Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

rogerebert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 75 posts

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

#51

Post by pyalot2 »

I've mainly 3 problems with 3D-movies

1) For some reason, when I watch one, the first 20 minutes or so my left eye feels "numb". Hard to describe, just unpleasant.

2) I wear glasses, and I can't wear contacts. Clunky 3D glasses don't work for me, and some theaters don't use polarizing filters so there's no clip-ons

3) This seems to be related a lot to how a film is edited, but there's an effect that makes everything on screen look like miniatures (as in tilt/shift photography) to me. It's not the same in every movie. Avatar = good, Hobit = soso, John Carter = very very bad.

Sidenotes, yeah, the picture is darker. And somehow the movie does indeed feel "smaller", those effects don't bother me much, but they don't help.

Consequence: I don't buy a 3D-TV, I don't buy a 3D-Beamer, and if I can avoid it I don't go watch a 3D-Movie. Unfortunately, I like going to cinema, and sometimes cinemas only have 3D screenings, which is annoying because then it's a choice between not seeing the movie in a cinema or 3D (both bad options).

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

#52

Post by beloch »

The funny thing about this round of 3D is that it isn't a bold new venture for cinemas. It's a sign of stress. Cinema ticket sales have been in decline for over a decade now [1]. Just as TV stole away the everyday crowds from golden-age cinemas', ever-improving home theater quality and video gaming are steadily chipping away at what remains.

When TV started stealing business from cinema's, Hollywood's response was to use new technologies to give cinema patrons something TV's of the time couldn't. Hence, widescreen aspect ratios became widely adopted and, later on, the first wave of 3D, stereo, surround sound, etc.. TV technology stagnated and an equilibrium was formed that stood until home video came along and started disrupting things.

Today, the second wave of 3D is an attempt to tear people away from their hi-definition, audiophile-grade, surround-sound home-theaters and drag them back into cinemas (at double the normal ticket price). It will work, for at least a little while, until 3D becomes ubiquitous even amongst relatively cheap home video displays. At that point, 3D may very well die another death because Hollywood might not be willing to tolerate higher production costs (and limitations of the technology) for a gimmick that doesn't bring in enough extra cash. What will likely determine the longevity of 3D is if those costs will come down faster or slower than the sales-boost tapers off!

The next obvious step for viewer immersion is virtual reality. If VR headsets such as the Oculus Rift or what Valve has been secretly working on take off in the next few years and develop a large enough user-base, there's a remote chance that we might see some movies developed for them. Cinema's might also introduce VR rooms, making Hollywood investment in VR films more likely. These might be entirely on-the-fly rendered machinema that allow users to walk around freely inside the film, or pre-rendered films that place the viewer on a rail with only the ability to move their head to look around. Gimicky, yes. Highly unlikely to replace traditional film, yes. It could happen though, as one more way to boost sales.

[1]http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

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

#53

Post by trekky1700 »

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.

Tell this to a person blind in one eye and unable to perceive depth.

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

#54

Post by trekky1700 »

Honestly, any article that says something like "it never will" is setting itself up for failure. Writing a commentary on current technologies is fine, but implying some knowledge of the future and what is possible is just ignorant and obviously motivated by feelings outside of presenting a true and unbiased article.

The technology isn't perfect, but to say that it will never "work" is just ludicrous.

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

#55

Post by trekky1700 »

beloch wrote: post #52

The funny thing about this round of 3D is that it isn't a bold new venture for cinemas. It's a sign of stress. Cinema ticket sales have been in decline for over a decade now [1]. Just as TV stole away the everyday crowds from golden-age cinemas', ever-improving home theater quality and video gaming are steadily chipping away at what remains. When TV started stealing business from cinema's, Hollywood's response was to…

Honestly, the number of people who have at home experiences even close to cinema quality or "audiophile" grade is incredibly few. Most people have average priced HD TVs, a cheap bluray player and maybe a soundbar.

The people who own the systems that they've meticulously picked out and spent thousands on will go to the cinema no matter what, because they deeply care about the media and are willing to pay to see it early on the big screen. It really comes down to people just not caring about seeing movies, and has little to do with the at home equipment.

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

#56

Post by dagw »

MBCook wrote: post #38
DrStalker wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

As much as respect and often agree with Ebert, he has an annoying tendency towards absolutes, just like the video games and art thing. I'm in full agreement with him on this at the current level of technology, but "never" is a long time and I'm certainly not willing to bet on what's going to happen 50-75 years down the road.

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

#57

Post by forgotmycreds »

zerny wrote: post #41
hawkharris wrote: post #32

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 mov…

Watched it in iMAX and it all felt like fake. :(

Because it was fake. The moment the accurate physics were broken to kill of Clooney was the moment it lsot my attention. I already was very bored of the story (no I don't need an action packed movie to entertain me), and the thing I liked was that they were being realistic in space. But then they screwed that up. (Clooney got "pulled" away from whatshername while tension should have already pulled him back, there was no spin involved either) //end of off topic

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

#58

Post by jmpeax »

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.

Your comment about 3D being superfluous without contributing anything meaningful really hits home when I try to recall the 3D movies I've seen. Even the one that made the biggest impression on me, the stunning and very well made "How to Train Your Dragon" in 3D, but to this day I remember it in my mind as if it was only in 2D.

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

#59

Post by blueskin_ »

Oh look, Roger Ebert. The ultimate hipster.

The same man who says games will never count as art. He's just scared the entertainment industry is changing.

I've watched literally dozens of 3D movies and have never once had any kind of side effect. I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for most people - they expect to feel something, so they do.

The brightness issue is exactly why 3D screens have higher powered projectors and more reflective screens. I saw a 3D film in the 1990s and that was dark; modern ones are not.

Strobing is a side effect of crappy framerates (24fps should not be acceptable for anything, ever), not 3D.

I'm not even going to bother with the focus 'issue' as so many people, me included, don't even experience it, but yes, it is resolvable.

As for immersion, meh, he can speak for himself, the most immersive experiences I've had were 3D, and the main immersion-breaker is other people moving around, making noises, eating, etc. What annoys me the most is badly done 3D movies though, as they look bad and ruin the overall perception. A movie made in native 3D will always look better than a postproduction kludge like Clash Of The Titans or most things Disney did. I also hate it when 3D is used an excuse for cheap effects like having things fly directly at the viewer or hover in front of them, as that ruins both the credibility of the quality of the effect and the seriousness of how it can be used.

When audio was added to movies, people said it ruined them; then colour; 3D is just the next step of that iteration.

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

#60

Post by bsaul »

higherpurpose wrote: post #28

It won't work for a TV, but it should work in VR, even for movies.

I was going to post the same idea. Since i've tried occulus rifts, i'm really impatient to see the first version of a lord of the ring or star wars in full 3D with an occulus rift on my head. Imagine being right in the middle of a space battle, being able to move your head all around, or sitting on a horse while charging sauron's armies.

That is going to be the true 3D revolution.

Post reply on HN