PDA

View Full Version : Is enthusiasm for 3D losing its depth?



Glom
2011-Jan-16, 01:59 PM
Get it? :razz:

Anyway, when the latest 3D craze began a year ago, we all thought it was going to be different this time. The glasses were now used circular polarisation eliminating the annoying need to keep your head straight throughout. The film quality was so much better that supposedly the picture wouldn't be compromised.

But now things are changing.

Confused Matthew was critical of 3D in the latest Narnia movie (http://www.confusedmatthew.com/Voyage-of-the-Dawn-Treader.php). Roger Ebert was critical of 3D in The Green Hornet (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110112/REVIEWS/110119995/0/components). I already commented how I thought 3D was to the detriment of the Tron movie.

It's also getting obnoxious the way the marketing people are using the concept like a sledgehammer.

Rhaedas
2011-Jan-16, 02:39 PM
What's new? Everyone jumps on the bandwagon whenever something else comes along. Remember how the Matrix effect was used (still is some) in everything from movies to commercials to football. And yet the concept only made sense in the Matrix universe setting.

As for 3D itself...I don't see how it adds anything more than if you got higher resolution or clearer colors. There's no real added information, and so maybe the word is now spreading as more people realize that the extra money in 3D movies or the TVs really isn't all that worth it.

You're always going to have limitations, no matter how "real" the picture is. I even remember a Star Trek TNG episode in the holodeck, trying to pieces things together to solve a mystery that had been recorded on an away mission, and there were limitations on what could be played back in "true" 3D, because a recording can't get EVERYTHING...so there were missing parts of the scenery.

Plus...I'm not going to want to worry where I put the remote AND the glasses. And you sure can't watch those 3D TVs without, it'll make your head hurt. I assume you can turn it off, but seeing that stuff in the stores is quite annoying.

Romanus
2011-Jan-16, 03:56 PM
Though I'm lukewarm on the technology, I don't think it's a flap; there are already preliminary 3D devices out that don't require glasses, and the format is already on the table for the next Nintendo DS (which, incidentally, will have a stereoscopic camera for taking 3D pictures). Cynical as this may sound, I don't think it's escapable; I won't be surprised to see the day when you can only see hit movies in 3D (as the technology depreciates it will significantly drive up profit margins with higher ticket prices), and in turn must buy a 3D-capable set. Every criticism of 3D electronic media today seems strangely reflective of HDTV skepticism a decade ago, but now it's taken as a given on both broadcast and cable television, to say nothing of online. It's the new normal, folks.

Strange
2011-Jan-16, 04:50 PM
Is enthusiasm for 3D losing its depth?

Lets hope so. I gather sales of 3D televisions have not met expectations. (Hurrah)

Jim
2011-Jan-16, 06:02 PM
Is enthusiasm for 3D losing its depth?

Get it?

Yes, and you can have it back.

I'm sure there is some diminishment of the original enthusiasm for 3D, among both studios and customers. The novelty is wearing off, it costs more, and it doesn't offer that much of an advantage.

However, I think it will make a comeback over the next few years. Getting rid of the glasses will help immensely. Finding the right ways to use it to best benefit will make it the standard rather than the exception.

Not every movie talked right away. Not every movie was in color right away. But those are now the standard.

Swift
2011-Jan-16, 06:24 PM
As for 3D itself...I don't see how it adds anything more than if you got higher resolution or clearer colors. There's no real added information, and so maybe the word is now spreading as more people realize that the extra money in 3D movies or the TVs really isn't all that worth it.
I think there is a bigger limitation for 3D, or any other movie technology: it doesn't make up for a bad movie. Actually, I'll correct myself... it does for a short time. There is a limited window where the technology itself is the star and people will pay just to see that. But quickly, the novelty passes, especially when all/most movies adapt the technology, and we are back to the bottom line of actually having to make a good movie.

As Jim said, at one time sound, color, 70mm, Dolby sound, etc. were all novelties. Eventually they just become part of the business.

SkepticJ
2011-Jan-16, 06:45 PM
You're always going to have limitations, no matter how "real" the picture is. I even remember a Star Trek TNG episode in the holodeck, trying to pieces things together to solve a mystery that had been recorded on an away mission, and there were limitations on what could be played back in "true" 3D, because a recording can't get EVERYTHING...so there were missing parts of the scenery.


You can if you record from multiple points of view simultaneously.

