Filmmaker Says Human Brain Not Suited for 3D
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
I hate 3D films, not just because of the eyestrain (That I already have a problem with due to one of my eyes being slightly weaker than the other, causing the one to work harder to keep things in focus and leading to headaches and eyestrain...) but because most (Well all...) 3D films I have seen have gone to great lengths to make things go into (Or out of) the screen, which is unatural and fake and makes me feel sick when I see.
...Which we are totally going to get without developing the technology. I get what Murch is saying, but why does he think we're still trying? Did we just give up on the whole "computer" thing because it was expensive and clunky? "How long will it take people to realize and get fed up?" That depends; when will we be able to project true holograms - the very ones you claim can fix the convergence issue?
Hating 3D is in right now, yeah, but grow up a bit, Mr. Murch.
This sounds about right to me, too.
My biggest issue with 3D is that it throws all the colors off, even with the new glasses and that "RealD" stuff (or whatever it's called). I have also yet to see a film in which 3D effects can be said to have enhanced the experience for me in any way.
Additionally, I already need glasses to see, so 3D glasses become very uncomfortable to wear after a little while.
Oh, and I've been hating 3D since way before it was "in". In fact, I would say that it's currently popular to dislike 3D because it does, in fact, suck. And what about his argument struck you as childish, exactly?
My biggest issue with 3D is that it throws all the colors off, even with the new glasses and that "RealD" stuff (or whatever it's called). I have also yet to see a film in which 3D effects can be said to have enhanced the experience for me in any way.
Additionally, I already need glasses to see, so 3D glasses become very uncomfortable to wear after a little while.
...except that current 3D technology doesn't seem likely to lead to the kind of holographic images he's describing (the only exception may be some of the cameras they've been developing). Showing every big budget film in 3D isn't going to help that technology develop and I'm not entirely convinced I'd even like it if it was invented. True holographic 3D has so many applications beyond film that its use in movies is likely to be a moot point in its eventual development. Also, those clunky, old computers still performed useful functions. I'm not so sure the same is true of 3D movies (if old computers had punched me hard in both eyes when I used them, this would be a more valid comparison).sooperman said:
Oh, and I've been hating 3D since way before it was "in". In fact, I would say that it's currently popular to dislike 3D because it does, in fact, suck. And what about his argument struck you as childish, exactly?
I'm trying to think of a nice way to say that I think you are incorrect. (there I did it)Somebloke said:
What you just described is not a malfunction of the 3d screen but the entire concept behind the technology. 3d displays DO allow you to focus on an image that can appear to be any distance from popping out of the screen to the infinite distance....perfectly too. The angle of your eyes when they view what they think is the same object is what your brain processes to determine what distance the object is from you and create the 3d effect. What happens though, (just like it does in the real world) is that anything that's not on the same plane becomes severely out of focus.
As far as I can tell, (and believe me, I know much more about this stuff than most people)there is truly no difference between looking out a window and looking at a 3d display. I personally believe that the source of most peoples' headaches and eye pains is simply how much more strenuous for the eyes and brain viewing a moving environment in 3d is as apposed to 2d.
I don't want to come accross as arrogant but I really do understand the subject quite well and believe Mr. Murch's argument to be flawed. If you can explain to me why it is not in a genuinely scientific way (and again, not trying to sound like a douche, but I know my stuff) please do.
Damn I just wish 3D would just go away. I have to pay an extra five dollars to put on some shitty glasses and have the color darkened by these nifty new lenses that make the pictures all poppy!
I avoid seeing movies in 3D when I can, but sometimes that's all they're playing in.
I avoid seeing movies in 3D when I can, but sometimes that's all they're playing in.
Exactly. You are either trying to focus off the viewplane, or adjusting your convergence expectations to something that does not correspond with the real, off-screen, world, which blurs either, contrary to what your autonomous systems would expect and note that it's the entire viewplane that blurs or sharpens, uniformly, regardless of the various apparent distances displayed.Electrogecko said:
EDIT: Different people are differently adept at relaxing their vision, i.e. suppressing the self-adjusting functions of their eyes and then "switching them back on".
Hell yes. Just got done playing Black-Ops on a 50" plasma via my PC. Hi-res and lots of depth, I was loving it.HaraDaya said:
Electrogecko said:
"Murch says this is like "tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time." It's unnatural, causing the brain to work overtime, resulting in a headache or eye strain."
You can do that kid's trick with ease, just takes a little effort.
Also I sat through Avatar and RE 4 in full IMAX 3D and it was awesome.
No problems at all and technically very impressive stuff.
You can do that kid's trick with ease, just takes a little effort.
Also I sat through Avatar and RE 4 in full IMAX 3D and it was awesome.
No problems at all and technically very impressive stuff.
You know, a long time ago I had this gameboy like thing. It used small cartridges and was worn on your head.
It was like the Virtual Boy, but instead of covering both eyes it was an image on a small piece of clear plastic...
Anyone remember what that was called?
3D never worked back then, people got sick of it... Why are we bringing it back. Until it's a movie or video game where holograms act out the sequences/scenes... It's not gonna be as great as it sounds.
It was like the Virtual Boy, but instead of covering both eyes it was an image on a small piece of clear plastic...
Anyone remember what that was called?
3D never worked back then, people got sick of it... Why are we bringing it back. Until it's a movie or video game where holograms act out the sequences/scenes... It's not gonna be as great as it sounds.
I can't watch a 3D movie for more than 2 minutes before I have to take off the glasses, it is way too uncomfortable.
I can't see 3-D as anything but a novelty, anyway. It's cool, but it's not the end-all. Maybe some day it will be more than a novelty, but no time in the near future. As such, I don't care what our brains can handle, or what technicalities there are.