A lot of it depends on the size of the display, I'll give you that much. However, you really need a screen the size of imax for most of the movies these days to get decent 3D. I still think that it could be helped somewhat by increasing the image displacement more, but it's almost impossible for me to find this out without a lot of hassle.
I still think that the 3D isn't nearly as pronounced as it should be in the modern movies. I understand that they are trying to keep the number of people who will feel ill by watching the movies, but it's making the 3D almost non-existant.

Its like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat but, he has the rabbit under a cloth and puts it in the hat before he takes it out. Stereo3d puts a cloth on the effect and does not pull the effect out.

In the 50's i'm sure they had some good 3d, i've seen good 3d.

Chiefwinston, have you seen 3d float in the middle of your room from your tv set? Most people don't use hardware blu-ray player and use a windows computer.

I see everyones anguish and its from having no Volume, theres depth and popout but what matters most is volume. Let overridden depth and popout come last. I would rather have floating cubic volume objects on the screen anyday.

Ok, here is one with some serious 3D settings up as far as I could comfortably go on a 23" screen.

You won't see this in theaters!

I'm wishing hollywood makes the beat in 3d like you can somewhat get in games. Comfortable effective 3d. Nice 3d picture btw too. It looks pretty well rounded 3d and no window violations.

They are just focusing on the two camera system way to much, I don't even think they have a computer hooked into their cameras to adjust all the objects separations properly, really neither does nvidia, tridef I would assume. Whats wrong with letting a computer help render a film recording? Heck why not even transcode it into directx.

There are a couple of problems with this picture :
- there is popout in the whole 1/5 bottom of the screen which makes the scene quite unrealistic and creates an heavy window violation in the bottom ;
- the negative parallax on the character's hood produces 13.2cm of popout on a 19" screen viewed at a 50cm distance, which is a lot higher than what the comfortable range should be (7cm max at 50cm for the 1/3 diopters limit explained in the last paper) ;
- it's painful to rapidely look at the background and the foreground and vice versa in the zone of the character's head because of the heavy difference between positive and negative parallax ;
- the HUD elements don't appear at the appropriate position in 3D, particularly in the bottom where it looks like they are inside the ground.

All this is not really a problem when looking at the image for some seconds, but playing with these settings for some minutes should make most people uncomfortable. It's certainly out of question to use such settings for the whole duration of a 3D movie too.

Inspite of all the errors in the image it looks completely ok to me. Those old rules needs to be redone. ^^

I'm not talking about old rules here, the last paper I gave a link for has been published only 4 months ago. And their findings are not based on some vague assumptions like the "percentage rule" used by 3D filmmakers, they are based on a scientific method, ie. objective and reproductible experiments that are peer-reviewed before publication.

You may find the image ok, but I guess you can still see the window violation in the bottom and the problem with the HUD. And I guess you can also understand that before being able to tell if this image will be comfortable for most viewers, you'd have to test it on a representative sample of the population first. That's precisely what researchers have been doing in these papers.

Cybereality also said that he pushed the 3D effect as far as it could comfortably go on his 23" screen. So if someone who's been exposed to stereoscopy for so many years has found a limit to what he can handle (13cm popout at a 50cm viewing distance), are you really surprised that casual viewers have a lower tolerance (7cm popout at 50cm according to researchers) ? Also the max. positive parallax I measured in this image was 4.42cm for a 23" 16:9 monitor, which is sensibly lower than the 6.5cm average IPD. Why do you think cyber only used around 68% of the max. depth setting instead of 100% ?

Hugo is supposed to really push the 3D medium forward. Hopefully this will be what we are waiting for. I am going to see it over the break and I'll post my findings.

Did you see "The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn" in 3D btw ? What did you think about it in case you watched it ?

I actually missed that one. Used to make a point to catch every single 3D flick, but just been really busy these days.

