Would You Pay Extra For a 3D Movie?

Jacob Hermanson, Staff Writer

3D movies are becoming better and better as movie resolution is improved, picture technology adapts and quality changes. The first 3D movie, The Power of Love, was made in 1922. Almost a century later, Avengers: Infinity War was shot entirely in IMAX and was released in 3D as well. As technology has improved the quality of 3D movies, it costs more to make it look crisp and clean, but 3D isn’t a required method of viewing. More producers should take the extra time to create movies that are viewable in 3D.

While movies can be shot easily in IMAX, it’s much harder for them to be shot in 3D. 3D movies can be shot with a method called stereoscopic photography, where two cameras are side by side and take a picture at the same time. The easiest way is to make an edit so the image overlaps itself and the layer on top is slightly transparent. These methods recreate how our eyes work and make the optical illusion that they are 3D.

The best part about 3D is that you don’t have to watch a movie in 3D if you don’t want to, which makes it a service that many other people might not use. To adjust to this, movie prices are going to be a little higher if it’s in 3D.

Personally, the first movie I had ever seen in 3D was Journey to the Center of the Earth. The movie came with the classic red and green glasses that are an easily recognizable icon. I was so fascinated that I took off the glasses to see the magic, which wasn’t very magical. Trust me, you can’t watch a movie in red and green without the glasses, unless one of your eyes has a red lens and the other has a green lens, then you might be able to. I still thought it was cool that the red and green images fooled my eyes to see two separate images.

I wouldn’t mind spending more money on a 3D movie, as long as it isn’t outrageously overpriced.