A 3D newbie inquires . . .
December 28, 2009 9:56 AM Subscribe
Is the 3D print of Avatar prescription eyeglasses friendly? And what can I really anticipate from the 3D portion of the experience?
3D newbie, here. I've never been to one, and am at a loss as to what to expect.
To get things rolling, will the 3D lenses fit over my prescription glasses? (I expect the answer to this is "yes.") How is the fit, and is there any discomfort or blurriness of vision?
As for the movie itself, nearby theaters are (depending on the moviehouse) featuring either "Avatar" or "Avatar 3D." (No IMAX, sadly). Is it right to assume that any listing for "Avatar" is plain vanilla, lacking the 3D element?
I'm not a huge fan of Cameron (apart from Aliens) and descriptions of the script leave me dry. But I'll go if the 3D's worth it. What does the 3D technology have to offer, in terms of imagery and "must see" elements? Does it make up for deficiencies in the storyline?
3D newbie, here. I've never been to one, and am at a loss as to what to expect.
To get things rolling, will the 3D lenses fit over my prescription glasses? (I expect the answer to this is "yes.") How is the fit, and is there any discomfort or blurriness of vision?
As for the movie itself, nearby theaters are (depending on the moviehouse) featuring either "Avatar" or "Avatar 3D." (No IMAX, sadly). Is it right to assume that any listing for "Avatar" is plain vanilla, lacking the 3D element?
I'm not a huge fan of Cameron (apart from Aliens) and descriptions of the script leave me dry. But I'll go if the 3D's worth it. What does the 3D technology have to offer, in terms of imagery and "must see" elements? Does it make up for deficiencies in the storyline?
I've seen several 3D movies while wearing my prescription glasses without a problem. They don't fall off and you don't need to constantly need to adjust or fidget with them.
It's safe to assume that only the listings marked "3D" are presented in 3D.
posted by VanCityChica at 10:03 AM on December 28, 2009
It's safe to assume that only the listings marked "3D" are presented in 3D.
posted by VanCityChica at 10:03 AM on December 28, 2009
Glasses seem to fit over prescription fine. Yes, the 3-D effects are worth seeing, if only because you get to see the 'future' of movies. Also, I thought the storyline, while very simple and Ferngullyish, was interesting and did not have any major holes in it to detract from enjoying the film.
posted by 2legit2quit at 10:03 AM on December 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by 2legit2quit at 10:03 AM on December 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
Haven't seen Avatar 3D, but I presume it's going to be the same polarized glasses supplied for Bolt 3D last summer. It's 100% fine with prescription glasses. Depending on your frame, the glasses they give you for the movie may or may not sit well on your head, but I don't think it should be an issue. I noticed no discomfort, either from the image or the fit of the glasses.
Yes, any screening labeled simply Avatar should be the 2D version. However, mistakes are made. If your theater screws up the labeling, we can't know.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 10:03 AM on December 28, 2009
Yes, any screening labeled simply Avatar should be the 2D version. However, mistakes are made. If your theater screws up the labeling, we can't know.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 10:03 AM on December 28, 2009
The 3D is worth it to the point that I'd advise you not to bother with Avatar Vanilla. Can't speak to the glasses part, I only wear prescription glasses to go from bed to bathroom sink and back.
Enjoy the movie. You'll like the Space Marines aesthetic, at the very least.
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:04 AM on December 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Enjoy the movie. You'll like the Space Marines aesthetic, at the very least.
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:04 AM on December 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
They will. Avatar was the second modern 3D movie I've seen (the other was Up) and I wore the glasses over my regular glasses. You may need to adjust the positions of the two pairs occasionally. I had no discomfort. A friend who has had poor luck in the past with 3D (he wears glasses, and one eye is slightly cross-eyed) had no problems with Avatar.
