7 ms·

I had been sort of hoping that 3D TV would not become the norm. I saw Avatar in 3D and while the effects were fun to watch, I thought that the expressiveness o

I had been sort of hoping that 3D TV would not become the norm. I saw Avatar in 3D and while the effects were fun to watch, I thought that the expressiveness of the depth-of-field shots was actually reduced. In 2D cinema, the viewer's eyes adapt to the shot that the director intended, which often involves focusing on the foreground or the background... once in a while a shot puts both in focus, but it's rare. The visual cue of depth of field is why cinematographers continue to use it even though it's been technically feasible for a long time to simply make all objects in the shot appear in focus. In Avatar, the critters zoomed toward the audience and the effect was immersive, but I thought many of the close-in shots lacked the intimacy that good 2D shots can often attain. 3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects. There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances. In fact, the human perception of a constant, detailed visual field is an illusion that the brain stitches together from the data collected by the narrow beam of detailed focus directly in front of our gaze. So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision. 3D film is unreal in that it requires us to suspend our normal method of discerning space, and watching it is something we must learn to do, just as we must learn to interpret 2D depth of field as both an attentional and spatial cue.

jt2190 10y ago
> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision. Depth of field isn't the only way for a cinematographer to to lead the viewer's gaze. There's also lighting, movement, scene (art direction)... Tricks that have been used in live theater for centuries. The depth issue really boils down to a lack of cinematic artistry, probably due to the lack of experience that filmmakers and audiences have with 3D. Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Great points. > Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date. I'm going to have to watch it, do you know of a way to see it in 3D using a normal laptop or TV?
  - BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
    Google Cardboard?
    - erklik 10y ago
      You probably can but strapping it on ones head is fairly difficult.
  - dingo_bat 10y ago
    If you have a samsung phone, you can copy the 3d version of the movie ( you know where to find that ;) and watch the movie in gear vr. The 3d is great and the illusion of sitting in a movie theater helps a lot.
- wrsh07 10y ago
  +1 to all of this, especially Hugo. Even seeing it in 2d you get a sense of the 3-dimensionality.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  It was very effectively used on "Gravity" for the space station interiors.
EdHominem 10y ago
> There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances. When you increase the width of the aperture of a lens (your pupil) you decrease the depth of field in sharp focus. It's a fundamental limit of optics. On a bright day you have a lot of light and your pupil is narrowest, bringing as much as possible into focus. > So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision. I watched the Hobbit in 3d and thought it was awful. You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur. I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried. I had a similar experience.
  - ebrewste 10y ago
    Similar experience with the latest Star Wars. I saw Nightmare Before Christmas years ago and it was all in focus (memory hazy here) and the 3D distance made it look like it was a play, on a stage. I absolutely loved it. I've never seen another 3D movie since that I thought was good for the same depth of field issues discussed.
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      In Australia, 3D is just designed to increase the cost of a movie ticket.
      - RugnirViking 10y ago
        On Earth, 3D is just designed to increase the cost of a movie ticket.
Cozumel 10y ago
I wonder if you were brought up with 3D TV as the norm if you'd still think the same.
- aceperry 10y ago
  3D tv display technology just isn't there. Either as a convincing experience nor can it compete with the quality of HD TV. I would guess that if someone saw regular tv for the first time, after only seeing 3D tv, he would be impressed with the better quality of color/contrast/sharpness of regular tv.
gambiting 10y ago
You are forgetting that 3D TVs were not just for films. I use mine for games and while compatibility is a bit spotty, it's mindblowing how good 3D games look on a 50" 3D TV. Forget films, games are where it is.
- frakr 10y ago
  Which would you recommend?
- cc439 10y ago
  I bought into the 3D gaming hype early (I bought one of the first 3D monitors made by Samsung for ~$700) only to be massively disappointed by how "small" it made games appear. Despite the prodigious 27" monitor in front of me, the addition of depth made every game look like I was playing with a bunch of toy cars or action figures. I don't know why I'm able to suspend my disbelief with 2D, maybe it's the fact that 3D adds a definitive scale to whatever is on my screen, but I feel like I wasted several hundred dollars since I haven't even seen my 3D glasses in ~4 years.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fr0styMatt88 10y ago
    That sounds like an IPD (inter-pupillary distance) issue. Everybody has a slightly different distance between their pupils and if the cameras rendering the left and right eyes in the game aren't the same distance apart as your own IPD, your perception of scale will be affected. If the cameras are further apart than your eyes, things will look smaller in size and have an exaggerated stereo effect also. If they are closer, the stereo effect is less pronounced and things appear larger in size. It's actually the sense of scale I like the most in 3D (and VR). I don't care that much about things popping out at me on a 3D TV. I much prefer 3D that treats the screen like a window you look through, where the 3D effect comes mostly from things receding into the background. As an example, I loved the parts in Star Wars: The Force Awakens where you had characters shooting at things in the distance and the camera sat over their shoulder with them in the foreground. There's also another issue here - you can't just take any game and 'upscale' it into 3D using a driver or such. The game's geometry needs to be properly modelled to scale for it to really work. There are other more egregious issues too - things like lens flares appearing in the wrong plane, because the game happens to be rendering them to a separate 2D plane. These and other issues like them are the same reasons that you can't turn a non-VR game into a VR game with a driver and have it be as good as a native made-for-VR experience (although many games do come somewhat close, if you don't have a native VR version of them for comparison). FWIW I think the 'average' IPD is 64mm.
scoot 10y ago
> 3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects. Apparently you've misunderstood either 3D (or more accurately stereoscopic) vision, depth of field, or both. Cue detailed HN-worthy explanation of each... but frankly, you'd be better off perusing the myriad of resources available on these two subjects.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Please explain. My point is that stereoscopic vision lets our brains ignore more information by identifying the depth of interest and ignoring the rest. Similarly, trying to identify the direction of a sound using only one ear is very difficult, and there is inferior signal to noise ratio available to our perceptual system. The same applies to stereoscopic vision.
stuaxo 10y ago
The horrible thing about watching something like Avatar in 3d is looking at parts Of The shot youbare not meant to, they are blurry and you end up with a headache.

