
Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will (2011) - hiroaki
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
======
TheZenPsycho
Actually, the convergence problem is theoretically solvable with a light-field
projection system. That is, instead of having 2 images that are simply "fed"
into each eye but projected onto a flat screen that is not converged with the
3d disparity "information" contained in the images, you have a system where
the screen emits a light field that your eyes can focus on at any depth. We
already have consumer level light field cameras and attachments. the displays
are tricker, but possible, traditionally through the use of hexagonal
lenticular lenslets carefully registered onto a 2d "flattened" projection of
the light field capture. This is the "True hologram" dream mentioned. The
primary limitations being the level of precision and resolution with which you
can register the lenslets with an image.

that's fine for a display but is obviously impractical for a large scale
theater projection system. Just an arbitrary possibility I thought of just
now: suppose the projection screen had a retroreflective surface- That is,
light projected at the screen gets returned at exactly the angle it arrived
at. Combine this with a domed mirror and a backwards pointing projector or set
of projectors, with all the requisite optics math and geometry work, it may
just be possible to project a lightfield at a screen that bounces back at the
audience and appears as a tangible hologram to them.

~~~
TheZenPsycho
I want to be clear that not any of this is _easy_. I think as soon as you try
it, your first attempts are going to be very blurry, squint inducing, and
especially very dark. A lightfield display, in order to achieve the same level
of perceived brightness as a traditional 2D display, needs to generate 2-10
times (perhaps much more) more actual light, with all the requisite power
requirements that entails, since the light is distributed directionally
instead of diffusely.

Going in this direction basically takes the level of resolution and precision
in image reproduction we've achieved back a decade or 5, since the "pixels" or
resolution units are spread over many more views than just 1 or 2, or perhaps
something more recognisable as a continuum of "infinite" views, or whatever
number is visually indistinguishable from infinity.

~~~
dTal
Why would it need to generate more light? Suppose you told your lightfield
display to simply display all white - wouldn't its light distribution be the
same as a white LCD, hence taking the same amount of power?

~~~
TheZenPsycho
In a projector system you generate light, and then you block it using either
photographic film or LCD to produce the image. A lightfield display can be
thought of as a 2D, higher resolution generalisation of a lenticular ("no
glasses") display, or for example, the display of the 3DS.

In these kinds of displays, you have a light generator (LED or flouro or
reflection) with the same surface area as a normal print or display. But to
produce the directional light, for say the left eye, you must block the
portions of the image that relate to the right eye from the light travelling
to the left eye. And vice versa. This halves the amount of light for 2
directional images. thirds it if you want 3. So you end up with an image that
is much darker then normal. you must compensate by generating 2 or 3 times the
amount of light. This problem gets worse the more "views" you add on. So if
you want 10 omni directional views you have to generate enough light for all
of them, since, even if you set everything to "white", as you suggest, most of
that white is getting blocked from your view.

Or to put another way, you get allocated a smaller source 2d image plane
surface area to generate your viewpoint.

~~~
dTal
Why do you have to block the light? Sure, primitive stereo parallax barriers
like the Nintendo DS has do, but nobody uses parallax barrier tech for any
proper lightfield application. The system you mentioned, a lens array over a
high-PPI screen, blocks nothing; light is only refracted. Ergo, the energy
required to run the screen is the same as without the lens array, e.g. a
normal screen.

------
AbsoluteDestiny
The real problem with 3D is much like the problem with hearing 'whispers'
behind you with surround sound... I go from being immersed in the movie to
being rudely reminded that I am in a cinema watching a movie. Until the
experience is something that doesn't announce the technology it's only ever
going to be a gimmick and, in terms of my connection to the
story/character/situation, I'd much rather lesser quality simulation with
greater emotional connection and persistent immersion than something
'technically' better.

------
mullingitover
3D strikes me as superfluous. Our brains already look at the images projected
onto a 2-dimensional plane and infer the third dimension. It's absolutely a
gimmick, and don't get me wrong, it can be fun, but it doesn't contribute
anything meaningful to the viewing experience.

Call me when the brain interface is ready and we can actually travel around in
the space, because that's another story.

~~~
gizmo686
I've watched a few 3D movies. The gimmicky parts are very gimmicky, but the
normal scenes, where we see the background actually behind the foreground, and
don't see a drop of water fly right into are eyes, the 3D looks a lot better
then the 2D version.

2D seems the same as looking around with one eye closed. I don't notice the
difference when I am doing it, but when I open my second eye, everything looks
subtly better.

