Avatar 3D headaches: Look at this! Don't look at this!

Haha nice nice.
"That's usually the sign of a limited directorial imagination (or a fascist dictatorial style)"

I'm glad someone has addressed this. I had the beginnings of a headache after the "Avatar Day" preview, which was only sixteen minutes long. I'm bringing Imitrex to the feature, just to be safe.

I've noticed more recently that the 3D frequently doesn't "work" for me. That is, even with the glasses on, I notice the double image. That lessens when you focus on the plane that is in focus, but the reason I, and many others have to be trained into doing that is that its antithetical to the way I watch regular movies. One of the things I thought about during Avatar (and there are many opportunities in the film to think) is how much 3D mar the frame. Because 3D is supposed to be immersive and pull you into the frame, you lose the actual fact of a frame. As Scorsese says at the top of the page, it's about what's in the frame and what's out. Now if a film is shot in 3D, they're shooting two images simultaneous, so the "frame" is going to blurred, there are two separate ideas going on at all times as far as what the frame is. The way they made the Toy Story movies 3D for the recent theatrical run was by going back to the files, taking the shot, and then moving the "camera" slightly in one direction to create a new shot that could make the two images needed for the stereoscopic 3D, they're changing the frame.

Especially as I was first getting into film, I started to notice the frame more and more when I saw a film in theaters. I learned to be aware of the edges of the frame, and when those edges start to change (in a zoom, a pan, a dolly, etc) and you eventually get trained to take in all the elements of the frame, unconsciously. That's what evaluating the image is about, what's contained in the frame. So when you see a 3D movie now, that impulse has to be stifled, because if you aren't willfully held captive by the one piece of information at the forefront of the image, then you lose whatever illusion is there. It's not how we see in life, we don't fix our gaze on a solitary object, we take in information from all over.

3D will always be a gimmick to me. The insistince on enhanced immersion into a film seems more akin to making movies more like an amusement park ride - "You'll feel like you're there!" But what will happen when this immersion causes the audience to want more, to want to tell the character who is all up in their grill what to do, to become a character in the movie. Why not just make 3D video games so we can have movies back. Movies can be a thrill ride and movies and filmmaking should evolve, but when "Avatar" is touted as changing movies forever, I cringe. It's just another example of people wanting their movies to assault them like a rollercoaster.

So, if I see this movie in 2D I'm essentially getting to see the entire movie? My special lady is blind in one eye so I'll be seeing it in 2D anyway, but it will be nice to know that not only am I not missing anything, I'm actually gaining.

One thing that annoys me is the idea that regular movies aren't "3-D". Of course they are - are you telling me that in the opening shot of Star Wars, you don't see the ships flying overhead then receding into the distance?

What's really different in "3-D movies" is whether you have one particular, specific depth cue - stereopsis, AKA retinal disparity, and this one depth cue comes at all sorts of costs.

Stereopsis, despite being synonymous with 3-D in discussions about film, isn't even that important to our everyday sense of depth. Close one eye, and does the world collapse into a incomprehensibly flat image? Of course not. Retinal disparity is most important at close range and judging precise distances - say, when reaching for something on the desk in front of you. And this has nothing to do with how it's used in the movies.

This was EXACTLY my complaint. I actually discussed this with my family after the film and they all agreed that it was unpleasant, for the same reasons you discuss. After having seen quite a few 3D movies, I think I am resolutely against it.

And yet, Manohla Dargis 9Jim's fave critic) is raving about the film! Will wonders ever cease>

JE: And anybody who's ever read this blog before knows why I like certain critics, and that whether I "agree" or "disagree" with their verdicts means little or nothing. All that matters is what they have to write about what they see. Wonders may indeed cease, but that has never changed.

Jim, although you alter a wholly focused image, that is a very pertinent point you make. Though Cameron doesn’t falter much, there are a few occasions wherein he does the background out-of-focus or foreground out-of-focus thing. That is a mistake, because if 3-D were to be the immersive illusion 2-D has been till now, and not be just a trickery act, it needs to always stay in deep focus, because we can watch anything at anytime.
But I find it surprising that you received headaches. I myself have been a patient of 3-D headaches, and so severe ones that I had to sleep for 10-12 hours just to get rid of them. A Christmas Carol and Up being the latest culprits. Since this was an action film, I was all the more apprehensive, because you see, safety always comes first.
And I had to drive back 20 kms.
And I watched it in IMAX 3-D.
And I didn’t feel a thing. In fact I felt really fresh at the end of it, still ready for more. Cameron I guess has figured out how to shoot in 3-D. The shots stay long enough for us to appreciate them. There is no gimmicky spear treatment. He doesn’t bring the picture to us, he pulls us into it. He respects the boundaries of the screen, which is a window, and he doesn’t throw stuff at us. Rather, he pulls us near to the window, and we feel everything happening very near to the surface but never violating the boundaries and coming into the house.
But yes, often they seem like cardboard cutouts. But there are a few scenes where they felt absolutely real. The scene where the Lang character addresses those GI Joes before the final attack felt as if I was in there. The simulation was close to as I have ever felt.
What I can say is, Cameron hasn’t imagined or created a new world. What he has done is re-shot the tried and tested conventions of our 2- D cinema world and presented it in a new avatar. He has shown us how it is to be done. Now everything, from Lawrence of Arabia to Raging Bull, could be re-imagined.

This is indeed a fantastic article on 3D (or is it 2x2D?). So does this take us back to the Bazinian debate about the ill-effects of montage? Let time take the call...

I think one of the great scenes in the film, conceptualization and execution wise, is when Sully wakes up and has a rush of joy. He is just moving around, having no idea about his body, and the jittery yet not-headache-inducing camerawork is just brilliant. As you say Jim, we feel the joy of Sully. It is there in the frame, it is there in the moment.
And in 3-D, you know, it feels all the more real. I think Avatar is a game changer. Cameron perfected his CGI in The Abyss only to deliver T2. I think we need to wait for Cameron’s next.