jt2190 10y ago

> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision. Depth of field isn't the only way for a cinematographer to to lead the viewer's gaze. There's also lighting, movement, scene (art direction)... Tricks that have been used in live theater for centuries. The depth issue really boils down to a lack of cinematic artistry, probably due to the lack of experience that filmmakers and audiences have with 3D. Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date.

grandalf 10y ago
Great points. > Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date. I'm going to have to watch it, do you know of a way to see it in 3D using a normal laptop or TV?
- BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
  Google Cardboard?
  - erklik 10y ago
    You probably can but strapping it on ones head is fairly difficult.
- dingo_bat 10y ago
  If you have a samsung phone, you can copy the 3d version of the movie ( you know where to find that ;) and watch the movie in gear vr. The 3d is great and the illusion of sitting in a movie theater helps a lot.
wrsh07 10y ago
+1 to all of this, especially Hugo. Even seeing it in 2d you get a sense of the 3-dimensionality.
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
It was very effectively used on "Gravity" for the space station interiors.

EdHominem 10y ago

> There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances. When you increase the width of the aperture of a lens (your pupil) you decrease the depth of field in sharp focus. It's a fundamental limit of optics. On a bright day you have a lot of light and your pupil is narrowest, bringing as much as possible into focus. > So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision. I watched the Hobbit in 3d and thought it was awful. You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur. I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried.

grandalf 10y ago
> I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried. I had a similar experience.
- ebrewste 10y ago
  Similar experience with the latest Star Wars. I saw Nightmare Before Christmas years ago and it was all in focus (memory hazy here) and the 3D distance made it look like it was a play, on a stage. I absolutely loved it. I've never seen another 3D movie since that I thought was good for the same depth of field issues discussed.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    In Australia, 3D is just designed to increase the cost of a movie ticket.
    - RugnirViking 10y ago
      On Earth, 3D is just designed to increase the cost of a movie ticket.

Cozumel 10y ago

I wonder if you were brought up with 3D TV as the norm if you'd still think the same.

aceperry 10y ago
3D tv display technology just isn't there. Either as a convincing experience nor can it compete with the quality of HD TV. I would guess that if someone saw regular tv for the first time, after only seeing 3D tv, he would be impressed with the better quality of color/contrast/sharpness of regular tv.

gambiting 10y ago

You are forgetting that 3D TVs were not just for films. I use mine for games and while compatibility is a bit spotty, it's mindblowing how good 3D games look on a 50" 3D TV. Forget films, games are where it is.

frakr 10y ago
Which would you recommend?
cc439 10y ago
I bought into the 3D gaming hype early (I bought one of the first 3D monitors made by Samsung for ~$700) only to be massively disappointed by how "small" it made games appear. Despite the prodigious 27" monitor in front of me, the addition of depth made every game look like I was playing with a bunch of toy cars or action figures. I don't know why I'm able to suspend my disbelief with 2D, maybe it's the fact that 3D adds a definitive scale to whatever is on my screen, but I feel like I wasted several hundred dollars since I haven't even seen my 3D glasses in ~4 years.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Fr0styMatt88 10y ago
  That sounds like an IPD (inter-pupillary distance) issue. Everybody has a slightly different distance between their pupils and if the cameras rendering the left and right eyes in the game aren't the same distance apart as your own IPD, your perception of scale will be affected. If the cameras are further apart than your eyes, things will look smaller in size and have an exaggerated stereo effect also. If they are closer, the stereo effect is less pronounced and things appear larger in size. It's actually the sense of scale I like the most in 3D (and VR). I don't care that much about things popping out at me on a 3D TV. I much prefer 3D that treats the screen like a window you look through, where the 3D effect comes mostly from things receding into the background. As an example, I loved the parts in Star Wars: The Force Awakens where you had characters shooting at things in the distance and the camera sat over their shoulder with them in the foreground. There's also another issue here - you can't just take any game and 'upscale' it into 3D using a driver or such. The game's geometry needs to be properly modelled to scale for it to really work. There are other more egregious issues too - things like lens flares appearing in the wrong plane, because the game happens to be rendering them to a separate 2D plane. These and other issues like them are the same reasons that you can't turn a non-VR game into a VR game with a driver and have it be as good as a native made-for-VR experience (although many games do come somewhat close, if you don't have a native VR version of them for comparison). FWIW I think the 'average' IPD is 64mm.

scoot 10y ago

> 3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects. Apparently you've misunderstood either 3D (or more accurately stereoscopic) vision, depth of field, or both. Cue detailed HN-worthy explanation of each... but frankly, you'd be better off perusing the myriad of resources available on these two subjects.

grandalf 10y ago
Please explain. My point is that stereoscopic vision lets our brains ignore more information by identifying the depth of interest and ignoring the rest. Similarly, trying to identify the direction of a sound using only one ear is very difficult, and there is inferior signal to noise ratio available to our perceptual system. The same applies to stereoscopic vision.

stuaxo 10y ago

The horrible thing about watching something like Avatar in 3d is looking at parts Of The shot youbare not meant to, they are blurry and you end up with a headache.