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

151–160 of 208 posts

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

#151

Post by baq »

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.

stereo 3D is the word you're looking for, probably.

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

#152

Post by kragen »

There are some comments here accusing Murch of Luddism, more or less, and attributing his 3-D skepticism to that.

It's worth pointing out that after spending his entire career editing film by hand, he was one of the first editors to switch to editing film with Avid; and after being a prominent proponent of Avid, he was the first film editor to edit a major motion picture with Apple's Final Cut Pro, somewhat against the wishes of Apple, who didn't think it was ready (despite the name). Meanwhile he developed a database application in Filemaker Pro for keeping track of all of the shots in a movie, starting rather early on, as I recall --- an application now in use by some other film editors who have worked with him.

So whatever the guy's faults (he does seem to enjoy a good story more than fact-checking it) he's not a Luddite. If he thinks something new won't work, it's not because he distrusts new things.

(Disclaimer: he's my father-in-law, so my judgment may be biased.)

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

#153

Post by gojomo »

Slate has also covered this, and the problem has been known for a long time:

"The Problem With 3-D: It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will."

http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/

With slight differences, stereoscopic 3D on a flat screen is an over-50-year-old technology. It gets repeatedly tried, then the novelty wears off and the negatives become familiar, and it recedes for a while – returning when it's 'novel' again.

Perhaps children who watch a lot of screen-3D can adapt. However, it's equally possible lingering impairment to vision could result – temporary or permanent. See the speculation by Mark Pesce about why his 1990s Sega VR project got cancelled:

"Keep doing that and you'll go blind"

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32814.html

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

#154

Post by Florin_Andrei »

Well, yeah, the current tech is primitive. However:

Increase the frame rate already. 24fps is not the word of god. It's used because that was all they were able to do 100 years ago, and then it became de-facto standard. Time to move on already.

Yes, we need to capture more information than simply two video channels (left and right). Probably a lot more. Then we could re-create a true illusion of depth.

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

#155

Post by axod »

chc wrote: post #150
axod wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#156

Post by erikpukinskis »

jacquesm wrote: post #63
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…

> 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. That's what idea #65 is all about: http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition Minus the drum, but when it's spinning it might as well be a drum.

I think you could take an existing OLED display and do this right now... you'd just have to write the software. In fact, you could probably do a neat small scale proof of concept by disassembling an Android phone and mounting it on a record player. :)

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

#157

Post by chc »

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.

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

#158

Post by kaiwetzel »

simcop2387 wrote: post #122
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 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

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

#159

Post by jasongullickson »

While I agree that there has yet to be a film which uses 3D properly (that is to say, a story that could be told no other way) I don't see how "tricking the brain" using stereoscopic images is any different than tricking the brain using other photographic techniques (shallow depth-of-field, exaggerated perspective, etc.)?

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

#160

Post by shasta »

Retric wrote: post #119
shasta wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. Sorry I was a bit terse, but that's what I meant by "detected focus." > You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane. That's not it exactly. The problem you're trying to solve is that, when the viewer is focused at one depth but is viewing a flat image at another depth, it will already appear blurry to him. You c…

You missed one of the steps "Have an adaptive lense in the glasses to vary rapidly change the focal plane" AKA their eyes focus on 50', and the screen is at 100’. But the glasses change that to 100' and the software shows a clear images for 50' with the correct amount of blur for stuff outside of that range. You still need to double the frame rate etc for the 3d effect, but you can alter things so brain is less confu…

So I did!
Post reply on HN