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

101–110 of 208 posts

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

#101

Post by charltones »

dagw wrote: post #72
Splines wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But given a choice, would moviegoers pick the 2D version over the 3D version? In a universe where Avatar 3D never existed, would the 2D version alone have sold as much? Remember, they would have also been able to deliver the movie earlier (I don't know how much, but making a 3D movie can't be free - at least not yet). I'm reasonably certain that there are only a very small number of people who saw Avatar for the sole…

I don't know anybody who went to see Avatar because they thought it would be a good movie. I also don't know anybody who went to see the 2D version, despite it playing at the same time and a few bucks cheaper. Everybody went because they wanted to see what could be done with the cutting edge in CGI technology plus insane amounts of money and to see what this 3D cinema thing was all about. I have as little evidence as…

I will always try and see the 2D version of any film, but here in the UK at the moment the 2D versions don't show at as many screens or times as the 3D one.

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

#102

Post by brudgers »

isleyaardvark wrote: post #78
brudgers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the viewers mind, it's the film editor's as well. Murch says, "Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence." OK, so 3d films have to be edited differently - since when have constraints been an issue in art? But more importantly, the 600 million years of evolution argument doesn't hold the water he is putting in it. 600 million years o…

> 600 million years of evolution did not prepare humans for traveling at 60 mph (much less controlling two tons of steel and insuring the safety of their children, while doing so), nor did it prepare humans for sitting in front of a bright light pecking at keyboards for hours and hours on end. That last bit could be used to support Murch's argument, if the articles I've seen on HN about ergonomic chairs and sitting v…

The point is that we easily can sit in chairs staring at bright lights for hours on end. In so far as Murch's argument goes, arguing that we shouldn't for health reasons throws the baby out with the bathwater. Getting people to sit for hours staring at bright lights is his business and life's work.

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

#103

Post by bluesnowmonkey »

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?

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

#104

Post by martinkallstrom »

Fictional dialogue between Ebert and myself:

Ebert: "Stop watching that 3D movie, it's straining your eyes!" Me: "But... no it isn't and it's awesome" Ebert: "It isn't immersive! Me: "I'm feeling perfectly immersed, thank you" Ebert: "But there are all these valid but theoretical reasons why you shouldn't enjoy it!" Me: "Would you please just shut up and let me watch the movie? The aliens are about to have all the sex. In 3D!" Ebert: "Hrumph!"

You can see how I let myself get the last word there, not counting Ebert's old-grumpy-man-throat-clearing. So clearly I had all the winning arguments.

My point is this: All the theoretical reasoning about planes and strains are moot as far as I know. Because in the end... 3D is awesome. I love it, and I wont let any experts in the world convince me otherwise. Even Feynman wouldn't be able to... well ok, maybe Feynman. But none other!

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

#105

Post by brudgers »

GrandMasterBirt wrote: post #55
brudgers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the viewers mind, it's the film editor's as well. Murch says, "Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence." OK, so 3d films have to be edited differently - since when have constraints been an issue in art? But more importantly, the 600 million years of evolution argument doesn't hold the water he is putting in it. 600 million years o…

Except there are studies coming out about the harm to developing eyes and such. The point is that we're not meant for 3D. 3D though is a great way theaters try to "add value" to movies forcing us to pay more. Tangled was playing ONLY in 3D in theaters around me xept for like 1 showing. Guess which is the only showing I could take my daughter to. She would throw the glasses off in 15 minutes due to headache an thats t…

I would be more concerned about the long term effects of the social coding portrayed in Tangled (e.g. verbal interactions, body image and gender stereotypes) than theoretical physiological effects.

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

#106

Post by wahnfrieden »

dagw wrote: post #76
bambax wrote: post #34

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 ti…

Avatar kind of disproves your whole thesis. It had neither story nor acting talent worth speaking of, and bucket loads of technology. Yet it sold more tickets than just about any other movie in history. I really wish what you said was true and that filmmakers would focus more on great stories, but box office takes show again and again that flashy effects beat great stories 4 times out of 5.

Good cinema shouldn't be reduced to merely storytelling. The aesthetics are an enormous part of it, and there is plenty of content in form itself. In fact the story itself can be largely irrelevant in a great film -- see Bela Tarr, for one -- although some amount of it is usually necessary as a base.

Nor is acting talent particularly necessary either, if handled right. Some of my favorite directors restrain their actors, even great ones, from acting at all (e.g. any Bresson, or Pasolini's Teorema) or they use non-actors to great effect (e.g. Fellini, and Pasolini again with things like Decameron).

You do have a point about flashy technology though.

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

#107

Post by axod »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #46
axod wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most films don't use the 3d well though. It's like if sound was added, but instead of using it give viewers dialogue with inflection, directors mostly used it to add in wacky sound effects for slapstick comedy. However, the fact that it's generally abused now doesn't mean it won't be used well later.

If you can't notice the 3d, what's the point. If you can notice it, it distracts from what is going on. It's a no-win situation.

Of course it's a win-win situation for the studios selling people 3d.

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

#108

Post by martinkallstrom »

Murkin wrote: post #92
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…

I wish I could up-vote you 50 times, as this is the best, by far, response to this pompous article.

I heartfully agree.

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

#109

Post by wahnfrieden »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #46
axod wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most films don't use the 3d well though. It's like if sound was added, but instead of using it give viewers dialogue with inflection, directors mostly used it to add in wacky sound effects for slapstick comedy. However, the fact that it's generally abused now doesn't mean it won't be used well later.

The only case of non-abuse I know of is Herzog's upcoming cave docu.

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

#110

Post by dagw »

batasrki wrote: post #86
dagw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anybody who went to see Avatar because they thought it would be a good movie. I also don't know anybody who went to see the 2D version, despite it playing at the same time and a few bucks cheaper. Everybody went because they wanted to see what could be done with the cutting edge in CGI technology plus insane amounts of money and to see what this 3D cinema thing was all about. I have as little evidence as…

This is certainly the reason I went to see it. However, not only was I underwhelmed by the regurgitation of the Pocahontas story, I was extremely underwhelmed by the 3D. The only effect that made me think the film was "realistic" was the flies that kept flying around when they were in the forrest. Avatar did exactly the opposite of what intended to do and that is, it turned me off of 3D movies not on to them. Sure, i…

Yea, that was the exact same effect Avatar had on me. I'm really glad I saw it 3D and now feel no desire to see another movie in 3D for at least a couple years (when hopefully some new neat tech has come along which I'll feel compelled to check out).
Post reply on HN