11 ms·

Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

411 points by princeverma 16y ago

robin_reala 16y ago
I can’t say I’ve got a headache from any of the current crop of 3D films – is my brain doing something different? Also, regarding: "Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images." See: http://www.holografika.com/ http://www.holografika.com/
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  There were complaints about nausea from Cloverfield's filming technique, despite this technique being used many times before without nearly as much camera control (Blare Witch project had some awful shaky scenes far worse than Cloverfield). I don't buy any of these articles. Yes some people won't respond well to 3D, but the vast majority does and has in every implementation. This is as absurd as saying when the Model T was released, that because of a minority of the population having motion sickness that the automobile is destined to fail. I don't know a single person who has a problem with 3D. Well technically that's a lie, I know someone who's blind in one eye, so with the glasses they're just watching an over expensive 2D movie and without they're just watching a very fuzzy movie.
  - lyudmil 16y ago
    I think Murch/Ebert are implicitly drawing a distinction between 3D being something people can watch without having a physical response and 3D as a viable technique for making movies. I understood the argument to be twofold. Firstly, even if you don't get headaches, your brain is still working overtime, which makes your movie-watching experience less pleasurable than it would be if you were watching a true holographic movie. Secondly, because of the way the brain processes images and the illusion created by 3D movies, the technique limits the genre because one cannot use edits that are very rapid or have shots with a lot of horizontal movement. Whether that amounts to "not working" is perhaps up for discussion, but I think they have a point that the problems with 3D extend far beyond the fact that some people have adverse physiological reactions while watching.
  - chrislloyd 16y ago
    I, and a bunch of my friends get headaches with 3D movies. Avatar included. The difference with the Model T is that people were willing to bear out neasea for the massive convenience a car brought. Blue aliens are less compelling.
- jerf 16y ago
  "is my brain doing something different?" It's not out of the question. When I was very young my eyesight was good enough to develop depth perception, but since then my eyes have gone a bit nearsighted. It's not so bad I wear glasses, but it's bad enough that I don't have reliable parallax-based depth perception. I recently went to see the Tron movie in 3D as an experiment, but I wasn't sure I'd even get depth perception in it. In fact I did, and I also can't say that it bothered me any more than a normal movie. I think that's because I didn't have the conflict the other people are talking about because my brain stopped rigidly expecting depth perception a while ago. But you can't build the 3D market on people like me.
Jabbles 16y ago
I was going to quote "Everything that can be invented has been invented", but it turns out it's most likely false: http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm
swombat 16y ago
This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. I'd hate to be introduced like that. That said, his points make sense. I don't get a headache from watching 3D movies but it does cause extra strain. It's more tiring than watching a normal movie. I have no intention of buying a 3D TV at any point in the future, and though I'll go to a 3D cinema for the different experience, if the movie is the right kind for 3D (e.g. Avatar), I certainly don't see it as a revolutionary new technology. Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains use all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what the eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D (which is why, among other things, the world doesn't suddenly look 2-dimensional if you cover one eye). 3D movies provide only one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange feeling because the other 19 cues are missing. Another nail in the coffin of 3DTV: It's been out for years and I don't know a single person who has bought one.
- JonnieCache 16y ago
  >Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains use all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what the eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D... 3D movies provide only one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange feeling because the other 19 cues are missing. A big one is atmospheric haze, which is easy to reproduce to be fair. It is also the reason for a lot of the perceived inconsistencies in apollo moon photography: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#background...
- powrtoch 16y ago
  Many of the cues you're referring to are already present in 3d and 2d movies. They're things like focus, texture, "what's covering what", how quickly something moves relative to the viewer, etc.
- lkozma 16y ago
  This wiki-article lists some of the cues for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception
andrewingram 16y ago
I have a degenerative eye condition (keratoconus) which affects one eye more severely than the other, this makes me hesitant to pay extra to watch a film in 3D. I've actually not watched any under the fear that I'd have to walk out of a film that my friends are enjoying. I might head down to an electronics store and give on the 3D televisions a try, that way I'll know if my condition will negatively affect the experience as much as I expect.
- robin_reala 16y ago
  I have keratoconus as well and haven’t had any problems, but then I’m guessing mine isn’t as bad as your: my glasses correct my sight well enough that it’s fine to just wear the cinema-supplied glasses over the top.
  - andrewingram 16y ago
    I've been going back and forth trying different types of contact lenses for about a year now. The best I've had so far can only be described as a minor improvement.
gjm11 16y ago
My own prejudices go along with this completely, but ... (Arthur C) Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong." ... has turned out to be correct often enough that I wouldn't want to place large bets on this. (Digression: there's an obvious difficulty in assessing Clarke's First Law. When someone says something is impossible and is wrong, we can tell because, lo, someone else does it. But when someone says something is impossible and is right, we'll never really know for sure; the most we can say is that no one has done it yet. So: time travel? teleportation? faster than light travel? Plenty of eminent (and in some cases elderly) scientists have said, and doubtless will continue to say, that these things are impossible; for all we know they really are; but even if they are we'll never know for sure that Clarke's First Law is wrong for them.) [EDITED in response to two comments: If the claim is "3D done just like it is now will never work" then I agree that CFL isn't very relevant. If it's "3D movies will never work", which is what I think "3D doesn't work and never will" ought to mean, then I think CFL applies. So maybe I'm really only criticizing Ebert and not Murch, who does embed into his comments the sentence 'Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.'. I do wonder whether the quotes around "holographic" are trying to define it to mean "anything that fixes this problem" rather than strictly "something close to full-wavefront reconstruction using coherent light", in which case I guess he's right by definition and therefore vacuously. I would certainly not want to bet that actual literal holograms are the only way to solve the problem.]
- henrikschroder 16y ago
  Except it doesn't apply in this case. He is saying that true 3D, some sort of holographic display would work fine, but the current fake 3D has a lot of problems. It places constraints on the cinematography, and it doesn't always enhance the end result.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - vacri 16y ago
    Except that it does apply in this case. If your director can keep away from close foreground shots, you don't get this problem. The angles between the eyes and the focusing power of the lens differ minimally once you get several meters away on out to infinity. From several meters to your nose, yes, heaps of variance is required and it would be very hard to do. This is just Ebert being an idiot and saying "This is my opinion, stated as fact, case closed. I won't enter into any discussion because I might be wrong", just like he said when he declared video games weren't art. It is /profoundly/ unscientific to dismiss something as unfactual simply because you don't like it. Back in the day, my honours degree was specifically involved in investigating ocular vergence (research jargon as 'angle between the eyes' as opposed to the /action/ of converging), comparing between a collimated image (= light coming to the eye in 'parallel' - from a military helicoptor pilot's HUD) and a real image (= light coming in 'non-parallel') displayed at 3m. At that distance there is already not much difference between focusing or vergence at 3m and at infinity (ie collimated), though discrepancies slightly increase as you move towards the periphery of your vision, though this may have been an artifact of the presentation of the HUD. I am not an expert in 3D and don't proclaim it to be 'there yet'. I do think that 3D is doable if the director stops the temptation of the 'power' closeup to showoff the 3D. So yeah, I think within constraints, 3D is doable. All film has constraints though, and those constraints are gradually eroded over time - such as night-time filming. Fifty years ago we would have heard Ebert proclaiming that it's impossible to film in natural light at night because film needs a certain amount of light, case closed, yet we've seen some amazing cameras arrive recently that can film at night using natural light. EDIT: Another example constraint is limiting yourself to a 'viewing box' - you can't turn your head for a full view of the scene in a movie. You're limited to a particular forced view. Despite this rather incredibly limiting constraint, film has managed to do some pretty amazing stuff.
codingthewheel 16y ago
Ebert's a bit of a crotchety Luddite clinging to the old ways. This rant, coupled with his diatribe last year about how "video games can never be art"... http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve... ...should be interpreted with a grain of salt.
- wahnfrieden 16y ago
  How about responding to the specific points in the article, rather than trying to portray the writer as a luddite clown?
  - tyree732 16y ago
    But that is more difficult than making assumptions based on his age.
marknutter 16y ago
As much as I hate the recent spate of 3D movies, I don't think it has anything to do with the technology, but more about how poorly it is applied. I say this because Avatar, at least for me, was simply mind-blowing; it was easily the most immersive film I've ever watched, but mainly because the 3D was done tastefully, subtly, and with care. You can give me as much hand-waving sudo-science to try to convince me I'm not supposed to have liked it, but it won't change my mind; Avatar in 3D literally brought tears to my eyes.
- moeffju 16y ago
  I applaud you for "sudo-science".
- rapind 16y ago
  Another thing thing he completely misses is gaming. If he'd ever played an FPS in 2d then in 3d he'd be amazed at the immersive difference. Hasn't the video game industry grossed more per year since the early 2000s? Why would anyone declare 3d dead based on a smaller industry like Movies?