What if they try to shoot the entire film where everything is in focus? I wonder how that will look?

I just saw AVATAR a couple nights ago, and I really can't stop thinking about it. Sure, it's basically a James Cameron version of DANCES WITH WOLVES and THE LAST SAMURAI, but somehow it seems less condescending with it's 'white man attempts to save the people he's been killing off' theme. Maybe it's because the avatar concept sets up the Na'vi as the central interest in the film as opposed to the white people (even though even that gets very conflicted).

In any case, I was tremendously surprised by how good I actually found it, especially in 3D. Being a projectionist, I have also seen large chunks of the film in 2D, usually in-between starting other movies, and it just seems to be lacking...something. I don't know what, though. I think that I am, at least here, partial to the 3D version, even though I, too, think 3D is just a gimmick, but Cameron and Selick (CORALINE) have utilized it to the best I think it can be this year, with Pixar taking the interesting step with UP of absolutely not making it a visual gag at all...ballsy for a 'kids' movie.

But back to AVATAR, which I think is really a game changer. I loathe the fact that the next installments of the HALLOWEEN series and SAW will both be in 3D, because I'm sure they will be terrible as the only reason they exist is for the gimmick. With Cameron's film, I never felt that way. The picture was sufficiently bright - something that usually has as much to do with shooting light as it does the bulbs in projection Ebert is always so wont to harp on - and the images crisp. I don't know where you saw the film, but it's always possible that the projectionist doesn't actually use any of the nifty framing charts and ghostbusting software included with the film on the hard drive, which would effect picture quality, especially 3D clarity.

Anyway, just my opinion on the problems some may be having with it. I know there are people who, because of eyesight, medical conditions, etc., will not be able to deal with 3D. But I also think AVATAR was a pretty good flick. Not original by any means, but very few things that come out ever are. You know, the whole "ten stories" theory. Or however many there are supposed to be.

Also, for the record, I am neither a Cameron fanboy, nor will I proclaim AVATAR as one of the best films of the year. But it sure was fun for me, much in the same way I enjoyed 2012 - spectacle is nice after so many days of 'serious' cinema.

I think the 3D fx was great in this movie. I liked it especially when it seemed like it was a natural part of the movie, not used only to have a few major things jut out "into" the audience. The art direction with all the glowing plants and trees (foreground, background and in between) was amazing.

I get nauseous when watching some movies in the theater with shaky cams (it's the reason I didn't go see Blair Witch Project) and I actually had to leave the theater 3/4 of the way through while seeing Rachel Getting Married.

If you think 3D is such a waste of time or is hard on your eyes and induces headaches, then don't go see a 3D movie.

While I'm not belittling or making light of everyone's concerns regarding eyestrain and headaches from using the 3D glasses for viewing 'Avatar', I find it odd that only a certain percentage of people have mentioned this to be the case.

I wear glasses. I have very poor eyesight and I also have glaucoma. I went to see the 3D version of the movie this past Saturday and had absolutely no issues with headaches or eyestrain. One would think that I would be a likely candidate for an excruciating headache, but no ... nothing.

I think James Cameron's efforts were quite brilliant, to be truthful. Say what you want; gripe, disparage, denigrate, whatever ... the man made a very good movie, whether it is viewed in a traditional format or the 3D aspect. It certainly is a far cry from those nasty paper "glasses" with the red and blue lenses that we were forced to wear back in the 70's and into the 80's when seeing o-called "3D" movies.

I think Avatar is a game changer.

If it's a game changer because more movies will be made in 3D, then I already don't like it before I've seen it.

And on the subject of 3D and other stupid visual tricks that cause nausea, like shakycam (I will never forgive Paul Greengrass for ruining the last 2 Bourne movies with nausea-inducing, nonstop shakycam):

Would you rather be nauseous for 2 hours, or be punched in the face once?

I'll take the punch in the face.

Consider that: a punch in the face is literally more pleasant than being subjected to some of these visual techniques. That really puts it in perspective (pun intended!).

We saw the 3D version yesterday. I didn't get a headache, but it was close and interrupting the viewing for a potty break probably saved me. I'll have a better idea of all that after seeing it a second time in regular 2D format.

I have a strong prescription and wear gas permeable lenses to maximize everyday vision. I still see 3D as a gimmick too, and a way to charge more for movie tickets. Some of the previews were also in 3D and that got me used to the glasses before the movie started. Mainly I find it distracting. I'm old. I remember The Mask, a weird psychological thriller in 3D when I was a kid. Almost worked.

Hmmm...I'm begining to wonder if some of this has to do with how different individual brains process visual information. I personally felt none of the ill effects described above while watching the film but this isn't the first time I've heard complaints. Or perhaps it's about visual acuity of the eyes? I can't help but notice Jim E wears glasses whereas I do not.
Or then again - maybe it's about an obvious negative bias toward the film in general which Jim E clearly possesses. Reading his previously posted review I almost couldn't help but feel as if I was listening to someone in a very bad mood complain about whatever happened to be in front of them at the time. Avatar clearly re-defines film making and special effects and in no way detracts from Cameron's earlier works. It's true that the story and visuals were cherry picked from several old school science fiction stories, books and films but I think it's obvious that this was a purposeful homage to some of the things that influenced Cameron. Some of those same stories and visuals have brought me much enjoyment over the years as well and I was happy to share in their re-telling. And yes, the 3D made it all that much better.

The 3-D distracted me to no end. To give the movie its due, I wanted to leave half-way through and take in a non-3D screening, but I couldn't stomach the thought of having to sit through the opening pap a second time.

