Why 3D doesn't work and never will.

Post by Murkin » Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 3:54 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #27

jcfrei wrote: post #12

when the first steam powered trains were introduced in the late 19th century, many passengers became sick as well - because they nor any generation before has ever travelled so fast before. nowadays everybody rides the trains. if your brain is frequently exposed to 3d films, couldnt it get used to processing that kind of imagery? so as time passes by more and more people go to the movies without a headache?

Many people still get motion sick in cars, on boats, and on airplanes. We just don't hear about it as much anymore. That doesn't mean the problem has gone away.

Post by j-g-faustus » Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 4:10 PM UTC

shasta wrote: post #60

Retric wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a bad idea. You could do it with one person in the theater, but you can take it one step further. Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. (High end video cameras already have this.) Have an adaptive lense in the glasses to vary rapidly change the focal plane from where they eye things it is to the screen. You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane.…

> 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…

Post by mrtron » Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 4:15 PM UTC

kordless wrote: post #89

cryptoz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> didn't work in 2010s Hah! You wish. For example, Avatar made more than $2,000,000,000 . That's $2 billion . And a huge part of the Avatar revenue comes from its 3D sales. Maybe it didn't work for you , but it sure worked for most people who went to see it.

Avatar was a good enough movie by itself to win awards and make money. It probably got a small kick from being 3D, but I disagree it was a huge part. FWIW, I saw it in 2D first, loved it, then later saw it in 3D and hated every minute watching it. It was dark and gave me a HUGE headache.

Post by risotto » Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 4:17 PM UTC

Post by dagw » Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 4:19 PM UTC

kscaldef wrote: post #88

dagw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anybody who went to see Avatar because they thought it would be a good movie. I also don't know anybody who went to see the 2D version, despite it playing at the same time and a few bucks cheaper. Everybody went because they wanted to see what could be done with the cutting edge in CGI technology plus insane amounts of money and to see what this 3D cinema thing was all about. I have as little evidence as…

I chose the 2D version. My girlfriend and I will pick the 2D version of any movie over the 3D, and won't go to see movies that are only showing in 3D at all. Even if they were the same price, the illusion does not work well for us and makes the experience less enjoyable.