  - sid0 16y ago
    What is generally known as 3D gaming is completely different from 3D movies. 3D games are still projected onto the 2D plane of your monitor or TV (though a couple of "3D" 3D games have been released recently, and the 3DS is coming out soon) -- 3D movies aim to provide your brain a 3D illusion.
    - losvedir 16y ago
      Wait, how are they different? All the 3D effects I know of are still the same thing as movies, in that your eyes must always focus on the same distance. With the 3DS, for instance, while the underlying technology is different still consists of your eyes focusing on the same flat surface in your hands, and tricking your eyes with two separate views. Same focus vs. convergence issues as mentioned in the article.
jcfrei 16y ago
when the first steam powered trains were introduced in the late 19th century, many passengers became sick as well - because they nor any generation before has ever travelled so fast before. nowadays everybody rides the trains. if your brain is frequently exposed to 3d films, couldnt it get used to processing that kind of imagery? so as time passes by more and more people go to the movies without a headache?
- rimantas 16y ago
  Your brain will be exposed to the real 3D for much longer though.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Our bodies and brains have a remarkable ability to adapt to particular contexts. This effect is so strong, heroin users can accidentally overdose because their bodies' tolerance can be stronger in a particular location. I think people will be able to adapt to 3D. Whether they will want to has to do with artistry and not a new technology as a gimmick.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Many people still get motion sick in cars, on boats, and on airplanes. We just don't hear about it as much anymore. That doesn't mean the problem has gone away.
  - Murkin 16y ago
    And yet, they still didn't switch back to Horses.. strange
    - GrooveStomp 16y ago
      What's the practicality of switching back to horses? It's prohibitively expensive to do so because using horses as a form of transportation is just not supported by the modern market. I say this as someone who suffers from motion sickness, yet who rides in planes and buses. There simply aren't any reasonably easy alternatives.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
This article could have done without all the pumping up of the authority that Roger was appealing to. Just make your case, big guy. Having said that, I agree, with one catch. Here's the thing: we currently don't have 3-D movies. We have this fake 2-plane deal put on with funky glasses. That's why the cineamtographers can screw around with your eyes so much like the letter writer explains. I want 3-D. True 3-D. Not some hacked up fake 3-D. True 3-D would consist of a large, rotating drum in the middle of my living room, approximately 6 or 7 feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would display as three-dimensional objects, viewable from all angles. Big? Cumbersome? Impractical? Probably. But at least it's a true 3-D experience. When a couple of actors appeared and started talking, it would literally appear as if they were in the same room as you. Directors couldn't have arrows poke out at your eyes or any of that other silly nonsense that they seem to not be able to refrain from doing with the current tech. The current hacky stuff that passes for 3-D is broken and won't be fixed, this much is true. It remains to be seen whether or not this tech finds a niche in games or specialty cinema, though. It's also an open question as to the future of real 3-D. I'm not so crazy about having the terms all mixed up, because the really cool stuff is coming later.
- nazgulnarsil 16y ago
  games and porn, not movies, will drive real 3d. i also think it's much more likely to be in the style of augmented reality (glasses or contacts) than a stationary projector.
- swah 16y ago
  And then you can charge more for front row seats, just like live shows.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > True 3-D would consist of a large, rotating drum in the middle of my living room, approximately 6 or 7 feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would display as three-dimensional objects, viewable from all angles. That's what idea #65 is all about: http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition Minus the drum, but when it's spinning it might as well be a drum.
ars 16y ago
They said the same thing about "Talkies", and I'll quote from wikipedia: "....the new development was treated with suspicion by many filmmakers and critics, who worried that a focus on dialogue would subvert the unique aesthetic virtues of soundless cinema."
- powrtoch 16y ago
  To be fair, they of course were right. There are unique aesthetic values in silent film, and adding dialogue does do away with them (otherwise they wouldn't be unique values). They simply discovered that people consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.
  - wahnfrieden 16y ago
    Absolutely -- and the same applies to color photography. There are still good reasons for shooting in black & white. Color film may be more easily engaging as the images are more familiar, but it is not inherently better aesthetically.
- axod 16y ago
  Adding sound isn't anywhere near the same as adding crappy pseudo-3d effects.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    Most films don't use the 3d well though. It's like if sound was added, but instead of using it give viewers dialogue with inflection, directors mostly used it to add in wacky sound effects for slapstick comedy. However, the fact that it's generally abused now doesn't mean it won't be used well later.
    - axod 16y ago
      If you can't notice the 3d, what's the point. If you can notice it, it distracts from what is going on. It's a no-win situation. Of course it's a win-win situation for the studios selling people 3d.
getonit 16y ago
I watched Toy Story in 3D (with the kids! :) ) and I kept forgetting it was in 3D... I just kinda tuned it out to it, I don't know how to explain it. The 3D aspect was a complete waste after about 5/10 minutes of novelty. Like Murch says, make the atmosphere involving and don't worry about adding frills - if it's good enough, and we'll immerse ourselves without any tech help.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
zyb09 16y ago
Don't know, everybody seems to bash 3D these days. When I watched Avatar I thought it was pretty awesome and didn't get any headaches either. Maybe it's no good having a 3D TV at home and expose ourselves constantly to fake 3D every day, but watching a movie every now and then in the cinema can't be that bad. Edit: Also, all these people are just speculating, there's no science backing up any pro or anti 3D claims. I would be careful giving Nintendo 3DS's to small children, that are still developing vision, but as I said I don't think watching a 3D movie every now and then is a bad thing if you enjoy doing so.
- henrikschroder 16y ago
  Did you even read the article? He's not speculating, he's talking about how human vision works, and how the current 3D technology is more difficult for us humans to process, and he's talking about how the current 3D technology places limitations on the cinematography that 2D movies don't suffer from. Those are big obstacles that make current 3D movies a worse experience. Whether the 3D itself makes up for it is subjective though.
  - scottbessler 16y ago
    No offense to sound engineers, but Murch is not the foremost authority on the brain, the eyes, and whatever else goes into our processing of 3D. Further he hasn't offered any sort of proof, merely conjecture about why he thinks 3D should get off his lawn. Sure, the current technology has some weaknesses, but as others have said, many found it awfully compelling in Avatar (many good reviews, and $2B in revenue).
    - GrooveStomp 16y ago
      I kept thinking this while reading the article, and I'm not sure why nobody else has posted this yet. I am not a fan of "3D" as it exists in it's most recent film form, but this is not a particularly well argued and supported indictment of 3D. I think your comment should be directly in response to the article.
  - 16y ago
RyanMcGreal 16y ago
My problem with 3D is simply that I find I can't disappear into the movie. I'm steadily aware of myself sitting and watching the 3D effects, which ruins the experience.
- gnaffle 16y ago
  I had this feeling with some poorly made 3D movies. But I only occasionally had that feeling while watching Avatar.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    I didn't get this feeling at all with How to Train your Dragon - I thought the 3D was really pretty charming in that movie (just like, you know, everything else about it).
- arn 16y ago
  to add my two cents into this. This is my issue with 3D movies. I find it very distracting. A good for instance is that I recently saw Green Hornet in 3D -- not by choice entirely, since they weren't showing a 2D version. As an example, in one scene, they were panning to a person talking who was sitting behind a desk. The pencil holder was in 3D of course. I was very aware of the pencil holder as a result. But the pencil holder was irrelevant to the scene, but that's all I was looking at.
androith 16y ago
Ah, but if the assumption that people act rationally held, there'd be no religion. I think 3D goes when religion does! Ouch.
bambax 16y ago
The master quote is this: a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with. Don't bother with technology. What "piracy" proves is that people are more than willing to trade quality for convenience. People will put up with crappy image and garbled sound if it means they can watch what they want faster. The movie industry loves technology because technology scales (sort of); but what sells tickets are story and talent.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- dagw 16y ago
  Avatar kind of disproves your whole thesis. It had neither story nor acting talent worth speaking of, and bucket loads of technology. Yet it sold more tickets than just about any other movie in history. I really wish what you said was true and that filmmakers would focus more on great stories, but box office takes show again and again that flashy effects beat great stories 4 times out of 5.
  - wahnfrieden 16y ago
    Good cinema shouldn't be reduced to merely storytelling. The aesthetics are an enormous part of it, and there is plenty of content in form itself. In fact the story itself can be largely irrelevant in a great film -- see Bela Tarr, for one -- although some amount of it is usually necessary as a base. Nor is acting talent particularly necessary either, if handled right. Some of my favorite directors restrain their actors, even great ones, from acting at all (e.g. any Bresson, or Pasolini's Teorema) or they use non-actors to great effect (e.g. Fellini, and Pasolini again with things like Decameron). You do have a point about flashy technology though.
  - bambax 16y ago
    Avatar is a counter-example, yes. But I would argue that in this case the main story was technology itself -- in a non-scalable way: the uniqueness of a technology leap. Incorporating 3D in every single movie just because Avatar was a huge hit would have been like shooting only sinking ships after Titanic.
iwwr 16y ago
Headaches happen mostly to people with poorer eyesight in one eye, a similar effect to wearing the wrong kind of correction eyeglasses. P.S. Tron 2 was much better in 2D than 3D. The darker screen was annoying and the 3D was far from immersive.
