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)
Re: (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.
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: (Score:2)
Calling them "2d movies" is unpolitically correct. They prefer to be called "Z-challenged movies".
Re: (Score:2)
That law of economics would work if the movie industry wasn't one huge kartell with price agreements and total market dominance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Sorry about the typo. Supposed to be "don't go to the 3d showing".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, is the 'pay for your glasse
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the all-too-common crappy retrofit of an existing projector.
That seems a little unlikely, considering that all the modern 3-D systems require digital projection. You can certainly have picture quality issues with a digital projector, but that's usually due to operator error, rather than old equipment.
Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (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 de
Re: (Score:2)
My wife has some sort of condition that seems to be fixed with "prism correction" in her lenses, so there are other factors involved than just the basic three. I think that has to do with eye coordination and tracking or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I was surprised how well the 3D glasses fit over my pair or seeing glasses.
Sure it is not as nice as only having one pair on, but it works
Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Getting a prescription for contacts or eye surgery seems like a ridiculous hoop to jump through just to get a marginally improved picture of "Step up."
He's undoubtedly heard of contact lenses before, that he still wears glasses suggests that he prefers them for some reason or another, and I don't see why he should change. Hollywood and theaters are the ones pushing this in the hopes that they can wring more money out of us.
Re: (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:Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit. My wife and I have both worn corrective lenses since childhood, and have very similar vision problems. We just did the math a couple of weeks ago. Over 3 years usage*, my very expensive "designer" glasses from a boutique shop are less than her average-priced daily contacts** from a low-cost source. And that's not counting the fact that eye exams for contact lenses are significantly more expensive. In fact, my wife is considering laser surgery because it would be significantly cheaper than contacts in the long run.
* 3 years is the standard warranty on my glasses
** My wife had to switch from 2-week lenses to dailies because of a corneal infection
Re: (Score:2)
Go to hell, hollywood, for making my everyday life even more impractical than it already is.
Erm, it's not Hollywood's fault that current 3D technology requires goggles. If you could name a technology that lets people see 3D movies on the big screen without wearing glasses I'm sure Hollywood would already be all over it; those glasses are not only a nuisance for short-sighted people, you know?
It's also not Hollywood's fault that 3D movies are hugely popular and are bringing the people back into the cinemas. What I see is that once a 3D HDTV becomes a common household product so will the glasses
Re: (Score:2)
That - or lenses made to your prescription.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, depending on what your vision problems are or any other eye issues you have, contacts are not an option. You have to wear glasses. My dad has a vision issue that cannot be corrected by either contacts or surgery so, he's stuck with glasses and 3D movies suck for him.
Also there are issues with people like me who have troubles with the yellow part of the color spectrum that apparently plays hell with (but does not completely disable) modern 3D technology.
In summery, 3D movies and TV are
Re: (Score:2)
In that case I am sorry :(
It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d screen. (Score:2, Informative)
As subject, this just for lameness filter.
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
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
NO NO NO NO NO.
It is NOT 3d, it is NOTHING LIKE 3d.
The "object" that I am viewing (the flat, 2d, screen) is a fixed distance from my eyes, the parallax for EVERYTHING displayed on the screen, and the focal length for EVERYTHING displayed on that screen is the same.
This is as "3d" as those optical illusions are "motion". eg NOT.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 g
Very close to my personal gripe (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. That's why I hate 3d movies, before I get the possible headache.
With 3d movies, since the screen is still flat, only one item can be in focus at any given time. The items in focus are those in the plane where the action is typically taking place, but sometimes something interesting is happening in the background. Attempts to view the background have you focusing on something that will never come into focus. This causes eyestrain and an uncomfortable visual feeling.
Most of the time people want to see what the director wants them to see; however, there were several scenes in Avatar where I wanted to look at the squad tactics in the background. It was quite disconcerting to know that they were permanently rendered out of focus.
If there wasn't part of the screen being rendered with tricks to simulate depth, I doubt I would have been so put off by the other parts of the screen failing to simulate depth in the same way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. He is correct. Close one eye and shift your focus from something very close to something distant. Everything out of focus is blurry. In a 3D movie, the focal plane of everything (NOT the parallax, but the actual distance at which the image will be sharp and in focus to your eye) is at the same distance.
There are two different attributes of 3D: Focal distance (how far away it actually is) and parallax (how much it appears to move if you move your head, or perceived by one eye vs. the other).
Parallax is e
Re: (Score:2)
Your current vision system consists of a pair of 2D image sensors (a.k.a. your Retinas)
It also contains a lens that focuses (if you're under 40) which has an additional 3D effect; your brain knows how far something is away by its focus. In a movie, you're not using your eye's depth for field to discern distance, the camera's lens does.
The retina is a very important part of vision, but the brain is the organ that actually sees, and it doesn't just use data from the retina, it also uses data from the nerves t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mirrors. Completely flat. Such good 3d that people have been known to walk into them by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
The term "3D", in this context, is referring to the simulation of the experience of viewing the scene in the video as being three dimensional from the standpoint of the viewer. It makes perfect sense and this crap argument is just an incompetent attempt at pedantry.