I thought Avatar was a lot of fun, and the visuals definitely make it worth seeing in 3D. Since the plot and dialogue are pretty unmemorable, the visual spectacle is the best reason to go. There's no schlocky shots of things being shot at you, it's more an overall sense of being inside the environment. There's a lot of running through fantastical forest and flying through the air... It's pretty neat stuff. I forgot about the glasses about 20 minutes into the movie.
posted by chowflap at 10:04 AM on December 28, 2009
I thought Avatar was a lot of fun, and the visuals definitely make it worth seeing in 3D. Since the plot and dialogue are pretty unmemorable, the visual spectacle is the best reason to go. There's no schlocky shots of things being shot at you, it's more an overall sense of being inside the environment. There's a lot of running through fantastical forest and flying through the air... It's pretty neat stuff. I forgot about the glasses about 20 minutes into the movie.
posted by chowflap at 10:04 AM on December 28, 2009
I have prescription glasses and saw 3d avatar. You won't have a problem.
posted by dfriedman at 10:09 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by dfriedman at 10:09 AM on December 28, 2009
My niece wore the glasses over her prescription glasses with no problem.
Avatar is the best 3D film experience I've ever seen. I wouldn't even recommend seeing it in non-3D.
One thing to keep in mind is that the first 10 minutes or so of watching 3D is disorienting, and it gets better after you relax a bit and get used to it. That's not a scientific explanation, just my own personal experience.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 10:13 AM on December 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Avatar is the best 3D film experience I've ever seen. I wouldn't even recommend seeing it in non-3D.
One thing to keep in mind is that the first 10 minutes or so of watching 3D is disorienting, and it gets better after you relax a bit and get used to it. That's not a scientific explanation, just my own personal experience.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 10:13 AM on December 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
FWIW at the IMax theater the glasses were way oversized. Not the typical Buddy holly style 3D glasses. Worked fine over my scrips.
posted by Gungho at 10:13 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by Gungho at 10:13 AM on December 28, 2009
Mrs L wears prescription trifocals and found that wearing 3D glasses were no problem.
The depth of the Avatar movie is great, not too much of "things" coming straight out of the screen at you.
We saw Dickens' Christmas Carol in 3D yesterday and this was quite well done, but not as good as Avatar.
This is arguably the way all movies will be one day!
posted by lungtaworld at 10:14 AM on December 28, 2009
The depth of the Avatar movie is great, not too much of "things" coming straight out of the screen at you.
We saw Dickens' Christmas Carol in 3D yesterday and this was quite well done, but not as good as Avatar.
This is arguably the way all movies will be one day!
posted by lungtaworld at 10:14 AM on December 28, 2009
3D and my glasses worked perfectly fine.
Having said that, I don't like 3D much... rather I don't think it adds a lot.
posted by cowmix at 10:15 AM on December 28, 2009
Having said that, I don't like 3D much... rather I don't think it adds a lot.
posted by cowmix at 10:15 AM on December 28, 2009
It's gonna feel strange having an extra pair of glasses, but there isn't any way around this of which I'm aware. But it's going to work just fine.
One thing though: if you have progressive lenses, you're going to want to adjust your glasses so that you're getting the right focal depth. You probably do this without thinking about it most of the time, but you'll probably find yourself needing to occasionally deal with it.
This movie is perhaps the only "must see" of the past few months. It's groundbreaking on a number of levels. Storytelling isn't really one of them, but visually it's simply breathtaking. If Avatar doesn't win the Oscar for best visual effects, outright bribery is the only explanation.
posted by valkyryn at 10:17 AM on December 28, 2009
One thing though: if you have progressive lenses, you're going to want to adjust your glasses so that you're getting the right focal depth. You probably do this without thinking about it most of the time, but you'll probably find yourself needing to occasionally deal with it.
This movie is perhaps the only "must see" of the past few months. It's groundbreaking on a number of levels. Storytelling isn't really one of them, but visually it's simply breathtaking. If Avatar doesn't win the Oscar for best visual effects, outright bribery is the only explanation.
posted by valkyryn at 10:17 AM on December 28, 2009
Hijack--what about those of us who see out of only one eye? Do the glasses work? I emailed the manufacturer and got a bounce back.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:18 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by Ironmouth at 10:18 AM on December 28, 2009
There's no schlocky shots of things being shot at you, it's more an overall sense of being inside the environment.
This is exactly it. Old 3D movies were more like 2D with an occasional "omg the shark/spaceship/whatever is coming straight at us!!" "Avatar" often has the main thing in focus, with out-of-focus areas both in front of and behind it- so there's really another dimension.
I usually think a movie with a bad script is a bad movie, and even I was able to enjoy this just for the visual "ooohs" and "ahhhhs." I would see it in 3D for sure. I have a feeling people who see this on DVD in six months are going to react like the proverbial Deadheads when the drugs wore off: "Man, this [movie] sucks!"
