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

141–150 of 208 posts

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

#141

Post by InclinedPlane »

martinkallstrom wrote: post #127
InclinedPlane wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A good number of movies are being released in the theaters as 3D only, this is what has people annoyed by the fad.

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

#142

Post by alttab »

JonnieCache wrote: post #71
alttab wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing like an un-biased view of how "3D" will never work from a guy who has built his career off of making sound-systems.

Yeah, because people who spend their careers thinking about waveform dispersion, destructive/constructive interference patterns and the effect of microsecond-level sensory input timing on human spatial perception would never have anything relevant to say about 3D. The only fundamental difference is one of wavelength.

Too bad its obvious the new money is going into 3D, not the things he may have spent the last 40 years perfecting.

How much of the $3.50 "3D upcharge" is this guy seeing? My initial guess is "none."

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

#143

Post by georgieporgie »

While I think an immersive VR system would be great, I don't understand the appeal of a 3D movie as exists today. Then again, I never understood the appeal of surround sound, since unless I can turn and see something behind me, it makes no sense that sound would come from there. I'm just a four channel (stereo + center + sub) kind of guy.

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

#144

Post by possibilistic »

brudgers wrote: post #105
GrandMasterBirt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please elaborate. I'm not very informed about this kind of issue. Can you suggest any reading I could do?

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

#145

Post by jarek »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #109
jokermatt999 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you seen Coraline?

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

#146

Post by baq »

rmc wrote: post #79
GrandMasterBirt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except there are studies coming out about the harm to developing eyes and such. I'm sure the same was said about television, or travelling more than 30 miles per hour.

neither tv nor quick travel require eyes to focus on one point and converge on a completely different one.

IOW, 3D movies induce eyesore and headaches, and there are plenty of people who experience that, myself included. could that hurt developing eyesight? no idea, but i can imagine why it could.

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

#147

Post by jarek »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #141
martinkallstrom wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A good number of movies are being released in the theaters as 3D only, this is what has people annoyed by the fad.

Stop going to the 3D showings and let the market do its magic.

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

#148

Post by baq »

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.

it made so much because it used a new technology that people were curious about - and it used it well enough. that's not going to happen again.

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

#149

Post by archgoon »

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…

You know, I think a hidden point in all this is that fundamentally, part of what movies do is try and control the audience's attention. It's the entire point behind carefully choosing camera angles and focus in the first place. The movie-maker is trying to inform the audience: "These are the people you should be listening to, this person's reaction is what matters, this object is significant to the plot..."

If you can't control focus, then you are presented with a much larger scene. You (the viewer) would be choosing who and what to pay attention to, removing control from the film maker, and unless this additional degree of freedom is compensated for, the experience would go down. The way you tell the story as a result would change dramatically. You can't just tag on "3D version available!" to a movie and expect it to work, it requires a different way of telling a story.

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

#150

Post by chc »

axod wrote: post #107
jokermatt999 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're conflating a lot of issues here. This "If you can notice it, it distracts…" is a lot like the objections to talkie cinema. 3D you can notice isn't inherently any more distracting than any other element of the feature, including sound, color and texture. But equating "noticeable 3D effects" with "crappy pseudo-3D" is not valid.
Post reply on HN