
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. - princeverma
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
======
gjm11
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 Clarke's First Law.
When someone says something is impossible and is wrong, we can tell because,
lo, someone else does it. But when someone says something is impossible and is
right, we'll never really know for sure; the most we can say is that no one
has done it yet. So: time travel? teleportation? faster than light travel?
Plenty of eminent (and in some cases elderly) scientists have said, and
doubtless will continue to say, that these things are impossible; for all we
know they really are; but even if they are we'll never know for sure that
Clarke's First Law is wrong for them.)

[EDITED in response to two comments: If the claim is "3D done just like it is
now will never work" then I agree that CFL isn't very relevant. If it's "3D
movies will never work", which is what I think "3D doesn't work and never
will" ought to mean, then I think CFL applies. So maybe I'm really only
criticizing Ebert and not Murch, who does embed into his comments the sentence
'Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.'. I do
wonder whether the quotes around "holographic" are trying to define it to mean
"anything that fixes this problem" rather than strictly "something close to
full-wavefront reconstruction using coherent light", in which case I guess
he's right _by definition_ and therefore vacuously. I would certainly not want
to bet that actual literal holograms are the only way to solve the problem.]

~~~
henrikschroder
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.

~~~
vacri
Except that it does apply in this case. If your director can keep away from
close foreground shots, you don't get this problem. The angles between the
eyes and the focusing power of the lens differ minimally once you get several
meters away on out to infinity. From several meters to your nose, yes, heaps
of variance is required and it would be very hard to do.

This is just Ebert being an idiot and saying "This is my opinion, stated as
fact, case closed. I won't enter into any discussion because I might be
wrong", just like he said when he declared video games weren't art. It is
/profoundly/ unscientific to dismiss something as unfactual simply because you
don't like it.

Back in the day, my honours degree was specifically involved in investigating
ocular vergence (research jargon as 'angle between the eyes' as opposed to the
/action/ of converging), comparing between a collimated image (= light coming
to the eye in 'parallel' - from a military helicoptor pilot's HUD) and a real
image (= light coming in 'non-parallel') displayed at 3m. At that distance
there is already not much difference between focusing or vergence at 3m and at
infinity (ie collimated), though discrepancies slightly increase as you move
towards the periphery of your vision, though this may have been an artifact of
the presentation of the HUD.

I am not an expert in 3D and don't proclaim it to be 'there yet'. I do think
that 3D is doable if the director stops the temptation of the 'power' closeup
to showoff the 3D. So yeah, I think within constraints, 3D is doable. All film
has constraints though, and those constraints are gradually eroded over time -
such as night-time filming. Fifty years ago we would have heard Ebert
proclaiming that it's impossible to film in natural light at night because
film needs a certain amount of light, case closed, yet we've seen some amazing
cameras arrive recently that can film at night using natural light.

EDIT: Another example constraint is limiting yourself to a 'viewing box' - you
can't turn your head for a full view of the scene in a movie. You're limited
to a particular forced view. Despite this rather incredibly limiting
constraint, film has managed to do some pretty amazing stuff.

------
swombat
_This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film
editor and sound designer in the modern cinema._

I'd hate to be introduced like that.

That said, his points make sense. I don't get a headache from watching 3D
movies but it does cause extra strain. It's more tiring than watching a normal
movie. I have no intention of buying a 3D TV at any point in the future, and
though I'll go to a 3D cinema for the different experience, if the movie is
the right kind for 3D (e.g. Avatar), I certainly don't see it as a
revolutionary new technology.

Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains use
all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what the
eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D (which is why, among other
things, the world doesn't suddenly look 2-dimensional if you cover one eye).
3D movies provide only one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange
feeling because the other 19 cues are missing.

Another nail in the coffin of 3DTV: It's been out for years and I don't know a
single person who has bought one.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains
use all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what
the eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D... 3D movies provide only
one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange feeling because the other
19 cues are missing._

A big one is atmospheric haze, which is easy to reproduce to be fair. It is
also the reason for a lot of the perceived inconsistencies in apollo moon
photography:
[http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#background...](http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds)

------
DanielBMarkham
This article could have done without all the pumping up of the authority that
Roger was appealing to. Just make your case, big guy.

