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

171–180 of 208 posts

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

#171

Post by CountHackulus »

swombat wrote: post #4

This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. I'd hate to be introduced like that. That said, his points make sense. I don't get a headache from watching 3D movies but it does cause extra strain. It's more tiring than watching a normal movie. I have no intention of buying a 3D TV at any point in the future, and though I'll go to a 3D cinema for…

I find it odd that you should name Avatar as a movie appropriate to see in 3D. I find that Avatar had a ton of the problems that Walter Murch was talking about. It gave me a massive headache because often times the focus wasn't where I wanted it to be.

Tron on the other hand, generally didn't have this problem, there was huge depth of field throughout, and generally nothing too straining.

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

#172

Post by dkarl »

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 is a great point. Theaters are pushing 3D because it means more money for them. Apparently Avatar was amazing in 3D, and theaters used that fact to make a lot of money off of underwhelming 3D experiences.

I saw Tron in 3D and suffered very mild side effects -- facial tension and a headache that went away after a few glasses of wine. The 3D effects weren't enough to make even those mild side effects worth it. I'm not even sure the 3D effects were a net plus for the experience without considering the side effects. Add a 40% premium on the ticket price, and it was a great deal for the theater and a lousy deal for me.

Until the technology changes fundamentally, I'm starting to think 3D movies are like heroin: we'll see a periodic resurgence and decline as the lessons fade away with one generation and are relearned by the next.

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

#173

Post by defen »

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.

Telling other people how to parent is the #1 source of neverending flamewars on the internet.

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

#174

Post by confuzatron »

dkarl wrote: post #172
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…

This is a great point. Theaters are pushing 3D because it means more money for them. Apparently Avatar was amazing in 3D, and theaters used that fact to make a lot of money off of underwhelming 3D experiences. I saw Tron in 3D and suffered very mild side effects -- facial tension and a headache that went away after a few glasses of wine. The 3D effects weren't enough to make even those mild side effects worth it. I'm…

For me, 3D in Tron was either very subtle, or when noticeable was a little jarring. Not sure it was worth the hassle of wearing glasses over the tops of my glasses, to be honest. By contrast, the 3D in Avatar was noticeable and well executed.

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

#175

Post by simcop2387 »

kaiwetzel wrote: post #158
simcop2387 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would it work to take two pairs home and create a personal set of glasses for people who can't stand the 3d effect? Where I watched Green Hornet (very funny movie if you don't expect to see a Coen brothers film, I think) the glasses were cheap plastic and you could take them home. I actually have two sets, maybe I'll give it a try :D

Could be but I'm not sure how hard it'd be to remove the existing lens to be able to replace it... might be worth a shot.

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

#176

Post by shasta »

losvedir wrote: post #130
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…

You're right. It's not just a still image that needs to be corrected - it's the whole volume of light that needs to be distorted (the eye is not a pinhole camera). But I still think it's doable - isn't that what corrective lenses do?

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

#177

Post by Semiapies »

Heck, there are even more issues - just ponder set design and many visual effects. You can't fake rain with a little water falling just in front of the camera anymore when you can tell it's just some water right in front of the camera. CGI it? You need those CGI raindrops in three dimensions. Etc.

But it's not that 3D will never work, it's that we're clueless about how it will be made to work.

3D films are a distinct medium, not "films++". Right now, we're at the equivalent of the, "I know, let's point a single, unmoving camera at a stage play!" stage of early cinematography. At that point in time, you could come up with an analysis as good as Murch's for why this "filmed stage play" thing was just stupid and could never be satisfying - and it would be just as completely correct.

Just like you can't just point a camera at a stage to make a movie, you can't just throw three-dimensionality at a movie production to make a 3D movie. We need to develop a new craft. We need a good decade or more of people poking at this technology in a real, innovative way. We need lots of directors and cinematographers experimenting with this. Hell, we need a horde of film students making inane, pretentious shorts with rented or borrowed equipment - or even people who've never been near a film school. We need this sort of work just to get started in this new medium.

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

#178

Post by mkramlich »

My lying eyes have seen many great 3D movies that did work. I respect Ebert because he has great taste and is right about movies far more often than wrong but on this issue I think he has 'cranky old man syndrome', ignoring the baby for the bathwater.

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

#179

Post by mrtron »

roc wrote: post #131
mrtron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. If it hadn't been built for 3D with amazing effects it would not have had the hype, people going to watch the movie several times, etc that really pushed it to the next level.

You are underestimating the marketing value of the 3D effects. Of course the DVD sales will be great, because it has been on everyones radar for the last year+. 3D effects were a big part of that.

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

#180

Post by martinkallstrom »

chc wrote: post #163
martinkallstrom wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's because the mass-market appeal is precisely made up of a lot of personal opinions. There is nothing inbetween. A market is formed by millions upon millions of little purchasing decisions, each one commanded by subjective thought. The objectiveness Ebert is trying to will into existance can never be more than an illusion. The market is utterly made out of the subjective. Otherwise, marketing wouldn't work. And $2B Avatar box office sales is an excellent example of the market not caring about what an old wizard holds forth as the objective truth.
Post reply on HN