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.
Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
11–20 of 208 posts
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#12when 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?
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#13I 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/
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…
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.
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#14This 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.
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#15They 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."
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#16I 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.
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#17when 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?
Your brain will be exposed to the real 3D for much longer though.
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#18This 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…
>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#background...
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#19As 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 no…
I applaud you for "sudo-science".
Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.
#20[deleted]