5 ms·

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 be

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.
    - sid0 16y ago
      Yes, 3DS and "3D" 3D games have the same problems as 3D movies. What I was saying was that what is generally meant by 3D gaming (3D games projected on a 2D plane, with no intention to create an illusion) doesn't.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
  - rapind 16y ago
    True, but I'm referring to "3D" 3D. Wearing glasses. I only played a couple at CES last year (2010) and was blown away. There's also the Vuzix which are a little bulky, but again pretty amazing w/ games.
    - sid0 16y ago
      Well, you were referring to games from the early '00s, which didn't have "3D" 3D. (God, that's awful. Anyone know of a better way to express that?) In any case, it remains to be seen how accepted "3D" 3D gaming is by the public.
      - baq 16y ago
        stereo 3D is the word you're looking for, probably.
      - rapind 16y ago
        Ahh no, all I was stating about the early 2000s is that I think it was around then (2004 or earlier) when video games surpassed hollywood in revenue. Since new technology like 3D applies to both of these markets, why does everyone seem so focused on the smaller of the two (movies) instead of where the real money is (games). Declaring a technology dead because it doesn't work for movies (I'm not convinced of that) is silly because it ignores the larger relevant market of video games. The technology is certainly not dead even if we never saw another 3D movie.
- wahnfrieden 16y ago
  Immersion, entertainment value, coolness factor and marketability aren't really the criteria Ebert was taking into account in his article on video games as art, nor in his criticisms of 3D cinema. He's also not denigrating games as being lousy just because they're not art.
baggachipz 16y ago
"I don't believe your research." $> sudo science "I believe you now."
- JonnieCache 16y ago
  When I finish my tab-completion script for the science command we're gonna have green energy, space elevators and jetpacks by the end of the week dude.
- marknutter 16y ago
  This comment made my misspelling entirely worthwhile.
alttab 16y ago
Nothing like an un-biased view of how "3D" will never work from a guy who has built his career off of making sound-systems.
- JonnieCache 16y ago
  Yeah, because people who spend their careers thinking about waveform dispersion, destructive/constructive interference patterns and the effect of microsecond-level sensory input timing on human spatial perception would never have anything relevant to say about 3D. The only fundamental difference is one of wavelength.
  - alttab 16y ago
    Too bad its obvious the new money is going into 3D, not the things he may have spent the last 40 years perfecting. How much of the $3.50 "3D upcharge" is this guy seeing? My initial guess is "none."
Murkin 16y ago
I wish I could up-vote you 50 times, as this is the best, by far, response to this pompous article.
- martinkallstrom 16y ago
  I heartfully agree.
- wahnfrieden 16y ago
  The title is pompously superlative, but the content raises specific points which merit discussion.
wahnfrieden 16y ago
I just want to point out that immersion is not really a good criteria of good cinema. It can be used effectively, but many of the greatest films take strides to be as non-immersive as possible, using things like distancing techniques. Many films want you to be aware that you're watching a film. Immersion is not obviously or inherently a good thing.

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.
  - sid0 16y ago
    Yes, 3DS and "3D" 3D games have the same problems as 3D movies. What I was saying was that what is generally meant by 3D gaming (3D games projected on a 2D plane, with no intention to create an illusion) doesn't.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- rapind 16y ago
  True, but I'm referring to "3D" 3D. Wearing glasses. I only played a couple at CES last year (2010) and was blown away. There's also the Vuzix which are a little bulky, but again pretty amazing w/ games.
  - sid0 16y ago
    Well, you were referring to games from the early '00s, which didn't have "3D" 3D. (God, that's awful. Anyone know of a better way to express that?) In any case, it remains to be seen how accepted "3D" 3D gaming is by the public.
    - baq 16y ago
      stereo 3D is the word you're looking for, probably.
    - rapind 16y ago
      Ahh no, all I was stating about the early 2000s is that I think it was around then (2004 or earlier) when video games surpassed hollywood in revenue. Since new technology like 3D applies to both of these markets, why does everyone seem so focused on the smaller of the two (movies) instead of where the real money is (games). Declaring a technology dead because it doesn't work for movies (I'm not convinced of that) is silly because it ignores the larger relevant market of video games. The technology is certainly not dead even if we never saw another 3D movie.
wahnfrieden 16y ago
Immersion, entertainment value, coolness factor and marketability aren't really the criteria Ebert was taking into account in his article on video games as art, nor in his criticisms of 3D cinema. He's also not denigrating games as being lousy just because they're not art.

baggachipz 16y ago

"I don't believe your research." $> sudo science "I believe you now."

JonnieCache 16y ago
When I finish my tab-completion script for the science command we're gonna have green energy, space elevators and jetpacks by the end of the week dude.
marknutter 16y ago
This comment made my misspelling entirely worthwhile.

alttab 16y ago

Nothing like an un-biased view of how "3D" will never work from a guy who has built his career off of making sound-systems.

JonnieCache 16y ago
Yeah, because people who spend their careers thinking about waveform dispersion, destructive/constructive interference patterns and the effect of microsecond-level sensory input timing on human spatial perception would never have anything relevant to say about 3D. The only fundamental difference is one of wavelength.
- alttab 16y ago
  Too bad its obvious the new money is going into 3D, not the things he may have spent the last 40 years perfecting. How much of the $3.50 "3D upcharge" is this guy seeing? My initial guess is "none."

Murkin 16y ago

I wish I could up-vote you 50 times, as this is the best, by far, response to this pompous article.

martinkallstrom 16y ago
I heartfully agree.
wahnfrieden 16y ago
The title is pompously superlative, but the content raises specific points which merit discussion.

wahnfrieden 16y ago

I just want to point out that immersion is not really a good criteria of good cinema. It can be used effectively, but many of the greatest films take strides to be as non-immersive as possible, using things like distancing techniques. Many films want you to be aware that you're watching a film. Immersion is not obviously or inherently a good thing.