The real problem with 3D is much like the problem with hearing 'whispers' behind you with surround sound... I go from being immersed in the movie to being rudely reminded that I am in a cinema watching a movie. Until the experience is something that doesn't announce the technology it's only ever going to be a gimmick and, in terms of my connection to the story/character/situation, I'd much rather lesser quality simulation with greater emotional connection and persistent immersion than something 'technically' better.
Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
21–30 of 75 posts
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#22"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…
Here is what I would not call a solution but something that should be better than the current state of the art.
Note: Behind paywall
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?ar...
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#23If the goal of displays is to reproduce the real world (which may or may not be true, but I'd argue is true for some class of displays) then I would argue that 3D will eventually become standard, simply because the world is 3D. However I think the biggest current barrier for accurate representation of the world is contrast ratio, which we are orders of magnitude off of.
I propose a sort of turning test for displays where the goal is to have a display that is indistinguishable from a window into the real world. Let me know when that happens and I will be the first to buy one.
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#24Actually, 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…
"retrofelctive" - thank you for using this word! I basically froze up for a good while one time looking at a street sign at night, realizing how it's 'reflection' was different from typical mirror reflection. Now I know what the term for that is and how to build one!
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#253D 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 bette…
The Doctor Who 50th anniversary special was possibly the best use of 3D I've ever seen.
In one scene, there is a 3D oil painting. We see the characters marvelling at the effect they're seeing, but in the broadcast version we don't know what it is they're looking at until the camera pans around to show us.
In the 3D version, however, you can tell. You don't get the full effect until later, but even then it's far more pronounced than it is in the 2D version.
There are also a few other depth tricks they use, but they use them sparingly. In one scene, we see the image of The Doctor as he is broadcasting a message to another party; in the close-up of the feed (i.e. when it takes up the full screen), we see the image as we normally would, but in the four corners are an overlay, like a HUD in a video game or presumably like a HUD in an F16. They don't move, there's no animation, they're just a bit of stylistic flair, but you can tell that they're 'over' the image, which gives it a more pronounced effect, and makes the transmission 'feel' cooler and more futuristic.
I'll be glad when '3D all the things' is gone, but there are a few neat tricks that I hope we can keep in the future.
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#26Actually, 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…
I want to be clear that not any of this is easy.
I think as soon as you try it, your first attempts are going to be very blurry, squint inducing, and especially very dark. A lightfield display, in order to achieve the same level of perceived brightness as a traditional 2D display, needs to generate 2-10 times (perhaps much more) more actual light, with all the requisite power requirements that entails, since the light is distributed directionally instead of diffusely.
Going in this direction basically takes the level of resolution and precision in image reproduction we've achieved back a decade or 5, since the "pixels" or resolution units are spread over many more views than just 1 or 2, or perhaps something more recognisable as a continuum of "infinite" views, or whatever number is visually indistinguishable from infinity.
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#273D 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 agree. I've experienced the 3D effect in cinema as a strong smell that I become desensitized to shortly after exposure.
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#28It won't work for a TV, but it should work in VR, even for movies.
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#293D 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.
A "brain interface" is also superfluous because your senses are already "brain interfaces". Any interface connected to your brain will "appear" to you as a new sense organ.
I'll take some new sense organs for sure, but a "brain interface" is not the panacea people make it out to be. For one, the thoughts in our head are a jumbled mess and are only clarified through expression, which involves sensing and acting with your body. Any new interface will become a new body part. You cannot speak before you speak and you cannot write before you write just as you can't run before you run.
Re: Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011)
#30I actually like 3D (usually). It may be a gimmick, but it's one I actually like.
I have no problem with 3D (when it's used properly, but that's true of everything and shouldn't need to be said). I like how the article is supposedly using "science" to "prove" what is already disproven plainly and empirically. 3D does work.