Having said that, I agree, with one catch. Here's the thing: _we currently
don't have 3-D movies_.

We have this fake 2-plane deal put on with funky glasses. That's why the
cineamtographers can screw around with your eyes so much like the letter
writer explains.

I want 3-D. True 3-D. Not some hacked up fake 3-D. True 3-D would consist of a
large, rotating drum in the middle of my living room, approximately 6 or 7
feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would display as three-dimensional
objects, viewable from all angles.

Big? Cumbersome? Impractical? Probably. But at least it's a true 3-D
experience. When a couple of actors appeared and started talking, it would
literally appear as if they were in the same room as you. Directors couldn't
have arrows poke out at your eyes or any of that other silly nonsense that
they seem to not be able to refrain from doing with the current tech.

The current hacky stuff that passes for 3-D is broken and won't be fixed, this
much is true. It remains to be seen whether or not this tech finds a niche in
games or specialty cinema, though. It's also an open question as to the future
of _real_ 3-D. I'm not so crazy about having the terms all mixed up, because
the really cool stuff is coming later.

~~~
jacquesm
> True 3-D would consist of a large, rotating drum in the middle of my living
> room, approximately 6 or 7 feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would
> display as three-dimensional objects, viewable from all angles.

That's what idea #65 is all about:

<http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition>

Minus the drum, but when it's spinning it might as well be a drum.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I think you could take an existing OLED display and do this right now... you'd
just have to write the software. In fact, you could probably do a neat small
scale proof of concept by disassembling an Android phone and mounting it on a
record player. :)

------
kragen
There are some comments here accusing Murch of Luddism, more or less, and
attributing his 3-D skepticism to that.

It's worth pointing out that after spending his entire career editing film by
hand, he was one of the first editors to switch to editing film with Avid; and
after being a prominent proponent of Avid, he was the first film editor to
edit a major motion picture with Apple's Final Cut Pro, somewhat against the
wishes of Apple, who didn't think it was ready (despite the name). Meanwhile
he developed a database application in Filemaker Pro for keeping track of all
of the shots in a movie, starting rather early on, as I recall --- an
application now in use by some other film editors who have worked with him.

So whatever the guy's faults (he does seem to enjoy a good story more than
fact-checking it) he's not a Luddite. If he thinks something new won't work,
it's not because he distrusts new things.

(Disclaimer: he's my father-in-law, so my judgment may be biased.)

~~~
MartinCron
Also, this is a good place to mention that his book, _In the Blink of an Eye_
is an essential book for anyone who is interested in film editing, and an
enjoyable book for anyone who is interested in watching movies. Fascinating
stuff. Brilliant guy.

Note: He's not my father-in-law. I've never met him, just a fan.

------
bambax
The master quote is this: _a good story will give you more dimensionality than
you can ever cope with_.

Don't bother with technology. What "piracy" proves is that people are more
than willing to trade quality for convenience. People will put up with crappy
image and garbled sound if it means they can watch what they want faster.

The movie industry loves technology because technology scales (sort of); but
what sells tickets are story and talent.

~~~
dagw
Avatar kind of disproves your whole thesis. It had neither story nor acting
talent worth speaking of, and bucket loads of technology. Yet it sold more
tickets than just about any other movie in history.

I really wish what you said was true and that filmmakers would focus more on
great stories, but box office takes show again and again that flashy effects
beat great stories 4 times out of 5.

~~~
bambax
Avatar is a counter-example, yes. But I would argue that in this case the main
story was technology itself -- in a non-scalable way: the uniqueness of a
technology leap.

Incorporating 3D in every single movie just because Avatar was a huge hit
would have been like shooting only sinking ships after Titanic.