Use something like this: http://www.immersivemedia.com/ in multiple locations around an environment (or movie set). Each movie viewer could see their own, unique version of a film.

We could do this now, imagine what we'll be able to do with Optical Phased Array technology thirty to sixty years from now.

Jim
2011-Jan-16, 07:09 PM
As Jim said, at one time sound, color, 70mm, Dolby sound, etc. were all novelties. Eventually they just become part of the business.

And then there is Cinerama, which was used for two - count 'em, 2* - movies (and several travelogues).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056085/trivia?tr0674609

* How The West Was Won and The Brothers Grimm

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-16, 07:27 PM
And Fantasound, which afaik was used for only one.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-16, 08:01 PM
Roger Ebert, it should be noted, has not so much lost his enthusiasm for 3D as never had any going in. He's been impressed once or twice, but on multiple occasions has said not to pay the extra money.

The thing is, "but look at colour!" is, to me, about the same level of argument as "but they laughed at Galileo!" Because there is Cinerama and Fantasound. There was Bwana Devil, after all, and all those delightful Castle gimmicks. Yes, colour and widescreen and sound all shaped entertainment within five years of their real introductions. (Though it's worth noting that early colour was expensive enough so that low budget pretty much guaranteed B&W. Among other considerations.) However, a lot of innovations faded just as quickly. I grant you that 3D has made a much bigger impact than, say, Percepto. However, big initial splash doesn't necessarily mean staying power. There are fads in movies and in TV. Sometimes, they stay. More often, they do not.

CJSF
2011-Jan-16, 08:09 PM
I find the 3D in 3D movies more of a distraction than anything else. In Avatar there were a few scenes where there was a decent "wow" factor, but the rest just got in the way. Without all the other depth cues, I found myself having to look away for a second or two every once in a while and getting disoriented more than a few times.

There are movies out right now that I have no option to see it in 2D until it comes out on DVD or my Netflix stream; the local cinemas just aren't allocating any non-3D screens to it.

CJSF

ETA: The database/posts not showing/posting error problem just cropped up with this post!

Strange
2011-Jan-16, 09:10 PM
And Fantasound, which afaik was used for only one.

And sensurround and smell-o-vision and ...

In my experience, 3D is about as convincing and useful as those other gimmicks.

Van Rijn
2011-Jan-16, 09:52 PM
I think the polarized glasses 3D scheme for movies is here to stay, but it won't be for every movie. It seems pretty well established for special effects heavy movies.

But I think the current 3D TV stuff is a fad. I might be willing to put on glasses for a special movie event at the theater, but TV viewing is usually a casual affair, and the special viewing requirements (using expensive 3d viewing glasses) aren't compatible with casual TV watching. There are some attempts at practical 3D displays to be seen without glasses, but they typically have major restrictions, such as only working if you're viewing at a fairly specific distance, at a fairly specific viewing angle. I haven't seen anything yet that suggests to me there will be a practical, inexpensive, "no glasses" 3D display for casual TV viewing any time soon.

For home use, I think games will likely be a better market than TV. For that, people are already willing to pay for special equipment.

DonM435
2011-Jan-16, 10:39 PM
I remember how Ralph Kramden on The Honeymooners was holding out for 3-D television. I thought that maybe his time had come.

Bearded One
2011-Jan-16, 10:39 PM
I was never able to truly appreciate the size and interior configuration of the space station until I saw it in 3D. 3D can be useful for stuff like that. I doubt I would have bothered with "Avatar" if I didn't see it in 3D, 3D made the movie much more watchable for me. Same for the new "A Christmas Carol", but then I was never crazy about that movie. I only watched it because the graphics and 3D were awesome.

The big issue with 3D for me is still the glasses and method. I often work on the computer while watching TV and that's difficult with the glasses on due to flickering of the computer monitor. As a result I find 3D movies require more exclusive dedication of my time than 2D movies.

Jim
2011-Jan-16, 10:53 PM
... The thing is, "but look at colour!" is, to me, about the same level of argument as "but they laughed at Galileo!" Because there is Cinerama and Fantasound. There was Bwana Devil, after all, and all those delightful Castle gimmicks. Yes, colour and widescreen and sound all shaped entertainment within five years of their real introductions. (Though it's worth noting that early colour was expensive enough so that low budget pretty much guaranteed B&W. Among other considerations.) However, a lot of innovations faded just as quickly. I grant you that 3D has made a much bigger impact than, say, Percepto. However, big initial splash doesn't necessarily mean staying power. There are fads in movies and in TV. Sometimes, they stay. More often, they do not.

