Is 3-D a misnomer?

A lot of people (such as myself) think that when it's done well it's amazing! I feel the complete depth, and in some ways it does feel like I'm watching it on stage. 3-D movies look especially good on big screen 3D TV's. I'm still hungry for more - especially the new Great Gatsby.

The main reason for the current crop of 3D movies is that they can't be copied from the screen with a video camera, thus (supposedly) reducing piracy.
Many of these movies have been shot for 3D but not in 3D which means, although cheaper to make, gives a less impressive result. Compare "Avatar" with "Clash of the Titans".
Although 3D is an illusion (as is 2D, come to think of it), nowadays it doesn't seem to suffer from the cardboard cut-out effect which was very noticeable in the 50s classics and to my eyes at least, is a bit more convincing.

"Make me a baby!
Make me a star!
Leave my coffin slightly ajar!"
- Lesley Gore

Actually it's not cheaper to convert a movie in post to 3d than to shoot it in 3d. The 3d conversion has to be done frame by frame so it requires a lot of man hours. The reason why they convert in post is that if they shoot in 3d they have to shoot with low quality video cameras instead of 35mm film. With Avatar this wasn't a problem since half the movie was CGI.

Shows how old I am. I meant shooting on film in 3D with two of everything is hellishly slow and therefore expensive, so by comparison, conversion would be cheaper. It's difficult to see these days whether or not anything is still actually shot on film.

"Make me a baby!
Make me a star!
Leave my coffin slightly ajar!"
- Lesley Gore

I'm not sure what you mean but I don't think anyone has shot a feature film with a 3d 35mm camera this century. Even if someone has done that I still do not believe that it would be more expensive than conversion. Film and camera equipment can't really be more expensive than to employ maybe a hundred people to do it in post.

I guess I'm not comparing like with like. Conversion seems a very laborious way to do things but it must be economical at some point.
Old 3D movies were notorious for the time they took to shoot and the amount of light they needed.
Robert Bernier (who invented the Spacevision 3D system) was fired from "Flesh For Frankenstein" for taking too long to shoot scenes.
If "Avatar" was shot in 3D that would partially explain why it took so long to make.


"Make me a baby!
Make me a star!
Leave my coffin slightly ajar!"
- Lesley Gore

Avatar was shot in 31 days, quite normal for a movie of that lenght. I do not know for what reason Robert Bernier was fired but what I could find out about Spacevision 3d it is basically regular 35mm camera with a special lens so I can't see why it would take longer to shoot a movie with that. If the lens needed a lot of light it would just mean that it couldn't be used in some situations.

I heard what happened to Robert Bernier when I went to a screening at the ICA in London. The person introducing the movie told us that the director took over and his scenes weren't as good but it's such a dire movie (even allowing for it being a spoof) that I doubt anyone could tell.
Spacevision definitely had the coolest glasses but I never managed to smuggle a pair out as they were all quite scrupulously collected at the end.
The Spacevision lens delivered, in addition to rather good 3D, widescreen without the need for an anamorphic lens. It was also used very effectively in "The Bubble" but that's even worse than "Flesh For Frankenstein".

"Make me a baby!
Make me a star!
Leave my coffin slightly ajar!"
- Lesley Gore