- metageek 16y ago
  Thanks for the opinion about Tron. I missed seeing it early, and now the only places showing it near me are in 3D. I was wondering if it'd be worth it. Now I'll just wait for the DVD.
  - mason55 16y ago
    FWIW, I and everyone else I know thought that the 3D+VFX was basically the only reason to see it
    - iwwr 16y ago
      Reasons to watch Tron 2 sequel to a classic: yes 3D: no storyline: no acting: no VFX: yes Daft Punk: yes actual Unix on the big screen: yes hot chicks attracted to nerds: yes Disney 'family policy' WRT said hot chicks: no
      - jerf 16y ago
        Actually I thought the story was pretty good, though it had a couple of holes in it (of the "cut scene" type, not the "bad plot hole" type). It stunned me in that it actually grappled with the consequences of the digitization process in some detail, rather than just blindly reveling in it. It was some decent sci-fi. Consequently it flew above just about everyone's head, especially if you went in with the preconception that it would have no story. (I liked it -> the series is doomed. QED.) It may help to realize that this is a parallel universe to ours and the way their computers appear to work is that they really are an interface to the world of Tron, which is subordinate to the conventional universe but by all appearances is every bit as real. Thus, Clu's plan is not a violation of the conservation of mass, because it's all working differently here. It's much more a 1960s/1970s-style scifi rather than an "ultra-realistic 2010 scifi" (ahem), but within those bounds I was actually pleasantly surprised. Not that it will ever amount to anything but in the back of my head I've actually been working out the physics of Tron, which could be really cool for a 2020-era MMORPG (would take too much processing power to be feasible today), and there's actually enough consistency (perhaps surprisingly) that it's not all in vain; there's different rules, but there are some rules.
shasta 16y ago
Doesn't this assume you don't know the focal plane? If you know what the viewer is focusing on, you can compensate. This means that without any holographic projection techniques, you could fully solve this problem by presenting each viewer with images customized to his detected focus. That might require an expensive headset today, which radically changes the economics of 3D movies, but it doesn't require a breakthrough in science. In fact, it'd probably be safe to just assume that the user is focused on the primary element in the scene. Unfortunately, in a theater, you probably can't compensate for focus in a way that works for all of the audience, so this doesn't solve much.
- Retric 16y ago
  Not a bad idea. You could do it with one person in the theater, but you can take it one step further. Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. (High end video cameras already have this.) Have an adaptive lense in the glasses to vary rapidly change the focal plane from where they eye things it is to the screen. You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane. Granted there are limits on this aproach, but people get used to glasses that have a fixed shift in the focal plain fairly quickly so it should be possible. Now I don't see how you could extrapilate that to a theater full of people, but you can build a system that works for 1 person.
  - shasta 16y ago
    > Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. Sorry I was a bit terse, but that's what I meant by "detected focus." > You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane. That's not it exactly. The problem you're trying to solve is that, when the viewer is focused at one depth but is viewing a flat image at another depth, it will already appear blurry to him. You can't fix that with extra blurring. The fix is to distort the original image, much like corrective lenses. And BTW, I suspect that you can't perform this correction for even a single viewer in the audience unless you're tracking his location and orientation.
    - 16y ago
ajb 16y ago
Interesting that convergence V focus is the problem. That's the same thing that random-dot stereograms have, although it's worth there as you have no cue as to the right convergence depth.
shalmanese 16y ago
Uh, one of the projects the lab I was in was working on was the True3D display: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/ http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/ which handled both accommodation and vergence. This research is almost 8 years old at this point and I don't know the exact progress on it but there are people who are working on it and it is possible to overcome.
mhb 16y ago
So the claim (which sounds reasonable) is that there is a mismatch between the plane on which each eye is focused and the convergence angle between the eyes and we are unaccustomed to this in real life. Why doesn't this also cause discomfort in a conventional 2D movie in which the focal plane and the convergence angle stay the same (both at the screen plane) but our brains expect the convergence angle to change as items from different distances in the movie image come into focus in the movie?
databyss 16y ago
I've seen movies in 3D and they work fine enough for me.
PaulHoule 16y ago
I've greatly enjoyed some 3-D movies. My impression is that the current systems do better when the dynamic range in value isn't very strong. "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs" tried to do all sorts of transmitted light effects that are tempting but don't quite work. Other films, like Avatar, Tangled, Tron, and the 3-d conversions of Toy Story 1+2 and work a lot better. Last weekend I was playing with some 3-D glasses, black paper and colored pencils, trying to draw stereoscopic images by hand. The first thing I realized is that you've really got to get conventional perspective right... It has to tell a consistent story or your brain is going to really rebel.
msluyter 16y ago
I have a problem with 3d in that my eyes never converge, period. I have keratoconus and have had surgery in my left eye, the end result of which is that my eyes have different vision levels, the left being much better than the right. My right eye drifts off a bit (lazy eye) and I focus with my left (better) eye. The entire premise of 3d basically excludes me.
risotto 16y ago
Great read. I agree with less immersion in 3D films. I saw Pixar's "Up" in 3D. Such a touching story. But at the sad scenes, when my eyes started to water up, I became super conscious of the fact that I had silly oversized glasses on my face, and it ruined the moment. Watching the Blu-ray, in the comfort of my own home, I'm bawling like a baby.
- jarek 16y ago
  Did you ever become conscious of the fact that you're sitting in a chair staring at a rectangle? Why or why not?
b3b0p 16y ago
I preordered a Nintendo 3DS on day one it was available from Amazon.com. Not for the the 3D, but for: 1. A New Pilot Wings. No price is too high to pay for a new Pilot Wings. I have been waiting years. 2. Portable Ocarina of Time. Same reason. The entertainment and distraction they provide me (I can play Zelda OoT over and over, it does not get tiring or dull to me) is worth every cent. Edit: English, I can't type it.
- GrooveStomp 16y ago
  I nearly decided on a Nintendo 3DS, but after trying one out in person, I completely changed my mind. I would play it in 2D mode the whole time because the 3D I've seen on it gives me headaches. So basically, I'd be paying a premium for hardware that I would specifically be turning off. Eventually the system might stabilize with some good games like the DS did, but there's going to be a crap-ton of shovelware at first which tries to exploit the 3D effect.
arohner 16y ago
This particular implementation will probably never work, but that doesn't mean "3D movies" in some form will never work. This guy built a stunning demonstration giving a 3d effect with a wiimote and a standard TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
Why would anyone engage in a theoretical discussion about whether 3D cinema would be good to watch? It already exists. You can go buy a ticket and see for yourself. You can do this literally right now. > The 3D image is dark [...] and small. I just saw a 3D movie last week and didn't notice that. > [...] horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. I just saw a 3D movie last week and it was good. I was able to determine this despite having no idea what strobing is. > So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. I just saw a 3D movie last week and had no issues with convergence. > 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. I just saw a 3D movie last week and was very immersed. Next up, we have a scientist with a theory about what the far side of the moon looks like. Apollo whatnow?
- KirinDave 16y ago
  I don't mean to be dismissive of your points, because they do have some merit in this discussion, but I feel compelled to point something out. Lots of people, otherwise very smart and picky people, have absolutely no "taste" for visual content. They will cheerfully accept the most terrible photographs and shakey video if they accept that as par for the course. Artists tend to take a more objective view, and frequently notice things that their audience may not consciously notice, but that do have measurable effects on the overall quality of the production. This is as true for videography as it is for photography (in which emotional investment can make people overlook ridiculous image flaws for years before finally seeing the ugly half-face in the corner or a totally botched focus). Unless you train yourself to look objectively, you're often not seeing what's in front of you, merely representing it and evaluating that representation (which is always the case, of course, but there are naturally degrees of fidelity). For example, I saw Alice in Wonderland 3D, and I was viewing it at the excellent Sundance theater in San Francisco. We're allowed to take drinks into the theater, and we all had a Bit Too Much™ before the start. I don't remember the 3d of that movie being bad, but upon re-inspection and some pointers I can see what a hack-job that was, even among its lackluster peers at the time.
martinkallstrom 16y ago
Fictional dialogue between Ebert and myself: Ebert: "Stop watching that 3D movie, it's straining your eyes!" Me: "But... no it isn't and it's awesome" Ebert: "It isn't immersive! Me: "I'm feeling perfectly immersed, thank you" Ebert: "But there are all these valid but theoretical reasons why you shouldn't enjoy it!" Me: "Would you please just shut up and let me watch the movie? The aliens are about to have all the sex. In 3D!" Ebert: "Hrumph!" You can see how I let myself get the last word there, not counting Ebert's old-grumpy-man-throat-clearing. So clearly I had all the winning arguments. My point is this: All the theoretical reasoning about planes and strains are moot as far as I know. Because in the end... 3D is awesome. I love it, and I wont let any experts in the world convince me otherwise. Even Feynman wouldn't be able to... well ok, maybe Feynman. But none other!
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  You might like it, but a lot of people have problems with it. It gives many people headaches. For many others it's just plain uncomfortable. For others it's a pain to wear a pair of glasses over their own glasses. And for many people the experience of 3D movies isn't much of an improvement over 2D movies.
  - martinkallstrom 16y ago