------
marknutter
As much as I hate the recent spate of 3D movies, I don't think it has anything
to do with the technology, but more about how poorly it is applied. I say this
because Avatar, at least for me, was simply mind-blowing; it was easily the
most immersive film I've ever watched, but mainly because the 3D was done
tastefully, subtly, and with care. You can give me as much hand-waving sudo-
science to try to convince me I'm not supposed to have liked it, but it won't
change my mind; Avatar in 3D literally brought tears to my eyes.

~~~
baggachipz
"I don't believe your research."

$> sudo science

"I believe you now."

~~~
JonnieCache
When I finish my tab-completion script for the science command we're gonna
have green energy, space elevators and jetpacks by the end of the week dude.

------
jcfrei
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?

~~~
krschultz
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.

~~~
Murkin
And yet, they still didn't switch back to Horses.. strange

~~~
GrooveStomp
What's the practicality of switching back to horses? It's prohibitively
expensive to do so because using horses as a form of transportation is just
not supported by the modern market.

I say this as someone who suffers from motion sickness, yet who rides in
planes and buses. There simply aren't any reasonably easy alternatives.

------
martinkallstrom
Fictional dialogue between Ebert and myself:

Ebert: "Stop watching that 3D movie, it's straining your eyes!" Me: "But... no
it isn't and it's awesome" Ebert: "It isn't immersive! Me: "I'm feeling
perfectly immersed, thank you" Ebert: "But there are all these valid but
theoretical reasons why you shouldn't enjoy it!" Me: "Would you please just
shut up and let me watch the movie? The aliens are about to have all the sex.
In 3D!" Ebert: "Hrumph!"

You can see how I let myself get the last word there, not counting Ebert's
old-grumpy-man-throat-clearing. So clearly I had all the winning arguments.

My point is this: All the theoretical reasoning about planes and strains are
moot as far as I know. Because in the end... 3D is awesome. I love it, and I
wont let any experts in the world convince me otherwise. Even Feynman wouldn't
be able to... well ok, maybe Feynman. But none other!

~~~
chc
You're completely missing the point if you thought Ebert was trying to tell
you what you should enjoy. Your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. Similarly,
my mom thinks my shaky line drawings from when I was 10 years old are
absolutely brilliant.

You're allowed to enjoy whatever you want — Ebert isn't arguing with you. He's
talking about inherent problems with the technology that come out in the
general case.

~~~
martinkallstrom
Maybe I am missing the point.

But I think it is my opinion that is relevant. And yours. And your moms. Why
talk about inherent problems in the general case at all, no matter if it is
kid's drawings or 3D movies. There is a market for both of them.

He's making a case for the objective value of something where I believe only
subjective values matter. To each his own.

~~~
chc
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 not. You may want
to talk about subjective things, but that isn't what he was doing.

~~~
martinkallstrom
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 $2B Avatar box office sales is an
excellent example of the market not caring about what an old wizard holds
forth as the objective truth.

~~~
MrScruff
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...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11e0-badd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1C3Pn4W3x)

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

~~~
martinkallstrom
Ok, my mistake. Skip the part about Avatar. My reasoning does not rely upon
it.

------
RyanMcGreal
My problem with 3D is simply that I find I can't disappear into the movie. I'm
steadily aware of _myself sitting and watching_ the 3D effects, which ruins
the experience.

~~~
gnaffle
I had this feeling with some poorly made 3D movies. But I only occasionally
had that feeling while watching Avatar.

~~~
Vivtek
I didn't get this feeling at all with How to Train your Dragon - I thought the
3D was really pretty charming in that movie (just like, you know, everything
else about it).

------
ars
They said the same thing about "Talkies", and I'll quote from wikipedia:

"....the new development was treated with suspicion by many filmmakers and
critics, who worried that a focus on dialogue would subvert the unique
aesthetic virtues of soundless cinema."

