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

131–140 of 208 posts

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

#131

Post by roc »

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.

You don't get hundreds of millions of people interested in anything unless you design it to appeal to a broad audience.

If it was 2D it would have likely sold the same number of tickets, just at a lower per-ticket price. Consider that it's DVD and Blu-Ray sales are commensurate with its box-office gross, with no 3D on offer.

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

#132

Post by foljs »

brudgers wrote: post #42
krschultz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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),

This is irrelevant. It didn't provide any limitation on them doing so either, whereas in the 3D case, it did.

> nor did it prepare humans for sitting in front of a bright light pecking at keyboards for hours and hours on end.

Hence obesity, bone problems, cardiac problems et al. Are you seriously putting this argument forward? Every doctor in the country warns AGAINST "sitting in front of a bright light pecking at keyboards for hours and hours on end" for health reasons.

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

#133

Post by bambax »

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.

Avatar is a counter-example, yes. But I would argue that in this case the main story was technology itself -- in a non-scalable way: the uniqueness of a technology leap.

Incorporating 3D in every single movie just because Avatar was a huge hit would have been like shooting only sinking ships after Titanic.

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

#134

Post by foljs »

brudgers wrote: post #102
isleyaardvark wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You DO understand that a constraint can differ from another contraint, right?

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

#135

Post by encoderer »

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.

Adjusted for inflation, I'm pretty sure Avatar is about 19th on the list of all time movie gross.

Your relentless drumming of this point -- i've seen you post similar comments to this at least once before in this discussion --lacks merit I think.

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

#136

Post by iwwr »

mason55 wrote: post #120
metageek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Reasons to watch Tron 2

sequel to a classic: yes

3D: no

storyline: no

acting: no

VFX: yes

Daft Punk: yes

actual Unix on the big screen: yes

hot chicks attracted to nerds: yes

Disney 'family policy' WRT said hot chicks: no

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

#137

Post by btilly »

krschultz wrote: post #27
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.

Actually it has improved because people acclimatize. If you're prone to motion sickness in a car, but are regularly in cars, you become less prone to motion sickness. Spend a long time not in motorized transport, and you're prone again.

I discovered this the hard way. I'm prone to motion sickness, and after I'd lived in NYC for a number of years it was unpleasant for me to transition back to being in a car. But now driving doesn't bother me any more.

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

#138

Post by cgart »

Let's make one clear: Everything you see today which is called 3D, is NOT 3D! This is just Stereo, or call it also fake-3D!

A real 3D "thing" is currently to expensive and not practical for a mass market.

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

#139

Post by jerf »

iwwr wrote: post #136
mason55 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Reasons to watch Tron 2 sequel to a classic: yes 3D: no storyline: no acting: no VFX: yes Daft Punk: yes actual Unix on the big screen: yes hot chicks attracted to nerds: yes Disney 'family policy' WRT said hot chicks: no

Actually I thought the story was pretty good, though it had a couple of holes in it (of the "cut scene" type, not the "bad plot hole" type). It stunned me in that it actually grappled with the consequences of the digitization process in some detail, rather than just blindly reveling in it. It was some decent sci-fi. Consequently it flew above just about everyone's head, especially if you went in with the preconception that it would have no story. (I liked it -> the series is doomed. QED.)

It may help to realize that this is a parallel universe to ours and the way their computers appear to work is that they really are an interface to the world of Tron, which is subordinate to the conventional universe but by all appearances is every bit as real. Thus, Clu's plan is not a violation of the conservation of mass, because it's all working differently here. It's much more a 1960s/1970s-style scifi rather than an "ultra-realistic 2010 scifi" (ahem), but within those bounds I was actually pleasantly surprised. Not that it will ever amount to anything but in the back of my head I've actually been working out the physics of Tron, which could be really cool for a 2020-era MMORPG (would take too much processing power to be feasible today), and there's actually enough consistency (perhaps surprisingly) that it's not all in vain; there's different rules, but there are some rules.

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

#140

Post by dkarl »

brudgers wrote: post #42
krschultz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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…

Tracking relative motion at 60 mph isn't really an exotic skill. A good Little League pitcher can throw a baseball 60 mph, and dodging rocks thrown by children seems like a low bar for survival. I imagine spears can travel that fast. The tip of a club could reach that speed, and arrows travel much faster. A cheetah can travel faster than 60 mph, and while cheetahs are a special case, there are many animals that can run faster than 40 mph, and it isn't necessarily fundamentally different for faculties that evolved for 45 mph to work at 60 mph. As for reaction times, the quickness required to dodge a punch, or the hooves of an elk kicking while it is being taken down, is more than adequate to drive at 60 mph. Even so, we find it unsafe to drive 60 mph except in an environment that has been engineered to be especially undemanding on our reaction times.
Post reply on HN