Nice Assassins Creed 3D photo, Cyber. I like and prefer very strong 3D like that photo. But everyone should remember that a single viewer PC game is developed under different viewing specifications. Modern movies are developed with a large audience in mind. Some of the people in the audience are not in the prime spot of the center of the theater. Also, people's eye spacing and head sizes are different. But 3D is also an art form. I go to the shows to see what these great artist have produced. Sometimes its a dud other times its a great evening at the show.


enjoy

Ok, well I saw Hugo. It was certainly not the breakthrough I hoped it would be, but it was one of the best uses of 3D in cinema to date. You could tell with a lot of shots that the director had 3D in mind and, in fact, some parts wouldn't have made sense in 2D. So this was not an afterthought like in some films. They also did push the 3D effect pretty high in select scenes. Most of the film was fairly standard, in terms of 3D depth. But there were some really nice shots in there, mainly in the clock tower, that really pushed it to the edge of whats comfortable. I took the glasses off a few times, and could see a visibly doubled image. In fact, there was one part at the end that was (sorry to admit) somewhat uncomfortable to watch. This was the part where they zoomed in of Kingsley's face. So I think I can understand why filmmakers are being timid with the 3D effect.

On a brighter note, I think some studios are figuring it out. I saw a trailer for Dr. Seuss' The Lorax and it had the most amazing 3D I have seen in a recent film. Hands down, blew away even Avatar. It was done by the people that made Despicable Me, and that was already a pretty good show. But this took the best 3D part from that film and made (seemingly) a whole movie. Or maybe they just showed all the best parts in the trailer. I don't know. But it looked amazing. This is one to watch out for.

Yeah I know what you mean about the Kingsley shot. It actually looked to me like it was a small conversion 3D shot thrown in. I think this because the head shot seen of Sacha Baron Cohen questioning one of the kids. And the director making his head in 3D space come further and further out of the screen with each question to the kid. The 3D is used to make his questioning more pronounced. Just brilliant 3D use. And with Sachas' last question his head was off the screen and in the middle of the theater. But not like a gimick.

Also, the 3D was comfortable to me through the entire show.


enjoy

Coming up soon. The big boys of cinema are throwing their weight into the 3D cinema ring.

Steven Spielberg- The Adventures Of Tintin: Secret Of The Unicorn 3D (Christmas 2011). I have seen the 3D trailer

James Cameron- Titanic 3D (conversion). I have also, seen the 3D trailer.

George Lucas- Star Wars: Episode I (conversion). And well I've seen the 3D trailer to this, too.

I've seen what Micheal Bay, James Cameron, and Martin Scorseses can do. And I was impressed with what these masters of story telling can do with 3D. I'm thinking that once these upcoming wonders of cinema are released. The movie industry will understand how to use 3D more effectively.

enjoy

Sadly, most of those are conversions.

Update:

Coming soon.

Steven Spielberg- The Adventures Of Tintin: Secret Of The Unicorn 3D (Christmas 2011). I have seen the 3D trailer

James Cameron- Titanic 3D (conversion). I have also, seen the 3D trailer.

George Lucas- Star Wars: Episode I (conversion). And well I've seen the 3D trailer to this, too.

And add these to the list:

Ridley Scott- Prometheus (Stereo Cameras?)

Francis Ford Coppola- Twixt (Stereo Cameras?)

cheers

Also :
Baz Luhrmann, with Leonardo DiCaprio- The Great Gatsby (filmed in 3D)

Please don't miss Dr. Seuss' The Lorax. It had the best 3D I've seen so far in Hollywood (not counting IMAX 3D).

Yeah the Dr. Seuss' The Lorax does look good. There are 2 trailers out for that show. But I try to make it to all the kids animated features. Almost all the kids animated features have really good 3D. There are some duds. I have found most kids animated 3D movies have similar 3D qualities to the Dr. Seuss' The Lorax trailers. And they look absolutely spectacular in 3D Blu-Ray in Full HD 3D. Its why alot of the 3D Blu-rays run close to $50 usd.

cheers