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

3D movie projection is exciting because it may allow film, as an art form, to be more like video games.

Those who say video games are an art form tend to offer two explanations: 1) they can convey thought-provoking stories, much like traditional movies; 2) they're spatial competitions, similar to the way there's an art in learning how to maneuver around a tennis court.

When 3D projection is incorporated into some movies (note: some), it can bring out this spatial element in interesting ways. A great example of this Gravity (2013), with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTiKOy59o4

The main character in that movie was essentially space. Although there wasn't much dialogue or traditional character development, it managed to engage audiences and critics until the last minute. The appeal of movies like Gravity is somewhat new to the film industry; it's similar to the appeal of watching a tense sports match or navigating your way through a puzzle game like Portal.

Oh it was. I've never seen a 3D movie before, I went specifically because so many critics I trust had said it may have been the first case of 3D done well and actually being useful to the storytelling.

But that's the same reason I don't expect to do it again any time soon. What were the previous movies where 3D was supposed to be a big part of the experience? Avatar? Polar Express? Even if those were perfect movies, they were years and years ago. The last time I even gave it a second thought was Hugo.

Gravity made a lot of sense, because you convey just how alone the characters were in the volume of space. It's going to be a while before someone makes a movie 1) with a good script and 2) a good director that 3) really uses 3D well.

Those interested in a positive take on 3-D might be interested in reading Thomas Elsaesser's paper, "The “Return” of 3-D: On Some of the Logics and Genealogies of the Image in the Twenty-First Century"[1]. One of his examples is the movie Coraline which uses 3-D "not in order to emphasis depth, but to construct spaces that do not follow the rules of perspective and introduce slight anomalies into it." I haven't seen the movie myself, and my only experience with modern 3-D movies is going cross-eyed watching YouTube trailers, but dismissing 3-D outright seems premature to me.

[1] http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/uploads/pdf/Elsaesser.pd...

> 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.

I think you're being far too hard on him. He had seen the 3D fad come and go before. He had a set of standards and I think he was right to stand by them. As it is 3D adds almost nothing to film making at the moment: there are technological limitations and we don't have a good idea of how to use it. Right now it increases ticket prices, is usually 'shoveled-on' to a movie, and reduces the light hitting the viewer's eyes (a long-standing pet peeve of Ebert).

> 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.

There is a reason we don't see many fast pans in movies. 24fps forces some compromises. I have no doubt that 48 (or something higher) will eventually become the standard, but just like color/sound/3D we'll need to develop the techniques around it to use it properly.

The accommodation/vergence problem is well known but primarily a big deal for VR headsets like the Rift, not for cinema screens. The a/v disparity is the inverse tan of distance so it quickly fades into irrelevance at the 10ft range.

And such disparities can be solved via Virtual Retinal Displays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display) which shine laser light directly onto your retina and can simulate any level of depth and focus accurately.