~~~
powrtoch
To be fair, they of course were right. There are unique aesthetic values in
silent film, and adding dialogue does do away with them (otherwise they
wouldn't be unique values). They simply discovered that people consider it a
worthwhile tradeoff.

~~~
wahnfrieden
Absolutely -- and the same applies to color photography. There are still good
reasons for shooting in black & white. Color film may be more easily engaging
as the images are more familiar, but it is not inherently better
aesthetically.

------
shasta
Doesn't this assume you don't know the focal plane? If you know what the
viewer is focusing on, you can compensate. This means that without any
holographic projection techniques, you could fully solve this problem by
presenting each viewer with images customized to his detected focus. That
might require an expensive headset today, which radically changes the
economics of 3D movies, but it doesn't require a breakthrough in science.

In fact, it'd probably be safe to just assume that the user is focused on the
primary element in the scene. Unfortunately, in a theater, you probably can't
compensate for focus in a way that works for all of the audience, so this
doesn't solve much.

~~~
losvedir
Not as I understand it. I think you're conflating two issues. What you're
talking about deals with the issue of looking at different elements of the
scene and bringing each one to clarity as you look at it.

The second, larger issue, is the physiological contraction of muscles each eye
individually must do to focus at a given distance. Try this: cover one eye and
look at a held up finger with the other eye. Notice the background is blurry.
Now make the background clear and you'll notice your finger is blurry.

The eye adjusts its shape to focus on different distances. This is independent
of the two eyes working together and seeing different images which the brain
later merges into a 3D scene.

The issue with all the current 3D technologies I know about is the image,
ultimately, is always on some screen at a fixed distance. You can give each
eye separate images, you can track where the eye is looking and modify what
image is seen, but in the end, the eye muscles are always contorting the eye
to see that plane 80' away clearly.

~~~
shasta
You're right. It's not just a still image that needs to be corrected - it's
the whole volume of light that needs to be distorted (the eye is not a pinhole
camera). But I still think it's doable - isn't that what corrective lenses do?

------
robin_reala
I can’t say I’ve got a headache from any of the current crop of 3D films – is
my brain doing something different?

Also, regarding: _"Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic"
images."_ See: <http://www.holografika.com/>

~~~
electromagnetic
There were complaints about nausea from Cloverfield's filming technique,
despite this technique being used many times before without nearly as much
camera control (Blare Witch project had some awful shaky scenes far worse than
Cloverfield).

I don't buy any of these articles. Yes some people won't respond well to 3D,
but the vast majority does and has in every implementation. This is as absurd
as saying when the Model T was released, that because of a minority of the
population having motion sickness that the automobile is destined to fail.

I don't know a single person who has a problem with 3D. Well technically
that's a lie, I know someone who's blind in one eye, so with the glasses
they're just watching an over expensive 2D movie and without they're just
watching a very fuzzy movie.

~~~
lyudmil
I think Murch/Ebert are implicitly drawing a distinction between 3D being
something people can watch without having a physical response and 3D as a
viable technique for making movies. I understood the argument to be twofold.
Firstly, even if you don't get headaches, your brain is still working
overtime, which makes your movie-watching experience less pleasurable than it
would be if you were watching a true holographic movie. Secondly, because of
the way the brain processes images and the illusion created by 3D movies, the
technique limits the genre because one cannot use edits that are very rapid or
have shots with a lot of horizontal movement.

Whether that amounts to "not working" is perhaps up for discussion, but I
think they have a point that the problems with 3D extend far beyond the fact
that some people have adverse physiological reactions while watching.

------
mhb
So the claim (which sounds reasonable) is that there is a mismatch between the
plane on which each eye is focused and the convergence angle between the eyes
and we are unaccustomed to this in real life.

Why doesn't this also cause discomfort in a conventional 2D movie in which the
focal plane and the convergence angle stay the same (both at the screen plane)
but our brains expect the convergence angle to change as items from different
distances in the movie image come into focus in the movie?

------
bluesnowmonkey
Why would anyone engage in a theoretical discussion about whether 3D cinema
would be good to watch? _It already exists._ You can go buy a ticket and see
for yourself. You can do this _literally_ right now.

> The 3D image is dark [...] and small.

I just saw a 3D movie last week and didn't notice that.

> [...] horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D.

I just saw a 3D movie last week and it was good. I was able to determine this
despite having no idea what strobing is.

> So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another.

I just saw a 3D movie last week and had no issues with convergence.

> 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective"
> relationship to the image.

I just saw a 3D movie last week and was very immersed.

Next up, we have a scientist with a theory about what the far side of the moon
looks like. Apollo whatnow?

