Eric F

I've noticed recently that theatrical 3D isn't working for me anymore. Every few seconds the picture goes blurry and I have to refocus my vision.

Not sure what it is, maybe my age (late 40's), maybe the projection method, maybe a combination of things. This is especially noticeable at my local IMAX theater (probably because the screen is so large). On top of that it's giving me a headache to no end.

Frankly I'm just tired of 3D because there are too many downsides to it, and it rarely works the way it should. Anyone else noticing this?

Alan Smithee

Does it look bad at every theater or just the one IMAX? Did it ever work for you before? It seems for some people it just doesn't- I personally love it but the upcharges certainly aren't helping it any.

(At home, a lot of people said the recent Blu-Ray of "Comin At Ya" was nearly unwatchable, but I had no problems with it. You certainly have to focus on that one!)

The Antipodean

It's never really worked for me. Avatar was impressive, but I've gone out of my way to avoid it 99% of the time because it usually gives me a headache too. I think a lot of this is due to poor projection (it always seems too dark) but honestly, I only want 3D if it's going to utterly wow me and I don't want it slapped on every single blockbuster.

In fact, I'm surprised it still continues to be such a thing, as I thought the latest 3D "fad" would wear off eventually post-Avatar but it's been 7 years and seems like most blockbusters still go the 3D and 2D route - and every time I can I pick 2D myself.

E Unit

I never watch 3D in the theater, only at home. At home works fairly well for me.

Nick Danger

3D has given me a headache from the start. I watched one 3D movie after Avatar, and never went back.

My friend who only has one functional eye doesn't like it much either.

Eric F

I think it's worked better for me in the past, but it almost always gave me a headache. Unfortunately I have only 2 choices to see a theatrical movie, at my local real IMAX or the AMC Multiplex across the street. The IMAX is a much better viewing experience for the same price as the multiplex, but unfortunately never shows a 2D version if a 3D one is available. The multiplex always has a host of problems of its own.

After today's experience with Star Trek I'd rather not see a 3D movie any longer if I can help it but IMAX is such a better experience than the multiplex, where they just don't give a shit (I know, I worked there).

Brack

I have a sister with an eye problem that sounds similar, so 3D doesn't work for her.

I used to see a lot of movies in 3D, but it just doesn't seem to be too necessary since most films aren't filmed with 3D cameras. That said, I think a lot of the big budget stuff have done some good 3D conversions. The price is another factor as well. I like my MoviePass, and since it doesn't cover 3D/IMAX premium showings, I haven't felt like I've missed much lately.

Numanoid

OP, if my vision started doing something that it hadn't done before, I'd definitely be scheduling an eye exam. Might be something happening in there that you want to catch sooner rather than later.

gmanca

I think the problem is bad 3D and the fact you are posting this after Star Trek Beyond was released tells me you saw it and led you to write this.

The action in that film as way too fast and blurry for good 3D let alone was there any depth perception on the bits where they were standing or things were static. I only saw the movie in 3D because it was the closest start time.

The 3D in Avatar and Gravity was amazing and tells me those who know how to do it can make it truly worthwhile.

Eric F

I had the same problem with Ghostbusters last week and when I saw The Jungle Book, all at my local Imax. And no, I don't need an eye exam- I think it's just a number of factors.

Ash Ketchum

I've had only two good 3-D experiences in the modern era: TRANSFORMERS 3 and CORALINE. TF3 was in IMAX and I was in the right seat at the right height for it. It was perfect. Everything else besides those two movies was either too dark or the sightlines were wrong. Or the film just didn't need to be in 3-D. I avoid 3-D now and saw both JUNGLE BOOK and LEGEND OF TARZAN in 2-D. The films weren't any good, but at least I didn't get eyestrain. The visuals in TARZAN were actually pretty good and sufficiently interesting without 3-D.

I saw Godard's last film, which was in 3-D, in Paris two years ago and it was absolutely frustrating. (It was called GOODBYE LANGUAGE or something like that.) The 3-D seemed to go out of sync on a regular basis. I asked the manager about it and she seemed to think that was intentional.