Sound and color caught on (IMO) because we (most of us) hear sound and see color and because the technology was developed to deliver that natural experience in a natural way (realistic, no ear phones or special glasses).

We (most of us) see in 3D. If the technology currently being developed can deliver that natural experience in a natural way (realistic, no special glasses), 3D will stick. If not, it will be another fad.

And, hey, what do you have against Bwana Devil? It was another sterling performance by Robert Stack.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-17, 12:44 AM
I just saw the trailer for Jackass 3D, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fad that's burning itself out really fast. I predict by this time next year, it's only going to be the major blockbusters that are in 3D because it will no longer work as a selling point for mediocre movies.

DonM435
2011-Jan-17, 03:56 AM
I seem to recall reading some 40 years ago that hologram-based photography would soon produce 3-D movies so good that you'd swear that you were looking into a mirror.

Every 3-D I've witnessed gave me a headache after 30 minutes (or sometimes five).

novaderrik
2011-Jan-17, 05:14 AM
I just saw the trailer for Jackass 3D, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fad that's burning itself out really fast. I predict by this time next year, it's only going to be the major blockbusters that are in 3D because it will no longer work as a selling point for mediocre movies.

i think Johnny Knoxville and the rest of the Jackass crew know exactly how stupid the whole 3D fad is, and are doing their best to try to point out how absurd it is.
good for them. hopefully Jackass 3D is the movie that kills the 3D fad this time around.
but it's also possible that the adult movie industry will start rolling out 3D movies if the technology becomes cheap enough and easy enough to use, in which case 3D is here to stay.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-17, 05:50 AM
Sound and color caught on (IMO) because we (most of us) hear sound and see color and because the technology was developed to deliver that natural experience in a natural way (realistic, no ear phones or special glasses).

That makes sense. Certainly there's a level of historical inevitability there. After all, photographs had been in colour for some time, and the phonograph as a popular medium was also an Edison thing. It's also worth noting that, before Technicolor, there were films which were hand-tinted.


We (most of us) see in 3D. If the technology currently being developed can deliver that natural experience in a natural way (realistic, no special glasses), 3D will stick. If not, it will be another fad.

Again. It didn't stick around the first time because people got tired of the gimmick. Remember that Alfred Hitchcock directed a 3D film, though I'm not sure it was ever actually released in the medium.


And, hey, what do you have against Bwana Devil? It was another sterling performance by Robert Stack.

To be honest, I've never actually seen it. It is, however, another one of those smug film student things; the fact that I can name it lends weight to how much I know about the history of film gimmicks, I suppose. But I can name it, for what that's worth.

Glom
2011-Jan-17, 07:20 AM
I think the polarized glasses 3D scheme for movies is here to stay, but it won't be for every movie. It seems pretty well established for special effects heavy movies.

That may be the problem. The times when 3D is worst is during fast moving sequences. It's just blurry. Can you imagine the next Transformers movie in 3D? It will be even more of an unintelligible mess than before.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-17, 07:33 AM
That may be the problem. The times when 3D is worst is during fast moving sequences. It's just blurry. Can you imagine the next Transformers movie in 3D?
I can't imagine how it will be possible for it NOT to be in 3D given the current market and movie executives' notoriously lemming-like behavior.

WaxRubiks
2011-Jan-17, 10:37 AM
There are movies out right now that I have no option to see it in 2D until it comes out on DVD or my Netflix stream; the local cinemas just aren't allocating any non-3D screens to it.



all you need are some glasses with the lens from the left(or right) eye, on both sides of the glasses. Maybe there would be a market for such a thing.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-17, 03:57 PM
As Jim said, at one time sound, color, 70mm, Dolby sound, etc. were all novelties. Eventually they just become part of the business.
True, but none of those technology required equipment per viewer. Would Dolby have taken off if everyone had to wear special headphones?

Gillianren
2011-Jan-17, 04:51 PM
I can't imagine how it will be possible for it NOT to be in 3D given the current market and movie executives' notoriously lemming-like behavior.

I think just that it's Michael Bay is reason enough. He is the King of Shiny, after all.

SeanF
2011-Jan-17, 05:20 PM
I'm going to post a link to this YouTube video in this thread because, well, just because.

