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

111–120 of 208 posts

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

#111

Post by InclinedPlane »

martinkallstrom wrote: post #104

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 se…

You might like it, but a lot of people have problems with it. It gives many people headaches. For many others it's just plain uncomfortable. For others it's a pain to wear a pair of glasses over their own glasses.

And for many people the experience of 3D movies isn't much of an improvement over 2D movies.

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

#112

Post by GrooveStomp »

Murkin wrote: post #91
krschultz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet, they still didn't switch back to Horses.. strange

What's the practicality of switching back to horses? It's prohibitively expensive to do so because using horses as a form of transportation is just not supported by the modern market.

I say this as someone who suffers from motion sickness, yet who rides in planes and buses. There simply aren't any reasonably easy alternatives.

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

#113

Post by KirinDave »

bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #103

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 g…

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.

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

#114

Post by kscaldef »

mrtron wrote: post #96
kscaldef wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I chose the 2D version. My girlfriend and I will pick the 2D version of any movie over the 3D, and won't go to see movies that are only showing in 3D at all. Even if they were the same price, the illusion does not work well for us and makes the experience less enjoyable.

Colorblind? A good friend can't enjoy 3D movies because for that reason.

No, not at all.

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

#115

Post by GrooveStomp »

b3b0p wrote: post #98

I preordered a Nintendo 3DS on day one it was available from Amazon.com. Not for the the 3D, but for: 1. A New Pilot Wings. No price is too high to pay for a new Pilot Wings. I have been waiting years. 2. Portable Ocarina of Time. Same reason. The entertainment and distraction they provide me (I can play Zelda OoT over and over, it does not get tiring or dull to me) is worth every cent. Edit: English, I can't type it…

I nearly decided on a Nintendo 3DS, but after trying one out in person, I completely changed my mind. I would play it in 2D mode the whole time because the 3D I've seen on it gives me headaches. So basically, I'd be paying a premium for hardware that I would specifically be turning off. Eventually the system might stabilize with some good games like the DS did, but there's going to be a crap-ton of shovelware at first which tries to exploit the 3D effect.

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

#116

Post by voidpointer »

"3D movies" is a very inaccurate tag applied to the current steroscopic productions and equipment. It is, in a sense, a pragmatic extension of both traditional film-making and film watching.

When the technology for producing and watching in real 3d (e.g. volumetric display technology and corresponding recording technology) becomes available, the entire process of producing a movie will be radically different from how it is today. Currently, everything is controlled at production time. Once you get real 3D, the "camera position" is controlled by the viewer. That should be quite a change for directors and editors. Once you get real 3D, you will probably not sit still while watching a production. you will want to move around, explore it. This will have interesting effects when a lot of people are watching a production together and people flock around because they discovered something interesting in the back. Or maybe there will be a controller for moving the camera position, that would take fights for the remote to a whole new level ;)

Also, acting might become quite different from what it is today, because recording a movie might no longer be done with a photographic process but may be based purely on motion capturing. Actors would become puppeteers. (Some are today: think Gollum)

What I'm trying to say. Real 3D will be much more revolutionary for cinematography. What we are seeing today is just a gimmick. Nothing more.

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

#117

Post by GrooveStomp »

scottbessler wrote: post #57
henrikschroder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subje…

No offense to sound engineers, but Murch is not the foremost authority on the brain, the eyes, and whatever else goes into our processing of 3D. Further he hasn't offered any sort of proof, merely conjecture about why he thinks 3D should get off his lawn. Sure, the current technology has some weaknesses, but as others have said, many found it awfully compelling in Avatar (many good reviews, and $2B in revenue).

I kept thinking this while reading the article, and I'm not sure why nobody else has posted this yet. I am not a fan of "3D" as it exists in it's most recent film form, but this is not a particularly well argued and supported indictment of 3D.

I think your comment should be directly in response to the article.

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

#118

Post by axod »

cryptoz wrote: post #47
axod wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely 3d only makes any sense if you can move around the environment - a holo-deck. 3d movies, where we're all sat down in a fixed chair makes absolutely no sense. It's a gimmick that adds nothing - apart from headaches, crappy dark image and occasional crude "THIS IS 3D" in your face 'effects'. Sitting in a chair looking at a screen we already see 3D. We have all the cues necessary for our brains to reconstruct the…

> didn't work in 2010s Hah! You wish. For example, Avatar made more than $2,000,000,000 . That's $2 billion . And a huge part of the Avatar revenue comes from its 3D sales. Maybe it didn't work for you , but it sure worked for most people who went to see it.

pretty sure there was 1 success in 50s and 80s as well.

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

#119

Post by Retric »

shasta wrote: post #60
Retric wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a bad idea. You could do it with one person in the theater, but you can take it one step further. Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. (High end video cameras already have this.) Have an adaptive lense in the glasses to vary rapidly change the focal plane from where they eye things it is to the screen. You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane.…

> Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. Sorry I was a bit terse, but that's what I meant by "detected focus." > You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane. That's not it exactly. The problem you're trying to solve is that, when the viewer is focused at one depth but is viewing a flat image at another depth, it will already appear blurry to him. You c…

You missed one of the steps

"Have an adaptive lense in the glasses to vary rapidly change the focal plane"

AKA their eyes focus on 50', and the screen is at 100’. But the glasses change that to 100' and the software shows a clear images for 50' with the correct amount of blur for stuff outside of that range. You still need to double the frame rate etc for the 3d effect, but you can alter things so brain is less confused.

The idea is without the bluring the full immage is in focus regardless of what the users eye tryes to focus on 5' or 500' the screen is still in focus. This would work ok, but by bluring part of the immage you get an even closer simulation of the real world.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustable-focus_eyeglasses

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

#120

Post by mason55 »

metageek wrote: post #41
iwwr wrote: post #36

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.

Thanks for the opinion about Tron. I missed seeing it early, and now the only places showing it near me are in 3D. I was wondering if it'd be worth it. Now I'll just wait for the DVD.

FWIW, I and everyone else I know thought that the 3D+VFX was basically the only reason to see it
Post reply on HN