5 ms·

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

by 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.
- zyb09 16y ago
  Yes, and while he's right that the 3D effect is not synchronized with the focus distance, saying that's bad for your vision, causes the brain to work more or even causes headaches is pure speculation.

by zyb09 16y ago

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.
zyb09 16y ago
Yes, and while he's right that the 3D effect is not synchronized with the focus distance, saying that's bad for your vision, causes the brain to work more or even causes headaches is pure speculation.