It is supposedly a demonstration of a no-glasses 3D technology, but....Oh, I'm not going to give it way. You've got to watch it. :eek:

Here's the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uef17zOCDb8).

Delvo
2011-Jan-17, 05:21 PM
I see two problems holding back 3D implementations and keeping them from catching on, and it's different from prior advances like color and sound on each of these points.

1. Three-dimensionality is a concept that our brains put together from a combination of different cues, none of which does the job on its own. We detect the parallax between our two eyes when focusing on the same thing; that's the part that movies and TV have managed so far with the glasses. We also detect how our lenses need to be flexed to focus on things at different distances, which is something that 3D movies don't address and thus inherently must get wrong any time the distance to a depicted object is different from the distance to the screen. We also compare "apparent" sizes (portion of view field) of familiar objects of known physical sizes because it comes as automatic to us that when an object takes up less of our view field it's farther away, and compare the changes in our view of foreground and background objects when we move. Those are things that 2D movies already have built in, and which movie makers can tinker with to create convincing effects, like when The Fellowship of the Ring puts Hobbits and humans in the same tavern with forced-perspective shots and costumed giant humans piloted by extras on stilts and such. And there are other "minor" visual cues to three-dimensionality too, some of which movie-makers have also long been using in 2D tricks to manipulate our impressions of sizes and distances, like the Hitchcock Zoom. In Troy, which was demythified to be a more realistic story of things that might/could have happened, Ajax is not an impossible giant but just a very big man, and they hired a big man to play him but also used tricks like keeping the camera low so it has to angle up at him, and letting his head be close to the top edge of the image while others' heads are more conventionally centered, to emphasize how big he is. In The Two Towers, when Aragorn gets to the top of a ridge from where he can see the castle Helm's Deep, the impression of the landscape in the background being bigger and farther away is created by an airborne camera with a long zoom lens circling around him from relatively far away, plus having him take a somewhat curved path on the ground to reduce the impression of how far around the camera moves (because the angle we see him and his horse from doesn't change much). A camera moving in any direction other than the axis along which it's pointed conveys everything's distance in the scene based on how the movement affects foreground and background objects differently, such as during the main characters' approach to the distressed village in The Thirteenth Warrior. In short, there was already a lot of three-dimensional information in a 2D video all along (and various ways for directors to control them), just not every kind of three-dimensional information that the real world has, and 3D technology barely changes that: it still produces a video with just one more kind of three-dimensional information (ocular parallax), but still not all of the ones we use in the real world. Color, sound, and even surround-sound, on the other hand, were pretty much all-or-nothing.

2. The latest trend to use it as much as possible has been fueled by Avatar, but fails to acknowledge other factors that made that movie what it was, and made it a uniquely good one in which to use 3D, because of its immersiveness and surreal, alien imagery. A movie that isn't meant to absorb you into such an alternative environment doesn't have as much use for 3D, because the more familiar you already are with something, the more complete your mental image of it is when you're shown it in a 2D movie anyway.

DonM435
2011-Jan-18, 01:44 PM
...
We also compare "apparent" sizes (portion of view field) of familiar objects of known physical sizes because it comes as automatic to us that when an object takes up less of our view field it's farther away, and compare the changes in our view of foreground and background objects when we move. Those are things that 2D movies already have built in, and which movie makers can tinker with to create convincing effects, like when The Fellowship of the Ring puts Hobbits and humans in the same tavern with forced-perspective shots and costumed giant humans piloted by extras on stilts and such.
...


Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me before. If 3-D photography had been the norm from the start of motion pictures, then we wouldn't have had King Kong in 1933 nor The Lost World before that -- at least not in the form we know them -- as the false-size-via-perspective trick wouldn't work. Rather, special effects artistry would have evolved along different paths.

Taeolas
2011-Jan-20, 12:52 PM
Another thing to remember is that Hollywood is jumping on the 3D bandwagon because of Avatar. Avatar brought in the big bucks and got away with charging 12$ for a movie, so they figure if they 3D any movie they can also get 12$/seat too. But most of the "3D" movies coming out now were filmed in 2D and go through some bad computer process to make them seem like they are 3D, but everyone agrees the effect is not the same. (Narnia and Night's "The Last Abomination" (I refuse to acknowledge its real name. :P ) are examples of that. Harry Potter on the other hand sort've proved you can still have a hit without the fake 3D, but I don't think that will stop them from doing the post3D effects on part 2. WB probably looks at the numbers HP:Part1 brought in and figures it's 3$ lost for every seat that sold.