~~~
KirinDave
I don't mean to be dismissive of your points, because they do have some merit
in this discussion, but I feel compelled to point something out.

Lots of people, otherwise very smart and picky people, have absolutely no
"taste" for visual content. They will cheerfully accept the most terrible
photographs and shakey video if they accept that as par for the course.
Artists tend to take a more objective view, and frequently notice things that
their audience _may not consciously notice_ , but that do have measurable
effects on the overall quality of the production.

This is as true for videography as it is for photography (in which emotional
investment can make people overlook ridiculous image flaws for years before
finally seeing the ugly half-face in the corner or a totally botched focus).
Unless you train yourself to look objectively, you're often not _seeing_
what's in front of you, merely representing it and evaluating that
representation (which is always the case, of course, but there are naturally
degrees of fidelity).

For example, I saw Alice in Wonderland 3D, and I was viewing it at the
excellent Sundance theater in San Francisco. We're allowed to take drinks into
the theater, and we all had a Bit Too Much™ before the start. I don't remember
the 3d of that movie being bad, but upon re-inspection and some pointers I can
see what a hack-job that was, even among its lackluster peers at the time.

------
codingthewheel
Ebert's a bit of a crotchety Luddite clinging to the old ways. This rant,
coupled with his diatribe last year about how "video games can never be
art"...

[http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve...](http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html)

...should be interpreted with a grain of salt.

~~~
wahnfrieden
How about responding to the specific points in the article, rather than trying
to portray the writer as a luddite clown?

~~~
tyree732
But that is more difficult than making assumptions based on his age.

------
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.

------
iwwr
Headaches happen mostly to people with poorer eyesight in one eye, a similar
effect to wearing the wrong kind of correction eyeglasses.

P.S. Tron 2 was much better in 2D than 3D. The darker screen was annoying and
the 3D was far from immersive.

~~~
metageek
Thanks for the opinion about Tron. I missed seeing it early, and now the only
places showing it near me are in 3D. I was wondering if it'd be worth it. Now
I'll just wait for the DVD.

~~~
mason55
FWIW, I and everyone else I know thought that the 3D+VFX was basically the
only reason to see it

~~~
iwwr
_Reasons to watch Tron 2_

sequel to a classic: yes

3D: no

storyline: no

acting: no

VFX: yes

Daft Punk: yes

actual Unix on the big screen: yes

hot chicks attracted to nerds: yes

Disney 'family policy' WRT said hot chicks: no

~~~
jerf
Actually I thought the story was pretty good, though it had a couple of holes
in it (of the "cut scene" type, not the "bad plot hole" type). It stunned me
in that it actually grappled with the consequences of the digitization process
in some detail, rather than just blindly reveling in it. It was some decent
sci-fi. Consequently it flew above just about everyone's head, especially if
you went in with the preconception that it would have no story. (I liked it ->
the series is doomed. QED.)

It may help to realize that this is a parallel universe to ours and the way
their computers appear to work is that they _really are_ an interface to the
world of Tron, which is subordinate to the conventional universe but by all
appearances is every bit as real. Thus, Clu's plan is not a violation of the
conservation of mass, because it's all working differently here. It's much
more a 1960s/1970s-style scifi rather than an "ultra-realistic 2010 scifi" (
_ahem_ ), but within those bounds I was actually pleasantly surprised. Not
that it will ever amount to anything but in the back of my head I've actually
been working out the physics of Tron, which could be really cool for a
2020-era MMORPG (would take too much processing power to be feasible today),
and there's actually enough consistency (perhaps surprisingly) that it's not
all in vain; there's different rules, but there are some rules.

