Why Bad 3D, Not 3D Glasses, Gives You Headaches 255
Barence writes "The most common complaint about 3D is that the glasses give you a headache, but that's not actually true, according to the man who teaches the pros how to make better 3D. Speaking at the BBC in London, Buzz Hays, chief instructor for the Sony 3D Technology Center in Culver City, California, explained: 'It's not the technology's fault, it's really the content that can cause these problems. It's easy to make 3D but it's hard to make it good — and by "good" I mean taking care to make sure that this isn't going to cause eyestrain.' He went on to detail some of the mistakes made by inexperienced 3D film makers, from poor composition of shots, through uncomfortable convergence settings, to overuse of on-set monitors without viewing their content on a big screen. But the biggest admission Buzz made was that not even the 'experts' know all the tricks yet, which is why 3D should only get better from here. In the same seminar, Buzz also explained why 3D glasses are here to stay — at least for the next few years."
The glasses can do it too ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me black and white (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The glasses can do it too ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Make the 3D fad go away (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I have yet to see a movie in 3D where 3D provided anything additional to my movie experience other than a headache.
I watched Avater, and was distracted from the movie by the places that the 3D effect broke up badly. Of course, I get distracted by the film reel change indicators also.
Why do the movie companies believe that we want 3D? Heck, why do the television manufacturers believe that I'm willing to spend 2 grand more for it? Does anyone here feel that its a useful addition to a movie? /frank
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your current vision system consists of a pair of 2D image sensors (a.k.a. your Retinas)... so I don't see why the mere fact that the screen is 2D should be an absolute obstacle to re-creating the parallax that makes your 2D vision into 3D.
SirWired
Of course its not the tech's fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
Porn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The glasses can do it too ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They were telling you the truth. There's no way the glasses cost $3 in the quantities they buy them in. What you're paying for with the additional $3 is the, extremely expensive, new projector equipment in the theater along with the premium experience that 3D is supposed to be.
3D will die...again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree (Score:1, Insightful)
Not true, the point of view does not respond to changes in head/eye position as it would with a 3-dimenstional object. Your eye can tell that it's not perciving things that really exist in 3 dimensions because of that.
That's probably the cause of the eyestrain. Your eyes keep moving and altering focus to try and sort out whether what you're seeing a 3-d object or not (it seems 3-d but doesn't respond like it's 3-d)
Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree (Score:3, Insightful)
Mirrors. Completely flat. Such good 3d that people have been known to walk into them by accident.
Re:Make the 3D fad go away (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do the movie companies believe that we want 3D?
Because otherwise you have no reason to upgrade your Blue-Ray player.
Re:Make the 3D fad go away (Score:5, Insightful)
"I get distracted by the film reel change indicators also."
That, right there, should be all the clue you should need to tell you that your are abnormally over critical.
Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, that's not remotely true.
Watch Avatar. Now try to focus on something that's out-of-focus in the background.
"WTF", your eyes say, "I know I'm *supposed* to be able to bring that tree into focus, but I can't!" That's because it's *not* 3D. At best, its a fragile optical illusion.
Your brain can tell the difference. (Score:3, Insightful)
We use a more than binocular vision to see things in 3d. One way is moving our head position, though in a movie theater this isn't really a big deal. Another important way is by focus. This is one reason why 3d movies cause headaches. When they gimmick out to make things "pop out" of the screen, the image our eyes see doesn't match up with how our eye wants to focus on it.
There's nothing really wrong with 3d movies, it could potentially add something. The current state of 3d movies however is to pack the movies with distracting "HOLY SHIT IT'S 3D!" gimmicks that add nothing.
Re:The glasses can do it too ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that and the simple law of economics: something is worth what people will pay. People will pay more to see the 3d version, and so they charge more. Simple as that. If you don't want to pay the premium, then go to the 3d showing. Most theaters have 2d versions.
Re:Depth of Field (Score:3, Insightful)
It IS a gimmick. Note that there is absolutely nothing new about the technology. We've been able to do 3-D since the stereoscope (invented 1838). We've had the ability (and actual existent hardware) to do it with polarized glasses for decades. The old style color based 3-D from the '50s works as well as it ever works on a standard old color television (and so, with a regular DVD player or VHS).
Note the distinct lack of clamor for any of that for decades on end. Note that the 3-D bluray COULD render the 3-D content into the old-style red-blue 3D so it can work on a regular TV. They're not interested in that since it would mean less drooling early adopters paying through the nose for a 3-D TV.
Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score:3, Insightful)
I too have worn glasses since childhood. I've never had a problem wearing the 3d glasses over my normal ones, and I purchase my frames from the "big" sized rack at the eye doctor's shop. Don't you think that, maybe, you're just being a little bit of a drama queen?
Let's see. There are three general descriptions of eye defects, shortsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. They can be present in varying degrees. Astigmatism and short (or near) sightedness can be mixed in the same eye. Astigmatism involves an axis which will vary from person to person. There are literally tens of thousands of frames, each with their own dimensions. The standardized parts of the dimensions only extend to critical areas like the nose width and frame arm length.
Having an eye defect, and having been exposed to the world of corrected vision your whole life, how can you honestly tell me that a complete stranger shouldn't have a problem because you don't? Do you lack enough empathy for a person similar to yourself that you want to rub their affliction into their face), or are you actually so undereducated about your own condition that you believe the rest of the eyeglass wearing world is exactly like you?
Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make the 3D fad go away (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do the movie companies believe that we want 3D? Heck, why do the television manufacturers believe that I'm willing to spend 2 grand more for it?
because they're young and refuse to learn from history. 3D has come as a fad periodically during my life; I have a 3D movie on VHS (usues the two color cardboard glasses). The 3D at Epcot is impressive, but I agree with you that it doesn't and won't add to the experience.
As to why they think you'll buy it, how else are they going to get you to shell out on a new TV?
Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree (Score:3, Insightful)
Close. The primary cause of the headaches is that the parallax angle doesn't match with the optical focus.
Your body is wired to have your eyes focus close up when your eyes are crossed substantially (pointed at something close) and focus far away when they are not. With 3D movies, anything that doesn't appear to be roughly in the same plane as the screen is going to cause headaches because your eyes are converging on something closer or farther away, but focusing at that distance. As long as your primary action occurs mainly at the screen depth and there is minimal activity in front of it to cause you to converge your eyes unnaturally closer than the screen, you shouldn't get headaches (assuming the glasses aren't too tight).
I'm assuming that we're talking about passive 3D here (polarization-based). The active systems (alternating fields) cause even more headaches because of how much more they depend on persistence of vision.
Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score:3, Insightful)
If contacts only marginally improves his vision, he doesn't even need glasses.
I meant that 3d is only a marginal improvement. It's just a not-so-cheap gimmick. A 3D movie is at best slightly better than a 2D version of it.
There are no advantages of glasses over contacts whatever
Dry eyes, sensitive eyes, fears about touching one's eyes, cosmetic value (to some people), personal preference, cheaper, less time in the morning and evening, headaches, and aamcf's point, just to name a few.
Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, that would be awesome. Wouldn't be very practical in a theater, of course.
Then again, theaters aren't very practical to begin with. You're driving halfway across town, paying half again more (per person) than the DVD will cost to buy two years from now, and spending fifteen bucks on a tub of popcorn and a coke, all for the pleasure of sitting there in a chair that looks like some homeless guy peed in it, with a sticky floor, squeezed between two morbidly obese people while their kids sit behind you and throw popcorn at your head, all the while having trouble watching the movie for all the laser pointers and screaming children....
Yeah, I watch movies at home anyway unless I'm on a date, and ideally, even then....