).

Anyone going to regular theaters in the past few years has probably only seen IMAX 3D, which uses polarized glasses and a single projector (with the two left/right frames alternating, giving additional flicker). It again uses linear polarizers which means head tilt is a factor.

Most digital 3D systems use a single projector alternating frames, but with a very high framerate, so there will be less flicker than with IMAX 3D. They also have the additional improvement of using circular polarizers, which eliminates the issue of head tilt.

Another place you can see different 3D systems is at amusement parks. Disneyland had some Kodak-sponsored film based 3D systems last time I was there. Not sure of the details, but I believe they might have been dual-strip 5-perf 70mm.

If it's still there, the Terminator theme ride at Universal Studios in LA uses a dual-strip 5-perf 70mm 3D system with polarized glasses (linear I think). Personally I'd say it's still was the best 3D effect I've ever seen. Worth catching if you're at the park.

Given all that history, it's a little annoying to read press releases and news articles promoting these digital 3D systems that imply all previous 3D was single projector, non-polarized anaglyph. The new systems are pretty cool, but credit where credit is due.

Oh, and Dolby has a 3D system that involves narrow-pass RGB filters, no polarization needed. However the glasses are fairly expensive I hear, and few theaters (in the US anyway) seem to be installing it.
posted by Potsy at 10:34 PM on March 27

I asked this previously. Specifically I was asking about IMAX, but many IMAX movies are 3D.
posted by IndigoRain at 11:49 PM on March 27

Saw The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D with little kids. No probs.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 6:58 PM on March 28