Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Tron without the headache
April 19, 2011 5:02 AM   Subscribe

2D glasses for 3D movies! Hank Green, one half of the VlogBrothers, comes up with a solution for people who'd like to watch 3D movies without the headache.
posted by litnerd (39 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
Nice idea. But Can anybody explain how these are different from normal polaroid sunglasses?
posted by rongorongo at 5:12 AM on April 19, 2011


I think it would be neat if these worked on the real world.
posted by scrowdid at 5:13 AM on April 19, 2011


If I have to start wearing these every time I go to the movies, I will probably just stop going to the movies. FYI, Hollywood.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:20 AM on April 19, 2011


3D movies don't give me headaches, but I've yet to see a movie where I'd actually care. And given the extra cost and annoyance ofwearing ill-fitting 3D glasses, I'd rather watch non-3D movies.

I know somebody who does get headaches, so I guess I'll order a set.
posted by _Lasar at 5:31 AM on April 19, 2011


Mark Kermode got there first.

rongorongo: I believe normal sunglasses are usually linear polarised, whereas 3D glasses are more often circular polarised? Though I'm sure I've used linear ones in cinemas in the past.
posted by Segundus at 5:34 AM on April 19, 2011 [3 favorites]


British film critic, Mark Kermode, is strongly anti-3D but for ideological, not health, reasons. He proposed this solution in January 2010.
posted by swishypants at 5:35 AM on April 19, 2011


My main problem with 3D glasses is that they don't fit well over my prescription glasses.
posted by Harpocrates at 5:38 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Think Geek had "2d glasses for 3d movies" on this years april fools list, taking one look at this guy, I am 100% sure he knew that.
posted by djduckie at 5:43 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Nice idea. But Can anybody explain how these are different from normal polaroid sunglasses?

Polarized glasses may not have the correct rotation to effectively block one half of the projected image. They're also more heavily tinted, so you'd see a darker overall image.
posted by odinsdream at 6:12 AM on April 19, 2011


I've said it before: I don't know anyone who is actually, genuinely excited about 3D movies becoming the norm in the theater and at home. I know people who don't care one way or the other, and I know people who are actively opposed to it. But I don't know anyone in real life who's come close to matching the enthusiasm of the multibillion-dollar industry that's plowing ahead to foist this on us (and milk from us the extra coin we'll spend to wear their gimmick glasses).

2D glasses are a good antidote from the gimmick but the industry still gets their way. Personally, I'd prefer to see some ground gained in the other direction.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 6:23 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hooray! 2D movies with half the light! Nothing like a dim movie. In fact, 3D movies are too dim too. Thanks glasses.
posted by CarlRossi at 6:28 AM on April 19, 2011


The lenses on the RealD glasses are, if not exactly symmetrical, close enough. Close enough that you could take two pairs of them and some duct tape or hot glue and make two pairs of 2D 3D glasses in about 10 seconds.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:46 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Are they going to start making regular non-Blu-ray DVDs 3D? My solution so far has been to wait for the DVD.
posted by immlass at 6:49 AM on April 19, 2011


This is really a great idea to bring the headache prone/non-3D lovers along for show. We make 3D movies and so we are usually in the middle of that very same discussion on set or in our theater. What a clever idea!
posted by Offhollywood at 6:55 AM on April 19, 2011


You've still paid $5 extra to see the movie even if you wear these.
posted by octothorpe at 6:56 AM on April 19, 2011


You've still paid $5 extra to see the movie even if you wear these.

Well, sure, but if you're one person in a family of movie-goers who suffers from the headaches, this lets you actually attend the movie.
posted by odinsdream at 6:59 AM on April 19, 2011


The last 3D movie I saw in a theater was Captain EO.