------
joe_the_user
Hmm,

It is interesting to think that perhaps we're technologically approaching
something like a _boundary_, a point past-which the synthetic simulation of
sensory experiences cannot be taken-in _merely as entertainment_ but rather
has strong physiological effects.

Consider the effects of effects of Ultra-High Resolution Video: _"The footage
was later projected on a 4 x 7 metre screen for public demonstration and the
public were astonished. As the visual effect of the footage travelling down a
road was so realistic, some viewers even experienced nausea as a side effect
of seeing ultra realistic motion, but not physically feeling the motion. It's
like the opposite of seasickness where you can feel movement, but cannot see
it while in an enclosed section."_

<http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-62376.html>

I think that implies that at the very least, the producers of the most
advanced sensory-simulations are going to be somewhat constrained in what they
can produce, the opposite of what one thinks of in considering the freedom of
film...

------
scotty79
> 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 becomes
almost everybody).

When I first watched 3d movie few years ago I was strongly annoyed about how
my experience was ruined by poor technical quality. When I watched Avatar the
IMAX got upgraded so it was much better and because I was immersed in the
movie I didn't mind, but low frame-rate was still noticeable.

Can movie directors finally decide to shoot movies in higher FPS or they are
still afraid that higher frame-rate will make their move have VHS feel not
cinema theater feel?

~~~
wahnfrieden
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.

~~~
scotty79
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.

------
gojomo
Slate has also covered this, and the problem has been known for a long time:

"The Problem With 3-D: It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will."

<http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/>

With slight differences, stereoscopic 3D on a flat screen is an over-50-year-
old technology. It gets repeatedly tried, then the novelty wears off and the
negatives become familiar, and it recedes for a while – returning when it's
'novel' again.

Perhaps children who watch a lot of screen-3D can adapt. However, it's equally
possible lingering impairment to vision could result – temporary or permanent.
See the speculation by Mark Pesce about why his 1990s Sega VR project got
cancelled:

"Keep doing that and you'll go blind"

<http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32814.html>

------
voidpointer
"3D movies" is a very inaccurate tag applied to the current steroscopic
productions and equipment. It is, in a sense, a pragmatic extension of both
traditional film-making and film watching.

When the technology for producing and watching in real 3d (e.g. volumetric
display technology and corresponding recording technology) becomes available,
the entire process of producing a movie will be radically different from how
it is today. Currently, everything is controlled at production time. Once you
get real 3D, the "camera position" is controlled by the viewer. That should be
quite a change for directors and editors. Once you get real 3D, you will
probably not sit still while watching a production. you will want to move
around, explore it. This will have interesting effects when a lot of people
are watching a production together and people flock around because they
discovered something interesting in the back. Or maybe there will be a
controller for moving the camera position, that would take fights for the
remote to a whole new level ;)

Also, acting might become quite different from what it is today, because
recording a movie might no longer be done with a photographic process but may
be based purely on motion capturing. Actors would become puppeteers. (Some are
today: think Gollum)

What I'm trying to say. Real 3D will be much more revolutionary for
cinematography. What we are seeing today is just a gimmick. Nothing more.

------
Semiapies
Heck, there are even more issues - just ponder set design and many visual
effects. You can't fake rain with a little water falling just in front of the
camera anymore when you can _tell_ it's just some water right in front of the
camera. CGI it? You need those CGI raindrops in three dimensions. Etc.

But it's not that 3D will _never_ work, it's that we're clueless about how it
will be made to work.

3D films are a distinct medium, not "films++". Right now, we're at the
equivalent of the, "I know, let's point a single, unmoving camera at a stage
play!" stage of early cinematography. At that point in time, you could come up
with an analysis as good as Murch's for why this "filmed stage play" thing was
just stupid and could never be satisfying - and it would be just as completely
_correct_.