    Ok, maybe I need to clarify my point further. I guess what I'm really trying to say is: So what?? I don't like bananas in cooked food. But I don't feel the need to lament about it or make up scientific reasons to why it should be abolished. I simply avoid eating it.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      A good number of movies are being released in the theaters as 3D only, this is what has people annoyed by the fad.
      - jarek 16y ago
        Stop going to the 3D showings and let the market do its magic.
voidpointer 16y ago
"3D movies" is a very inaccurate tag applied to the current steroscopic productions and equipment. It is, in a sense, a pragmatic extension of both traditional film-making and film watching. When the technology for producing and watching in real 3d (e.g. volumetric display technology and corresponding recording technology) becomes available, the entire process of producing a movie will be radically different from how it is today. Currently, everything is controlled at production time. Once you get real 3D, the "camera position" is controlled by the viewer. That should be quite a change for directors and editors. Once you get real 3D, you will probably not sit still while watching a production. you will want to move around, explore it. This will have interesting effects when a lot of people are watching a production together and people flock around because they discovered something interesting in the back. Or maybe there will be a controller for moving the camera position, that would take fights for the remote to a whole new level ;) Also, acting might become quite different from what it is today, because recording a movie might no longer be done with a photographic process but may be based purely on motion capturing. Actors would become puppeteers. (Some are today: think Gollum) What I'm trying to say. Real 3D will be much more revolutionary for cinematography. What we are seeing today is just a gimmick. Nothing more.
cgart 16y ago
Let's make one clear: Everything you see today which is called 3D, is NOT 3D! This is just Stereo, or call it also fake-3D! A real 3D "thing" is currently to expensive and not practical for a mass market.
georgieporgie 16y ago
While I think an immersive VR system would be great, I don't understand the appeal of a 3D movie as exists today. Then again, I never understood the appeal of surround sound, since unless I can turn and see something behind me, it makes no sense that sound would come from there. I'm just a four channel (stereo + center + sub) kind of guy.
kragen 16y ago
There are some comments here accusing Murch of Luddism, more or less, and attributing his 3-D skepticism to that. It's worth pointing out that after spending his entire career editing film by hand, he was one of the first editors to switch to editing film with Avid; and after being a prominent proponent of Avid, he was the first film editor to edit a major motion picture with Apple's Final Cut Pro, somewhat against the wishes of Apple, who didn't think it was ready (despite the name). Meanwhile he developed a database application in Filemaker Pro for keeping track of all of the shots in a movie, starting rather early on, as I recall --- an application now in use by some other film editors who have worked with him. So whatever the guy's faults (he does seem to enjoy a good story more than fact-checking it) he's not a Luddite. If he thinks something new won't work, it's not because he distrusts new things. (Disclaimer: he's my father-in-law, so my judgment may be biased.)
- MartinCron 16y ago
  Also, this is a good place to mention that his book, In the Blink of an Eye is an essential book for anyone who is interested in film editing, and an enjoyable book for anyone who is interested in watching movies. Fascinating stuff. Brilliant guy. Note: He's not my father-in-law. I've never met him, just a fan.
gojomo 16y ago
Slate has also covered this, and the problem has been known for a long time: "The Problem With 3-D: It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will." http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/ http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/ With slight differences, stereoscopic 3D on a flat screen is an over-50-year-old technology. It gets repeatedly tried, then the novelty wears off and the negatives become familiar, and it recedes for a while – returning when it's 'novel' again. Perhaps children who watch a lot of screen-3D can adapt. However, it's equally possible lingering impairment to vision could result – temporary or permanent. See the speculation by Mark Pesce about why his 1990s Sega VR project got cancelled: "Keep doing that and you'll go blind" http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32814.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32814.html
Florin_Andrei 16y ago
Well, yeah, the current tech is primitive. However: Increase the frame rate already. 24fps is not the word of god. It's used because that was all they were able to do 100 years ago, and then it became de-facto standard. Time to move on already. Yes, we need to capture more information than simply two video channels (left and right). Probably a lot more. Then we could re-create a true illusion of depth.
jasongullickson 16y ago
While I agree that there has yet to be a film which uses 3D properly (that is to say, a story that could be told no other way) I don't see how "tricking the brain" using stereoscopic images is any different than tricking the brain using other photographic techniques (shallow depth-of-field, exaggerated perspective, etc.)?
scotty79 16y ago
> also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. Can we please ditch 24 fps for the movies? It's not 3d that strobes. It's crappy fps. 3D just makes it noticeable because we never learned to ignore it like in normal movies. I know it gives you that popcorn old school real movie theater feeling, but it just sucks for anyone who had experience with higher FPS (which slowly becomes almost everybody). When I first watched 3d movie few years ago I was strongly annoyed about how my experience was ruined by poor technical quality. When I watched Avatar the IMAX got upgraded so it was much better and because I was immersed in the movie I didn't mind, but low frame-rate was still noticeable. Can movie directors finally decide to shoot movies in higher FPS or they are still afraid that higher frame-rate will make their move have VHS feel not cinema theater feel?
- wahnfrieden 16y ago
  I'm guessing that film or DV shot at a higher frame rate simply can't be shown at most theaters due to equipment limitations. And if you shoot at a higher FPS and reduce it for those theaters, the FPS don't divide evenly so you get horrible artifacts. So it's not just up to the director.
  - scotty79 16y ago
    I've seen a high FPS movie in cinema once. It was amazing. And it was small crappy amateurish cinema and short independent movie. That makes me think that there are other more important causes than just technological limitations of commonly used cinema equipment.
Locke1689 16y ago
I'll wait for the market or the peer-reviewed research, thanks (instead of a sound engineer).
Synaesthesia 16y ago
3D at least needs to be shot in 48 FPS or more - the stuttering effect would be pretty much gone then.
Semiapies 16y ago
Heck, there are even more issues - just ponder set design and many visual effects. You can't fake rain with a little water falling just in front of the camera anymore when you can tell it's just some water right in front of the camera. CGI it? You need those CGI raindrops in three dimensions. Etc. But it's not that 3D will never work, it's that we're clueless about how it will be made to work. 3D films are a distinct medium, not "films++". Right now, we're at the equivalent of the, "I know, let's point a single, unmoving camera at a stage play!" stage of early cinematography. At that point in time, you could come up with an analysis as good as Murch's for why this "filmed stage play" thing was just stupid and could never be satisfying - and it would be just as completely correct. Just like you can't just point a camera at a stage to make a movie, you can't just throw three-dimensionality at a movie production to make a 3D movie. We need to develop a new craft. We need a good decade or more of people poking at this technology in a real, innovative way. We need lots of directors and cinematographers experimenting with this. Hell, we need a horde of film students making inane, pretentious shorts with rented or borrowed equipment - or even people who've never been near a film school. We need this sort of work just to get started in this new medium.
mkramlich 16y ago
My lying eyes have seen many great 3D movies that did work. I respect Ebert because he has great taste and is right about movies far more often than wrong but on this issue I think he has 'cranky old man syndrome', ignoring the baby for the bathwater.
kindlyviking 16y ago
I couldn't read this article because of the stupidly large headshot at the top.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Hmm, It is interesting to think that perhaps we're technologically approaching something like a _boundary_, a point past-which the synthetic simulation of sensory experiences cannot be taken-in merely as entertainment but rather has strong physiological effects. Consider the effects of effects of Ultra-High Resolution Video: "The footage was later projected on a 4 x 7 metre screen for public demonstration and the public were astonished. As the visual effect of the footage travelling down a road was so realistic, some viewers even experienced nausea as a side effect of seeing ultra realistic motion, but not physically feeling the motion. It's like the opposite of seasickness where you can feel movement, but cannot see it while in an enclosed section." http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-62376.html http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-62376.html I think that implies that at the very least, the producers of the most advanced sensory-simulations are going to be somewhat constrained in what they can produce, the opposite of what one thinks of in considering the freedom of film...
singular 16y ago
I'm glad that somebody other than me has come out and complained about the darkness of the image - I ask other people and they act as if it isn't the case, but it was really striking when I went to see Avatar. Major drawback...
nybble 16y ago
Unfortunately Murch's main argument is just wrong wrong. What he doesn't seem to realize is that your state of focus (accommodation) is just about identical for objects at 10 feet away, 20 feet away, etc., out to infinity. So if your eyes converge on a screen 80 feet away, and try to focus on an object 40 feet away, that's absolutely fine, because the state of focus for 40 and 80 feet away are virtually the same anyway. Your visual system can't tell the difference. This is an experimentally demonstrated fact. That is to say, your state of focus varies only for objects less than about ten feet away. Focus on a salt shaker three feet away, and yes, the distant horizon will be out of focus. But focus on a tree about 20 feet away, and the distant horizon will be in perfect focus. For an object to be in focus, the distance from the lens to the film (or in this case, the retina), dr, the distance from the lens to the object, do, and the lens's optical power must obey the lensmaker's equation, (1/di) + (1/do) = P. In the human eye, do = 0.017 m, and P is adjustable. Plot P vs. do, and you'll see the P quickly asymptotes as you move beyond around 3 m. There are perceptual issues with 3D, but this isn't one of them, at least in cinemas where the screen is far away.
wakeup 16y ago
There is no 3D yet in my opinion. What I have seen is about 3 planes of depth. Very static, not ripe for a good movie.