(Wikipedia tells me the attraction has been revived, which spoils my joke a bit, but it's still true, and I saw it during the original run. So there.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:02 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Note that it will only work with 3d systems that utilize polarization. Not for example, XpanD 3D which utilizes active lcd shutters and is in use in theaters here in Finland. I suppose the same principle could be used to produce XpanD 2D glasses but they would probably cost a lot more.
posted by Authorized User at 7:03 AM on April 19, 2011


If everyone else really wanted to watch a 3D movie, I'd really rather just wait in the coffee shop for two hours or if possible go to another movie in 2D.
posted by octothorpe at 7:04 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


I want some glasses that will let me see the real world in 3D!
/no depth perception
posted by battleshipkropotkin at 7:12 AM on April 19, 2011 [2 favorites]


If everyone else really wanted to watch a 3D movie, I'd really rather just wait in the coffee shop for two hours or if possible go to another movie in 2D.

You win this argument.
posted by odinsdream at 7:24 AM on April 19, 2011


I want some glasses that will let me see the real world in 3D.

Take regular glasses, apply masking tape to one lens.
posted by chundo at 7:32 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Oh. 3D.
posted by chundo at 7:32 AM on April 19, 2011


I want some glasses that will let me see the real world in 3D!

I go the other way with that. No stereoscopic vision means the real world looks the same as a film on a flat screen does, if I don't move my head - therefore, standard films look just as 3D as the real world does. And I don't have to wear silly glasses!
posted by Catseye at 7:57 AM on April 19, 2011


OK I found this guy pretty annoying. I could not watch the entire thing.

...So is he just proposing a fix for the "old 3D" where some of the light is green & some is red? Because if I were hawking some shit like that I'd be bowing & scraping about how "No, they don't work on the '3D of now,' only the '3D of yesteryear,'" and "Sorry, the image will be really, really green." And, "Please don't waste good money on these, they're just a fun little brain fart I had while high." And "...When you're high, these little cheapos make everything in the room Marijuana Green. So that's a selling point, I guess.."
posted by gorgor_balabala at 8:14 AM on April 19, 2011


gorgor, this has nothing to do with red-green 3D.
posted by odinsdream at 8:16 AM on April 19, 2011


ok, my bad, I guess I shoulda been a little more brave and watched the video. Oh, yeah, right. He's not quite as annoying the second time. And now, I am a little jealous.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 8:21 AM on April 19, 2011


This guy also gives me a headache.
posted by ryanrs at 8:38 AM on April 19, 2011


I don't know anyone who is actually, genuinely excited about 3D movies becoming the norm in the theater

Well, there's Peter Jackson for one. He's filming The Hobbit in 3D, and he recently posted a vid on Facebook where he showed off his fancy 3D camera (among other things).

And I am excited to have 3D movies available in the cinema. Not every movie needs it of course, but if I'm going to see something good (for example, Pixars Up), I'd like it to have all the trimmings. It needs to be done well (Clash of the Titans-style retrofitting can take a flying leap, stiffly rendered CG like Beowulf is just creepy and ugly), but that's just a matter of cinematographers getting to grips with the technology. And the technology is pretty cool.
posted by WhackyparseThis at 8:56 AM on April 19, 2011


3D is a gimmick that needs to go away already. Headaches, and most theaters around here (thankfully) don't show things in 3D anyway - but we still have to see the now-awkward scenes of things flying toward the screen annoyingly.
posted by Malice at 9:47 AM on April 19, 2011


I don't know anyone who is actually, genuinely excited about 3D movies becoming the norm in the theater

Well, there's Peter Jackson for one.


I meant "personally know anyone outside of the entertainment industry," so Peter Jackson's disqualified. Don't get me wrong, there are some industry outliers trying to push the envelope beyond lazy or lackluster gimmicks. I haven't seen what Jackson's doing with the tech but he's proven his talent enough that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

That said, I'm not interested in most of these innovations if they require a higher ticket price for the theater and mandatory headgear (at additional expense) to enjoy the same thing at home.

If I had my say, I'd rather encourage innovation in these aspects of film creation and consumption:This stuff doesn't have the sizzle of 3D or smell-o-vision (it's coming next, hold onto your butts) but would actually move the state of the industry forward in a logical direction.