Just like you can't just point a camera at a stage to make a movie, you can't
just throw three-dimensionality at a movie production to make a 3D movie. We
need to develop a new craft. We need a good decade or more of people poking at
this technology in a real, innovative way. We need lots of directors and
cinematographers experimenting with this. Hell, we need a horde of film
students making inane, pretentious shorts with rented or borrowed equipment -
or even people who've never been near a film school. We need this sort of work
_just to get started_ in this new medium.

------
shalmanese
Uh, one of the projects the lab I was in was working on was the True3D
display: <http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/> which handled both
accommodation and vergence. This research is almost 8 years old at this point
and I don't know the exact progress on it but there are people who are working
on it and it is possible to overcome.

------
PaulHoule
I've greatly enjoyed some 3-D movies. My impression is that the current
systems do better when the dynamic range in value isn't very strong. "Cloudy
With A Chance Of Meatballs" tried to do all sorts of transmitted light effects
that are tempting but don't quite work. Other films, like Avatar, Tangled,
Tron, and the 3-d conversions of Toy Story 1+2 and work a lot better.

Last weekend I was playing with some 3-D glasses, black paper and colored
pencils, trying to draw stereoscopic images by hand. The first thing I
realized is that you've really got to get conventional perspective right... It
has to tell a consistent story or your brain is going to really rebel.

------
zyb09
Don't know, everybody seems to bash 3D these days. When I watched Avatar I
thought it was pretty awesome and didn't get any headaches either. Maybe it's
no good having a 3D TV at home and expose ourselves constantly to fake 3D
every day, but watching a movie every now and then in the cinema can't be that
bad.

Edit: Also, all these people are just speculating, there's no science backing
up any pro or anti 3D claims. I would be careful giving Nintendo 3DS's to
small children, that are still developing vision, but as I said I don't think
watching a 3D movie every now and then is a bad thing if you enjoy doing so.

~~~
henrikschroder
Did you even read the article? He's not speculating, he's talking about how
human vision works, and how the current 3D technology is more difficult for us
humans to process, and he's talking about how the current 3D technology places
limitations on the cinematography that 2D movies don't suffer from. Those are
big obstacles that make current 3D movies a worse experience. Whether the 3D
itself makes up for it is subjective though.

~~~
scottbessler
No offense to sound engineers, but Murch is not the foremost authority on the
brain, the eyes, and whatever else goes into our processing of 3D. Further he
hasn't offered any sort of proof, merely conjecture about why he thinks 3D
should get off his lawn.

Sure, the current technology has some weaknesses, but as others have said,
many found it awfully compelling in Avatar (many good reviews, and $2B in
revenue).

~~~
GrooveStomp
I kept thinking this while reading the article, and I'm not sure why nobody
else has posted this yet. I am not a fan of "3D" as it exists in it's most
recent film form, but this is not a particularly well argued and supported
indictment of 3D.

I think your comment should be directly in response to the article.

------
ajb
Interesting that convergence V focus is the problem. That's the same thing
that random-dot stereograms have, although it's worth there as you have no cue
as to the right convergence depth.

------
andrewingram
I have a degenerative eye condition (keratoconus) which affects one eye more
severely than the other, this makes me hesitant to pay extra to watch a film
in 3D. I've actually not watched any under the fear that I'd have to walk out
of a film that my friends are enjoying.

I might head down to an electronics store and give on the 3D televisions a
try, that way I'll know if my condition will negatively affect the experience
as much as I expect.

~~~
robin_reala
I have keratoconus as well and haven’t had any problems, but then I’m guessing
mine isn’t as bad as your: my glasses correct my sight well enough that it’s
fine to just wear the cinema-supplied glasses over the top.

~~~
andrewingram
I've been going back and forth trying different types of contact lenses for
about a year now. The best I've had so far can only be described as a minor
improvement.

------
Florin_Andrei
Well, yeah, the current tech is primitive. However:

Increase the frame rate already. 24fps is not the word of god. It's used
because that was all they were able to do 100 years ago, and then it became
de-facto standard. Time to move on already.

Yes, we need to capture more information than simply two video channels (left
and right). Probably a lot more. Then we could re-create a true illusion of
depth.

------
msluyter
I have a problem with 3d in that my eyes never converge, period. I have
keratoconus and have had surgery in my left eye, the end result of which is
that my eyes have different vision levels, the left being much better than the
right. My right eye drifts off a bit (lazy eye) and I focus with my left
(better) eye.

The entire premise of 3d basically excludes me.

------
b3b0p
I preordered a Nintendo 3DS on day one it was available from Amazon.com.

Not for the the 3D, but for:

1\. A New Pilot Wings. No price is too high to pay for a new Pilot Wings. I
have been waiting years.

2\. Portable Ocarina of Time. Same reason.

The entertainment and distraction they provide me (I can play Zelda OoT over
and over, it does not get tiring or dull to me) is worth every cent.

Edit: English, I can't type it.

~~~
GrooveStomp
I nearly decided on a Nintendo 3DS, but after trying one out in person, I
completely changed my mind. I would play it in 2D mode the whole time because
the 3D I've seen on it gives me headaches. So basically, I'd be paying a
premium for hardware that I would specifically be turning off. Eventually the
system might stabilize with some good games like the DS did, but there's going
to be a crap-ton of shovelware at first which tries to exploit the 3D effect.

------
jasongullickson
While I agree that there has yet to be a film which uses 3D properly (that is
to say, a story that could be told no other way) I don't see how "tricking the
brain" using stereoscopic images is any different than tricking the brain
using other photographic techniques (shallow depth-of-field, exaggerated
perspective, etc.)?

------
arohner
This particular implementation will probably never work, but that doesn't mean
"3D movies" in some form will never work.

This guy built a stunning demonstration giving a 3d effect with a wiimote and
a standard TV: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw>

------
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...

------
cgart
Let's make one clear: Everything you see today which is called 3D, is NOT 3D!
This is just Stereo, or call it also fake-3D!

A real 3D "thing" is currently to expensive and not practical for a mass
market.

------
databyss
I've seen movies in 3D and they work fine enough for me.

------
Synaesthesia
3D at least needs to be shot in 48 FPS or more - the stuttering effect would
be pretty much gone then.

------
Locke1689
I'll wait for the market or the peer-reviewed research, thanks (instead of a
_sound engineer_ ).

------
risotto
Great read. I agree with _less_ immersion in 3D films.

I saw Pixar's "Up" in 3D. Such a touching story.

But at the sad scenes, when my eyes started to water up, I became super
conscious of the fact that I had silly oversized glasses on my face, and it
ruined the moment.

Watching the Blu-ray, in the comfort of my own home, I'm bawling like a baby.

~~~
jarek
Did you ever become conscious of the fact that you're sitting in a chair
staring at a rectangle? Why or why not?

------
kindlyviking
I couldn't read this article because of the stupidly large headshot at the
top.

------
Jabbles
I was going to quote "Everything that can be invented has been invented", but
it turns out it's most likely false:

<http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm>

------
androith
Ah, but if the assumption that people act rationally held, there'd be no
religion. I think 3D goes when religion does! Ouch.

------
getonit
I watched Toy Story in 3D (with the kids! :) ) and I kept forgetting it was in
3D... I just kinda tuned it out to it, I don't know how to explain it. The 3D
aspect was a complete waste after about 5/10 minutes of novelty. Like Murch
says, make the atmosphere involving and don't worry about adding frills - if
it's good enough, and we'll immerse ourselves without any tech help.

------
mkramlich
My lying eyes have seen many great 3D movies that did work. I respect Ebert
because he has great taste and is right about movies far more often than wrong
but on this issue I think he has 'cranky old man syndrome', ignoring the baby
for the bathwater.

------
georgieporgie
While I think an immersive VR system would be great, I don't understand the
appeal of a 3D movie as exists today. Then again, I never understood the
appeal of surround sound, since unless I can turn and _see_ something behind
me, it makes no sense that sound would come from there. I'm just a four
channel (stereo + center + sub) kind of guy.

