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

31–40 of 208 posts

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

#31

Post by wahnfrieden »

powrtoch wrote: post #28
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.

Absolutely -- and the same applies to color photography. There are still good reasons for shooting in black & white. Color film may be more easily engaging as the images are more familiar, but it is not inherently better aesthetically.

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

#32

Post by axod »

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."

Adding sound isn't anywhere near the same as adding crappy pseudo-3d effects.

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

#33

Post by swah »

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…

And then you can charge more for front row seats, just like live shows.

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

#34

Post by bambax »

The master quote is this: a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

Don't bother with technology. What "piracy" proves is that people are more than willing to trade quality for convenience. People will put up with crappy image and garbled sound if it means they can watch what they want faster.

The movie industry loves technology because technology scales (sort of); but what sells tickets are story and talent.

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

#35

Post by wahnfrieden »

codingthewheel wrote: post #10

Ebert's a bit of a crotchety Luddite clinging to the old ways. This rant, coupled with his diatribe last year about how "video games can never be art"... http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve... ...should be interpreted with a grain of salt.

How about responding to the specific points in the article, rather than trying to portray the writer as a luddite clown?

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

#36

Post by iwwr »

Headaches happen mostly to people with poorer eyesight in one eye, a similar effect to wearing the wrong kind of correction eyeglasses.

P.S. Tron 2 was much better in 2D than 3D. The darker screen was annoying and the 3D was far from immersive.

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

#37

Post by levesque »

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?

Nintendo, along with their imminent release of the 3ds, has issued warning to not let kids use their product too often because it could interfere with the development of their brains. So yes, you probably can get used to this sort of imagery, but do you want to? I doubt it.

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

#38

Post by henrikschroder »

zyb09 wrote: post #21

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…

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.

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

#39

Post by stcredzero »

rimantas wrote: post #17
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?

Your brain will be exposed to the real 3D for much longer though.

Our bodies and brains have a remarkable ability to adapt to particular contexts. This effect is so strong, heroin users can accidentally overdose because their bodies' tolerance can be stronger in a particular location.

I think people will be able to adapt to 3D. Whether they will want to has to do with artistry and not a new technology as a gimmick.

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

#40

Post by rapind »

marknutter wrote: post #11

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 no…

Another thing thing he completely misses is gaming. If he'd ever played an FPS in 2d then in 3d he'd be amazed at the immersive difference.

Hasn't the video game industry grossed more per year since the early 2000s? Why would anyone declare 3d dead based on a smaller industry like Movies?

Post reply on HN