411 points by princeverma 16y ago

I can’t say I’ve got a headache from any of the current crop of 3D films – is my brain doing something different? Also, regarding: "Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images." See: http://www.holografika.com/ http://www.holografika.com/

electromagnetic 16y ago
There were complaints about nausea from Cloverfield's filming technique, despite this technique being used many times before without nearly as much camera control (Blare Witch project had some awful shaky scenes far worse than Cloverfield). I don't buy any of these articles. Yes some people won't respond well to 3D, but the vast majority does and has in every implementation. This is as absurd as saying when the Model T was released, that because of a minority of the population having motion sickness that the automobile is destined to fail. I don't know a single person who has a problem with 3D. Well technically that's a lie, I know someone who's blind in one eye, so with the glasses they're just watching an over expensive 2D movie and without they're just watching a very fuzzy movie.
- lyudmil 16y ago
  I think Murch/Ebert are implicitly drawing a distinction between 3D being something people can watch without having a physical response and 3D as a viable technique for making movies. I understood the argument to be twofold. Firstly, even if you don't get headaches, your brain is still working overtime, which makes your movie-watching experience less pleasurable than it would be if you were watching a true holographic movie. Secondly, because of the way the brain processes images and the illusion created by 3D movies, the technique limits the genre because one cannot use edits that are very rapid or have shots with a lot of horizontal movement. Whether that amounts to "not working" is perhaps up for discussion, but I think they have a point that the problems with 3D extend far beyond the fact that some people have adverse physiological reactions while watching.
- chrislloyd 16y ago
  I, and a bunch of my friends get headaches with 3D movies. Avatar included. The difference with the Model T is that people were willing to bear out neasea for the massive convenience a car brought. Blue aliens are less compelling.
jerf 16y ago
"is my brain doing something different?" It's not out of the question. When I was very young my eyesight was good enough to develop depth perception, but since then my eyes have gone a bit nearsighted. It's not so bad I wear glasses, but it's bad enough that I don't have reliable parallax-based depth perception. I recently went to see the Tron movie in 3D as an experiment, but I wasn't sure I'd even get depth perception in it. In fact I did, and I also can't say that it bothered me any more than a normal movie. I think that's because I didn't have the conflict the other people are talking about because my brain stopped rigidly expecting depth perception a while ago. But you can't build the 3D market on people like me.

Jabbles 16y ago

I was going to quote "Everything that can be invented has been invented", but it turns out it's most likely false: http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm

swombat 16y ago

This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. I'd hate to be introduced like that. That said, his points make sense. I don't get a headache from watching 3D movies but it does cause extra strain. It's more tiring than watching a normal movie. I have no intention of buying a 3D TV at any point in the future, and though I'll go to a 3D cinema for the different experience, if the movie is the right kind for 3D (e.g. Avatar), I certainly don't see it as a revolutionary new technology. Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains use all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what the eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D (which is why, among other things, the world doesn't suddenly look 2-dimensional if you cover one eye). 3D movies provide only one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange feeling because the other 19 cues are missing. Another nail in the coffin of 3DTV: It's been out for years and I don't know a single person who has bought one.

JonnieCache 16y ago
>Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains use all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what the eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D... 3D movies provide only one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange feeling because the other 19 cues are missing. A big one is atmospheric haze, which is easy to reproduce to be fair. It is also the reason for a lot of the perceived inconsistencies in apollo moon photography: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#background...
powrtoch 16y ago
Many of the cues you're referring to are already present in 3d and 2d movies. They're things like focus, texture, "what's covering what", how quickly something moves relative to the viewer, etc.
lkozma 16y ago
This wiki-article lists some of the cues for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

andrewingram 16y ago

I have a degenerative eye condition (keratoconus) which affects one eye more severely than the other, this makes me hesitant to pay extra to watch a film in 3D. I've actually not watched any under the fear that I'd have to walk out of a film that my friends are enjoying. I might head down to an electronics store and give on the 3D televisions a try, that way I'll know if my condition will negatively affect the experience as much as I expect.

robin_reala 16y ago
I have keratoconus as well and haven’t had any problems, but then I’m guessing mine isn’t as bad as your: my glasses correct my sight well enough that it’s fine to just wear the cinema-supplied glasses over the top.
- andrewingram 16y ago
  I've been going back and forth trying different types of contact lenses for about a year now. The best I've had so far can only be described as a minor improvement.

gjm11 16y ago

My own prejudices go along with this completely, but ... (Arthur C) Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong." ... has turned out to be correct often enough that I wouldn't want to place large bets on this. (Digression: there's an obvious difficulty in assessing Clarke's First Law. When someone says something is impossible and is wrong, we can tell because, lo, someone else does it. But when someone says something is impossible and is right, we'll never really know for sure; the most we can say is that no one has done it yet. So: time travel? teleportation? faster than light travel? Plenty of eminent (and in some cases elderly) scientists have said, and doubtless will continue to say, that these things are impossible; for all we know they really are; but even if they are we'll never know for sure that Clarke's First Law is wrong for them.) [EDITED in response to two comments: If the claim is "3D done just like it is now will never work" then I agree that CFL isn't very relevant. If it's "3D movies will never work", which is what I think "3D doesn't work and never will" ought to mean, then I think CFL applies. So maybe I'm really only criticizing Ebert and not Murch, who does embed into his comments the sentence 'Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.'. I do wonder whether the quotes around "holographic" are trying to define it to mean "anything that fixes this problem" rather than strictly "something close to full-wavefront reconstruction using coherent light", in which case I guess he's right by definition and therefore vacuously. I would certainly not want to bet that actual literal holograms are the only way to solve the problem.]

henrikschroder 16y ago
Except it doesn't apply in this case. He is saying that true 3D, some sort of holographic display would work fine, but the current fake 3D has a lot of problems. It places constraints on the cinematography, and it doesn't always enhance the end result.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- vacri 16y ago
  Except that it does apply in this case. If your director can keep away from close foreground shots, you don't get this problem. The angles between the eyes and the focusing power of the lens differ minimally once you get several meters away on out to infinity. From several meters to your nose, yes, heaps of variance is required and it would be very hard to do. This is just Ebert being an idiot and saying "This is my opinion, stated as fact, case closed. I won't enter into any discussion because I might be wrong", just like he said when he declared video games weren't art. It is /profoundly/ unscientific to dismiss something as unfactual simply because you don't like it. Back in the day, my honours degree was specifically involved in investigating ocular vergence (research jargon as 'angle between the eyes' as opposed to the /action/ of converging), comparing between a collimated image (= light coming to the eye in 'parallel' - from a military helicoptor pilot's HUD) and a real image (= light coming in 'non-parallel') displayed at 3m. At that distance there is already not much difference between focusing or vergence at 3m and at infinity (ie collimated), though discrepancies slightly increase as you move towards the periphery of your vision, though this may have been an artifact of the presentation of the HUD. I am not an expert in 3D and don't proclaim it to be 'there yet'. I do think that 3D is doable if the director stops the temptation of the 'power' closeup to showoff the 3D. So yeah, I think within constraints, 3D is doable. All film has constraints though, and those constraints are gradually eroded over time - such as night-time filming. Fifty years ago we would have heard Ebert proclaiming that it's impossible to film in natural light at night because film needs a certain amount of light, case closed, yet we've seen some amazing cameras arrive recently that can film at night using natural light. EDIT: Another example constraint is limiting yourself to a 'viewing box' - you can't turn your head for a full view of the scene in a movie. You're limited to a particular forced view. Despite this rather incredibly limiting constraint, film has managed to do some pretty amazing stuff.

codingthewheel 16y ago

Ebert's a bit of a crotchety Luddite clinging to the old ways. This rant, coupled with his diatribe last year about how "video games can never be art"... http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve... ...should be interpreted with a grain of salt.

wahnfrieden 16y ago
How about responding to the specific points in the article, rather than trying to portray the writer as a luddite clown?
- tyree732 16y ago
  But that is more difficult than making assumptions based on his age.

marknutter 16y ago

As much as I hate the recent spate of 3D movies, I don't think it has anything to do with the technology, but more about how poorly it is applied. I say this because Avatar, at least for me, was simply mind-blowing; it was easily the most immersive film I've ever watched, but mainly because the 3D was done tastefully, subtly, and with care. You can give me as much hand-waving sudo-science to try to convince me I'm not supposed to have liked it, but it won't change my mind; Avatar in 3D literally brought tears to my eyes.

moeffju 16y ago
I applaud you for "sudo-science".
rapind 16y ago
Another thing thing he completely misses is gaming. If he'd ever played an FPS in 2d then in 3d he'd be amazed at the immersive difference. Hasn't the video game industry grossed more per year since the early 2000s? Why would anyone declare 3d dead based on a smaller industry like Movies?
- sid0 16y ago
  What is generally known as 3D gaming is completely different from 3D movies. 3D games are still projected onto the 2D plane of your monitor or TV (though a couple of "3D" 3D games have been released recently, and the 3DS is coming out soon) -- 3D movies aim to provide your brain a 3D illusion.
  - losvedir 16y ago
    Wait, how are they different? All the 3D effects I know of are still the same thing as movies, in that your eyes must always focus on the same distance. With the 3DS, for instance, while the underlying technology is different still consists of your eyes focusing on the same flat surface in your hands, and tricking your eyes with two separate views. Same focus vs. convergence issues as mentioned in the article.