~~~
danudey
The Doctor Who 50th anniversary special was possibly the best use of 3D I've
ever seen.

In one scene, there is a 3D oil painting. We see the characters marvelling at
the effect they're seeing, but in the broadcast version we don't know what it
is they're looking at until the camera pans around to show us.

In the 3D version, however, you can tell. You don't get the full effect until
later, but even then it's far more pronounced than it is in the 2D version.

There are also a few other depth tricks they use, but they use them sparingly.
In one scene, we see the image of The Doctor as he is broadcasting a message
to another party; in the close-up of the feed (i.e. when it takes up the full
screen), we see the image as we normally would, but in the four corners are an
overlay, like a HUD in a video game or presumably like a HUD in an F16. They
don't move, there's no animation, they're just a bit of stylistic flair, but
you can tell that they're 'over' the image, which gives it a more pronounced
effect, and makes the transmission 'feel' cooler and more futuristic.

I'll be glad when '3D all the things' is gone, but there are a few neat tricks
that I hope we can keep in the future.

------
Yver
I'm always skeptical of claims that _" X will never work"_ that are not backed
by solid research or a mathematical proof.

The current 3D may be nauseating to a number of people, but I do note that
travelling by car is nauseating to some too, and I've seen older people get
similar effects when reading a computer screen that is scrolling too fast.

------
kevinmchugh
"They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared
them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can
fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images."

I've no knowledge of the field, but I am reminded of 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
very probably wrong."

Is it totally off-base here?

~~~
DrStalker
You're pretty much spot on.

Roger Ebert is the sort of person who believes any technology older than him
is normal and anything newer is inherently wrong because it's not what he's
used to. We didn't evolve to blend a series of 30 static images per second
into seamless motion, but we cope with that so well that no-one actually
thinks about it.

Eventually 3D will become consistently well done instead of a gimmick, and it
will be just another thing to use when crafting a movie like colour, moving
cameras and depth of field.

~~~
MBCook
> Roger Ebert is the sort of person who believes any technology older than him
> is normal and anything newer is inherently wrong because it's not what he's
> used to.

I think you're being far too hard on him. He had seen the 3D fad come and go
before. He had a set of standards and I think he was right to stand by them.
As it is 3D adds almost nothing to film making at the moment: there are
technological limitations and we don't have a good idea of how to use it.
Right now it increases ticket prices, is usually 'shoveled-on' to a movie, and
reduces the light hitting the viewer's eyes (a long-standing pet peeve of
Ebert).

> We didn't evolve to blend a series of 30 static images per second into
> seamless motion, but we cope with that so well that no-one actually thinks
> about it.

There is a reason we don't see many fast pans in movies. 24fps forces some
compromises. I have no doubt that 48 (or something higher) will eventually
become the standard, but just like color/sound/3D we'll need to develop the
techniques around it to use it properly.

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

------
blueskin_
Oh look, Roger Ebert. The ultimate hipster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
repsilat
I agree. 3D is an "obvious" step up, even if it's imperfect. And even if the
vergence/focus issue is both worse and unsolvable by any reasonable
technological means, it isn't the end of the world. People will get better at
viewing it with experience, and people who have grown up with it will never
have difficulty with it.

------
hawkharris
3D movie projection is exciting because it may allow film, as an art form, to
be more like video games.

Those who say video games are an art form tend to offer two explanations: 1)
they can convey thought-provoking stories, much like traditional movies; 2)
they're spatial competitions, similar to the way there's an art in learning
how to maneuver around a tennis court.

When 3D projection is incorporated into some movies (note: some), it can bring
out this spatial element in interesting ways. A great example of this Gravity
(2013), with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTiKOy59o4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTiKOy59o4)

The main character in that movie was essentially space. Although there wasn't
much dialogue or traditional character development, it managed to engage
audiences and critics until the last minute. The appeal of movies like Gravity
is somewhat new to the film industry; it's similar to the appeal of watching a
tense sports match or navigating your way through a puzzle game like Portal.

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

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

------
cclogg
I think that eventually movies/games will be like experiencing something as
real as a dream, ie on the track that the Oculus Rift is going.

The 3D we have now is just _okay_ I guess, but most of the time I choose to
see 2D versions. At the end of the day, I just want to enjoy a good story...
and on film preferably, as digital still looks too TV-ish for me.