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:18 AM on December 28, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is exactly it. Old 3D movies were more like 2D with an occasional "omg the shark/spaceship/whatever is coming straight at us!!" "Avatar" often has the main thing in focus, with out-of-focus areas both in front of and behind it- so there's really another dimension.
I usually think a movie with a bad script is a bad movie, and even I was able to enjoy this just for the visual "ooohs" and "ahhhhs." I would see it in 3D for sure. I have a feeling people who see this on DVD in six months are going to react like the proverbial Deadheads when the drugs wore off: "Man, this [movie] sucks!"
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:18 AM on December 28, 2009 [4 favorites]
FWIW, I saw Up in 3D and Up w/o 3D in quick succession when they were out and while I didn't think 3D was that hot at the time I sorta missed it the second time.
I'm going to see Avatar for the visuals next week, and will see it in 3D. For regular stories, I think I'd prefer a really good D-ILA home projector throwing BluRay content over 3D in the theatre.
posted by tad at 10:18 AM on December 28, 2009
I'm going to see Avatar for the visuals next week, and will see it in 3D. For regular stories, I think I'd prefer a really good D-ILA home projector throwing BluRay content over 3D in the theatre.
posted by tad at 10:18 AM on December 28, 2009
I've seen Avatar TWICE, loved it so much.
I wear glasses and wore the 3D ones over my regular ones and it didn't diminish the wonder and depth of it at all.
Highly recommend.
If you're not going to see it in 3D, I would say don't bother.
posted by willmize at 10:21 AM on December 28, 2009
I wear glasses and wore the 3D ones over my regular ones and it didn't diminish the wonder and depth of it at all.
Highly recommend.
If you're not going to see it in 3D, I would say don't bother.
posted by willmize at 10:21 AM on December 28, 2009
It's visually stunning, and worth seeing for that reason. That said, I felt the 3D distracted from the movie a lot and I wish I'd seen it in 2D instead. I'm clearly in the minority in that opinion relative to people on the internet (although people I know personally felt the same way).
posted by willnot at 10:27 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by willnot at 10:27 AM on December 28, 2009
Ironmouth. No, they will not give you miraculous binocular vision. However you should still wear a pair as the polarization of your one good eye will eliminate the blurry screen caused by the two 3D images.
posted by Gungho at 10:29 AM on December 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Gungho at 10:29 AM on December 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
One thing I immediately notice about 3D movies vs. flat movies is that your viewing style has to be immediately adjusted. It's a completely different experience. A 3D movie forces your attention...look over here, it's in focus right here! Keep your eye on this thing here, now there, now, whoa, in your face!
Generally, when I watch a normal movie, I like to take in the sets, the details, look for clues in the killer's apartment, whatever. I can do this because the entire scene is more or less in focus and accessible to me.
Don't try to do this with a 3D movie. It's headache and nausea making. Go in, and immediately relax your eyeballs. And let it show you what it wants to show you.
This fundamental difference (imho) between 3D and flat movies calls for a new form of participation from the audience member. I think that often gets overlooked (pun intended). It's nice to know that going in, so you don't spend the first 10 minutes fighting the screen and not knowing why you're having panic-attack onset over something so seemingly simple.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:29 AM on December 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
Generally, when I watch a normal movie, I like to take in the sets, the details, look for clues in the killer's apartment, whatever. I can do this because the entire scene is more or less in focus and accessible to me.
Don't try to do this with a 3D movie. It's headache and nausea making. Go in, and immediately relax your eyeballs. And let it show you what it wants to show you.
This fundamental difference (imho) between 3D and flat movies calls for a new form of participation from the audience member. I think that often gets overlooked (pun intended). It's nice to know that going in, so you don't spend the first 10 minutes fighting the screen and not knowing why you're having panic-attack onset over something so seemingly simple.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:29 AM on December 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
I just saw Avatar IMAX 3D last night and it was the first 3D movie I've seen. The glasses should fit over regular glasses. As imakimaim said, be sure to let the movie show you want it wants and don't move your eyes around too much, at least for the first 10/20 minutes or so. I just let it happen and I enjoyed the experience tremendously. Sheer escapism.
posted by ob at 10:36 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by ob at 10:36 AM on December 28, 2009
If you have a shallow nose or a broad nose bridge, I recommend bringing an eyeglass strap (cheap at drugstores); 3-D glasses always slide off my adorable snubnose without them.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:44 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:44 AM on December 28, 2009
The 3-D glasses I had to wear for Avatar did fit over my prescription glasses. However, they were dirty, and a much larger variety than the glasses I wore for Up and Beowulf (yes, I saw Beowulf 3-D.) The largeness actually presented a problem because: a) they kept slipping down for nearly 3 hours, and b) it allowed light (from the aisle lights) in and there was a really annoying glare most of the time. So all of that sucked.
Furthermore, I was sitting way in the back, which rendered the 3-D effects pretty much pointless. It seemed to me the whole point of all this technology was to have a slightly more pronounced foreground -- like watching an oversized diorama.
Then I talked to my friends who had sat in the 2nd row, and they were behaving as though they had been dosed. The experience was so intense that it rendered them practically incoherent. One of the swooping shots almost made one of them throw up.
So know this -- back row sucks, and the 2nd row may be a little too much.
Also, a general kvecth here -- is anyone else super annoyed at tint of 3-D glasses these days? It makes the movie about 15% darker, which is a real bummer, considering they hired a team of hundreds to make these movies brilliantly colored. But the 3-D prints do not appear to be any more saturated or bright than the 2-D. It's like they're ruining their own vision by failing to take into account the final step of presentation.
posted by blapst at 10:44 AM on December 28, 2009
Furthermore, I was sitting way in the back, which rendered the 3-D effects pretty much pointless. It seemed to me the whole point of all this technology was to have a slightly more pronounced foreground -- like watching an oversized diorama.
Then I talked to my friends who had sat in the 2nd row, and they were behaving as though they had been dosed. The experience was so intense that it rendered them practically incoherent. One of the swooping shots almost made one of them throw up.
So know this -- back row sucks, and the 2nd row may be a little too much.
Also, a general kvecth here -- is anyone else super annoyed at tint of 3-D glasses these days? It makes the movie about 15% darker, which is a real bummer, considering they hired a team of hundreds to make these movies brilliantly colored. But the 3-D prints do not appear to be any more saturated or bright than the 2-D. It's like they're ruining their own vision by failing to take into account the final step of presentation.
posted by blapst at 10:44 AM on December 28, 2009
I mean by that that my adorable snubnose is not big enough to support both my regular glasses and the 3-D glasses--my regular glasses only slide to the end of my nose once or twice an hour. The 3-D glasses constantly do unless I'm wearing the nerdstrap. I wish I had a 3-D lorgnette!
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:46 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:46 AM on December 28, 2009
Did not work so well for me- I think the problem was that I was seated low in front and off to the right, which may have sucked regardless of my glasses. The 3D looked a little off to me from that angle.
posted by slow graffiti at 10:54 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by slow graffiti at 10:54 AM on December 28, 2009
I saw Avatar 3D last night and thought it was totally amazing; the first thing I've seen in 3D where it really made a difference. My daughter wore the glasses over her prescription glasses; I wore them over contact lenses; we sat sort of towards the back to the left hand side and the experience was completely impeccable for both of us. We were sort of dazed and stumbling coming out, even, it was so great. I saw Coraline with 3D glasses over my regular glasses, by the way, and had no problem once I adjusted to the feeling of two pairs of glasses.
posted by mygothlaundry at 11:06 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by mygothlaundry at 11:06 AM on December 28, 2009
Just as a data point, the new style 3D works with my glasses, but for me (and apparently a measurable portion of the population) that doesn't mean it's comfortable or pleasant. I had a terrible time getting my eyes to focus on the images. Anything 3D looked okay when still but would get blurry when it moved. I left with eye strain, a moderate headache, and a vague sort of tense and unwell feeling. From what I've been reading, there's just a certain percent of people who react that way to the new 3D.
posted by mostlymartha at 11:25 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by mostlymartha at 11:25 AM on December 28, 2009
I have a fairly weak prescription and I can usually see movies with or without my glasses. I saw Avatar with the 3D glasses over my prescription glasses; during the previews I found the glasses a little bonky and awkward and came close to removing my prescription glasses, but once the movie started I completely forgot I was wearing either pair.
posted by Metroid Baby at 11:42 AM on December 28, 2009
posted by Metroid Baby at 11:42 AM on December 28, 2009
What does the 3D technology have to offer, in terms of imagery and "must see" elements? Does it make up for deficiencies in the storyline?
I don't know about the glasses question, but...I would not see this movie in 2D on purpose. The use of 3D is unlike anything I've ever seen in another 3-D movie, and the animation is pretty ridiculous too. I wouldn't let previous lackluster 3D experiences psyche me out, it's not Captain EO. I mean, if I was on a plane, I wouldn't _not_ watch it, but if I was at home, and Avatar was on HBO, and Back to the Future II was on Showtime, I'd watch Back to the Future II. Apart from the animated 3-D action sequences, I have a hard time imagining enjoying the movie. It would be like seeing Fantasia in black and white with tinny mono sound: Not offensively terrible, but kind of pointless and boring.
posted by jeb at 12:45 PM on December 28, 2009
I don't know about the glasses question, but...I would not see this movie in 2D on purpose. The use of 3D is unlike anything I've ever seen in another 3-D movie, and the animation is pretty ridiculous too. I wouldn't let previous lackluster 3D experiences psyche me out, it's not Captain EO. I mean, if I was on a plane, I wouldn't _not_ watch it, but if I was at home, and Avatar was on HBO, and Back to the Future II was on Showtime, I'd watch Back to the Future II. Apart from the animated 3-D action sequences, I have a hard time imagining enjoying the movie. It would be like seeing Fantasia in black and white with tinny mono sound: Not offensively terrible, but kind of pointless and boring.
posted by jeb at 12:45 PM on December 28, 2009
We went to see Avatar on Saturday. My husband wore the 3D glasses over his regular prescription glasses. As I am farsighted and have only a mild astigmatism, I wore the 3D glasses alone. They actually pressed into my temples a bit (I have a big head!) and I ended up with an experience fairly similar to mostlymartha. My husband didn't have any discomfort with the 3D glasses over his regular glasses, but he has very severe amblyopia in addition to severe astigmatism and nearsightedness. He's never been able to see old-style 3D, and the new 3D in Avatar didn't really work for him, either.
So on balance our Avatar experience was pretty meh, because the story is 100% derivative and predictable, and not being able to really fully experience the 3D left us both underwhelmed.
posted by DiscourseMarker at 1:36 PM on December 28, 2009
So on balance our Avatar experience was pretty meh, because the story is 100% derivative and predictable, and not being able to really fully experience the 3D left us both underwhelmed.
posted by DiscourseMarker at 1:36 PM on December 28, 2009
I really don't understand the folks who are praising the "ground-breaking" 3-D experience of Avatar. It's over-rated, barely noticeable in many, if not most, scenes, and blapst is absolutely right that the glasses make the entire movie darker than it would be normally. It's like watching a movie with a chunk of the color washed out. You can absolutely skip this knowing you haven't missed a major milestone in the history of movies.
Old 3D movies were more like 2D with an occasional "omg the shark/spaceship/whatever is coming straight at us!!"
That's just what Avatar was like, except it was an occasional "omg the jellyfish creatures and subtitles are floating over the first row!" Big fucking deal.
posted by mediareport at 2:35 PM on December 28, 2009
Old 3D movies were more like 2D with an occasional "omg the shark/spaceship/whatever is coming straight at us!!"
That's just what Avatar was like, except it was an occasional "omg the jellyfish creatures and subtitles are floating over the first row!" Big fucking deal.
posted by mediareport at 2:35 PM on December 28, 2009
The glasses probably make things look darker because they're designed to block out a certain proportion of the light. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't work at all.
I've seen it twice (despite the terrible story, it looks awesome). First time I was sitting in the centre of the cinema, having lined up for half an hour, and it was great. Second time I got there a bit later and had to sit on the side. The glasses gave me a really bad headache and the 3D effect was nowhere near as good. So sit in the middle.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:43 PM on December 28, 2009
I've seen it twice (despite the terrible story, it looks awesome). First time I was sitting in the centre of the cinema, having lined up for half an hour, and it was great. Second time I got there a bit later and had to sit on the side. The glasses gave me a really bad headache and the 3D effect was nowhere near as good. So sit in the middle.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:43 PM on December 28, 2009
I wore my glasses under the 3D thing without a problem.
