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

201–208 of 208 posts

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

#201

Post by tintin »

henrikschroder wrote: post #23
gjm11 wrote: post #8

My own prejudices go along with this completely, but ... (Arthur C) Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong." ... has turned out to be correct often enough that I wouldn't want to place large bets on this. (Digression: there's an obvious difficulty in assessing Cla…

Except it doesn't apply in this case. He is saying that true 3D, some sort of holographic display would work fine, but the current fake 3D has a lot of problems. It places constraints on the cinematography, and it doesn't always enhance the end result.

But the title states it will never work. But I think over time the software will enhance. So editing 3D movies will be just as easy as 2D movies.

The part about focus of the eye is much more difficult to overcome. I think it has to do with resolution. And maybe a movie with a resolution of let's say 16.000 x 9.000 will give a better result because your eye can focus on details just like in real life.

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

#202

Post by axod »

vacri wrote: post #198
axod wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a better comparison.

3D is like smell-o-vision would be - a gimmick, distracting, and adding nothing to the story.

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

#203

Post by singular »

I'm glad that somebody other than me has come out and complained about the darkness of the image - I ask other people and they act as if it isn't the case, but it was really striking when I went to see Avatar. Major drawback...

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

#204

Post by nybble »

Unfortunately Murch's main argument is just wrong wrong.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that your state of focus (accommodation) is just about identical for objects at 10 feet away, 20 feet away, etc., out to infinity. So if your eyes converge on a screen 80 feet away, and try to focus on an object 40 feet away, that's absolutely fine, because the state of focus for 40 and 80 feet away are virtually the same anyway. Your visual system can't tell the difference. This is an experimentally demonstrated fact.

That is to say, your state of focus varies only for objects less than about ten feet away. Focus on a salt shaker three feet away, and yes, the distant horizon will be out of focus. But focus on a tree about 20 feet away, and the distant horizon will be in perfect focus.

For an object to be in focus, the distance from the lens to the film (or in this case, the retina), dr, the distance from the lens to the object, do, and the lens's optical power must obey the lensmaker's equation, (1/di) + (1/do) = P. In the human eye, do = 0.017 m, and P is adjustable. Plot P vs. do, and you'll see the P quickly asymptotes as you move beyond around 3 m.

There are perceptual issues with 3D, but this isn't one of them, at least in cinemas where the screen is far away.

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

#205

Post by MrScruff »

martinkallstrom wrote: post #180
chc wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 $2…

The popularity of Avatar tells us little about the long term commercial viability of 3D films. Avatar was the subject of a huge amount of marketing and hype (deserved or not) so there are reasons to think it would have done well regardless. Especially when you consider how the directors previous mainstream effort fared. Also, the box office figures for 3D features are falling.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11e0-badd-00144feabd...

You're using hand picked data points to argue against the validity of an attempted reasoned argument.

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

#206

Post by scotty79 »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #195
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.

I've seen a high FPS movie in cinema once. It was amazing. And it was small crappy amateurish cinema and short independent movie. That makes me think that there are other more important causes than just technological limitations of commonly used cinema equipment.

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

#208

Post by martinkallstrom »

MrScruff wrote: post #205
martinkallstrom wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 $2…

The popularity of Avatar tells us little about the long term commercial viability of 3D films. Avatar was the subject of a huge amount of marketing and hype (deserved or not) so there are reasons to think it would have done well regardless. Especially when you consider how the directors previous mainstream effort fared. Also, the box office figures for 3D features are falling. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-…

Ok, my mistake. Skip the part about Avatar. My reasoning does not rely upon it.
Post reply on HN