I don't know that 3D has any association with inducing seizures. Seizure induction seems to be related to low frequency 'flashing' (7 Hz seems to be one of the most inductive frequencies) and can induce seizures in those who've never had them before or since as was proven by a Japanese cartoon recently.

I have to agree with you on the 3D thing, movies are costly enough without adding several MORE dollars per person for gimmicks...

With regards to seizures I was eluding to current style of most Hollywood summer movies where the action is cut so fast the image literally strobes. I'm not sure if this technique actually causes seizures, though I have seen it make people sick.

I wish it was only $2-5 more per ticket for 3D! I picked a time to see up with a friend, not knowing there was 3D and non-3D showings, and spent $15 on a matinee ticket. Completely agree with your assessment that the effect seemed an afterthought and was not integral (or helpful) in telling the story. In fact, the diorama effect was distracting.

Your opinion is noted but your hardly a film buff. As a film graduate, actor and general movie freak I completely disagree. Its a matter of realism and we all benifit from the experience. 3D is granted better suited to action films rather than a dinner for two in a drama flic but come on its not a fad. I think personally and with all due respect your knowledge, experiance is epitomized by the photo of the old style 3D glasses in this article. The technology is far beyond that technology and quite a wonderfull experience. Perhaps you should watch a movie like "Journey to the center of the earth" in 3D and try and explain how much the 3D effect was a waste of time..

My brain doesn't process the 3D information in movies well. Over the years I have watched several movies in 3D, and for me the image always suffers and I get a headache and eyestrain before the movie is over. At times I've removed the glasses and just closed my eyes for awhile. If it's up to me I don't watch 3D movies at all.

I would really like to holographic technology before I would see 3-D. Now that would be worth paying for.

For Dave and others,
I agree with Dave Cardwell. The image quality, as well as the color, is night and day when comparing new 3D to the old blue/red 3D of the past. Dave, if you haven't seen one of the newer films using the polarized lenses (the glasses look like regular sunglasses from the Risky Business era) then you should definitely give it a try.
Admittedly, not all 3D movies are of equal quality (image quality). The aforementioned Journey to the Center of the Earth was good, but probably the worst I have seen! To have seen movies like Coraline, Up, and even My Bloody Valentine 3D, can give you great examples of the new technology.
Note to all: Please do not expect the BluRay and DVD releases to be the same as the movie theater 3D. Currently, these home releases still use the old school blue and red glasses, and as a result they look old school, nothing like they do in the theater. So far, the animated movies seem to be incorporating the best use of the 3D technology, so I would advise anyone who hasn't yet experienced it to check out an animated movie first.

My question is, when will we get the polarized tech in the home? Quite a few projectors are now capable, and Mitsubishi is traveling the country showcasing their new 3D HDTV. When I asked the rep, he said unfortunately the movie has to be recorded in 3D, the TV has to be able to reproduce it, and the player the movie is played on must support the format. So, it'll be a while. :0(

Dave,

You're entitled to disagree, however, your assumption that everyone enjoys 3D or that I watched Up through "old school" 3D glasses is wrong. I viewed the film through polarized lenses (as Lee states in his comment) and the effect was less than involving.

I have seen "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and must admit I didn't care for the 3D in that film either, for I felt it was the most egregious misuse of 3D for none of it propelled the storytelling. A shot of a boy spinning a yo-yo in my face is hardly what I would call enriching and/or providing me with an emotional experience beyond what traditional 2D films already provide.

Furthermore, I never stated that 3D was a fad, what I said was, I wasn't going to be one of those anti-change film aficionados that claim 3D is a fad. Lastly, the image chosen to accompany this article was not specified by me and I think was chosen because it is an iconic image representative of how people remember or think of 3D. Is it correct or current, no, but never the less it's a universal symbol for 3D.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Andrew

Andrew,

This is more a question than comment. I have no experience but was under the impression that 3D would be viewed with some kind of wireless electronic glasses. It appears that you used no such glasses. What's up??

John

John,

As cool as it sounds, viewing 3D through electronic glasses, most 3D glasses are nothing more than specialized polarized glasses. They do look a bit "Risky Business" and aren't entirely comfortable for long periods of time but work none the less.

I really think 3D will come into its own when glasses are no longer required and audiences can view true stereoscopic imaging. This technology is being worked on in the home markets i.e. LCD's, Plasmas etc but is still a ways off from being perfected. Right now stereoscopic 3D has a very limited viewing angle so you have to basically lock your head in a vice for the effect to be convincing.

The best demo of stereoscopic 3D I've seen to date is about a minute and a half of the film "Titanic" however, like traditional 3D there's still a disconnect between foreground and background elements and it does exhibit a bit of transparent flicker. It will get there I have no doubt but it's definitely a work in progress.

Andrew

I found similar information about 3D Ready and movies on www.3D-News.net (not my website)
This may help people looking for information on the topic.