jcfrei 16y ago

when the first steam powered trains were introduced in the late 19th century, many passengers became sick as well - because they nor any generation before has ever travelled so fast before. nowadays everybody rides the trains. if your brain is frequently exposed to 3d films, couldnt it get used to processing that kind of imagery? so as time passes by more and more people go to the movies without a headache?

rimantas 16y ago
Your brain will be exposed to the real 3D for much longer though.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Our bodies and brains have a remarkable ability to adapt to particular contexts. This effect is so strong, heroin users can accidentally overdose because their bodies' tolerance can be stronger in a particular location. I think people will be able to adapt to 3D. Whether they will want to has to do with artistry and not a new technology as a gimmick.
krschultz 16y ago
Many people still get motion sick in cars, on boats, and on airplanes. We just don't hear about it as much anymore. That doesn't mean the problem has gone away.
- Murkin 16y ago
  And yet, they still didn't switch back to Horses.. strange
  - GrooveStomp 16y ago
    What's the practicality of switching back to horses? It's prohibitively expensive to do so because using horses as a form of transportation is just not supported by the modern market. I say this as someone who suffers from motion sickness, yet who rides in planes and buses. There simply aren't any reasonably easy alternatives.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

This article could have done without all the pumping up of the authority that Roger was appealing to. Just make your case, big guy. Having said that, I agree, with one catch. Here's the thing: we currently don't have 3-D movies. We have this fake 2-plane deal put on with funky glasses. That's why the cineamtographers can screw around with your eyes so much like the letter writer explains. I want 3-D. True 3-D. Not some hacked up fake 3-D. True 3-D would consist of a large, rotating drum in the middle of my living room, approximately 6 or 7 feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would display as three-dimensional objects, viewable from all angles. Big? Cumbersome? Impractical? Probably. But at least it's a true 3-D experience. When a couple of actors appeared and started talking, it would literally appear as if they were in the same room as you. Directors couldn't have arrows poke out at your eyes or any of that other silly nonsense that they seem to not be able to refrain from doing with the current tech. The current hacky stuff that passes for 3-D is broken and won't be fixed, this much is true. It remains to be seen whether or not this tech finds a niche in games or specialty cinema, though. It's also an open question as to the future of real 3-D. I'm not so crazy about having the terms all mixed up, because the really cool stuff is coming later.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago
games and porn, not movies, will drive real 3d. i also think it's much more likely to be in the style of augmented reality (glasses or contacts) than a stationary projector.
swah 16y ago
And then you can charge more for front row seats, just like live shows.
jacquesm 16y ago
> True 3-D would consist of a large, rotating drum in the middle of my living room, approximately 6 or 7 feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would display as three-dimensional objects, viewable from all angles. That's what idea #65 is all about: http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition Minus the drum, but when it's spinning it might as well be a drum.

ars 16y ago

They said the same thing about "Talkies", and I'll quote from wikipedia: "....the new development was treated with suspicion by many filmmakers and critics, who worried that a focus on dialogue would subvert the unique aesthetic virtues of soundless cinema."

powrtoch 16y ago
To be fair, they of course were right. There are unique aesthetic values in silent film, and adding dialogue does do away with them (otherwise they wouldn't be unique values). They simply discovered that people consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.
- wahnfrieden 16y ago
  Absolutely -- and the same applies to color photography. There are still good reasons for shooting in black & white. Color film may be more easily engaging as the images are more familiar, but it is not inherently better aesthetically.
axod 16y ago
Adding sound isn't anywhere near the same as adding crappy pseudo-3d effects.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  Most films don't use the 3d well though. It's like if sound was added, but instead of using it give viewers dialogue with inflection, directors mostly used it to add in wacky sound effects for slapstick comedy. However, the fact that it's generally abused now doesn't mean it won't be used well later.
  - axod 16y ago
    If you can't notice the 3d, what's the point. If you can notice it, it distracts from what is going on. It's a no-win situation. Of course it's a win-win situation for the studios selling people 3d.

getonit 16y ago

I watched Toy Story in 3D (with the kids! :) ) and I kept forgetting it was in 3D... I just kinda tuned it out to it, I don't know how to explain it. The 3D aspect was a complete waste after about 5/10 minutes of novelty. Like Murch says, make the atmosphere involving and don't worry about adding frills - if it's good enough, and we'll immerse ourselves without any tech help.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

zyb09 16y ago

Don't know, everybody seems to bash 3D these days. When I watched Avatar I thought it was pretty awesome and didn't get any headaches either. Maybe it's no good having a 3D TV at home and expose ourselves constantly to fake 3D every day, but watching a movie every now and then in the cinema can't be that bad. Edit: Also, all these people are just speculating, there's no science backing up any pro or anti 3D claims. I would be careful giving Nintendo 3DS's to small children, that are still developing vision, but as I said I don't think watching a 3D movie every now and then is a bad thing if you enjoy doing so.

henrikschroder 16y ago
Did you even read the article? He's not speculating, he's talking about how human vision works, and how the current 3D technology is more difficult for us humans to process, and he's talking about how the current 3D technology places limitations on the cinematography that 2D movies don't suffer from. Those are big obstacles that make current 3D movies a worse experience. Whether the 3D itself makes up for it is subjective though.
- scottbessler 16y ago
  No offense to sound engineers, but Murch is not the foremost authority on the brain, the eyes, and whatever else goes into our processing of 3D. Further he hasn't offered any sort of proof, merely conjecture about why he thinks 3D should get off his lawn. Sure, the current technology has some weaknesses, but as others have said, many found it awfully compelling in Avatar (many good reviews, and $2B in revenue).
  - GrooveStomp 16y ago
    I kept thinking this while reading the article, and I'm not sure why nobody else has posted this yet. I am not a fan of "3D" as it exists in it's most recent film form, but this is not a particularly well argued and supported indictment of 3D. I think your comment should be directly in response to the article.
- 16y ago

RyanMcGreal 16y ago

My problem with 3D is simply that I find I can't disappear into the movie. I'm steadily aware of myself sitting and watching the 3D effects, which ruins the experience.

gnaffle 16y ago
I had this feeling with some poorly made 3D movies. But I only occasionally had that feeling while watching Avatar.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  I didn't get this feeling at all with How to Train your Dragon - I thought the 3D was really pretty charming in that movie (just like, you know, everything else about it).
arn 16y ago
to add my two cents into this. This is my issue with 3D movies. I find it very distracting. A good for instance is that I recently saw Green Hornet in 3D -- not by choice entirely, since they weren't showing a 2D version. As an example, in one scene, they were panning to a person talking who was sitting behind a desk. The pencil holder was in 3D of course. I was very aware of the pencil holder as a result. But the pencil holder was irrelevant to the scene, but that's all I was looking at.

androith 16y ago

Ah, but if the assumption that people act rationally held, there'd be no religion. I think 3D goes when religion does! Ouch.

bambax 16y ago

The master quote is this: a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with. Don't bother with technology. What "piracy" proves is that people are more than willing to trade quality for convenience. People will put up with crappy image and garbled sound if it means they can watch what they want faster. The movie industry loves technology because technology scales (sort of); but what sells tickets are story and talent.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dagw 16y ago
Avatar kind of disproves your whole thesis. It had neither story nor acting talent worth speaking of, and bucket loads of technology. Yet it sold more tickets than just about any other movie in history. I really wish what you said was true and that filmmakers would focus more on great stories, but box office takes show again and again that flashy effects beat great stories 4 times out of 5.
- wahnfrieden 16y ago
  Good cinema shouldn't be reduced to merely storytelling. The aesthetics are an enormous part of it, and there is plenty of content in form itself. In fact the story itself can be largely irrelevant in a great film -- see Bela Tarr, for one -- although some amount of it is usually necessary as a base. Nor is acting talent particularly necessary either, if handled right. Some of my favorite directors restrain their actors, even great ones, from acting at all (e.g. any Bresson, or Pasolini's Teorema) or they use non-actors to great effect (e.g. Fellini, and Pasolini again with things like Decameron). You do have a point about flashy technology though.
- bambax 16y ago
  Avatar is a counter-example, yes. But I would argue that in this case the main story was technology itself -- in a non-scalable way: the uniqueness of a technology leap. Incorporating 3D in every single movie just because Avatar was a huge hit would have been like shooting only sinking ships after Titanic.

iwwr 16y ago

Headaches happen mostly to people with poorer eyesight in one eye, a similar effect to wearing the wrong kind of correction eyeglasses. P.S. Tron 2 was much better in 2D than 3D. The darker screen was annoying and the 3D was far from immersive.