I think it's a game changer because he actually utilized 3D for a purpose other than a gimmick. It worked, regardless of the headaches and other things that people are complaining about. I like shaky-cam sometimes, too, so what, a technique's a technique. You can not like it, that's fine, but don't make the claim that Cameron did it poorly, which is truly not the case.

As for more films being made in 3D, it's already happened, not because of AVATAR, but because of the financial success of the format over the past three years.

And for the love of (something), can people quit referring to the 2D version of this film as the 'regular' format, or the 'normal' version. For all your dislikes of 3D (of which I have my own), Cameron conceived, shot and distributed the film in a 3D process he helped create, so the 3D version is the 'regular', 'normal' version of the film, and the 2D is the modified one. Funny how supposed film people can wrap their heads around that but lord forbid you buy them a pan-and-scan version on home video (something I don't support, but it's the same difference in this case).

It's also usually cheaper to see the 2D... even if you go to the matinee, there's no discount for the 3D version. Depending on whether it's IMAX 3d or regular 3d, it could cost twice as much. 2D is better for my head and my wallet.

Love the movie & had no problems with the digital 3D. I had LASIK back in 06 & I thoght it might be a problem, but instead I was wowed by the 3D effects. I wonder what the precentage of people were bothered by the 3D. I'm willing to go see the movie again in a couple of weeks.

I feel bad for the folks that couldn't enjoy this in 3-d. For me, and I think a lot of other people, it was pure bliss. I didn't see any image that was out of focus. Only a few times I felt I was seeing something computer generated.

This is an extremely helpful article for those of us who enjoy 3D and would like to see more of it, but think that the technology is still too infant to be pulling off huge blockbuster films. Although I don't hate 3D and loved Avatar, you bring up the inherent problem with 3D. I thought the 3D in Avatar was the best I've ever seen, but there were times when I wanted to see more on the screen than the 3D was allowing me to.

I will say that Cameron did his best with the technology and it's miles better than other 3D films I've seen (watching My Bloody Valentine 3D earlier this year, where the 3D was literally the only reason to see the film at all, I noticed that many of the in your face gore effects weren't working like they ought to and I now understand why), but it still has a ways to go. I don't get headaches watching films this way, but I've seen about ten films in the format this year and only Avatar and Coraline seemed to know what to do with it.

I just saw it in 3D; I'd never seen a movie that way before, actually, and was wondering whether the problem was that I had seen it at an ill-equipped theater rather than an imax. But in addition to the fact that you have to force yourself to watch the in-focus parts of the frame to the extent that it is actually distracting from the focused parts of the image, I found that regardless of directorial intention, the image tended to be quite blurry near the edges of the screen (perhaps because the glasses didn't cover my vision completely near the edges?). The 3D also seemed to make everything at least a little blurry when the camera or characters were moving too quickly, which was a large part of the movie.

Based on my experience with Avatar, I am resolved to avoid watching movies in 3D until they come up with something that doesn't involve those glasses.

I enjoyed the movie itself just fine, but after seeing a half dozen or so attempts at 3-D this year, I'm done with it. I only saw 3-D this time because I wanted to see it in IMAX. My problem with 3-D is that the one-size-fits-all glasses don't fit me so I'm constantly having to fuss with them to keep the screen in view. Also, I prefer to sit closer to the screen (usually in the first couple rows) which is normally no problem, but with 3-D and the non-fitting glasses I can see chunks of the frame in my peripheral vision not covered by the glasses. This is awful. That and the fact that if you tilt your head too much (or at all) or scan your eyes across the frame too quickly you lose the illusion until you get back in proper position. It takes too much concentration to just be able to see the picture that it takes away from seeing the picture (to borrow a motif from the film).

Boy am I glad I read this post before seeing Avatar on the IMAX. You are absolutely right, the key to watching the 3D is obedience. Do not let your gaze wander, or you'll be trying to focus on an image you can't.

I thought the 3D was engineered just fine for the shots that were entirely artificial, but the live action scenes were completely ruined. Just like you said, it wasn't 3D, it was just multiple planes of 2D.

I do recommend Avatar for the amazing visuals, but I doubt they were any less amazing in 2D.

80 years ago Jim would've editorialized, "Sound Discombobulation! Hear This! Don't Hear This!", and he would've ranted and raved about how the development of cinematic sound was a personal affront to his ability to enjoy movies. The rabble would've grunted and affirmed, certain that sound was a silly gimmick that added nothing.

And ten years later, everyone would've forgotten the growing pains and the b!tching, as sound had become integral to the cinematic experience.

The parallels are just crushing to me at this point. If you'll recall, the inclusion of on-set sound recording (with its commensurate pitfalls, particularly having to house the cameras) led to a drop in general film quality for ten years or so. 3D is now in the same position, will enjoy the exact same ubiquitous adoption (and, I imagine, children will eventually refuse to see 2D movies on the grounds that they're boring) and will probably have a similar impact on the general quality of filmmaking, as new technology of course leads to new hurdles.

What blows me away is, Avatar is so assured in its use of 3D - it reminds me of M in its remarkable use of sound at the infancy of that technology - yet you still find a way to belittle and bemoan it as if it were some concerted attack on your sensibilities. My personal favorite is this conclusion:

"(Strictly using directed focus is) usually the sign of a limited directorial imagination (or a fascist dictatorial style)." Ha! Here's what I'd like from you, Jim: a proof-of-concept binocular system that can somehow, in three dimensions, render a deep-focus shot. Even though that abuses every single psychovisual system in the human neurovisual cortex.

Deep focus is a technique available only to 2D imaging. Your brain can achieve deep focus, but only at great distances and, (un)surprisingly enough, at precisely the same point where it can no longer processes depth information. Part of 3D cinema is relinquishing control of focus - in all cases - to the filmmakers, just as transitioning to sound cinema involved letting go of what you *thought* Buster Keaton sounded like and instead putting up with what he *actually* sounds like.