TomOpus

Basic troubleshooting means to have to eliminate possible causes until you find the one thing in common with the issue. Right now, that common factor is you. You need to figure out if it's the theater. You need to try the AMC. And you need to bring someone or talk to someone at the same showing.

As pointed out, don't go into denial about your eyesight. If there's an issue, it needs to be addressed before it gets to a point of not being able to fix it.

B5Erik

I've never bothered to try 3D - it is just a gimmick so the studios and theaters can charge more.

I'm sure with some movies it's pretty impressive, but I enjoy movies in 2D and I like saving the extra $5 per ticket.

Quatermass

Could be a tumor.

cungar

Only thing that really impressed me is specks of stuff in the environment floating in front of the screen which was all through Avatar. I haven't seen a 3D movie that had any interesting effects since then.

OldBoy

Agreed. Avatar was the benchmark. All others since have been relatively flat for me, especially the latest Trek. I do enjoy it, very much on my home setup though...

Me007gold

3D has never worked for me. That's one of the downsides of basically having 0 vision in one eye.

Trevor

I watch a fair amount of 3D at home. It rarely wows me, but I find that even the slight bit of 3D helps immerse me in the film.

Really enjoyed John Carter last night for example, even though I don't think we even once said "wow" at a 3D effect. It's just a slight, but noticeable, improvement in most 3D films in my experience.

kefrank

3D has never worked for me. To be clear, I can see the intended effect just fine and it doesn't give me headaches. I just find it ultimately distracts from and degrades, rather than enhances, my viewing experience.

Jon2

The last thing I saw was Ghostbusters and the 3D was fine... the rest of the movie not so much. The first full-on apparition scene made everyone jump... and was about the only really funny thing in the movie. Saw Ghostbusters only because my son wanted to and he paid the price difference. My wife isn't interested in 3D... mostly because of the increased price, but the genre subject matter of most 3D movies doesn't appeal to her either.

I prefer to see movies in 3D, if the subject is something I'm interested in. Which is Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks, etc., and SF/comic genres. Everyday, mundane non-genre films (which don't get 3D treatment anyway) just bore me to tears/irritate the crap out of me, so 3D would do nothing... except probably make them even more boring/irritating.

Haven't noticed any issue with any 3D I've seen. I don't notice the "dimmer" image quality that bothers some people. Guess most of the theaters I go to are sufficiently dark to make it a non-issue.

If I suddenly started having issues with 1) the picture going in and out of focus and 2) headaches while/after seeing a 3D flick, I'd see my doctor ASAP... especially if others seeing a 3D movie with you don't notice the imagine going blurry. If they are, then it probably is a projection problem. Otherwise, projection should not be a problem... at least not like it could have been before digital.

Mabuse

Firstly, what was the last 3D movie actually shot in 3D? Everything is a post-convert now.

Secondly, I just saw the new National Park IMAX movie last weekend. Actually filmed on 15perf 70mm film and actually projected using real fucking film. Now THAT shit worked? Wow. So clear and so stable. We are going backwards. Movies are so small and look so shitty these days.

Orbi-Wan Techno

My adult son has an condition that prevents him from seeng the current types of 3D without pain. My wife can't watch 3D, so we just don't see anything in 3D as a family. I will watch certain movies, though.

Eric F

That must be it. WebMD always tells me so anyways...

No, it's not my eyesight, I have an eye exam every year. I have another coming up in a couple of months. I'll mention it but I'm sure that's not it.

Brack

http://realorfake3d.com

Not sure of the validity of the site. Was X-Men: Apocalypse really filmed using 3D cameras? Most animated movies seem like a no-brainier, since they're 3D animated already.

Why So Blu?

I don't care for 3-D films, because 90% of them are shitty post-conversions and the lame masses have not caught up to the studios game. Guess what? If it wasn't shot in 3-D it's going to suck. Pure and fucking simple. The last film(s) that I saw in actual 3-D were Hugo and Resident Evil: Afterlife. They looked great, because they were actually shot with 3-D cameras.