Re: (Score:2)
It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d screen
Go to a play, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (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
Re: (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 a
Give me black and white (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sin City was good.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too!
In fact, I'd take a decent movie made by a group of enthousiastic amateurs over any move produced by "big media", anytime.
Re: (Score:2)
> ...movie/show with a decent story...
They quit making those in the middle of the last century.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the content of the story doesn't have to be good. People often go to expos to see new technology, and not to take it home and play with it. The same thing can be said of some video games and movies. You have your preference, and others have theirs.
How many FPS games are successful based solely on graphical technology, while adding nothing to the genre? Surprisingly, a lot.
I may anger a few people, but I'd say that the movie Jurassic Park had a sub-par plot. Science creates monsters, they run
Re: (Score:2)
Why you didn't think Pokahon... Err Umm Avatar was a good movie.
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
3D TV is another ball of wax... (Score:2)
Heck, why do the television manufacturers believe that I'm willing to spend 2 grand more for it?
I agree with the view of this being nonsense. Last I heard, there was all of one 3D-BluRay movie. Really, how many times does someone want to watch Monsters vs. Aliens? I can't even think of anyone I know who watched that movie in the theater in 3D, so I'm not sure why someone would buy a 3D TV to watch it in 3D at home...
And sure, they are promising that more movies will come out in 3D, yet the movies that do so well in 3D in the theater (Avatar, Clash of the Titans especially) are then released only
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, there was all of one 3D-BluRay movie.
A cursory Google turned up at least 19, not including 'coming soon'. I don't doubt there are more available.
Re: (Score:2)
the movies that do so well in 3D in the theater (Avatar, Clash of the Titans especially) are then released only in 2D on Blu-ray.
It's released in 2D on Blu-ray so that people who want to see the movie at all buy it now. Then, at a later date, (probably when 3D TVs are more common) it'll be re-released in 3D to get as many people as possible to buy both versions of it, where they otherwise would have only bought the 3D version if it were available now.
That is one possible explanation. But on the other hand, why would they expect people to buy 3D TV sets when there are (almost) no 3D movies available to watch in 3D?
On top of that, every 3D set that I have seen advertised so far requires one pair of (expensive) glasses for every person who wants to watch the movie in 3D. And you can buy quite a few Blu-ray titles for less than the cost of another pair of glasses, so I don't think that having more 3D movies available will do much to eat into sales of 2
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: (Score:2)
I'd need to buy a blu-ray player first, before I could upgrade it.
Re: (Score:2)
how about 4k2k video? or the one using displaylink, or lightpath, or both, the one with 10Gbit ethernet, the one with Netflix2 or $COOLVIDEOSTREAMING, or the one that plays back files from UPnP with as much format compatability as mplayer/ffmpeg/vlc, the one with all of the above. So yes there are lots of reasons I would upgrade my bluray player(I currently have a ps3), but 3d with glasses isn't going to be one of them, and I'd still need a new TV to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Mate, I'm afraid you may not be the average person.
Tell a random guy in a shop to spend 300+ bucks for "additional format compatibility" - good luck with that :-)
Then try: "with this, you can watch Avatar as in a movie theater". Which one do you think sells better..?
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: (Score:2)
And in the case of Avatar it's definitely not because of an elaborate storyline, character development or any deep philosophical underpinnings - this movie works solely because of the visual effects - without those people would si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I get distracted by the film reel change indicators also.
Damn "Fight club." Now I can't stop noticing those either.
Depth of Field (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if optical technology is capable of this. Each "eye" of a 3D camera has to focus on something by its very nature. Where this doesn't apply is with CGI. The only movie I've ever seen in 3D was Toy Story 3. While it wasn't worth the extra cost to see the 3D, 3D meant everything was in focus so you could look anywhere on screen and not just where the director wanted you to look.
Re: (Score:2)
Large depths of field, or see http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/06/26/computational-cameras-exploiting-megapixels-and-computers-redefine-modern-camera [hizook.com] and the talk there for how to play games to get low f-stops for non-grainy pictures and large depths of field at the same time. If you notice, most pictures taken with your cell phone camera tend to have a large amount of the picture in focus(excluding the motion blur parts).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm unclear: is this a problem you have specifically with 3D, or with cinema in general? Every imaging system has limited depth of field. What you're asking for is technically impossible except in animated films.
Re: (Score:2)
100% CGI for most movies will be standard sooner than you think.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With a standard movie, when your eye can't focus on something it just files it into 'pattern on wall' and ignores it. In 3D, your eyes think they should be able to pick out objects and focus on them (because they can switch parallax to them), but they can't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In films that don't pretend to be 3D there's no conflict between the parallax and my focal distance, so I never have any reason to attempt to focus at some other depth. In fact, the limited field of focus is often used to show differing distances, to help make up for the lack of real depth information.