Yes, it arguably further lessens the importance of the audience's imagination in favor of giving filmmakers even more control, but, hey, that's how it goes. 2D cinema will still be made by and for those who love it (myself included), just as Guy Maddin and others are still out there shooting silents on 8mm. We all figured the days of mainstream cinema as we know it are fairly numbered --- video games have been challenging the supremacy of cinema as the de facto mainstream 'entertainment form' for years --- but now the next thing on the horizon is at least visible. Wailing about the very idea of progress just makes you sound like, well, one of those fuddyduddies, convinced that 'talkies' are just a flash in the pan.

Don't get me wrong: I'm no fanboy, and I actually didn't like Avatar that much. When you attacked it for its autopilot screenplay and essentially just being a 'Greatest Of' hits from Jim Cameron's catalog (my god, he almost cast Michael Biehn as the bad guy, too), I was on the same page. When Walter Chaw blasted it on similar grounds over at FilmFreakCentral, I cheered. I even agreed with Armond White (did I just type that?) when he criticized it as one of the silliest manifestations of liberal guilt and the white-man desire to assimilate into an identifiable culture. Which it is, with a rare obliviousness. But digging on it for what are essentially limitations of the human brain? Come on, man. It's coming off like your last few tirades against TDK --- the work of an excellent writer and analyst who, for whatever reasons, becomes so annoyed by fanboy blather and over-popularity that he resorts to obsessive and specious criticism.

Your "The Descent" review remains one of my favorites of all time, and it fits into a bizarre trend I see in you and other critics of a similar mold (particularly you, Chaw and Ed Gonzales): unlike most critics, your analytical prowess is *inversely* proportional to how much you personally like a movie. That is, when you like something, you guys can be astoundingly gifted; when you don't, you often just come off as magniloquent bullies.

Don't be a bully, Jim. Be a Bordwell :)

"He might want to get to work at tackling that challenge"??? What??? This is one of the biggest leaps in film technology in a very long time and you make it sound like he's done nothing. Boo Jim.

I had absolutely no problem following what I was supposed to be looking at. He used focus like any other filmmaker has ever done.

I couldn't close my jaw the first half of the film.

And this just happens to be the most ignorant statement about film by anyone I've ever read, the fact that you use it to bolster your argument is bordering on absurd. Like you're grabbing the two people you can actually find who didn't enjoy the technology and using what you can. "So the trick to avoiding a headache when watching this movie is to be obedient, and concentrate on the parts of the shot that the focus tells you are 'important'. Once I understood this at the preview screenings last week, my headache began to clear up, but I was conscious too of the effort of having to 'zip over' to the next point of rapid-focus in order to keep up and preserve the 3D illusion." That is what all director's jobs are. To show you what to look at. To show you what's important about the shot.

I thought I'd come over to see some nice intelligent discussion on my Holiday break and I'm relegated to quotes from people who don't understand the simplest form of cinema. And curmudgeonly grumbling. Boo.

Argh!

JE: Hate to shatter your illusions, Phillip, but that polarized-lens 3D process is the very same one that's been around for decades. Merry Christmas!

I just wanted to add that while Kane's story really is quite thin, a pale imitation of Hertz's real life story it was all those annoying shadows that killed it for me. Who was I supposed to look at, who was talking at any point in time? I have no idea. Is it necessary that we see the ceilings? Obviously we know that if they're inside there has to be a ceiling above them? When we don't see a ceiling in a shot, are we then to assume that there isn't one above them? What's the point of taking the time to show them at all if that's the case? And why in heaven's sake don't we ever see the person holding the interviews? And this wide angled lens, what purpose could it or will it ever serve? All shallow devices for what turns out to be a thin story about regret. Something a person can guess five minutes into the film.
___
Hope you have a sense of humor today.

Have a Good Holiday! And I do mean that!

JE: Exactly! That's what Gregg Toland's pioneering deep-focus photography and lighting were meant to accomplish -- to direct your eye through composition without forcing you to focus on just one thing at a time.

That's actually how I felt during much of "Avatar". I never felt forced to look at any one thing. But I never had a difficult time following the main action of the image. It was a nice mix of deep and directed imagery.

Alas, my satire was ignored. Sigh. :)

When the Na'vi carry the human bodies, it was seamless. When the humans sit in the giant robotic contraptions...seamless. It was astounding what was being done on screen. Whether your eyes in particular didn't like it, it was a great advancement in how these things are done.
More seamless than any bit of CGI I've ever seen.

There was a lot more technology going on here than just the lens to enhance the 3-D and make it what it was. Just before the film started they showed a trailer for "Shrek 4" and the 3-D was terrible and flat. For "Avatar" it was full and expansive. The difference was noticeable within a five minute time frame, from trailer to film. Very noticeable. "Shrek 4" looked like it was put together by amateurs, and they aren't that.

"Cameron developed a filming rig that is more advanced than anything that has gone before. The setup consists of a number of stereoscopic cameras that each use a pair of lenses built to mimic human eyes – positioned close together and able to move a little in order to focus on objects that are nearby or far away. That allows the cinematographer to capture two images simultaneously, which align perfectly with and provide the illusion of depth."

Also the real time 3-D landscapes that Cameron was able to use while directing. Didn't have to wait for rendering, etc etc. Who knows what else.

It does seem silly to me to think that this is going to take the place of all film making. It's good for some, certainly not good for others. The good directors will realize that.

Some very new technology. Good technology. They may even get to a point in which 3-D won't need glasses. Won't that be something!

I had difficulty at the beginning because I kept looking at background images.

Then later on, when Jake is about to ride the smaller 'dragon' for the first time - I couldn't watch. The i images seem to go by too fast, whatever the case, I had to close my eyes for a minute.

