3 ms·
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 human
by 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 agoNo 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 agoI 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 agoYes, 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.