The 3D was pretty subtle, I thought. I'm not sure the experience without it would really have been that different.
posted by bingo at 4:21 PM on December 28, 2009
The 3D was pretty subtle, I thought. I'm not sure the experience without it would really have been that different.
posted by bingo at 4:21 PM on December 28, 2009
One thing I immediately notice about 3D movies vs. flat movies is that your viewing style has to be immediately adjusted. It's a completely different experience. A 3D movie forces your attention...look over here, it's in focus right here! Keep your eye on this thing here, now there, now, whoa, in your face!
Quoting for emphasis.
There was a moment about 10 minutes into the film when I realized what I had been doing wrong. I was trying to look around the scene at things which were not the focal point. These new 3D films require you to surrender the focal length of your eyes to the vision of the director. Don't fight it.
I thought the movie was an absolute blast! The beauty of some of the scenes and the climactic battle had me emotionally engaged to a surprising degree, entirely due to the 3D immersion. Wow!
-
posted by General Tonic at 4:22 PM on December 28, 2009
Quoting for emphasis.
There was a moment about 10 minutes into the film when I realized what I had been doing wrong. I was trying to look around the scene at things which were not the focal point. These new 3D films require you to surrender the focal length of your eyes to the vision of the director. Don't fight it.
I thought the movie was an absolute blast! The beauty of some of the scenes and the climactic battle had me emotionally engaged to a surprising degree, entirely due to the 3D immersion. Wow!
-
posted by General Tonic at 4:22 PM on December 28, 2009
There are a couple scenes where the 3D really pops out at you, but not what you'd expect. When walking through the jungle, many of the plants at ground level are projected in 3D, giving you the feeling that the characters are walking towards you. Similarly, a later scene involving ash falling projects the ash into the theater, probably the most immersive moment as far as 3D goes.
As for glasses, I have a pretty narrow nose, and the 3D glasses were sort of heavy. By the end of the film, the weight they added to my glasses had really pushed the pads into the side of my nose. It wasn't agony, but it was uncomfortable for the last half hour. It is a pretty long movie.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:50 PM on December 28, 2009
As for glasses, I have a pretty narrow nose, and the 3D glasses were sort of heavy. By the end of the film, the weight they added to my glasses had really pushed the pads into the side of my nose. It wasn't agony, but it was uncomfortable for the last half hour. It is a pretty long movie.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:50 PM on December 28, 2009
Three different friends of mine saw Avatar in 3D, and they all said the 3D parts were pointless and unnecessary.
posted by Nattie at 6:07 PM on December 29, 2009
posted by Nattie at 6:07 PM on December 29, 2009
Three different friends of mine saw Avatar in 3D, and they all said the 3D parts were pointless and unnecessary.
The entire film was in 3D.
-
posted by General Tonic at 6:18 AM on December 30, 2009
The entire film was in 3D.
-
posted by General Tonic at 6:18 AM on December 30, 2009
There is a difference between Digital Real3D and IMAX 3D. Two different formats, two different types of glasses required. I've seen Avatar on both formats. I found the glasses for the Digital Real3D to be large enough to go over glasses, but the glasses I had at the IMAX version were too small and I found the large IMAX screen came around the edges of the glasses, which was annoying. I was seated in the middle about 2/3rds of the way up the audience, my preferred spot for IMAX movies. That said, I saw that some patrons had glasses that were a bit bigger than mine, so if you arrive and find glasses that don't fit, ask to see if they have some in a larger size.
As an aside, the Real3d version, which cost $13 to see, was on a screen that was around half the size of IMAX and I actually preferred that version as far as visuals went. I noticed more animation artifacts in the IMAX print. The sound with the IMAX, $15 a seat, was absolutely mind-blowing, however. Makes me wonder if IMAX will be raising prices for their 3D versions soon as regular theatres have.
posted by IndigoSkye at 7:13 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
As an aside, the Real3d version, which cost $13 to see, was on a screen that was around half the size of IMAX and I actually preferred that version as far as visuals went. I noticed more animation artifacts in the IMAX print. The sound with the IMAX, $15 a seat, was absolutely mind-blowing, however. Makes me wonder if IMAX will be raising prices for their 3D versions soon as regular theatres have.
posted by IndigoSkye at 7:13 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older How do I shield an audio cable in my computer case... | How to minimize hassle at DTW? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by larkspur at 10:00 AM on December 28, 2009