What about the 2D use of focus. Focusing on the foreground while the background is blurry (and sometimes switching). The last shot of the Ridley Scott's Robin Hood trailer shows this. Isn't that director fascism?

Also I did not think the 3D was as bad focuswise as you mentioned. I saw the film at an AMC using RealD projection (if that makes any difference). For some scenes, yes there was a very limited focal plane, the webcam shots come to mind, but that was simulating a webcam, which have poor focal planes to begin with.

As far as the picture goes, i seem to remember being able to focus on the background image or the foreground image.

Also someone mentioned the glasses being different, cause they are (at least the RealD glasses are). They use circle polarization, which allows the viewers to tilt their heads and so on.

JE: I haven't seen the Robin Hood trailer you mention, but was exaggerating ("directorial fascism") to make a point about the overruse of a certain technique. The next time I notice some director/DP overdoing rack focus I'll be sure to mention some specifics. The problem with using it in 3D, as I said, is that it spoils the illusion when your eyes can't focus on something that, in actual 3D space, they could.

The 3d experience ruined this movie. Entirely unnecessary also, honestly, who wants to see a plant in 3d every 5 minutes or so. It did nothing to engage the viewer in the movie and left me and both people next to me dizzy and promising to never go to another 3d movie again.
DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IN 3D!

I saw the movie tonight; I did not get any headaches not even close.
I think that it the best movie I have ever seen.
I am in software and photography, the 3D was done amazingly well.
This movie is perfect from every aspect. The animation is more than amazing, the story etc..
I recommend this movie to everyone, it is a must see.
James Cameron is a genius!!

So glad to have read all of these comments! I went into this movie not knowing much of what it would be about (I like to go see a movie that hasn't been killed by too many previews). I was very excited, as was my family. But I walked out after the first hour and never went back. I had a headache and felt so sick to my stomach. I thought the 3D and CG were great, but not worth throwing-up for. I also thought the story was lacking (judging from the first hour I saw). When the family met up with me almost 2 hours later I asked how the movie ended. It was exactly as I had predicted, and I was so happy that I didn't torture myself for the last couple of hours of the movie. I would have been happier seeing The Frog Prince!!!

Jim: "...so-called '3D' cinema is still a cheap-looking gimmick that hasn't improved since the View Master..."

Actually the ViewMaster provided a superior experience to any '3D' motion picture ever made, inluding "Up and "Avatar". This was because the viewer's eyes saw separate photos without any kind of interference, as taken by a camera with two lenses mounted aproximately the same separation as human eyes. Also the photo's depth of field was such that everything visible was in focus.

To duplicate this experience for a mass motion picture audience is simply not possible with any available technology regardless of cost.

I have seen Coraline in 3D, Ice Age 3 in 3D, and UP in 3D, and every time I've regretted it. I was really hoping that Cameron would somehow raise the bar, but no, it was about the same, and now I'm sworn off of 3D movies. A good way to tell if you might be nauseated by 3D movies is to recall the first generation DLP TVs that came out. Did you ever see "the rainbow effect" from the spinning color wheel on them? It was easiest to see on the borders between bright and dark colors. Movie credits were especially bad (I say this from experience). If you did, then it is likely that these 3D technologies will bother you much more than the average person.

I personally feel that the quickest fix to improve the 3D quality would be to increase the frame rate. The 24 frames-per-second standard that has been around for nearly a century is killing us. Even regular 2D, if it pans around at the "wrong" speed will look incredibly jerky. Multiply that with the stereoscopic effect, and people like myself want to smash those clunky glasses on the ground. If we are ever going to trick the eye, then we have to be faster than the eye. Houdini knew this and it still holds true.

I had never seen a 3D movie before so I was really excited to see Avatar in 3D. However, I regret ever going now. I saw it last night at 8:30 pm.. now it's 12:36 pm, the day after, and I still have an enormous migraine and I've almost thrown up several times. NEVER AGAIN. For the record, I was wearing contacts and felt 100% before seeing the movie.

Perhaps the next generation of 3D glasses will be personal glasses that follow the wearer's pupils and focus on parts of the screen the viewer wishes to look at...

One thing I do like about 3D is that it seems to reduce talking in the theater by 50% or more - not sure if that is because there is actually 50% less talking or because I notice it 50% less with the glasses on, but it does make the experience a little more pleasant, if at the cost of reducing the communal aspect of moviegoing somewhat.

I recently got my Lego magazine with the traditional 3D glasses (subscription is holdover from when I had small kids) and within 3 minutes I had a headache and it lasted for hours. The traditional ones with red and blue lenses always do this to me. But the 3D with Avatar did not affect me a bit and I was pleasantly surprised.

Even though I saw a lot of movies as a kid I had never seen a 3D movie in a theater until I saw Avatar. I loved the hard glasses as opposed to the paper ones. They fit over my bifocals fairly well. What surprised me the most was that after a few minutes I didn't even realize I was watching anything odd. I just went with the experience. The only problem I had was a depression at the bridge of my nose, probably because I had to wear both pair of glasses to see.

So basically I guess the 3D experience is different for all. I would certainly like to see another movie with Cameron's system.

Hmm. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I loved the 3D work on Avatar. Having seen pretty much every 3D release over the last five-ish years, I found this film to have the best 3D rendering I've seen thus far. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot, but it certainly is vibrant and involving.

I saw Avatar in a small local theater, not a giant multiplex. It was not projected in 3D, and I've since felt that I missed some of the experience and ought to see it again, farther from home. Thanks for curing me of that desire. I enjoyed it as a 2D movie, and will remember that experience.

Perhaps a parallel to the way I watched Avatar in the theater would be Steamboy (another merely okay story with lush visuals). It was animated using computers to model scenes, but the final step made everything look as though it had been drawn and painted by hand on traditional cels.