Thankfully, I think we're past the "Ooo Shiny!" stage of 3D effects, but sadly, we're still neck deep in the "Jump on the 3D Bandwagon" stage. In a few years it'll hopefully fade down to just another director tool, hopefully with more films natively filmed in 3D.

Glom
2011-Jan-20, 12:58 PM
Was Tron filmed in 3D? Is that to blame for the crappiness of the 3D? If that's the case, then my policy of not seeing movies in 3D anymore will change to not seeing movies that have been post-processed into 3D, but potentially seeing movies that were shot originally in 3D.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-20, 01:12 PM
Harry Potter on the other hand sort've proved you can still have a hit without the fake 3D, but I don't think that will stop them from doing the post3D effects on part 2.
I wouldn't use HP as a fair comparison since the books were such a huge hit before the movie came out. But; I'm sure there are plenty of other 2D movies to compare. You'd probably have to adjust for pre-release hype though. Since they also release the 3D movies in 2D, I would be curious as to to the viewing ratios there (taking in account the availability of each)

WB probably looks at the numbers HP:Part1 brought in and figures it's 3$ lost for every seat that sold.
I wonder if some people are waiting for part 2 so they can see both.

Glom
2011-Jan-20, 01:51 PM
It would be good see the trends in that ratio as well. Is 3D becoming the preferred option or are people starting to find it not worth it? I know that I'd be in the latter camp.

Click Ticker
2011-Jan-20, 02:16 PM
I can't get on board the 3-D bandwagon (glasses or not), because I can't think of that many times where I can just sit down and watch a show, beginning to end, without interruption. If the TV is on, great. Often it's on while I'm doing other things. Maybe just listening to the news or passively paying attention to a particular show while I'm reading something else or working with my wife on house stuff (short and long term planning, discussing kids, projects, etc.). To me, it makes TV seem like another chore where I have to stop and really focus on it. I don't want TV viewing to take any kink of priority in my life.

The really nice thing about it is that it makes 2D technology a whole lot cheaper.

Taeolas
2011-Jan-20, 03:03 PM
It would be good see the trends in that ratio as well. Is 3D becoming the preferred option or are people starting to find it not worth it? I know that I'd be in the latter camp.

Only speaking for myself, I'm saying "not worth it". Depending on the film, I'll go to the 2D instead of the 3D, especially if I've heard it was post-3D'ed. Tron was an exception for me, but I don't think my theatre offered a 2D version. On the other hand there was a movie I saw that I can't recall now, that I did see the 2D version instead.

Glom
2011-Jan-20, 06:33 PM
Wikipedia says it was filmed in 3D so the post 3D-ing can't be blamed for the lousy effect. I think I'll skip 3D from now on and save my money.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-20, 06:51 PM
Tron was filmed in 3D. Deathly Hallows part two has been filmed in 3D; Warner Bros. made the conscious decision not to computer-alter the first part to put it in 3D, because they knew that doesn't end well. (Will I see it in 3D? I haven't decided yet and don't have to.) I respect that decision from them a lot, actually. It would have artificially inflated the numbers, but it would have reduced the quality of the finished work. I'm surprised that it apparently was made by executives, not by the people on the artistic side.

Glom
2011-Jan-20, 08:00 PM
Execs did however decide to shoot part 2 in 3D though, which is stupid. You've got an entire film series totally 8 films with the first 7 in 2D and you're going to choose to go 3D for just the last one? And what's worse is that the last one is part two of the final two parter. It would be more forgiveable if it was its own chapter. I'd just say blow this for a game of toy soldiers. The series has been 2D throughout, we might as well stick with it for the final straight. It will have a greater sense of completeness to it rather than having this odd ball tech feature that is so obviously us just chasing the gimmick of the day.

When I see part 2, I will vote for 2D. I also have no intention of watching Star Wars in 3D.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-20, 08:28 PM
Oh, I'm done with Lucas entirely.

Glom
2011-Jan-20, 09:13 PM
Oh no you're not.

