4 ms·
> 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 o
by 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 agoGreat 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 agoGoogle Cardboard?
- erklik 10y agoYou probably can but strapping it on ones head is fairly difficult.
- dingo_bat 10y agoIf 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 agoIt was very effectively used on "Gravity" for the space station interiors.