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

161–170 of 208 posts

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

#161

Post by martinkallstrom »

chc wrote: post #157
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're completely missing the point if you thought Ebert was trying to tell you what you should enjoy. Your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. Similarly, my mom thinks my shaky line drawings from when I was 10 years old are absolutely brilliant. You're allowed to enjoy whatever you want — Ebert isn't arguing with you. He's talking about inherent problems with the technology that come out in the general case.

Maybe I am missing the point.

But I think it is my opinion that is relevant. And yours. And your moms. Why talk about inherent problems in the general case at all, no matter if it is kid's drawings or 3D movies. There is a market for both of them.

He's making a case for the objective value of something where I believe only subjective values matter. To each his own.

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

#162

Post by scotty79 »

> also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D.

Can we please ditch 24 fps for the movies? It's not 3d that strobes. It's crappy fps. 3D just makes it noticeable because we never learned to ignore it like in normal movies.

I know it gives you that popcorn old school real movie theater feeling, but it just sucks for anyone who had experience with higher FPS (which slowly becomes almost everybody).

When I first watched 3d movie few years ago I was strongly annoyed about how my experience was ruined by poor technical quality. When I watched Avatar the IMAX got upgraded so it was much better and because I was immersed in the movie I didn't mind, but low frame-rate was still noticeable.

Can movie directors finally decide to shoot movies in higher FPS or they are still afraid that higher frame-rate will make their move have VHS feel not cinema theater feel?

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

#163

Post by chc »

martinkallstrom wrote: post #161
chc wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely missing the point if you thought Ebert was trying to tell you what you should enjoy. Your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. Similarly, my mom thinks my shaky line drawings from when I was 10 years old are absolutely brilliant. You're allowed to enjoy whatever you want — Ebert isn't arguing with you. He's talking about inherent problems with the technology that come out in the general case.

Maybe I am missing the point. But I think it is my opinion that is relevant. And yours. And your moms. Why talk about inherent problems in the general case at all, no matter if it is kid's drawings or 3D movies. There is a market for both of them. He's making a case for the objective value of something where I believe only subjective values matter. To each his own.

Can you explain why my personal feelings are relevant to the general mass-market utility of a technology? Unless somebody is making a movie just for me and I just happen to think the tech is really neat (which is outside the scope of Ebert's piece), I don't see how it matters one whit.

There are objective things and subjective things and some shades between. You're talking about purely subjective tastes and Ebert was not. You may want to talk about subjective things, but that isn't what he was doing.

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

#164

Post by [deleted] »

sid0 wrote: post #128
losvedir wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by rapind »

sid0 wrote: post #125
rapind wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ahh no, all I was stating about the early 2000s is that I think it was around then (2004 or earlier) when video games surpassed hollywood in revenue. Since new technology like 3D applies to both of these markets, why does everyone seem so focused on the smaller of the two (movies) instead of where the real money is (games). Declaring a technology dead because it doesn't work for movies (I'm not convinced of that) is silly because it ignores the larger relevant market of video games. The technology is certainly not dead even if we never saw another 3D movie.

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

#166

Post by l3amm »

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…

"> 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."

This argument is missing the point. True, evolution didn't prepare us to drive cars, however it did prepare us to spend long periods of time focusing on objects at fixed distances and then changing our focus on the ~hundreds of milliseconds timescale. It also evolved us to allow independent movement of limbs during this process, essentially what driving a car is. This same argument could be applied to typing at a computer (without the need to change focus very quickly).

I think the point is that cinema in 3D forces us to change the location of our focus very rapidly (much faster than hundreds of milliseconds) for long periods of time, something that we are not equipped to do. For a physical activity like sitting our muscles are malleable enough to adjust to a sedate lifestyle, but to increase the speed and duration of rapid eye focusing would most likely require rewiring the brain. Perhaps if we were raised in this pseudo-3D realm our brain could adjust, but adults brains aren't wired to change like our muscles are.

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

#167

Post by InclinedPlane »

jarek wrote: post #147
InclinedPlane wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. In the meantime, registering annoyance with the fad in public is a good way to enhance and focus the market feedback.

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

#169

Post by dedward »

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.

I've had this discussion with many people. I enjoyed the movie for it's technical merits, not the plot.

I saw both versions.

I don't get hte "3d headache" - but I definitely enjoyed the 2d version more. THere was more detail to focus on, and in tha tmovie, detail was everything. With the 3d version, I found myself trying to look at things in the foreground/background, and I just couldn't - not becuuse of any defect in my ability to manipulate my eyes, but because (I think...) they actually used differnet depth of field settings when rendering the 2 versions.. there were things in the 3d version you literally COULDNT focus on - they wanted your eyes on the action only. That buged me.

- I remember playing 3d Quake (the original) on my crappy home monitor, with LCD shutter glasses - and it was AWESOME FUN. SCARY.

So I think all the points in the article are valid, 3d is hard, for more reasons than joe average might know, I certainly learned some stuff - but it's definitely a aprt of the future, if only because our current equipment makes it technically easy to play back.

Post reply on HN