Oh my god.. I have not seen the movie yet, but if I watch it in 3D (which I probably will) I'll expect a whole lot more than some cheezy effects, like the ones you got from the ol' red n blue 3D glasses..

What I really wanted to say was that I cant believe everyone complaining about headaches... If you think the 3D effects are bad and if they give you headaches then why watch it? And one more thing.. Is there a better 3D experience out there? I mean come on, this is the latest in 3D technology and you're saying "it's not good, i got a headache"... I think most of you who are saying this are just out to crap on a great movie (I have not seen it yet, but that is what I suspect).

Dont watch 3D if your just out to condemn it.

I saw it it in 2D the first and for the first time in 50 years of watching a theater release the entire audience applauded at the end. I rated as a great movie, not the greatest, but in the Star Wars class. I wanted to see the 3D, but missed the time slot. Since it was a really great movie I went two weeks later with son (he is 20 and hadn't seen it in either format). From even the first Shrek trailer there were some of the most stunning visual 3D effects (I have never seen a 3D movie before). But like so many others, the pressure on my optic nerve was very irritating. Especially since I knew what a long film I was in for. But like everyone else in the the theater I gamely hung in there until the famous Navi Sully eyeblink. By that time I felt almost like the day I went offshore fishing on a19-foot Boston whaler and if I had been carrying a gun that day I would not be here typing these pixels of light. My son felt the head pain also. We recovered fairly quickly but it will be a cold day indeed before I strap on those instruments of discomfort. Avatar in 2D was much better...the flying scenes were awesome and I didn't feel the same way in 3D. I am a technologist and this video technology is in a rough beta stage. If you feel sick during the trailer you would be better off walking out and asking for your money back.

I have had strabismus/amblyopia (crossed eyes/lazy eye) all my life resulting in a severe lack of depth perception, even with glasses. My brain is one of the few that will still not process a single image through corrective lenses, so I am unusually aware of the interaction between my brain, my eyes, and my sense of the spatial world. I assumed the 3D would not work on me when I went to see Avatar, but surprisingly, it worked quite well. When I put on the 3D glasses, I was freaked out at first by the trailers, but I could feel my brain teaching itself how to create the desired visual sense, and it worked fine by the time the movie proper began. I have to say, I understood the spatial relationships in Avatar better than I do those in real life, and this has really disturbed how my brain works with my eyes (I saw the movie two hours ago) now that I have to interact with the real world. It makes me wonder if the lack of enjoyment of the 3D you and some others here have experienced has to do with the way your brain works with your eyes to process visual information. I find it no less than a miracle that my brain was able to trick itself into perceiving depth and 3D for the first time in my life.

There's always the critic. I saw Avatar at a newer theatre using RealD glasses and thought everything was great and no one in my entire group reported a headache. Another friend saw it at an older theatre using DolbyD and reported it was too dark and he got a headache.. After further research, although it PROBABLY wasn't the difference in the systems, it may have been related to the projector and lamps used. If the theatre is getting by on a lower powered lamp, that might affect things. I don't have the answer, but there's a lot of variables in the quality/headache equation. Frankly I think James Cameron has taken a great leap forward and I quite enjoyed the flick, I'm sorry for those who got headaches, but why rain on the rest of our parades?

going to see this with the family at the weekend in 3D of course, what upsets me is that the cost for the kids to see the 3D films goes up by £2 per person, we are a family of six so it can get quite expensive, especially when sometimes the 3D is disappointing and not worth the money!

to the previous poster - it's worth seeing in 3d first, then buying it on bluray later.

The visuals are stunning and the production values are extremely high, but the story is right off the shelf and the characters are strictly two dimensional. Extremely enjoyable to look at, and obviously it raises the bar technologically, but otherwise it's a middle-of-the-road sci fi action-adventure flick.

I'm glad someone brought the point out that 3D movies may give viewers headaches. Avatar was a very good movie. My son and I watched the movie this past Saturday. He wears glasses and I don't. I had the worse migraine after the movie. He had a bad headache. We took some over the counter meds for it. My sons pain went away. But for me, meds only kept the pain away for a few hours. Then Sunday morning It was back again. Light hurt my eyes, any sound was annoying. I was nauseated. I had never felt like that before. I had to rest from Saturday night to Monday morning. It's now Monday. The pain it totally gone. The movie is worth seeing, but not if it has to be in 3D.

i saw the 2d first - really enjoyed it. thought it looked great. i saw the 3d second - also really enjoyed it. it didn't make me sick (like UP in 3d did). i thought the 3d in avatar was subtle, and rather than making things look trippy it just made them look more realistic. it took me an hour to figure out how to watch it...i decided i needed to look at the things as if they were real, not a movie, and then they looked real. if i was looking at them like "what's the deal with this movie effect" it wasn't all that special.

i would recommend going to see either one!

I'm wondering if anyone else had this experience. I watched the entire movie and when I came out, I found that a blood vessel had burst in my left eye! Everything was normal going in. I'm 55 years old and I wear contact lenses. I really enjoyed the movie and I thought the 3D effects were quite well done but I'm wondering about the blood vessel thing. Just coincidence?

I've been playing with my eyes since I was ten; I always experienced the effect with random-dot stereograms, I take double photos on vacations, and I can tell good 3D from bad.

One of the trailers was for Piranha 3D. It was clearly filmed in 2D, with a second perspective faked by computer. Everything was shaped like a cone pointing in or out. Horrible.

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, Bolt, and Up were excellent uses of the tech. G-Force, Disney's recent live-action 3D outing, was very well done. It treated the screen as a window frame, with some effects "splashing" out of the frame into the theater. However, I could tell the second perspective was rotoscoped on the live action. There's a glass aquarium in the pet store which "reads" stereoscopically as if it were opaque. After the film, I researched it online, and it was indeed hand-rotoscoped for 3D.

Avatar felt whole, complete. I did not experience the uncanny valley effect a single time during the film, either from the CGI or the 3D. It was also very much an art film, with the embers falling in the background. Twice I noticed embers falling in the extreme foreground, and once I wanted to swat away a piece of debris that felt like it was right next to my face. That was the moment I knew the 3D had worked for me.

Oh, in case you're wondering, I watched Cloverfield twice. I never felt camerasick. (I enjoyed it more than Avatar, actually.)

My first viewing of "Avatar" made my eyes feel sore and I had problems focusing for most of the movie. The 3-D was a distraction, not an enhancement. I was seated in the centre row in the middle of the theatre.

I saw "Avatar" again last night, but this time in the last row of the theatre. The 3-D wasn't nearly as distracting. My eyes didn't hurt as much. I didn't have as much trouble focusing and was able to appreciate more because I could actually see more.

I still don't think the 3-D is necessary because "Avatar" is visually impressive enough already, but from the back row, the 3-D effects aren't as distracting.

As a sensitive person prone to dizziness, I found it unwatchable. $14 or no $14, I had to leave after 30 minutes. (To its credit, the AMC theater agreed to a refund.) My brain felt as if it had been assaulted by a steamroller, my stomach was not happy either, and my eyes were so strained I was squinting. I don't even know what to say about the movie itself, other than those 30 minutes seemed about as subtle as a boulder falling on my head. Maybe someday I'll watch it in humane 2-D--at home, where I can keep the volume low enough to forgo my earplugs.

Perhaps not the best movie I've ever seen - but there is no movie made with better visuals and special effects. I just got back from seeing it on an Imax screen in 3D with my wife, son, and his friend.

Not a scientific poll - but of the hundreds of people who left the theater at the end of the movie - there was no one who didn't look like they enjoyed it, or who appeared to be suffering in the least.

I'm expecting that over the course of the next few years that someone else will be around to push the envelope in 3D, but at this time Cameron's effort exceeded my expectation. After a few minutes, I had completly forgotten about the 3D glasses - and just enjoyed a great film.

I'm glad to find people discussing this matter. I've seen Avatar twice, both times in 2D, and have wondered if I'm missing much in 3D. Because even if you watch the 2D version, you can kind of tell how the 3D version would look, with the two planes and all.

I actually found the 3D distracting for the first twenty minutes or so of the film. While I never got the headaches talked about here, I can see how one could get one.

During the opening shots before I was 'used' to the 3D I wanted to see everything. Look at stuff that was in the foreground with a low DOF, look at stuff in the background, etc. With the camera moving around and constant changing between shots I could feel my focus constantly going in, out, in, out, in, out.

But after a bit, once the movie moved to the outdoors for the first time, I settled in and got used to it. And it was utterly sublime. The key is... don't watch 3D any different than you do a 2D movie, and I think that's where a lot of problems are coming from. When I'm watching Casino Royale, I'm not intensely trying to examine the out of focus backgrounds. Everyone can follow what is in frame, in focus, and what the director wants you to watch.

Once I settled back and simply *watched* the entire frame at once, the 3D felt as natural as real life. I stopped noticing stuff 'jutting out' at me. I stopped feeling my focus getting confused. And I agree with one of the previous posters, a lot of ambient environment effects like ash cinders or pollen made my face itch and want me to wave it aside.

I don't think the problem is with the movie, I think the problem is with the way people are watching the movie.

Somehow I managed to get through "Up" in 3D, after moving my seat a couple of times and sticking with it until my eyes adjusted, but it was a matinee show for a movie that didn't sell out, so at least I could do it. Perhaps it has something to do with wearing bifocals but I found it very difficult to focus unless I was sitting dead center.

"Avatar" in 3D was pretty full for a mid-week matinee several weeks after it opened. I didn't have much of a seat choice and was on the aisle, a couple of rows closer than I would have preferred. I had to leave after 20 minutes. The theater refunded my money. I totally agree with Jim Emerson. The layers looked flat and two dimensional. And I felt a real head banger brewing.

I returned the next day and saw it in 2D, and frankly, it was far easier to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the movie for what it was without being distracted trying to focus and having to worry about getting a migraine.

Next time I'm not going to bother with 3D. but the 2D shows left the theater last Friday, so we know where this is heading. I don't need to pay an extra three bucks or so just for the privilege of getting sick.

kinda like the background on your site?

Just saw the INTERMINABLE "Avatar". Technically very interesting but a typical Cameron piece of shit. I thought (prayed) it was over 10 times. And for the money that was spent, wouldn't you think that Mr King of the World would have paid a little more attention to continuity? You figure that one out Mr Cameron. What a waste of 3 hours - screw the money - it's the time.

I thought that the 3D in Avatar was remarkably free of the 2-1/2 D effect. I only noticed it in one scene, and only then the first time I saw the movie.

I also, being fascinated with the idea of 3D and not having seen a 3D movie before, spent the first 20 minutes minutely scrutinizing the effect, taking my glasses off and on, looking at out of focus parts, etc.

Then I got bored with that and got involved in the story and there was no problem. I saw it a second time, no problem at all. The 3D was much more subtle than the 3D at the Disney attractions (shrunk the kids, genie), subliminal. It just made it more vivid. Sort of like the cliche, "Did you cut your hair?" when it's something completely different that has changed.

I think if you've got a chip on your shoulder about 3D or Cameron, you're not going to be able to get beyond that after 20 minutes like most people can. So there's no problem with the 3D. There's a problem in your head. Solution: Avoid 3D and Cameron movies. The rest of us will take up the slack.