I will finally embrace 3D when they can make it work on the big screen like the Nintendo 3DS — adjustable and viewable from a range of angles with no glasses required and a picture that hasn't been necessarily darkened by the technique used. As I understand it, this isn't currently possible. But I'd be less offended if they were working to change that, instead of marching forward in the present direction.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 9:53 AM on April 19, 2011


I'm always put off by the general dimness of 3D movies, and this is not a solution to that. Each of my eyes will still only be able to enjoy half the light reflected from the screen, and I'd feel terrible letting the other 50% simply go to waste.
posted by Horizontally a Champion at 10:41 AM on April 19, 2011


I actually didn't like the 3DS - I was disappointed when I played with one, it just didn't seem that 3D. I don't think its worth it.

Personally, I think 3D films are cool, but only when they were originally intended to be and filmed for 3D. Films that tacked 3D on afterwards, to get in on the trend and make a few extra bucks, look rubbish. Really, 3D is just a gimmick until the technology definately improves, and I hope it doesn't become the norm. I'd stop going to the cinema.

And no way am I paying to go see a 3D movie AND buying special glasses to make it not 3D. Unless it was the best film ever.
posted by stillnocturnal at 11:32 AM on April 19, 2011


I've said it before: I don't know anyone who is actually, genuinely excited about 3D movies becoming the norm in the theater and at home

Hi!

I am pretty happy with 3D. Especially for computer animated movies, where it looks _really_ good. I have a 3D TV and Blu-Ray player at home, so I'm mostly watching 3D at home at this point.

I agree with stillnocturnal that "3D-ized" (2D converted to 3D) movies are stupid and wrong. Thats a thing that needs to die.

Non-animated movies filmed for 3D can work well, depending on the process. It's just so easy for computer animated films because all they have to do is render from a second camera position. Doubles rendering time but thats about it.

Similarly, I'm really excited about 3D gaming, which I expect to be the norm in the next console generation.

I don't think 3D is absolutely necessary, of course. But it definitely adds something to the experience, similar to having surround sound vs stereo sound. I can enjoy a good movie with crappy TV stereo speakers, but I'll enjoy it a little more on a good sound system.
posted by wildcrdj at 1:18 PM on April 19, 2011


That guy yelling at you doesn't help the headache much.
posted by broken wheelchair at 1:21 PM on April 19, 2011


When it's well done, I'm genuinely excited about 3D. The trick where things jump out from the screen to poke you in the eye is pretty stupid, but I find that subtle effects can be strikingly beautiful. I think vergence is the word. If I need to refocus my eyes a bit to go from looking at the foreground to looking at the mountains, the scene feels more real to me. It can be awe inspiring in a way that 2D can't.

It's too dim? The problem is that most filmmakers haven't adjusted their light levels and color palates to suit the new medium. Pixar can make 3D movies that aren't dim; there's no reason why others can't.

No doubt I would feel differently about it if it gave me headaches.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:50 PM on April 19, 2011


I don't know anyone who is actually, genuinely excited about 3D movies becoming the norm in the theater

I don't care that much about movies in general, but I prefer 3D anything to 2D anything. I realize some people don't like 3D but they are not in the majority. I'm excited for 3D TV and computer interfaces. I loved seeing avatar in 3D but supposedly the 3D conversions are pretty awful.

I actually bought shutter glasses for my PC in like 1999 or something. Hardly any software supported them though (and they worked by intercepting the VGA signal to see when to switch eyes, very strange setup that wouldn't even work today, and they didn't work with LCDs either)
posted by delmoi at 7:01 PM on April 19, 2011


Gah! TALK LIKE A NORMAL PERSON. Shouting interspersed with cuts every 2.5 seconds just makes you sound like a schizoid informercial host.
posted by Thoth at 3:30 AM on April 20, 2011


Ha, found this up on the vlogbrothers and then checked to see if it was linked here.

Gah! TALK LIKE A NORMAL PERSON. Shouting interspersed with cuts every 2.5 seconds just makes you sound like a schizoid informercial host.

That's the schtick of Hank and John Green. It took me about a year to get used to it enough to subscribe to their videos, despite the fact that most of what they say is really, really smart.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:43 AM on April 20, 2011


« Older Norwegian marathon runner Grete Waitz dies at 57....  |  egapbew a fo kcab [TUMBLR]... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments