
Why 3D doesn't work and never will (2011) - Tomte
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
======
paulgerhardt
I'm reminded of Clarke's first law: "When a distinguished but elderly
[engineer] states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right.
When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong."

I am sad to Ebert go, his reviews defined the industry, but towards the end of
his career he became increasingly hostile toward anything that wasn't
"classic" cinema as defined by films which he reviewed during the peak of his
career.

By his definition, films were art. New narrative vehicles such as 3D, VR, and
even video games were not films and therefor not art.

In this guest post by Walter Murch, he complains that 3D films force the brain
to converge focus at objects at unnatural depth of fields - this inability to
switch depth of field quickly prevents 3D films from working. It's an
uncrossable technological chasm.

I would counter that this argument is flawed on two critical elements.

First, the first film to make use of shifting depth of field was famously
Citizen Kane in 1941 - before this, the ability to rack focus just wasn't a
thing. Yet films 'worked' before Citizen Kane. To posit that films need this
ability to 'work' is to discredit the first 40 odd years of film.

The second is the argument rests on our inability to solve this technological
problem - a dangerous and often repeated statement in the history of film.
Just as other old men were critical of the viability of sound or color given
the enormous challenges the first versions of these technologies had,
Ebert/Murch here were critical of 3D at the time when companies like Magic
Leap and Lytro were just showing the first signs of promise in crossing this
chasm.

"3D doesn't work and never will" is an interesting predication along the lines
of "locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches are palpably absurd".

~~~
baddox
The third counter is that I’ve seen a bunch of 3D movies and it works just
fine.

~~~
failrate
I hated 3D movies at first. Then I watched Edge of Tomorrow twice: first in 3D
and then in 2D. I stopped noticing that it was in 3D partway through the first
time. When I watched the second time, I noticed a significantly muted
emotional response when viewed in 2d.

~~~
grogenaut
or maybe it was cause you were watching it a 2nd time and you knew what was
coming. it's not really a scientific experiment after all. Nothing wrong with
opinion tho.

------
avens19
I think one of the main issues with 3D is that you are forced to focus on what
the director intended you to focus on. This is not true in 2D, you can focus
your eyes on a blurry area over the characters shoulder without a problem. It
will be blurry but your eyes can focus on it. In 3D, your eyes try to bring
that unfocused bit into focus like they can in regular 3D space and that's
what causes the headaches/vertigo/eye strain.

------
andrewprock
The reason why 3D doesn't work is that it is not 3D. Instead it is some
strange kind of 2.5D where you have what is essentially a topologically 2D
manifold embedded in 3D space.

This means that you cannot look around things, or change occlusion by moving
your head around. As others have mentioned, you also cannot change your focus.
Until 3D becomes actual 3D, it will always ring hollow.

It's possible that Oculus may be the platform that achieves true 3D, but I
suspect until we arrive at a place where the "holodeck" is a fully functional
universe, we won't get there.

------
paulsutter
The question today is not whether 3D movies are viable, the question is
whether the feature-film format is viable (90 minute three-act structure).
Honestly I enjoy very few movies recently. We know exactly what's coming next,
and when. Usually a big fistfight where good triumphs over evil.

Media is evolving (look at games, TV, youtube, and instagram). 3D will find
it's place within the evolution of media.

~~~
Spivak
Being predictable isn't necessarily a bad thing in storytelling. Being
completely predictable is boring, so is being completely random and good
stories have to find a balance. At a high level you probably know how every
movie is going to end from the onset but that doesn't make them boring. There
are a lot of uninteresting tales of heroism but it's not because you know that
the hero is going to ultimately prevail.

~~~
emodendroket
I mean, look at Greco-Roman myth, right? You didn't really wonder how the
story ended, yet the masters managed to say something distinct in each take on
the same characters doing the same things.

~~~
dagw
Look at theater. Most people going to the theater know the story they're about
see very well. They may very well have seen it several times before and
perhaps even read the script. And yet they still go.

------
DubiousPusher
Despite the fact that I generally agree that 3D distracts more from a film
experience than it contributes, I have to recommend that if you ever get the
opportunity to see Werner Herzog's 'Cave of Forgotten Dreams' in 3D that you
do so.

The 3D video captures qualities of the cave paintings you'd never realize in
2D.

And virtually no person alive is going to get to see these paintings in person
so it's the closest you'll ever get.

~~~
leephillips
I just hope that some day someone gets the chance to make a documentary about
these cave paintings that focuses more on the paintings and less on the
filmmaker's emotional reactions.

~~~
DubiousPusher
Hehe, yeah even for a auteur director Herzog is pretty self involved.

------
kirrent
One counterexample to this argument are current VR headsets which work fine
despite the vergence accommodation conflict. Sure there are a few people who
claim that the mismatch causes them discomfort (though it's hard to separate
that from other causes of sim sickness) but it's clearly better than no 3d.

Not that I'm a fan of 3D films anyway, but that's an artistic rather than
technical preference.

~~~
simonh
For me it’s artistic and technical. VR headsets are cool and fun to try, but I
just gone ever see myself using them significantly for entertainment. I’ve
seen half a dozen 3D films and it was aware of the extra ticket money.

I’m not saying VR will have no role, or that it’s impossible to make a great
3D movie, I just think they’re niche technologies and will have niche roles to
play for a long time to come. Never say never, but anyone who thinks either is
on the cusp of massive mainstream adoption or changing the ways we make and
consume media is fooling themselves.

~~~
emerged
This sentiment occurs often, relating to VR, and I can appreciate it because
I've had it as well. But there have since been moments during my experience
playing VR games where there was an absolutely visceral feeling of how
profound the potential is. Currently because of the early state of the tech,
that feeling only occurs on fairly rare occasions when the perfect storm of
comfort and perception line up to deliver the sort of experience which is the
end goal.

I've seen others experience that visceral reaction as well, and generally they
tend to pivot and become a bit of a believer in the tech. But we'd all be
crazy to think it's temporally just around the corner. The tech hurdles are
significant. But definitely not insurmountable IMO.

------
rossjudson
A few years ago I built a home theater in a dedicated room. 135" screen,
3d-capable projector, etc. I built it to watch Avatar, and it succeeded very
well at that. I can absolutely say that 3D worked _very_ well in that specific
instance.

Saying "good 3d is hard" is very different from saying "it doesn't work and
never will". I'm sad to see good 3D on the decline. When done well it's rather
spectacular.

Can't comment on 3d on a TV -- never done that. Avatar is the only 3D movie I
can remember seeing in a commercial theater. There may have been others, but
they weren't worth remembering.

------
fhayde
The #1 reason I see movies in 3D: 3D glasses are like blinders to the other
people in the theater and they usually don't talk through the whole movie.

It could make my eyes cross and I'd still pay that premium to keep people
quiet more often than not.

------
contextfree
I've only ever seen a few 3D films - Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Gravity, Dial M
for Murder - but I greatly appreciated the experience in all cases.

------
mattkevan
As has been stated, the problem is that the eye is focused on a 2D surface,
but the brain has to interpret stereoscopic data.

In real life you can normally look round a scene, focusing on objects of
different distances as desired. But with a 3D film you can’t. You can’t look
at an object which seems to be nearby and have it come into focus, as the
camera may be focused elsewhere. And by trying to focus on something which
isn’t there, everything else goes out of focus as well, confusing the brain
and causing the migraines and nausea some people have.

Also the 3D glasses don’t fit over my normal glasses, leading to a really
awkward experience.

I don’t think 3D films will be truly successful until we have light field or
holographic displays, where you can focus on anything at will.

It will also mean developing a new visual language for this kind of film,
where the viewer can decide where to look, rather than be guided by the
filmmakers.

It’ll be exciting, and these kind of films will hopefully look quite different
to what we see now.

------
edent
I really wish there was a 3D release of "Captain Eo" \- but sadly it seems to
be locked in a vault somewhere.

~~~
Zarathruster
You and me both! But apparently the IP is tangled in such a mess (Jackson
Estate, Lucasfilm etc.) that it'd never be worth Disney's while to bother.

------
qwerty456127
I have always been curious if all the people saying they don't like 3D
actually experience the discomfort they describe or just want to look fancy
like old wine geeks. I myself have watched just 2 movies in 3D: Avatar and
Resident Evil: Afterlife - both of them looked visually awesome and caused
absolutely no discomfort to me. I would certainly love to watch Interstellar
and Blade Runner 2049 in 3D, that's a huge pity that's not possible.

------
rurban
That's of course total nonsense, as everybody should experienced a good 3D
movie or immersive VR games can testify. Of course some parts are true, the
rules are totally different in 3D. Immersion totally trumps everything else,
edges, movement, depth. Too fast is deadly, but reaction time is everything,
in VR. 3D is by far more immersive than 2D. It's not like good VR, but still
much better than conventional 2D.

------
sytelus
TLDR; _The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue.
A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" \-- are at least
theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus
their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is
constant no matter what. But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away,
then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So
3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another._

While I agree with this, I've to say I generally prefer 3D versions of the
movies for that extra oomph. There is no particular reason left to visit
theaters otherwise. Especially it's just super cool on IMAX (I mean "real"
IMAX). Movies like Space Station 3D would miss out on too much fun without
being 3D.

------
sandworm101
But doesnt this also hold true for 2d? Doesnt our brain already jump through
hoops to realize that the little man _on_ the tv isnt actually _in_ the tv?
None of media is natural. The human brain adapts.

~~~
robotresearcher
The difference is that in 2D your focus and vergence are to the same place. In
3D you change vergence as you look around the image but the focus remains
nearly constant, which never happens in real life. You're doing a sort of
Magic Eye visualization over and over again: you hunt for the right vergence
while keeping focus fixed.

~~~
ramy_d
Doesn't that also happen when a 2D camera image changes focus? your eyes dart
around at the new point:
[https://tadleckman.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/trooper_rack....](https://tadleckman.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/trooper_rack.gif?w=950)

Maybe the 2D shifting depth of field is easier because you're more used to it.

~~~
robotresearcher
No. You need to focus only on the TV screen. The camera operator focuses on
the scene for you.

It may be that as you look from the foreground trooper to the out of focus
background troopers your brain attempts to refocus but fails, which feels
funny. But if the camera operator and editor correctly anticipate your
attention and focus on the right thing, you don't need to refocus or re-verge.

~~~
ramy_d
but i do need to refocus because i can't anticipate what the camera operator's
next focus will be. It's still uncomfortable.

As for 3d, i think its comfort is for the next generation of movie goers to
decide on.

~~~
mehwoot
You don't need to refocus. You're focusing on the screen which isn't moving.

~~~
ramy_d
the screen isn't moving but the observable portion is. This change causes you
to try to refocus but you know you're watching a movie on a 2D plane where you
don't control the depth of field, so you let the change "guide" your attention
on the screen. It's something some people are more used to than others. I
don't like it and I feel like it pulls me out of a scene. Looking around in a
well done 3D movie feels more natural because my eyes DO change where they
converge which is a better approximation of real life when compared to 2D
where none of that happens.

Ultimately your brain adapts to what you expose to it the most.

------
anjc
I wish everyone would have tried 3D on a home TV, because in my experience
it's far more immersive and special than in a cinema. It's really
disappointing to me that 3D TVs aren't being made anymore.

~~~
ghaff
I have a 3D TV and a handful of films that are both decent films and use 3D
effectively. It's a good experience but I'm not sure I'd describe it as
_better_ than seeing it in Imax 3D. Most of the films that really nail 3D are
"big screen" experiences like Avatar that, for me, tend to have more impact on
the big screen.

~~~
anjc
Maybe it's the settings on my TV, or maybe it's due to my expectations, but
I'm more consistently blown away at home than in a cinema. In a cinema I
adjust to the 3D more quickly.

To name drop another movie, I'd highly recommend Dredd to anybody that has a
3D TV available.

~~~
meesterdude
curious, what's your TV? and do you know of any specific settings you tweaked?

~~~
anjc
It's whatever the last generation of 3D LG Smart TVs was, don't know what
model, sorry. But there are settings for depth of 3D and smart 3d object
detection and so on (I don't use that). Either way, it feels way more 3D than
anything I've seen in a cinema.

At the very very least, it has never distracted me from the the viewing
experience. So I don't understand the widespread revulsion for it.

------
jondubois
I've tried different virtual reality glasses on different occasions and using
different interactive simulations and it never feels real to me. I can see
that everything is in 3D but I really don't feel like I'm there. I don't find
it more immersive than if I was playing it on a normal screen.

The strange thing is that it seems that different people can have different
opinions about how immersive the experience is; even when trying the same
simulation with the same VR gear.

------
ffwd
I really think (and hope) that VR will be the medium for watching 3D movies.
They don't solve the IPD issue, but when I have found 3d bluray movies that
work for me without issue, the comfort level is great, the immersion is great.
Once VR hmd's get really high resolution and start to look very sharp, it'll
be a next level experience i think and everyone will want movies in 3D
(hopefully)

------
b1daly
One variable here might be that people have very different levels of
sensitivity to motion sicknesses. I'm hyper sensitive. Most carnival rides
will disable me for hours. While others can't get enough.

So the issue Murdoch is discussing would be relative to the viewer. This is
obviously a problem in a mass medium, where making accessible films, and films
accessible, requires mind boggling effort.

------
Boothroid
I'm blind in one eye so 3D is lost on me. Looking forward to when the films
can be beamed directly to the brain!

~~~
sbmassey
I'm short sighted in one eye, so my brain doesn't really resolve the different
images into a cohesive feeling of solidity, so 3D is wasted on me.

------
thanatos_dem
For folks who prefer video to articles, Steve Mould released a video yesterday
on the same topic -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNzuzssl4eU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNzuzssl4eU)

------
RGamma
This is like saying the human visual cortex will never be stimulatable by
exterior means. Oh wait, there are certain drugs that do this already (even
though more or less uncontrollably... for now)... Never say never.

------
emodendroket
I agree. Three-dimensional movies just are not very good. Ticket sales are
falling and 3D televisions have disappeared (I have one; the effect is just as
good, and nausea-inducing, as the theater's, but like most people who own one
I've used the feature for about 15 minutes).

------
microcolonel
This is more "why fixed camera stereoscopy doesn't work and never will". If
you have enough data to re-pose both eyes and track focus, then suddenly all
of these concerns dissolve.

~~~
gmueckl
Stwreoscopy is designed to work for a single viewer in a sweet spot. If that
setup is correct, it works beautifully. VR headsets master that aspect
perfectly. However, a cinema must accommodate many viewers and this means that
most of them must content with a less than optimal setup. Actually, I find it
a little bit curious that the human brain can cope with the resulting
distorted perceived disparity as well as it does.

Someone would need to come up with a true light field display. This would make
steroscopy work for the whole area in front of the display. Paul Debevecs team
made a daring proposal a couple of years ago to build a light field display
from an array of Pico projectors, each one acting as a single pixel of the
display. The viewer would need to look directly into the projectors. It seems
that this project never got off the ground, though.

------
basicplus2
Went to a 3D movie once,

3D effect was so small, seemed like to size of a foot ball in front of my
face, with a 2D backdrop on the main screen.

Seemed like they had filmed with the cameras too far apart.

Very disapointing.

------
make3
imax 3d movies are really cool. Avatar 3d was the first movie where I thought
the 3d really worked.

~~~
lostgame
Funny, it was actually so awful for me, it's the only movie I ever walked out
of and asked my money back for.

Between the absolutely paper-thin plot, and the 3D itself, I lasted about 15
minutes, well within my theatre's 30-minute money back limit.

------
criddell
I have no interest in 3D that requires me to wear glasses. Couldn't they do
the same thing with contact lenses?

~~~
lostgame
I don't know about yourself, but I personally am extremely adverse to putting
anything in my eyes...I'm sure a lot of people are the same...

