Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

blogs.suntimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 208 posts

Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

#21

Post by zyb09 »

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.

Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

#22

Post by nazgulnarsil »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14

This 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 s…

games and porn, not movies, will drive real 3d. i also think it's much more likely to be in the style of augmented reality (glasses or contacts) than a stationary projector.

Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

#23

Post by henrikschroder »

gjm11 wrote: post #8

My own prejudices go along with this completely, but ... (Arthur C) Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong." ... has turned out to be correct often enough that I wouldn't want to place large bets on this. (Digression: there's an obvious difficulty in assessing Cla…

Except it doesn't apply in this case. He is saying that true 3D, some sort of holographic display would work fine, but the current fake 3D has a lot of problems. It places constraints on the cinematography, and it doesn't always enhance the end result.

Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

#25

Post by krschultz »

gjm11 wrote: post #8

My own prejudices go along with this completely, but ... (Arthur C) Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong." ... has turned out to be correct often enough that I wouldn't want to place large bets on this. (Digression: there's an obvious difficulty in assessing Cla…

Except that Clarke was referring to technology problems. I agree that with enough time, will, research, money etc many technical problems can be solved that were thought impossible.

But constraints of human beings don't change much. If our brains are not wired to really get the current 3D format, then I think that is a pretty good indictment of the technology. The post isn't saying 3D movies won't exist someday, it is saying the current 3D can't work well because of a limitation in the human mind.

Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

#26

Post by powrtoch »

swombat wrote: post #4

This 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…

Many of the cues you're referring to are already present in 3d and 2d movies. They're things like focus, texture, "what's covering what", how quickly something moves relative to the viewer, etc.

Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

#27

Post by krschultz »

jcfrei wrote: post #12

when 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?

Many people still get motion sick in cars, on boats, and on airplanes. We just don't hear about it as much anymore. That doesn't mean the problem has gone away.

Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

#28

Post by powrtoch »

ars wrote: post #15

They 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."

To be fair, they of course were right. There are unique aesthetic values in silent film, and adding dialogue does do away with them (otherwise they wouldn't be unique values). They simply discovered that people consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.

Re: Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

#29

Post by chrislloyd »

electromagnetic wrote: post #5
robin_reala wrote: post #2

I 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, and a bunch of my friends get headaches with 3D movies. Avatar included. The difference with the Model T is that people were willing to bear out neasea for the massive convenience a car brought. Blue aliens are less compelling.
Post reply on HN