metageek 16y ago
Thanks for the opinion about Tron. I missed seeing it early, and now the only places showing it near me are in 3D. I was wondering if it'd be worth it. Now I'll just wait for the DVD.
- mason55 16y ago
  FWIW, I and everyone else I know thought that the 3D+VFX was basically the only reason to see it
  - iwwr 16y ago
    Reasons to watch Tron 2 sequel to a classic: yes 3D: no storyline: no acting: no VFX: yes Daft Punk: yes actual Unix on the big screen: yes hot chicks attracted to nerds: yes Disney 'family policy' WRT said hot chicks: no
    - jerf 16y ago
      Actually I thought the story was pretty good, though it had a couple of holes in it (of the "cut scene" type, not the "bad plot hole" type). It stunned me in that it actually grappled with the consequences of the digitization process in some detail, rather than just blindly reveling in it. It was some decent sci-fi. Consequently it flew above just about everyone's head, especially if you went in with the preconception that it would have no story. (I liked it -> the series is doomed. QED.) It may help to realize that this is a parallel universe to ours and the way their computers appear to work is that they really are an interface to the world of Tron, which is subordinate to the conventional universe but by all appearances is every bit as real. Thus, Clu's plan is not a violation of the conservation of mass, because it's all working differently here. It's much more a 1960s/1970s-style scifi rather than an "ultra-realistic 2010 scifi" (ahem), but within those bounds I was actually pleasantly surprised. Not that it will ever amount to anything but in the back of my head I've actually been working out the physics of Tron, which could be really cool for a 2020-era MMORPG (would take too much processing power to be feasible today), and there's actually enough consistency (perhaps surprisingly) that it's not all in vain; there's different rules, but there are some rules.

shasta 16y ago

Doesn't this assume you don't know the focal plane? If you know what the viewer is focusing on, you can compensate. This means that without any holographic projection techniques, you could fully solve this problem by presenting each viewer with images customized to his detected focus. That might require an expensive headset today, which radically changes the economics of 3D movies, but it doesn't require a breakthrough in science. In fact, it'd probably be safe to just assume that the user is focused on the primary element in the scene. Unfortunately, in a theater, you probably can't compensate for focus in a way that works for all of the audience, so this doesn't solve much.

Retric 16y ago
Not a bad idea. You could do it with one person in the theater, but you can take it one step further. Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. (High end video cameras already have this.) Have an adaptive lense in the glasses to vary rapidly change the focal plane from where they eye things it is to the screen. You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane. Granted there are limits on this aproach, but people get used to glasses that have a fixed shift in the focal plain fairly quickly so it should be possible. Now I don't see how you could extrapilate that to a theater full of people, but you can build a system that works for 1 person.
- shasta 16y ago
  > Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. Sorry I was a bit terse, but that's what I meant by "detected focus." > You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane. That's not it exactly. The problem you're trying to solve is that, when the viewer is focused at one depth but is viewing a flat image at another depth, it will already appear blurry to him. You can't fix that with extra blurring. The fix is to distort the original image, much like corrective lenses. And BTW, I suspect that you can't perform this correction for even a single viewer in the audience unless you're tracking his location and orientation.
  - 16y ago

ajb 16y ago

Interesting that convergence V focus is the problem. That's the same thing that random-dot stereograms have, although it's worth there as you have no cue as to the right convergence depth.

shalmanese 16y ago

Uh, one of the projects the lab I was in was working on was the True3D display: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/ http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/ which handled both accommodation and vergence. This research is almost 8 years old at this point and I don't know the exact progress on it but there are people who are working on it and it is possible to overcome.

mhb 16y ago

So the claim (which sounds reasonable) is that there is a mismatch between the plane on which each eye is focused and the convergence angle between the eyes and we are unaccustomed to this in real life. Why doesn't this also cause discomfort in a conventional 2D movie in which the focal plane and the convergence angle stay the same (both at the screen plane) but our brains expect the convergence angle to change as items from different distances in the movie image come into focus in the movie?

databyss 16y ago

I've seen movies in 3D and they work fine enough for me.

PaulHoule 16y ago

I've greatly enjoyed some 3-D movies. My impression is that the current systems do better when the dynamic range in value isn't very strong. "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs" tried to do all sorts of transmitted light effects that are tempting but don't quite work. Other films, like Avatar, Tangled, Tron, and the 3-d conversions of Toy Story 1+2 and work a lot better. Last weekend I was playing with some 3-D glasses, black paper and colored pencils, trying to draw stereoscopic images by hand. The first thing I realized is that you've really got to get conventional perspective right... It has to tell a consistent story or your brain is going to really rebel.

msluyter 16y ago

I have a problem with 3d in that my eyes never converge, period. I have keratoconus and have had surgery in my left eye, the end result of which is that my eyes have different vision levels, the left being much better than the right. My right eye drifts off a bit (lazy eye) and I focus with my left (better) eye. The entire premise of 3d basically excludes me.

risotto 16y ago

Great read. I agree with less immersion in 3D films. I saw Pixar's "Up" in 3D. Such a touching story. But at the sad scenes, when my eyes started to water up, I became super conscious of the fact that I had silly oversized glasses on my face, and it ruined the moment. Watching the Blu-ray, in the comfort of my own home, I'm bawling like a baby.

jarek 16y ago
Did you ever become conscious of the fact that you're sitting in a chair staring at a rectangle? Why or why not?

b3b0p 16y ago

I preordered a Nintendo 3DS on day one it was available from Amazon.com. Not for the the 3D, but for: 1. A New Pilot Wings. No price is too high to pay for a new Pilot Wings. I have been waiting years. 2. Portable Ocarina of Time. Same reason. The entertainment and distraction they provide me (I can play Zelda OoT over and over, it does not get tiring or dull to me) is worth every cent. Edit: English, I can't type it.

GrooveStomp 16y ago
I nearly decided on a Nintendo 3DS, but after trying one out in person, I completely changed my mind. I would play it in 2D mode the whole time because the 3D I've seen on it gives me headaches. So basically, I'd be paying a premium for hardware that I would specifically be turning off. Eventually the system might stabilize with some good games like the DS did, but there's going to be a crap-ton of shovelware at first which tries to exploit the 3D effect.

arohner 16y ago

This particular implementation will probably never work, but that doesn't mean "3D movies" in some form will never work. This guy built a stunning demonstration giving a 3d effect with a wiimote and a standard TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

bluesnowmonkey 16y ago

Why would anyone engage in a theoretical discussion about whether 3D cinema would be good to watch? It already exists. You can go buy a ticket and see for yourself. You can do this literally right now. > The 3D image is dark [...] and small. I just saw a 3D movie last week and didn't notice that. > [...] horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. I just saw a 3D movie last week and it was good. I was able to determine this despite having no idea what strobing is. > So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. I just saw a 3D movie last week and had no issues with convergence. > 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. I just saw a 3D movie last week and was very immersed. Next up, we have a scientist with a theory about what the far side of the moon looks like. Apollo whatnow?

KirinDave 16y ago
I don't mean to be dismissive of your points, because they do have some merit in this discussion, but I feel compelled to point something out. Lots of people, otherwise very smart and picky people, have absolutely no "taste" for visual content. They will cheerfully accept the most terrible photographs and shakey video if they accept that as par for the course. Artists tend to take a more objective view, and frequently notice things that their audience may not consciously notice, but that do have measurable effects on the overall quality of the production. This is as true for videography as it is for photography (in which emotional investment can make people overlook ridiculous image flaws for years before finally seeing the ugly half-face in the corner or a totally botched focus). Unless you train yourself to look objectively, you're often not seeing what's in front of you, merely representing it and evaluating that representation (which is always the case, of course, but there are naturally degrees of fidelity). For example, I saw Alice in Wonderland 3D, and I was viewing it at the excellent Sundance theater in San Francisco. We're allowed to take drinks into the theater, and we all had a Bit Too Much™ before the start. I don't remember the 3d of that movie being bad, but upon re-inspection and some pointers I can see what a hack-job that was, even among its lackluster peers at the time.

martinkallstrom 16y ago

Fictional dialogue between Ebert and myself: Ebert: "Stop watching that 3D movie, it's straining your eyes!" Me: "But... no it isn't and it's awesome" Ebert: "It isn't immersive! Me: "I'm feeling perfectly immersed, thank you" Ebert: "But there are all these valid but theoretical reasons why you shouldn't enjoy it!" Me: "Would you please just shut up and let me watch the movie? The aliens are about to have all the sex. In 3D!" Ebert: "Hrumph!" You can see how I let myself get the last word there, not counting Ebert's old-grumpy-man-throat-clearing. So clearly I had all the winning arguments. My point is this: All the theoretical reasoning about planes and strains are moot as far as I know. Because in the end... 3D is awesome. I love it, and I wont let any experts in the world convince me otherwise. Even Feynman wouldn't be able to... well ok, maybe Feynman. But none other!

