Who saw Avatar in 3D?

[RCBH928]

I just went to see this movie in 3D
and we do not have 3D theaters, so it was played in the regular theater but they gave us glasses.

I want some one to point out something for me,
Does anything pops out from this movie?
There was so much hype about how this movie was the ultimate 3D, and I went a bit out of my way just to make sure I got to watch it in the theater. But all I saw is that the screen is not flat, but nothing pops out

For example the guy in the background will look further behind. Like the Screen is not flat.

So I thought this theater sucks, maybe their projector is old. So I went to Alice in Wonderland in a movie theater thats like 1 year old and its the same story.

What makes me scratch my head is that few months ago I went to see final destination in 3D in a like 10 year old theater and it had poping out 3D ,even though the use of 3D sucked, but it did pop out. I even watched spy kids in 3D years ago, and it did pop out.

Is this like the "new" 3D , making the screen non-flat, or is the cinema bad here, or do I have to go to "IMAX" theater to get the right experience?

[Pulsar_t]

[Lokkenjawnz]

Basically, the reason why Avatar (and other current/upcoming 3D movies) is considered to be such a great 3D movie is because it doesn't have any "pop out" crap. Way back in the day when 3D movies started to come out it was purely a gimmick, I can't think of a single classic 3D movie that could stand as a regular movie, it's all cheesy stuff. It was also much cruder 3D, using different colored lenses which doesn't quite provide proper 3D. It causes a pop-up book effect, because the 3D effect isn't gradual like actual perception is. So they capitalized on the 3D by doing stupid crap that was literally "Look! see! This is 3D! It's coming right at you!"

Nowadays 3D tech is far more advanced, and it uses some form of polarized lenses (IIRC) which have more control over the 3D, not to mention proper 3D cameras to film the movies. So when you watch a 3D movie now you get a sense of realism, because it creates depth, and makes it seem more like you're in the movie.

To sum it all up: old 3D was awesome because it was crappy and cheesy. New 3D is awesome because it's the complete opposite.

Edit: And I'd like to add that Spy Kids: 3D and the 3D Final Destination are examples of relatively high tech 3D (though not quite Avatar level) used in the old 3D style, because they are terrible movies. But that's a whole different can of worms.

[Anayo]

When I watched Avatar in 3D, I definitely got a depth-of-field like impression that things were further and closer in space. The most alarming situation this happened was when Jake Sully swung his rifle, and the barrel was closer to the camera whereas his body was further away. It made me jump.

The disadvantage for me personally was that it was like playing a virtual boy for 2 hours. I couldn't focus my eyes after a while. So, I felt the 3D worked great for bits where the characters stood still and talked to each other, or the camera sloooowly panned around, but when there were explosions and bullets flying it looked like a bunch of blurry 3D shapes I could hardly keep up with.

[Limewater]

Edit: And I'd like to add that Spy Kids: 3D is an example of relatively high tech 3D (though not quite Avatar level) used in the old 3D style, also, though a terrible movie, it is better than Avatar.

FYP

Also, Kingmoh, if you saw the movie on a flat screen and had to wear 3D glasses, you got the standard 3D movie experience. The only way it would have been better is if you had gotten to see it in an IMAX theater, but those are still pretty uncommon even in the United States. Oh, and it also would have been better if Avatar was a better movie.

[Pulsar_t]

Edit: And I'd like to add that Spy Kids: 3D is an example of relatively high tech 3D (though not quite Avatar level) used in the old 3D style, also, though a terrible movie, it is better than Avatar.

FYP

Also, Kingmoh, if you saw the movie on a flat screen and had to wear 3D glasses, you got the standard 3D movie experience. The only way it would have been better is if you had gotten to see it in an IMAX theater, but those are still pretty uncommon even in the United States. Oh, and it also would have been better if Avatar was a better movie.

x1234

[joehero]

You have to see it in new 3d. Its amazing, and youre going to be forever disappointed if you dont. The picture is crisp, and the depth is amazing. The movie appears to be just feet away no matter your real distance from the screen. Its a must, and dont miss out!

[Pulsar_t]

ZOMG I'm going to see it nowzzz! My pants are on fire!

[Niode]

'new 3D' is filmed almost entirely with two The Red One cameras in cinematic 4K.

I can't wait until this stupid fad with 3D goes away. No I'm not going to watch a film wearing stupidly oversized glasses, if I did I would get motion sickness anyway and have to leave shortly after the film started. If cinemas aren't willing to give refunds then it's a no sale from me. Based on Avatar being a shit film to start with, the only thing it has going for it is the 3D, therefore shit film is still shit, since I'm never going to watch it in 3D.

[Rocketman]

Not me, I still haven't seen it in either 2D or 3D. I want to though... It seems like a lot of people here didn't like the movie. I guess it was all hype then, but I still have to see it for my self.

Though, I'll probably watch the 2D version and see the 3D version like 10 - 20 years from now when 3D TV's are just as common as HDTV's are today.