3 Ds Are Too Many For Me

[Jacob Haggarty]

3 Ds Are Too Many For Me

Does anyone have an aspirin?

Read Full Article

Until they are able to comfortably make 3D that takes up your entire field of view, including peripheral vision, it will fail to go beyond an "interesting novelty." But the larger problem is that our senses aren't designed to work independently to that degree.

What you see is only a single input. Granted, visual information accounts for about 80% of what we take in, but that doesn't mean our brain believes everything our eyes see. If you are to believe something out of the ordinary, what you feel and hear has to back up that unfamiliar input.

That means we've got to do a better job of making sure the sound backs up the sight, and that the sight isn't undermined by conflicting information (such as seeing the world around the movie in clear 2D. Really, is there a better way to do this than a helmet? Unfortunately not (yet). Even then, a helmet sends sensory information to your brain that says, "Dude, you're in a bucket. This isn't real."

Illusion relies on getting two or more senses to work together to fool the brain. 3D, unless you're sitting right up on it, is currently only engaging about 2/3 of a single sense.

Umm no offence, but what that boils down to is "3D isnt real"

Well, obviously. Of course its an illusion, or else theyd actually have something flying out of the screen. And actually, im fairly certain 3D works without sound or touch. Just look at those red and blue pictures, no sounds, no feeling, but still the illusion remains.

The 3D you get in cinemas (polarisation imagery) works solely with the eyes, by creating two seperate images. One of these images is in full colour, while the other is monochromatic. Different Polarising filters in the lense block one image, but not the other, and its this that creates the "jump out at you" effect. Like you said, its an illusion, simply a mis-marriage of information from the eyes.

 

[skatch13]

This is such a non issue. I can not believe how much of a fuss is being made about something that no one is forcing anyone to partake in.

If you do not like 3D watch it in 2D. If 2D somehow isn't offered then wait for the DVD. No one is forcing anyone to watch this format. However the sales, and interest suggest many people enjoy it. Even people with glasses.

3D will not make a bad movie good. It will enhance the immersion of a good movie. It enhances the movie going experience, and gives something that one can not get in the home easily.

I am amazed at how many people claim to hate and loath this format, yet the money speaks differently. This is just the new thing to whine about. It is just whining after all. There is no valid complaint to be made. If you dont like it simply dont watch it.

Thats the internet for you though, if you dont like something you must complain and defend your position on it. Take up a crusade so that all those who enjoy something different than you will know the error of their ways.

Bottom line is your given a choice. Exercise that choice, but dont push your opinions on the issue as fact. If you dont like it show it with your wallet. The only way 3D is going anywhere is when the money dries up.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I'll stick with MovieBob's view on this;

If used properly it can certainly enhance the immersive experience.

 

[Eri]

I mostly agree. Although to be fair, "sitting close to tv will ruin your eyes" is a myth. Though, sitting obscenely close with your eyes to any object is probably not healthy.

 

[icame]

Another article saying the same thing we all established a long time ago. Wonderful.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

The sad thing is that 3D is coming in full force, and its a way for studios to gain a bit of what they lost to home theatre and pirating. I work at a cinema and we need to raise an obscene amount of money through grants and donations to get a digital projector because we will simply not stay in business in 5 years time.

On a related note the best description I heard of Step Up 3D was "A movie where the audience gets served".

 

[Delusibeta]

Ultimately, it's going to stick around, if only because it's an effective DRM. The fact that people are paying more to see it is just gravy.

 

[Jacob.pederson]

Don't know about 3D movies and all, but I almost puked all over friend's computer after being introduced to 3D gaming on Nvidia setup. Damn, that was sickening, eye-watering, almost painful experience. 3D is a giant leap backwards in today's state of technology. People will enjoy 3D when we get Star Trek holograms. Everything else is bullshit.