------
wollw
Those interested in a _positive_ take on 3-D might be interested in reading
Thomas Elsaesser's paper, "The “Return” of 3-D: On Some of the Logics and
Genealogies of the Image in the Twenty-First Century"[1]. One of his examples
is the movie _Coraline_ which uses 3-D "not in order to emphasis depth, but to
construct spaces that do not follow the rules of perspective and introduce
slight anomalies into it." I haven't seen the movie myself, and my only
experience with modern 3-D movies is going cross-eyed watching YouTube
trailers, but dismissing 3-D outright seems premature to me.

[1]
[http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/uploads/pdf/Elsaesser.pd...](http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/uploads/pdf/Elsaesser.pdf)

------
enjo
I actually _like_ 3D (usually). It may be a gimmick, but it's one I actually
like.

~~~
rschmitty
That is exactly my problem with 3D, total gimmick. Not to mention how dim it
is compared to normal 2D.

A director cannot get away from having something come flying at you. I
recently went to see the 2nd Hobbit (in 2D) and it is so painfully obvious
when you can tell something is supposed to be "flying at you". What is this
Disney World?

I am however looking forward to VR people making "Ready Player One"-like
movies in the future where you are truly immersive.

~~~
MBCook
Gravity was the first 3D movie I've seen, and I was quite pleased at how
little they decided to gratuitously do that.

On the other hand, there are numerous animated films I've seen on DVD in the
last few years (Despicable Me 2 being the latest example) that had entire
sections that clearly existed for no other reason than to justify the 3D
ticket price.

I enjoyed Gravity, the 3D effect occasionally added to the experience and
didn't detract much. I wait for the next time 3D really adds to the experience
before I do it again, and I'm guessing that will be a _long_ time.

The 3D ads before Gravity started (including Hobbit 2), on the otherhand, were
often unwatchable.

~~~
agumonkey
I think Gravity is a special case, Cuaron (and/or his team) can make depth out
of flat 2D, Children of Men had me speechless quite a few times (the
motorcycle ambush...).

~~~
MBCook
Oh it was. I've never seen a 3D movie before, I went specifically because so
many critics I trust had said it may have been the first case of 3D done well
and actually being useful to the storytelling.

But that's the same reason I don't expect to do it again any time soon. What
were the previous movies where 3D was supposed to be a big part of the
experience? Avatar? Polar Express? Even if those were perfect movies, they
were years and years ago. The last time I even gave it a second thought was
Hugo.

Gravity made a lot of sense, because you convey just how alone the characters
were in the volume of space. It's going to be a while before someone makes a
movie 1) with a good script and 2) a good director that 3) really uses 3D
well.

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
trekky1700
Honestly, the number of people who have at home experiences even close to
cinema quality or "audiophile" grade is incredibly few. Most people have
average priced HD TVs, a cheap bluray player and maybe a soundbar.

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

------
rubberbandage
There’s a particular conundrum that makes 3D difficult, and that’s the frame
rate. Broadcast TV (which we perceive as smooth and life-like) is 60 half-
resolution frames per second—standard film is 24fps, 2.5 times less temporal
information. Walter Murch makes a pretty strong case in his book _In the Blink
of an Eye_ that your brain actively works to fill in the difference,
effectively imagining the rest in the same way it does while listening to a
storyteller. This is what makes 24fps such a compelling frame rate for
fiction, and why 60fps feels “too real,” — at higher rates of motion there’s
no longer a need for imagination, and the “man behind the curtain” is
revealed.

Unfortunately, in 3D, the temporal limitations of 24fps become apparent,
perhaps again because the visuals start to become real enough that your brain
no longer works as hard to synthesize reality. But now if you increase the
frame rate, you end up with the first problem again, and maybe even worse—when
watching The Hobbit in 48fps 3D, I was painfully aware of every camera
movement, no longer feeling like a passive observer hovering in the air. It’s
clear that if 3D really is the way things are from here on, many new
techniques are needed, from the styles of acting and lighting designs to the
way the camera moves and scenes are edited.

I’d guess one compromise would be splitting the difference, 3D projected at
36fps—something tells me that won’t come to pass though, and so maybe indeed
3D never will work…

------
joshvm
3D is fine, it just needs a few things:

1) High frame rate - really, enough of this "24fps looks better" nonsense. We
can make adaptive frame rates if need be. This kills the nasty tearing you get
when cameras pan, particularly noticeable over fancy landscape scenes.

2) Brighter projectors - don't know why this isn't the case already.