InclinedPlane 16y ago
You might like it, but a lot of people have problems with it. It gives many people headaches. For many others it's just plain uncomfortable. For others it's a pain to wear a pair of glasses over their own glasses. And for many people the experience of 3D movies isn't much of an improvement over 2D movies.
- martinkallstrom 16y ago
  Ok, maybe I need to clarify my point further. I guess what I'm really trying to say is: So what?? I don't like bananas in cooked food. But I don't feel the need to lament about it or make up scientific reasons to why it should be abolished. I simply avoid eating it.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    A good number of movies are being released in the theaters as 3D only, this is what has people annoyed by the fad.
    - jarek 16y ago
      Stop going to the 3D showings and let the market do its magic.

voidpointer 16y ago

"3D movies" is a very inaccurate tag applied to the current steroscopic productions and equipment. It is, in a sense, a pragmatic extension of both traditional film-making and film watching. When the technology for producing and watching in real 3d (e.g. volumetric display technology and corresponding recording technology) becomes available, the entire process of producing a movie will be radically different from how it is today. Currently, everything is controlled at production time. Once you get real 3D, the "camera position" is controlled by the viewer. That should be quite a change for directors and editors. Once you get real 3D, you will probably not sit still while watching a production. you will want to move around, explore it. This will have interesting effects when a lot of people are watching a production together and people flock around because they discovered something interesting in the back. Or maybe there will be a controller for moving the camera position, that would take fights for the remote to a whole new level ;) Also, acting might become quite different from what it is today, because recording a movie might no longer be done with a photographic process but may be based purely on motion capturing. Actors would become puppeteers. (Some are today: think Gollum) What I'm trying to say. Real 3D will be much more revolutionary for cinematography. What we are seeing today is just a gimmick. Nothing more.

cgart 16y ago

Let's make one clear: Everything you see today which is called 3D, is NOT 3D! This is just Stereo, or call it also fake-3D! A real 3D "thing" is currently to expensive and not practical for a mass market.

georgieporgie 16y ago

While I think an immersive VR system would be great, I don't understand the appeal of a 3D movie as exists today. Then again, I never understood the appeal of surround sound, since unless I can turn and see something behind me, it makes no sense that sound would come from there. I'm just a four channel (stereo + center + sub) kind of guy.

kragen 16y ago

There are some comments here accusing Murch of Luddism, more or less, and attributing his 3-D skepticism to that. It's worth pointing out that after spending his entire career editing film by hand, he was one of the first editors to switch to editing film with Avid; and after being a prominent proponent of Avid, he was the first film editor to edit a major motion picture with Apple's Final Cut Pro, somewhat against the wishes of Apple, who didn't think it was ready (despite the name). Meanwhile he developed a database application in Filemaker Pro for keeping track of all of the shots in a movie, starting rather early on, as I recall --- an application now in use by some other film editors who have worked with him. So whatever the guy's faults (he does seem to enjoy a good story more than fact-checking it) he's not a Luddite. If he thinks something new won't work, it's not because he distrusts new things. (Disclaimer: he's my father-in-law, so my judgment may be biased.)

MartinCron 16y ago
Also, this is a good place to mention that his book, In the Blink of an Eye is an essential book for anyone who is interested in film editing, and an enjoyable book for anyone who is interested in watching movies. Fascinating stuff. Brilliant guy. Note: He's not my father-in-law. I've never met him, just a fan.

gojomo 16y ago

Slate has also covered this, and the problem has been known for a long time: "The Problem With 3-D: It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will." http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/ http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/ With slight differences, stereoscopic 3D on a flat screen is an over-50-year-old technology. It gets repeatedly tried, then the novelty wears off and the negatives become familiar, and it recedes for a while – returning when it's 'novel' again. Perhaps children who watch a lot of screen-3D can adapt. However, it's equally possible lingering impairment to vision could result – temporary or permanent. See the speculation by Mark Pesce about why his 1990s Sega VR project got cancelled: "Keep doing that and you'll go blind" http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32814.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32814.html

Florin_Andrei 16y ago

Well, yeah, the current tech is primitive. However: Increase the frame rate already. 24fps is not the word of god. It's used because that was all they were able to do 100 years ago, and then it became de-facto standard. Time to move on already. Yes, we need to capture more information than simply two video channels (left and right). Probably a lot more. Then we could re-create a true illusion of depth.

jasongullickson 16y ago

While I agree that there has yet to be a film which uses 3D properly (that is to say, a story that could be told no other way) I don't see how "tricking the brain" using stereoscopic images is any different than tricking the brain using other photographic techniques (shallow depth-of-field, exaggerated perspective, etc.)?

scotty79 16y ago

> also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. Can we please ditch 24 fps for the movies? It's not 3d that strobes. It's crappy fps. 3D just makes it noticeable because we never learned to ignore it like in normal movies. I know it gives you that popcorn old school real movie theater feeling, but it just sucks for anyone who had experience with higher FPS (which slowly becomes almost everybody). When I first watched 3d movie few years ago I was strongly annoyed about how my experience was ruined by poor technical quality. When I watched Avatar the IMAX got upgraded so it was much better and because I was immersed in the movie I didn't mind, but low frame-rate was still noticeable. Can movie directors finally decide to shoot movies in higher FPS or they are still afraid that higher frame-rate will make their move have VHS feel not cinema theater feel?

wahnfrieden 16y ago
I'm guessing that film or DV shot at a higher frame rate simply can't be shown at most theaters due to equipment limitations. And if you shoot at a higher FPS and reduce it for those theaters, the FPS don't divide evenly so you get horrible artifacts. So it's not just up to the director.
- scotty79 16y ago
  I've seen a high FPS movie in cinema once. It was amazing. And it was small crappy amateurish cinema and short independent movie. That makes me think that there are other more important causes than just technological limitations of commonly used cinema equipment.

Locke1689 16y ago

I'll wait for the market or the peer-reviewed research, thanks (instead of a sound engineer).

Synaesthesia 16y ago

3D at least needs to be shot in 48 FPS or more - the stuttering effect would be pretty much gone then.

Semiapies 16y ago

Heck, there are even more issues - just ponder set design and many visual effects. You can't fake rain with a little water falling just in front of the camera anymore when you can tell it's just some water right in front of the camera. CGI it? You need those CGI raindrops in three dimensions. Etc. But it's not that 3D will never work, it's that we're clueless about how it will be made to work. 3D films are a distinct medium, not "films++". Right now, we're at the equivalent of the, "I know, let's point a single, unmoving camera at a stage play!" stage of early cinematography. At that point in time, you could come up with an analysis as good as Murch's for why this "filmed stage play" thing was just stupid and could never be satisfying - and it would be just as completely correct. Just like you can't just point a camera at a stage to make a movie, you can't just throw three-dimensionality at a movie production to make a 3D movie. We need to develop a new craft. We need a good decade or more of people poking at this technology in a real, innovative way. We need lots of directors and cinematographers experimenting with this. Hell, we need a horde of film students making inane, pretentious shorts with rented or borrowed equipment - or even people who've never been near a film school. We need this sort of work just to get started in this new medium.

mkramlich 16y ago

My lying eyes have seen many great 3D movies that did work. I respect Ebert because he has great taste and is right about movies far more often than wrong but on this issue I think he has 'cranky old man syndrome', ignoring the baby for the bathwater.

kindlyviking 16y ago

I couldn't read this article because of the stupidly large headshot at the top.

joe_the_user 16y ago

Hmm, It is interesting to think that perhaps we're technologically approaching something like a _boundary_, a point past-which the synthetic simulation of sensory experiences cannot be taken-in merely as entertainment but rather has strong physiological effects. Consider the effects of effects of Ultra-High Resolution Video: "The footage was later projected on a 4 x 7 metre screen for public demonstration and the public were astonished. As the visual effect of the footage travelling down a road was so realistic, some viewers even experienced nausea as a side effect of seeing ultra realistic motion, but not physically feeling the motion. It's like the opposite of seasickness where you can feel movement, but cannot see it while in an enclosed section." http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-62376.html http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-62376.html I think that implies that at the very least, the producers of the most advanced sensory-simulations are going to be somewhat constrained in what they can produce, the opposite of what one thinks of in considering the freedom of film...

singular 16y ago

I'm glad that somebody other than me has come out and complained about the darkness of the image - I ask other people and they act as if it isn't the case, but it was really striking when I went to see Avatar. Major drawback...

nybble 16y ago

Unfortunately Murch's main argument is just wrong wrong. What he doesn't seem to realize is that your state of focus (accommodation) is just about identical for objects at 10 feet away, 20 feet away, etc., out to infinity. So if your eyes converge on a screen 80 feet away, and try to focus on an object 40 feet away, that's absolutely fine, because the state of focus for 40 and 80 feet away are virtually the same anyway. Your visual system can't tell the difference. This is an experimentally demonstrated fact. That is to say, your state of focus varies only for objects less than about ten feet away. Focus on a salt shaker three feet away, and yes, the distant horizon will be out of focus. But focus on a tree about 20 feet away, and the distant horizon will be in perfect focus. For an object to be in focus, the distance from the lens to the film (or in this case, the retina), dr, the distance from the lens to the object, do, and the lens's optical power must obey the lensmaker's equation, (1/di) + (1/do) = P. In the human eye, do = 0.017 m, and P is adjustable. Plot P vs. do, and you'll see the P quickly asymptotes as you move beyond around 3 m. There are perceptual issues with 3D, but this isn't one of them, at least in cinemas where the screen is far away.

wakeup 16y ago

There is no 3D yet in my opinion. What I have seen is about 3 planes of depth. Very static, not ripe for a good movie.