As a very satisfied owner of a 3d-vision set-up with a 60-inch Mitsubishi set let me be the first to say that any eye strain or headaches were most likely caused by incorrect set-up, or by playing half-compatible games. Seeing the incorrectly rendered water reflections in Source engine games doesn't just give me a headache . . . it eats at my very soul. But on the other hand, playing my meticulously tweaked version of Dirt 2, and having my car's hood start at the end of my desk and protrude inward into an actual world is like nothing else available in gaming. Ever. And yes I have a virtual boy

When gaming in 3d, keep in mind that you are way in early adopter territory right now. Many recent games use more hacks then honest rendering techniques to squeeze all their precious HDR's and normal maps out of the current consoles anemic horsepower . . . resulting in stereoscopic rendering that is a complete mess. However, pop in a good ole made-for-PC DX9 game like Unreal 2k4, and watch your 3d jaw hit the 2d floor

 

[KEM10]

Don't know about 3D movies and all, but I almost puked all over friend's computer after being introduced to 3D gaming on Nvidia setup. Damn, that was sickening, eye-watering, almost painful experience. 3D is a giant leap backwards in today's state of technology. People will enjoy 3D when we get Star Trek holograms. Everything else is bullshit.

But how will we get to said holograms without baby steps that work and can be profitable in order to still fund the research?

 

[Jumplion]

I'm a glasses wearer and I'm perfectly fine with 3D. Occasionally I adjust the glasses, but other than that I'm perfectly fine with it.

Frankly, I think people are blowing this way out of proportion. I mean, really, if you don't like 3D then watch it in 2D. If 3D gives you headaches, watch it in 2D. If there are only 3D available movies at your local cinaplex, send a complaint to them or something.

As others have said, 3D does not make a bad movie good, it makes a good movie that much better. Toy Story 3 did 3D excellently, and How To Train Your Dragon was also a great 3D experience in IMax. Tron: Legacy looks to be kickass in 3D, and hopefully the movie itself will compliment it. 3D has a lot of potential, especially in video games. I played WipeOutHD in 3D, and it was practically like a whole new game, and it'll be interesting to see how 3D plays out in this medium.

Overall, I'm not worried. I personally think that 3D is just the new "popular" thing to hate on, like Justin Beiber or general pop culture. That's not to say I don't understand some of the complaints, but if you don't like it, then fine, don't watch it in 3D.

 

[Buchichu]

Wil Wheaton <3

 

[beniki]

Let's be fair, those movies would have been released anyway, regardless of 3D.

I mean really, you can tell the new Resident Evil movie will suck even before they slap the 3D badge on it. If you still watched it (like I did... my friend <3s Milia Jovovich) then it's your own fault.

 

[zHellas]

I hate 3D cause I have to wear them over my normal glasses

Main reason I don't like going to 3-D movies. Plus I don't want to get contacts at all.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

The glasses thing and the headaches are what I loathe the most about 3D movies. I thought that in a few movies, it added a whole new dimension (Pardon the pun). In others, it was just incredibly unnecessary, and I'm thankful I didn't shill out more than I did for the shit-tastic Clash of the Titans remake for 3D glasses.

 

[killa_kid]

The movie industry feels it constantly has to do things to fight other industries. Years ago it was TV, so they introduced widescreen. If I remember correctly, Ben-Hur was one of the first, where the chariot racing was done in widescreen, to give it a grand feel. Today it's 3D, because the vast majority of people don't have it in their homes, so you have to go out and pay them to see it.

I don't see this trend going away, Hollywood will burn a genre/idea/technology into the ground if it wants too. Look at any successful genre (Sci-Fi being one of the easiest to see it in) and follow its ups and downs. A lot of them have huge ups and tremendous downs.

 

[LogicNProportion]

That cow picture gave me a fucking headache and a half in itself. @_@

 

[Angerwing]

You wanna know why people would buy a 3D Camera?

I'll give you a hint. I sell video cameras and computers and stuff, and the only people I've sold a 3D camera to are young couples.

PORN IN 3D WOULD BE FUCKING AWESOME!

 

[Vault101]

Out of all the 3d movies i've seen none that been that imprssive in terms of 3d'ness in fact itsy annoying because everyhting is darker, and the screen is narrower

 

[mjc0961]

Well said. 3D is enough to deal with when the movie is worth seeing. Making crap movies but in 3D just to make a 3D moving is so utterly stupid that it's not even funny.