It's time! (http://www.redlettermedia.com/)

Gillianren
2011-Jan-20, 10:46 PM
I'll admit I still follow Darths & Droids, but I was also able to get through DM of the Rings even though I can't handle the books or movies. Other than that, if it's Lucas, I can ignore it entirely. In fact, one of the things I learned from Darths & Droids is that I have no memory of actually watching the second prequel. I know I did, but I don't remember having done so.

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2011-Jan-20, 11:07 PM
Hey, Ebert did say that Red Letter Media's Episode III review might be the first review that people would be willing to pay to see in a theater.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-20, 11:34 PM
Roger and I have been known to disagree now and then. Honestly, I have no opinion about the review one way or another, but I don't care enough about Episode III.

Bearded One
2011-Jan-20, 11:36 PM
I suppose that I should mention that I've never seen a 3D movie in a theater and possibly never will since I don't go to theaters.

3D has to move from being the "point" to being part of the experience. I actually hate the "come at you 'ness" effect that many movies seem to be emphasizing to show off the 3D. I prefer more natural 3D effects. When watching shows on my 3D TV I find the depth of view more important than the forward projection of the image. Watching a movie in 3D is like looking out of a window onto the scene. Sometimes I see people try out the 3D and they are so busy looking for things to fly in their face that they fail to notice the depth and are unimpressed.

I also find that occasionally watching a 3D movie makes the TV picture look 3D even when it's not in 3D. I guess my brain is being conditioned to it showing a 3D image so it tries to add the 3rd dimension even if it's not there. 3D on the cheap. :lol:

I would love to find a way to watch a 3D movie with the glasses on and still perform other tasks without issues. That's especially important with computer screens, they all flicker for me with the glasses on and it's quite distracting. Some monitors work better than others and generally LCD monitors are better than CRTs but I have seen some CRTs hold up better than the average LCD so I'm not sure what to look for in that regards when buying new monitors.

Delvo
2011-Jan-23, 05:09 AM
Was Tron filmed in 3D? Is that to blame for the crappiness of the 3D?I don't know whether other people generally consider Tron's 3D to be badly done, but if so, I have another guess about the reason. Remember that stuff I said about the multiple different cues we subconsciously use to calculate depths and that the stereoscopic effect, which is what movie "3D" addresses, is only one of them... well, Tron's environment lacks others because so much of it is just black space and so much of the non-black is unfamiliar and/or for some other reason hard to figure out the scale of. So even with the stereoscopic effect working, that particular movie might be more prone than others to jarring you with either internal conflicts or just awkward holes in the usual suite of information you're used to receiving and subconsciously expect to receive about depth.


3D has to move from being the "point" to being part of the experience. I actually hate the "come at you 'ness" effect that many movies seem to be emphasizing to show off the 3D. I prefer more natural 3D effects. When watching shows on my 3D TV I find the depth of view more important than the forward projection of the image. Watching a movie in 3D is like looking out of a window onto the scene. Sometimes I see people try out the 3D and they are so busy looking for things to fly in their face that they fail to notice the depth and are unimpressed.This is a huge difference between some 3D movies and others. Avatar used 3D well, as one of many parts of the complete environment that work together, but when I was in the theater to see it, I saw previews for other movies that did it horribly wrong and cheesily, especially one about some kind of beach resort place being attacked by swarms of piranhas. It was overdone not only from a stylistic point of view, being too much of a gimmick calling attention to itself, but also from a geometric point of view, making differences between different objects' depths look more drastic than they really were or even putting the two views of the same object so far apart that they essentially couldn't be reconciled into a single object at all (as if shot with a pair of cameras that were too far apart from each other).


I also find that occasionally watching a 3D movie makes the TV picture look 3D even when it's not in 3D. I guess my brain is being conditioned to it showing a 3D image so it tries to add the 3rd dimension even if it's not there. 3D on the cheap. :lol:This reminds me of something else I should have mentioned before about the third-dimension information that even two-dimensional images & video still have. In a non-3D presentation, the stereoscopic effect unfortunately doesn't just fail to give us depth information; it actually actively gives us incorrect depth information, because the angle between our eyes to make the left and right images match is exactly the angle we use when looking at anything that's as far from us as the screen is. This is a big part of why the experience of looking at anything on a screen isn't the same as looking at it in real life, and why that difference is worse for small screens even when they're close enough to take up as much of your view field as a bigger screen. But the problem does have a funny solution: exclude the false depth information of the 2D image by neutralizing the stereoscopic effect, by covering one eye and watching with only the other. Without the stereoscopic effect telling you that everything is as far away as your screen is, other cues built in to the picture, like differences in movement between foreground and background objects, take over, making apparent depths work better than they would if you were using both eyes! It doesn't get you any more information about the distances to objects in the image than you have otherwise, but it lets the good information that's in there make a more effective impression because there isn't an extra set of false (stereoscopic) information intruding. People with one problem or another with one eye preventing them from watching 3D movies are already getting a more three-dimensional experience out of 2D movies than the rest of us, who have two eyes working well enough to have this problem.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-23, 06:54 AM
We went out today, and a store we went to had a display of a 3D TV. It was playing highlights from the 2010 Winter Olympics. The figure skating, which was the part I looked at, just looked weird. Not natural at all.