3) Actually shot in stereo. There's a very good chance that the last 3D movie
you saw was depth-ified in post process. Shooting in 3D is expensive and
requires more editing, calibration etc, so people don't like doing it.

~~~
blueskin_
>enough of this "24fps looks better" nonsense. We can make adaptive frame
rates if need be.

I don't even understand the 24fps logic, as all it causes is tearing and
motion blur. We need better framerates, but across the board, not just in
action spots, as 48/60 give smoother motion overall. The Hobbit was 48fps; I
bet most people either didn't notice, or thought it looked better. Certainly,
there was no appreciable motion blur or tearing in a film that would have been
full of it at 24.

>2) Brighter projectors - don't know why this isn't the case already.

Already done, along with more reflective screens, but yes, still needs
improvement.

>3) Actually shot in stereo. There's a very good chance that the last 3D movie
you saw was depth-ified in post process. Shooting in 3D is expensive and
requires more editing, calibration etc, so people don't like doing it.

Yep. This is the main problem. Having movies shot in 2D and made 3D in
postproduction is like shooting in black and white and having a 6 year old
colour them in with crayons. Native 3D shooting is easier than it was thanks
to James Cameron et al but still requires more investment in skills,
equipment, time, calibration, etc, and better ongoing reviewing and monitoring
during production. Some people just don't like to spend money where they
should, but still ant to reap the benefits.

~~~
erichocean
_The Hobbit was 48fps; I bet most people either didn 't notice, or thought it
looked better._

I, and everyone in my family, thought it looked terrible at 48fps and in
3D—like a mid-80s BBC soap opera. I didn't see the 2D version, so maybe the
film itself just sucked even in 2D.

 _There 's a very good chance that the last 3D movie you saw was depth-ified
in post process. Shooting in 3D is expensive and requires more editing,
calibration etc, so people don't like doing it._

This is just flat out wrong. "Depthifying" things in post produces better 3D,
full stop, because a single 3D depth works poorly across the entire image.

Every. Single. Animated. Film. uses multiple 3D depths in the same shot, which
is what "depthifying" allows you to do, and that's a huge reason why animated
films have the best 3D currently. If you just shoot 3D in-camera, you're
forced to choose a particular 3D depth and the results, in most shots, are
sub-par.

BTW, my information comes from talking with actual 3D supervisors in Hollywood
(where I lived) and the cml-3d list, which is where the people who actually do
this shit for a living hang out and talk about the 3D releases as they come
out, the techniques they used, and why. If you're curious about the craft, you
could do worse than signing up for the mailing list and listening in on the
conversations happening there.

~~~
blueskin_
>This is just flat out wrong. "Depthifying" things in post produces better 3D,
full stop, because a single 3D depth works poorly across the entire image.

No, you're flat out wrong. Again, would you colour in a black and white film
in postproduction and expect an accurate result?

As movies normally create depth by blurring objects at different distances to
mimic the human eye, this interferes with actual focusable depth if it is
postprocessed into 3D. It is possisble to do it right, but it takes the best
part of a year (see: the 3D-ifying of Titanic), not two weeks like Disney
moview or Clash Of The Titans took.

Point taken about animated films usually having better 3D, but that is exactly
because _it 's easier and cheaper to produce natively_.

------
vacri
Another Ebert declaration ('Case Closed.') where he betrays an incomplete
understanding of the topic at hand. I personally liked 'As a editor, he must
be intimately expert with how an image interacts with the audience's eyes.'
contrasted against this part of guy's letter: ' _Somehow_ the glasses "gather
in" the image'.

Not to mention, of course, that there is always scope for better tech to come
along. Sensationalism, thy name is Ebert.

------
pyalot2
I've mainly 3 problems with 3D-movies

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

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

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

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

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

------
zerny
3D needs to die
[http://theoatmeal.com/blog/3d_movies](http://theoatmeal.com/blog/3d_movies)

~~~
skeletonjelly
So do the Oatmeal comics.

------
doctoboggan
If the goal of displays is to reproduce the real world (which may or may not
be true, but I'd argue is true for some class of displays) then I would argue
that 3D will eventually become standard, simply because the world is 3D.
However I think the biggest current barrier for accurate representation of the
world is contrast ratio, which we are orders of magnitude off of.

