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

191–200 of 208 posts

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

#191

Post by wahnfrieden »

roc wrote: post #181
mrtron wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agree to disagree. The marketing value of 3D effects? How exactly does one market 3D effects when the only displays that can showcase them are in the movie theatres behind clunky glasses? People saw AVATAR because hundreds of millions were spent on marketing, it had James Cameron's name attached, and it was well liked by popular critics and audiences. 3D was a footnote compared to that attention. 3D effects do no mar…

I don't think so -- I saw it only because I was curious how the 3D effects were. I would not have seen it if it were only available in 2D. Same goes for the people I was with and many I've talked to.

You can't show the 3D in marketing, but you can (and they did) highlight the concept of it. It's like all those ads on TV about fancy TV screens with superior image quality -- they obviously don't show you the screen itself.

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

#192

Post by wahnfrieden »

Murkin wrote: post #92
marknutter wrote: post #11

As much as I hate the recent spate of 3D movies, I don't think it has anything to do with the technology, but more about how poorly it is applied. I say this because Avatar, at least for me, was simply mind-blowing; it was easily the most immersive film I've ever watched, but mainly because the 3D was done tastefully, subtly, and with care. You can give me as much hand-waving sudo-science to try to convince me I'm no…

I wish I could up-vote you 50 times, as this is the best, by far, response to this pompous article.

The title is pompously superlative, but the content raises specific points which merit discussion.

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

#193

Post by brudgers »

possibilistic wrote: post #144
brudgers wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The seminal feminist work in the US is probably Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique.

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

#194

Post by wahnfrieden »

marknutter wrote: post #11

As much as I hate the recent spate of 3D movies, I don't think it has anything to do with the technology, but more about how poorly it is applied. I say this because Avatar, at least for me, was simply mind-blowing; it was easily the most immersive film I've ever watched, but mainly because the 3D was done tastefully, subtly, and with care. You can give me as much hand-waving sudo-science to try to convince me I'm no…

I just want to point out that immersion is not really a good criteria of good cinema. It can be used effectively, but many of the greatest films take strides to be as non-immersive as possible, using things like distancing techniques. Many films want you to be aware that you're watching a film. Immersion is not obviously or inherently a good thing.

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

#195

Post by wahnfrieden »

scotty79 wrote: post #162

> 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 becom…

I'm guessing that film or DV shot at a higher frame rate simply can't be shown at most theaters due to equipment limitations. And if you shoot at a higher FPS and reduce it for those theaters, the FPS don't divide evenly so you get horrible artifacts. So it's not just up to the director.

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

#196

Post by wahnfrieden »

rapind wrote: post #40
marknutter wrote: post #11

As much as I hate the recent spate of 3D movies, I don't think it has anything to do with the technology, but more about how poorly it is applied. I say this because Avatar, at least for me, was simply mind-blowing; it was easily the most immersive film I've ever watched, but mainly because the 3D was done tastefully, subtly, and with care. You can give me as much hand-waving sudo-science to try to convince me I'm no…

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?

Immersion, entertainment value, coolness factor and marketability aren't really the criteria Ebert was taking into account in his article on video games as art, nor in his criticisms of 3D cinema. He's also not denigrating games as being lousy just because they're not art.

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

#197

Post by SapphireSun »

mrtron wrote: post #179
roc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I saw Avatar in 2D and loved it. Just adding another data point.

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

#198

Post by vacri »

axod wrote: post #155
chc wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The comparison isn't even worth bringing up. Talkies = NO SOUND vs SOUND. It's binary. 3D = "20 visual cues about 3D" vs "19 visual cues about 3D" We already see movies in 3D without adding the rather crude stereoscopy effect.

Sure it is - it can enhance immersion. Imagine being able to control scent in a movie, so that you get the smell of the scene. If done badly, yes, it can overpower the experience of the film, but done well, it would significantly enhance the immersion of a film, despite "not noticing it"/not specifically drawing your attention.

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

#199

Post by jarek »

risotto wrote: post #97

Great read. I agree with less immersion in 3D films. I saw Pixar's "Up" in 3D. Such a touching story. But at the sad scenes, when my eyes started to water up, I became super conscious of the fact that I had silly oversized glasses on my face, and it ruined the moment. Watching the Blu-ray, in the comfort of my own home, I'm bawling like a baby.

Did you ever become conscious of the fact that you're sitting in a chair staring at a rectangle? Why or why not?

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

#200

Post by kazuya »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14

This article could have done without all the pumping up of the authority that Roger was appealing to. Just make your case, big guy. Having said that, I agree, with one catch. Here's the thing: we currently don't have 3-D movies . We have this fake 2-plane deal put on with funky glasses. That's why the cineamtographers can screw around with your eyes so much like the letter writer explains. I want 3-D. True 3-D. Not s…

> I want 3-D. True 3-D. Not some hacked up fake 3-D. True 3-D would consist of a large, rotating drum in the middle of my living room, approximately 6 or 7 feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would display as three-dimensional objects, viewable from all angles.

Do you mean something like this?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/28/sonys-360-degree-raymodel...

Post reply on HN