Jim
2011-Jan-25, 08:33 PM
... I saw previews for other movies that did it horribly wrong and cheesily, especially one about some kind of beach resort place being attacked by swarms of piranhas. ...

Oh, yeah, like that movie would be such a classic in 2D. Silk purse, pig's ear.

(On further thought, cheesy 3D in a movie about piranhas attacking a beach resort seems kinda... right.)

Mr Gorsky
2011-Jan-25, 09:33 PM
My problem with the 3D craze is that I can't see it. Literally. A sporting injury has left me without stereoscopic vision so, with or without glasses, it is an utterly irrelevant technology ... not that I expect my misfortune to guide Hollywood, but I do wonder how many people are in the same boat as me and despairing at being forced to miss films on the big screen because the local movie houses choose to only put on the 3D version, presumably because they figure the loss of money from the few of us who choose not to go is more than offset by increased takings from the 3D version.

I love going to the cinema, and don't get there nearly as often as I would like, but twice recently I have had to pass on going to see films I had been looking forward to because only a 3D showing was available. I thought the same was going to be true of Tron: Legacy as well, but fortunately my favourite local cinema decided, at the last minute, to add a 2D showing ... at the expense of the 2D version of Despicable Me, which I also wanted to see.

And before anyone says it ... I have tried to watch a 3D movie on the big screen with glasses and, trust me, a clear right image and blurred left does not make for pleasant watching, even though it is marginally preferable to watching it without the glasses.

:D

All of which rant was only really to say that I hope 3D never becomes the "Normal" or "Standard" format for viewing movies on the big screen ... or at home.

CJSF
2011-Jan-25, 09:37 PM
Couldn't you block one eye/lens? Wouldn't that work?

CJSF

Gillianren
2011-Jan-25, 10:00 PM
And before anyone says it ... I have tried to watch a 3D movie on the big screen with glasses and, trust me, a clear right image and blurred left does not make for pleasant watching, even though it is marginally preferable to watching it without the glasses.

Oh, I certainly wasn't going to say it. Yours is really not that uncommon a problem, but as you say, there's a limit to how much Hollywood cares. People make the colourblind argument, but colourblind people can still see the movie. They miss the nuances--even red/green colourblind would make Hero less spectacular--but it's not as though it's just a blur.

Van Rijn
2011-Jan-25, 11:16 PM
Couldn't you block one eye/lens? Wouldn't that work?

CJSF

I don't know about him, but if blocking one eye was the only way I could comfortably watch a movie in the theater, I wouldn't go.

Cookie
2011-Jan-25, 11:46 PM
3D?
Meh, I say.
What I'd really like to see is sharp, fluid 1080p 2D movies & TV shows without motion blur, shaky cam, and unintelligible speech due to the BGM being way too loud and/ or the actors/actresses having marbles in their mouths.

Bearded One
2011-Jan-26, 12:38 AM
How about if the theaters offered glasses that only showed one image? I believe theaters use polarized lenses so they just need for both lenses to have the same polarization. That might reduce the brightness but I don't think it would affect the effective framerate. That would probably beat blocking one eye.

Glom
2011-Jan-31, 06:08 PM
Some people are already calling the end of it.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/01/walter_murch_on_the_end_of_3d.html

Jim
2011-Jan-31, 07:48 PM
Here's an interesting article on it.
3-D means headaches to many, yet companies push forward (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/main/7403041.html)

From Hollywood studios to Japanese TV makers, powerful business interests are betting 3-D will be the future of entertainment, despite a major drawback: It makes millions of people uncomfortable or sick. ... Researchers have begun developing more lifelike 3-D displays that might address the problems, but they're years or even decades from being available to the masses.