When these new 3D movies started coming out, I regretted only having one eye for the first time since I learned to drive. After reading some of these comments, I don't feel like I'm missing that much. Unfortunately, our local theater didn't show the movie in 2D, so I had to pay extra for the "licensing" (translate as glasses), since I needed them to avoid the blurry image. So, no extra thrill for 3D for me.

As far as the movie itself, once I got over the cliche eco-worship and demonizing the e-vil big corporations and military, I enjoyed the imagery. But it's not worth an extra $3.00.

This 3d crap had better not start being the rule of thumb for films. It didn't work in the past and just because idiots are soaking up Avatar like its Jesus in a film, does not mean it should be the standard. I was very displeased to hear the Harry Potter films would be going 3d as well. I live in 3d, I do not need my films that I use to relax my eyes, to also be in 3d with some stupid overly priced glasses on my face.

The 3D glasses hurt my eyes the entire 3 hours and they are still hurting 4 hours after seeing the movie. It was not worth the extra $3 for the glasses. Frankly, the 3D effects could be improved upon and the glasses did not seem to create much of a 3D experience at all.

I had some trouble with this movie, visually. I had amblyopia as a child and my eyes never developed the ability to coordinate - I pretty much look out of one eye at a time. I can compensate just fine to get along in the real world but I don't have much actual depth perception. Anyway, I was surprised that I could experience a *few* of the 3-D effects. Maybe 3 times altogether I noticed that something seemed to be popping out at me, and that in itself was quite a thrill. But I can't say it was a full 3-D experience for me at all. I had a slight headache and a carsicky feeling afterwards.

saw Avatar yesterday and got the worst headche and nausea I have ever had. Had to leave the film for fear of getting sick. Then spent the next 13 hours suffering. I am sure there are "tricks" to reduce this ailment but I am not willing to try it simply to see a movie. Enjoyed the show but it will be forever marred by the physical experience.

Wow, people... really? I thought the 3D was amazing, and so was the story. First time I saw it, it was in IMAX 3D, and I never had a problem. It looked amazingly real to me. I think the problem with people getting dizzy is that you think you'll have to watch it in a different way. Just sit there and watch it like it's any other old movie.
And please, people - stop complaining so much about it. It's the most expensive movie ever made, and Cameron went to a LOT of trouble to make it as good as it could possibly be, and all you have to say is "It was too predictable!" "The 3D sucked!" "The story was too unoriginal!" "The special effects weren't good enough!" "It looked like cardboard!" That's not fair. How would YOU like it if you worked for a DECADE to make something truly wonderful that you thought people would love, and instead half the people nitpicked and found everything possible wrong with it? Wouldn't you feel downcast? I know I would. He worked hard to make this for us to watch and enjoy, so why can't we do just that? Stop complaining so much, and just sit back and enjoy the movie.

I'm also very happy people are actually adressing this problem. 3D movies like Avatar are not made for me. I get very unwell, nauseous during the movie. I went to watch the movie Up in 3D... and I even felt dizzy! Needless to say that I went to watch How to train your dragon in 2D....

3D just sucks because it will harm your eyes, gives you fatigue and headaches, and has obviously lower picture quality compared to 2D. Eyes are not made for stereoscopic viewing, since they naturally try to refocus anything that they perceive to move out of the screen plane (because in nature, things would actually come closer or get more distant). However, in a movie theater all images only *exist* in the screen plane, and only in this plane are they in focus. So your eye is constantly torn apart from wanting to refocus the "closer" or "farther" objects, and going back to the screen plane for the most focused image. It's a dilemma no "RealD", "Imax3D", "Disney3D" etc can resolve. In the long run, you might ruin your eyes, and whatever happens to a generation of children subjected to this from a young age only god knows.

Apart from damaging your eyes, the 3d picture quality is undeniably lowered. Objects that appear very close to you are often chosen by the director to not be pulled in focus. So however hard you stare at them, you are not able to focus on them even though they "seem" so close. This is another headache-inducer. With the current low framerate of movies (24fps) you can see strobing in 3D movies whenever the picture moves fast enough. Looks downright ugly! Moreover those "advanced" 3D glasses dim the picture a great deal. Avatar is truly spectacular in 2D with beautifully shining colors for all those neon-hued animals and plants -- however, it becomes gloomy in comparison in 3D. Ghosting effects (= faint double images) are also routinely present in 3D movies whenever there is any ever so slight reflection on the actual lense surfaces of your 3D glasses. Ugly as hell! And all these compromises for what exactly? Why do we put up with all these unnecessary reductions in picture quality? Just to give a cheap 3D-thrill to adolescents of the video-game generation? Don't tell me you REALLY were not able to tell foreground from background in any good old "traditional 2D" movie... To educate you a little bit: Your BRAIN *already* infers depth from perspective, so you don't need being hammered with additional confusing visual "3D data" to get the picture. This will just screw up your visual cortex in the long run. What's worse, in some recent movies, the 3D effect is even TECHNICALLY incorrectly applied to the original material (f.ex. Clash of the Titans, or Piranha 3D). Then things look downright unrealistic and artificial: Things that should be in the back appear in the front and vice versa! Congratulations for yet another headache-inducer! Well, if ever Hollywood has gone in the wrong direction, then it was the crazy media blitz they did for 3D. "The future of the movie-going experience"... Don't make me laugh. Yes, but only if you want cross-eyed children with permanent vision problems in the "future". Otherwise better forget it quickly. Did you know that the studios are actually *paying* the theaters to install the new 3D projectors. Did you know they *threaten* the theaters not to give them the 2D version of a movie, unless they also show the 3D version. That speaks volumes about their confidence for the so-called "moviegoing experience of the future". It appears that agressive enough advertizing for a product can indeed brainwash a lot of people to think it's "cool". Amazing that it works even though they are being sold visual garbage. Welcome to the brave new world. Over and out.