Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#11

Post by 3rd3 » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:34 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #8

rschmitty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly my problem with 3D, total gimmick. Not to mention how dim it is compared to normal 2D. A director cannot get away from having something come flying at you. I recently went to see the 2nd Hobbit (in 2D) and it is so painfully obvious when you can tell something is supposed to be "flying at you". What is this Disney World? I am however looking forward to VR people making "Ready Player One"-like movies i…

Gravity was the first 3D movie I've seen, and I was quite pleased at how little they decided to gratuitously do that. On the other hand, there are numerous animated films I've seen on DVD in the last few years (Despicable Me 2 being the latest example) that had entire sections that clearly existed for no other reason than to justify the 3D ticket price. I enjoyed Gravity, the 3D effect occasionally added to the exper…

I think I have seen 4 or 5 movies in 3D and Gravity was the only one which was well made.

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#12

Post by gizmo686 » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:34 AM UTC

DrStalker wrote: post #7

kevinmchugh wrote: post #4

"They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images." I've no knowledge of the field, but I am reminded of Clarke's first law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he state…

You're pretty much spot on. Roger Ebert is the sort of person who believes any technology older than him is normal and anything newer is inherently wrong because it's not what he's used to. We didn't evolve to blend a series of 30 static images per second into seamless motion, but we cope with that so well that no-one actually thinks about it. Eventually 3D will become consistently well done instead of a gimmick, and…

> We didn't evolve to blend a series of 30 static images per second into seamless motion, but we cope with that so well that no-one actually thinks about it.

While this is mostly true, 30fps is not good enough to the point that no one notices. For example, even with the relatively little gaming I do, I notice when the fps falls to 30. In movies, the Hobbit was shot at 48 fps, and viewers complained that it felt to life like (this is likely just a way of saying 'more lifelike than I am used to').

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#13

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:35 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #8

rschmitty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly my problem with 3D, total gimmick. Not to mention how dim it is compared to normal 2D. A director cannot get away from having something come flying at you. I recently went to see the 2nd Hobbit (in 2D) and it is so painfully obvious when you can tell something is supposed to be "flying at you". What is this Disney World? I am however looking forward to VR people making "Ready Player One"-like movies i…

Gravity was the first 3D movie I've seen, and I was quite pleased at how little they decided to gratuitously do that. On the other hand, there are numerous animated films I've seen on DVD in the last few years (Despicable Me 2 being the latest example) that had entire sections that clearly existed for no other reason than to justify the 3D ticket price. I enjoyed Gravity, the 3D effect occasionally added to the exper…

I think Gravity is a special case, Cuaron (and/or his team) can make depth out of flat 2D, Children of Men had me speechless quite a few times (the motorcycle ambush...).

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#14

Post by gizmo686 » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:38 AM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #9

3D strikes me as superfluous. Our brains already look at the images projected onto a 2-dimensional plane and infer the third dimension. It's absolutely a gimmick, and don't get me wrong, it can be fun, but it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the viewing experience. Call me when the brain interface is ready and we can actually travel around in the space, because that's another story.

I've watched a few 3D movies. The gimmicky parts are very gimmicky, but the normal scenes, where we see the background actually behind the foreground, and don't see a drop of water fly right into are eyes, the 3D looks a lot better then the 2D version.

2D seems the same as looking around with one eye closed. I don't notice the difference when I am doing it, but when I open my second eye, everything looks subtly better.

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#15

Post by Yver » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:40 AM UTC

I'm always skeptical of claims that "X will never work" that are not backed by solid research or a mathematical proof.

The current 3D may be nauseating to a number of people, but I do note that travelling by car is nauseating to some too, and I've seen older people get similar effects when reading a computer screen that is scrolling too fast.

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#16

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:41 AM UTC

Maybe because movies are more impressionist/symbolic devices rather than simulations. I personally don't care about 4K HD, or 100Hz and 3D. Everytime I read about these, I remember the first minute of Alien. No 3D, no green screen, analog ... yet I feel immersed into a ship.

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#17

Post by TheZenPsycho » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:45 AM UTC

Actually, the convergence problem is theoretically solvable with a light-field projection system. That is, instead of having 2 images that are simply "fed" into each eye but projected onto a flat screen that is not converged with the 3d disparity "information" contained in the images, you have a system where the screen emits a light field that your eyes can focus on at any depth. We already have consumer level light field cameras and attachments. the displays are tricker, but possible, traditionally through the use of hexagonal lenticular lenslets carefully registered onto a 2d "flattened" projection of the light field capture. This is the "True hologram" dream mentioned. The primary limitations being the level of precision and resolution with which you can register the lenslets with an image.

that's fine for a display but is obviously impractical for a large scale theater projection system. Just an arbitrary possibility I thought of just now: suppose the projection screen had a retroreflective surface- That is, light projected at the screen gets returned at exactly the angle it arrived at. Combine this with a domed mirror and a backwards pointing projector or set of projectors, with all the requisite optics math and geometry work, it may just be possible to project a lightfield at a screen that bounces back at the audience and appears as a tangible hologram to them.

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#18

Post by maaku » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:48 AM UTC

TheZenPsycho wrote: post #17

Actually, the convergence problem is theoretically solvable with a light-field projection system. That is, instead of having 2 images that are simply "fed" into each eye but projected onto a flat screen that is not converged with the 3d disparity "information" contained in the images, you have a system where the screen emits a light field that your eyes can focus on at any depth. We already have consumer level light…

This is why I still get my news commentary from HN. Thank you.

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#19

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:49 AM UTC

cclogg wrote: post #3

I think that eventually movies/games will be like experiencing something as real as a dream, ie on the track that the Oculus Rift is going. The 3D we have now is just okay I guess, but most of the time I choose to see 2D versions. At the end of the day, I just want to enjoy a good story... and on film preferably, as digital still looks too TV-ish for me.

[deleted]

Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)

#20

Post by dwild » Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 3:50 AM UTC

blazespin wrote: post #10

Another factor is simulator sickness. Even if you could get the perfect 3D environment going (say via the Oculus Rift), your inner ear will start to complain that what it is seeing is not matching what it's feeling and your stomach will thinks its been poisoned and induce vomiting. The only way '3D' will ever work is if the movie is jacked straight into your brain, ala 'Strange Days'.

The same happen on a boat and as far as I know, there's millions of people on boats everyday.