3 ms·

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 you

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.

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.