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

121–130 of 208 posts

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

#121

Post by rapind »

sid0 wrote: post #65
rapind wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What is generally known as 3D gaming is completely different from 3D movies. 3D games are still projected onto the 2D plane of your monitor or TV (though a couple of "3D" 3D games have been released recently, and the 3DS is coming out soon) -- 3D movies aim to provide your brain a 3D illusion.

True, but I'm referring to "3D" 3D. Wearing glasses. I only played a couple at CES last year (2010) and was blown away. There's also the Vuzix which are a little bulky, but again pretty amazing w/ games.

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

#122

Post by simcop2387 »

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…

This makes me wonder why someone doesn't put out a set of glasses with just clockwise (or counterclockwise, shouldn't matter) polarized filters in them so that both eyes see the same image and you don't get the headache. While it would suck to pay extra and not get it; it would help those that can't get it anyway.

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

#123

Post by arn »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #24

My problem with 3D is simply that I find I can't disappear into the movie. I'm steadily aware of myself sitting and watching the 3D effects, which ruins the experience.

to add my two cents into this. This is my issue with 3D movies. I find it very distracting.

A good for instance is that I recently saw Green Hornet in 3D -- not by choice entirely, since they weren't showing a 2D version. As an example, in one scene, they were panning to a person talking who was sitting behind a desk. The pencil holder was in 3D of course. I was very aware of the pencil holder as a result. But the pencil holder was irrelevant to the scene, but that's all I was looking at.

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

#124

Post by losvedir »

sid0 wrote: post #65
rapind wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What is generally known as 3D gaming is completely different from 3D movies. 3D games are still projected onto the 2D plane of your monitor or TV (though a couple of "3D" 3D games have been released recently, and the 3DS is coming out soon) -- 3D movies aim to provide your brain a 3D illusion.

Wait, how are they different? All the 3D effects I know of are still the same thing as movies, in that your eyes must always focus on the same distance. With the 3DS, for instance, while the underlying technology is different still consists of your eyes focusing on the same flat surface in your hands, and tricking your eyes with two separate views. Same focus vs. convergence issues as mentioned in the article.

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

#125

Post by sid0 »

rapind wrote: post #121
sid0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is generally known as 3D gaming is completely different from 3D movies. 3D games are still projected onto the 2D plane of your monitor or TV (though a couple of "3D" 3D games have been released recently, and the 3DS is coming out soon) -- 3D movies aim to provide your brain a 3D illusion.

True, but I'm referring to "3D" 3D. Wearing glasses. I only played a couple at CES last year (2010) and was blown away. There's also the Vuzix which are a little bulky, but again pretty amazing w/ games.

Well, you were referring to games from the early '00s, which didn't have "3D" 3D. (God, that's awful. Anyone know of a better way to express that?) In any case, it remains to be seen how accepted "3D" 3D gaming is by the public.

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

#126

Post by btilly »

dagw wrote: post #110
batasrki wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Go to a real IMAX theater and watch a real IMAX movie. They tend to be science documentaries, like Hubble 3D. Compared to that, Avatar just seemed fuzzy and out of focus to me.

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

#127

Post by martinkallstrom »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #111
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.

Ok, maybe I need to clarify my point further. I guess what I'm really trying to say is: So what??

I don't like bananas in cooked food. But I don't feel the need to lament about it or make up scientific reasons to why it should be abolished. I simply avoid eating it.

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

#128

Post by sid0 »

losvedir wrote: post #124
sid0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is generally known as 3D gaming is completely different from 3D movies. 3D games are still projected onto the 2D plane of your monitor or TV (though a couple of "3D" 3D games have been released recently, and the 3DS is coming out soon) -- 3D movies aim to provide your brain a 3D illusion.

Wait, how are they different? All the 3D effects I know of are still the same thing as movies, in that your eyes must always focus on the same distance. With the 3DS, for instance, while the underlying technology is different still consists of your eyes focusing on the same flat surface in your hands, and tricking your eyes with two separate views. Same focus vs. convergence issues as mentioned in the article.

Yes, 3DS and "3D" 3D games have the same problems as 3D movies. What I was saying was that what is generally meant by 3D gaming (3D games projected on a 2D plane, with no intention to create an illusion) doesn't.

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

#129

Post by jokermatt999 »

mrtron wrote: post #95
kordless wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avatar was a good enough movie by itself to win awards and make money. It probably got a small kick from being 3D, but I disagree it was a huge part. FWIW, I saw it in 2D first, loved it, then later saw it in 3D and hated every minute watching it. It was dark and gave me a HUGE headache.

I think you are one of few that would enjoy in it in 2D and not in 3D. I also think it wasn't a great movie itself. It was a really safe storyline to appeal to a broad audience.

It wasn't the kind of "great movie" that critics and peers will recommend years down the line as essential viewing or thought provoking, but it was the kind of "great movie" that people would recommend to their friends for an entertaining "going to the movies with popcorn and friends" experience. The plot was thin, but the visuals and action were great entertainment, as shown by the revenue.

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

#130

Post by losvedir »

shasta wrote: post #43

Doesn't this assume you don't know the focal plane? If you know what the viewer is focusing on, you can compensate. This means that without any holographic projection techniques, you could fully solve this problem by presenting each viewer with images customized to his detected focus. That might require an expensive headset today, which radically changes the economics of 3D movies, but it doesn't require a breakthrou…

Not as I understand it. I think you're conflating two issues. What you're talking about deals with the issue of looking at different elements of the scene and bringing each one to clarity as you look at it.

The second, larger issue, is the physiological contraction of muscles each eye individually must do to focus at a given distance. Try this: cover one eye and look at a held up finger with the other eye. Notice the background is blurry. Now make the background clear and you'll notice your finger is blurry.

The eye adjusts its shape to focus on different distances. This is independent of the two eyes working together and seeing different images which the brain later merges into a 3D scene.

The issue with all the current 3D technologies I know about is the image, ultimately, is always on some screen at a fixed distance. You can give each eye separate images, you can track where the eye is looking and modify what image is seen, but in the end, the eye muscles are always contorting the eye to see that plane 80' away clearly.

Post reply on HN