I propose a sort of turning test for displays where the goal is to have a
display that is indistinguishable from a window into the real world. Let me
know when that happens and I will be the first to buy one.

~~~
GrantS
>3D will eventually become standard, simply because the world is 3D

I don't disagree with you at all, but if you're using the term "3D" in the
same way as the article, the first "3D" in that sentence is referring to
stereoscopic displays that are driven by our specific animal biology of having
two eyes, while the second "3D" in your sentence refers to the external world,
which would still have three dimensions even if we only had one eye, in which
case stereoscopic displays would not be necessary.

If instead you meant holographic-style displays, then nevermind :)

------
shalmanese
The accommodation/vergence problem is well known but primarily a big deal for
VR headsets like the Rift, not for cinema screens. The a/v disparity is the
inverse tan of distance so it quickly fades into irrelevance at the 10ft
range.

And such disparities can be solved via Virtual Retinal Displays
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display))
which shine laser light directly onto your retina and can simulate any level
of depth and focus accurately.

------
trekky1700
Honestly, any article that says something like "it never will" is setting
itself up for failure. Writing a commentary on current technologies is fine,
but implying some knowledge of the future and what is possible is just
ignorant and obviously motivated by feelings outside of presenting a true and
unbiased article.

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

------
blazespin
Another factor is simulator sickness. Even if you could get the perfect 3D
environment going (say via the Oculus Rift), your inner ear will start to
complain that what it is seeing is not matching what it's feeling and your
stomach will thinks its been poisoned and induce vomiting.

The only way '3D' will ever work is if the movie is jacked straight into your
brain, ala 'Strange Days'.

~~~
dwild
The same happen on a boat and as far as I know, there's millions of people on
boats everyday.

~~~
MBCook
There are millions of people who _avoid_ boats for that exact reason.

------
__m
Why Film doesn't work and never will. The notion that we are asked to pay a
premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is
outrageous. The case is closed.

Isn't it also a trick to make the brain think that it's seeing continuous
images instead of discrete single images?

------
agumonkey
Maybe because movies are more impressionist/symbolic devices rather than
simulations. I personally don't care about 4K HD, or 100Hz and 3D. Everytime I
read about these, I remember the first minute of Alien. No 3D, no green
screen, analog ... yet I feel immersed into a ship.

------
snide
If you're a fan of Ebert's writing or movie reviews I highly recommend his
autobiography "Life Itself". One of the better books I've read in the last few
years.

------
gbog
I think it is useful to compare with how stereophony works, and it might
indicate that 3D is indeed a dead-end, a superfluous gimmick (as noted in
other comments).

The simple --too simple-- view is that screens have to reproduce reality, that
the world is 3D and thus that 3D will eventually win. But this has been proven
false, at least for audio (which I know better).

Some people think they hear left or right by doing some triangulation between
the two ears. Nothing more wrong: with only two ear we would not perceive
height, and people deaf of one ear certainly do not "hear in 1D".

In fact we localise sound because of

\- The shape of our ears. (See how complex are the ears of some animals)

\- Tiny movements of the head.

\- Past experience (learning) of the shape of reverberation and reflections in
common rooms.

A full "real" simulation of sound localisation, which has been experimented
and works, requires:

\- Sounds recorded in an anechoic chamber (these are very small and expensive,
you won't get a philharmonic in it, and playing music in this echo-less room
is extremely painful).

\- Microphone must be perfect, a thing that do not exist.

\- Synthetic room reflections computed on the fly according to where the
listener sits when listening (shape and texture of the room and where are the
two ears in the room)

\- A polar reflection model of the ear shapes of the listener.

\- An helmet detecting tiny head movements and adjusting all the computation
above accordingly.

\- Perfect earphones inside the ears of the listener.

So this all works in theory and has been tested experimentally, but it has not
crossed anyone's mind that we really need this to enjoy a properly spatialized
concerto. We can approximate a soundscape enough with the very crude left-
right localization provided by stereophony, and this is quite enough to enjoy
good music.

It is certainly different for the visual field, but I would bet it will be
ressembling in the big strokes: music, movies, books, painting, all these
create _illusions_ , automomous worlds that do not need to match reality
perfectly. It needs to be realistic enough and based on accepted conventions:
When we see the image of a plane taking off, we accept that our hero is likely
inside, and that it is related to the story, e.g. not a random plane talking
off as we would see from our window.

But it doesn't need to be "pixel-perfect", as exemplified by the many great
black and white movies.

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

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

 _That_ is going to be the true 3D revolution.

------
benched
3D movies look plain amazing to me. Don't worry though - the rest of my life
sucks, so it balances out.

