Why Bad 3D, Not 3D Glasses, Gives You Headaches

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."

Depth of Field

[MBCook]

Call me back when they fix the depth of field issue. The whole scene needs to be in focus so that when my eyes aren't looking at precisely what the director wants, my eyes don't try to focus on something that can't be focused on.

Then Ebert is really against 3D because of how much darker the picture is, when normal movies are already projected too darkly half the time.

At this point, it still seems to be a gimmick. I remember reading that 3D ticket sales had fallen from 85% (or so) of ticket sales in some of the earlier 3D movies this year to ~40%. Clearly, people are realizing that it's usually a scam for an extra $5 from you.

Cameron worked on it for 10+ years. Nolan explicitly fought against making Inception 3D because he didn't think it would work. There is no way the no-name director of American Pie 7: Bagpipe Retreat is going to do 3D well.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[MortimerV]

Maybe your frames are different, maybe you have a big nose, maybe your theater uses differently sized 3D glasses, who knows!

Come to think of it, if you use big framed glasses do they have a separate nosepiece? Mine are small, thin glasses, but the nosepiece adds extra space to them. It's not the glasses pressing into my face, it's the nosepiece on my nose.

If I ever go to another 3D showing, I'm tempted to take the lenses from the 3D glasses and attempt to make them into a clip-on. That'd solve the annoyance of the big frames and mean I only have to wear one pair of glasses!

Re:Depth of Field

[GameMaster]

I'm a big fan of 3D, but I have to agree with you on the depth of field thing. I've gotten used to it, for the most part, but when I started watching 3D films, I had the same problem you did. I suppose that this would be an easy thing to fix for 3D rendered films (Shrek, Toy Story, etc.) but for live action films it will require new cameras with infinite focus.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[mcgrew]

Get contact lenses. They're cheaper than glasses and you might even get laid. If you have the money you can get your eye's lenses replaced with a cybernetic implant for about $15k.

Glasses SUCK and suck hard; I wore glasses until I was 50, when I fonally got contacts. I had my left lens replaced with the device I mentioned four years later.

Google CrystaLens. Or read this journal. [slashdot.org]

Re:Why not?

[sjames]

It's NOT just the parallax. That's just the part that is actually simulated. We ALSO get depth information from the eye's focus. That's why when you close one eye and look around, it doesn't look exactly like looking at a picture of the room.

Note that the parallax is only simulated. The distance between the eyes matters. The 3D camera system just takes a reasonable average separation and calls it good.

Part of the headache is that the parallax says there is a varying depth, but the focus says it's flat.

Try getting around with one eye closed and the other dilated by the ophthalmologist and you'll 'see'.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[bangwhistle]

I've worn glasses since I was a tyke. I wore contacts when I was younger and worried that glasses weren't "attractive" but now find glasses easier to care for than contacts. I have several pair with different looks, including sunglasses and all are multifocal. If 3D really catches on and one technology is settled on, it would be nice to go to the optician and buy 3D glasses with prescription lenses. Going to the movies - take along your 3D glasses. You wouldn't need multifocal lenses, UV protection, tints or anything fancy. I could see them costing less than a typical pair of everyday glasses. Indeed when home 3D TV hits it stride, having a prescription pair would be a no-brainer.