I saw Immortals in 3D and I didn't wear the glasses most of the time.
Vivien Send a noteboard - 23/12/2011 08:54:43 PM
Of course, I also had my eyes covered for much of the movie (truly terrible movie) so the glasses were really superfluous. But even in the non terrible scenes, I generally preferred it without the glasses.
Walter Murch wrote to Roger Ebert, claiming that 3D doesn't work and never will. The letter says the following:
Hello Roger,
I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
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. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. 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.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch
The original blog post is linked below, but the point is that Murch is not just some random person who doesn't like 3D (that would characterize me). Murch is a noted Hollywood film editor. His credentials are listed in more detail at the blog post.
So...is 3D dead?
Hello Roger,
I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
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. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. 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.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch
The original blog post is linked below, but the point is that Murch is not just some random person who doesn't like 3D (that would characterize me). Murch is a noted Hollywood film editor. His credentials are listed in more detail at the blog post.
So...is 3D dead?
Has the community here discussed the failures of the latest iteration of 3D?
21/12/2011 12:16:38 AM
- 1353 Views
I'm not sure if it's dead, but I wish it would die. I refuse to see any movies in "3D." *NM*
21/12/2011 12:42:31 AM
- 308 Views
Re: Has the community here discussed the failures of the latest iteration of 3D?
21/12/2011 04:41:17 AM
- 670 Views
The good news is that 3D seems to be bombing in a lot of theatres.
23/12/2011 02:15:34 AM
- 620 Views
I hate it. It gives me headaches and makes my eyes water. And adds nothing to the films.
21/12/2011 11:59:34 AM
- 840 Views
Not only does it add nothing, in many cases it detracts.
22/12/2011 03:50:04 AM
- 717 Views
Those guys who put spinning hubcaps on their car are going to come after you for that.
23/12/2011 02:12:13 AM
- 671 Views
Re: Those guys who put spinning hubcaps on their car are going to come after you for that.
29/12/2011 04:11:13 AM
- 719 Views
I like 3D just fine. Not in all movies, but in some it really adds an extra dimension (pun intended)
21/12/2011 12:34:39 PM
- 600 Views
No, it's not dead. It's not been created yet. Not real 3D, anyway. *NM*
21/12/2011 05:24:04 PM
- 318 Views
I'm gonna go with no
21/12/2011 06:40:04 PM
- 678 Views
The day they come out with Citizen Kane in 3D is the day I start firebombing theatres. *NM*
23/12/2011 02:13:14 AM
- 309 Views
I saw Immortals in 3D and I didn't wear the glasses most of the time.
23/12/2011 08:54:43 PM
- 739 Views
Saw Tintin in 3D and didn't notice any "3D effects". Reinforces my opinion they're a waste of $. *NM*
28/12/2011 05:09:32 PM
- 306 Views
Then there's either something wrong with you, or you walked into the wrong theater.
29/12/2011 08:42:01 AM
- 836 Views
I know right?
29/12/2011 12:25:59 PM
- 740 Views
Yeah. And it should look different even without the glasses. All double-image-ish and stuff.
29/12/2011 04:58:34 PM
- 596 Views