Plus it's *not* impossible to capture a re-focusable image -- you just need to capture the entire light field as opposed to the 2D projection of the light field captured by traditional photography. While not i
Re: (Score:2)
You can select aperture, focal length, and focus position such that you end up with a distance past which everything is in focus. This is called a hyperfocal distance. It would require some major changes in the way you film, for example close-up shots would be very difficult and the lower aperture values require more light. Or you can just attempt to have either everything within the depth of field, or so far out of the DOF that it is just a total blur without any distinguishing features to draw the view
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm unclear: is this a problem you have specifically with 3D, or with cinema in general? Every imaging system has limited depth of field. What you're asking for is technically impossible except in animated films.
In a regular movie, the whole screen registers with one depth, so an out-of-focus section doesn't have a better (or worse) depth than an in-focus section. In a 3d movie, at least one section of the screen has correct depth and focus, which makes the other sections that have correct depth but wrong focus bewildering.
Imagine if you were walking around and I could decide what was in focus for you. As long as we both were thinking the same thing was interesting, there wouldn't be a problem. The issues come u
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Avatar was hugely hyped. No other movie since has had so much energy poured into its marketing, particularly focusing on the sweeping majesty of the 3D. I watched in on a crummy screen, in 2D and was so horrified by the film itself that I have no plans to see it... but a kajillion people did. As a science fiction film, it also appealed more to the types of people interested in 3D, a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the "digital" mania on that. Films used to be exactly that, films made of some plastic through which a *strong* light was passed.
With digital projectors, where light passes through an LCD, that light must be dimmer because the blacks would be washed out, no LCD has as much contrast as film.
Of course its not the tech's fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
Porn (Score:3, Insightful)
3D will die...again (Score:4, Insightful)
Center composition for SDTV (Score:2)
I bet in future decades, when people watch today's movies without the lame 3D glasses, everyone looks back at pictures from this era and wonder why everything is composed in the center of the frame
Part of framing shots with a huge overscan has nothing to do with 3D and everything to do with SDTV. SDTV has a 4:3 display aspect ratio, and cinema is closer to 7:3, so "reformatting to fit this screen" cuts off a horizontal area that adds up to roughly the height of the picture. Even though VHS is dead, cable TV is still around, and secondary TVs in houses are still standard-definition. They could pan-and-scan, but that tends to look artificial for several reasons: jerky starts and stops in the panning mo
Maybe (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe it's not the 3D that gives you a headache, it's the plot (or lack of it).
OK, they ran out of the safe room they had found, and into the scarey laboratory with the evil monster, split up, ripped up/off their clothes (always necessary), and then started randomly pressing every button in sight, and jumping into the first dark room they could find. Why should I be surprised that something bad happens to them? [Noise from banging my head on chair in front of me] Why should I get a headache? [bang! bang!]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OK, they ran out of the safe room they had found, and into the scarey laboratory with the evil monster, split up, ripped up/off their clothes (always necessary), and then started randomly pressing every button in sight, and jumping into the first dark room they could find.
I am intrigued by your plot, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Sincerely,
Uwe Boll
So... (Score:2)
So what they're saying is that it's an inherent failure in the current design of 3D technology - that there is no way to make a movie look good in 3D without explicitly having that in mind all the time. So it's like spam email - the inherent flaws in the current 3D technology mean that there's nothing can be done about filmmakers abusing it, or doing it poorly, or not doing it at all?
That's got me convinced then - I won't ever buy the current generation of 3D. Thanks, "Buzz" and Sony, you made an already-
I blame the movie content (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My first 3d movie was one of the "Ice Age" films. The story was what you would expect; a mind numbing experience unless you're under 12. Leaving the theater my senses were appropriately dulled by the slow action and glacial story line progression, yet I still had a headache.
For those of us who know why I might be watching such a film, I can say that the subsequent multiple watchings in 2d didn't remove the dullness of the action or speed up the glacial story line progression. Fortunately, the post-Ice Ag
The solution actually isn't that difficult... (Score:2)
I'm no expert on this, but I have a feeling that doubling the framerate might help substantially. The eye strain for me, outside of convergence issues, is the severe motion blur. I think the main issue with this "fix" is that current 3D projector technology can't run at double the framerate...and that's where the "tricks" and the "good 3D" comes into play. The hardware is limited, so they're having to come up with work arounds to make something that looks bad look better.
When I can watch 60fps 3D (we're
accurate 3D is boring (Score:2)
3D movies exaggerate the 3D effect in order to impress. Actual, accurate 3D would be pretty boring, because anything more than a dozen feet away would be basically little different from a flat projection.
Easy way to test (Score:2)
Compare with headaches from the 2D versions...
Big issues with 3D (Score:2)
You just need read 3D (Score:2)
Go outside, do some body.
No movie can compare to being in your own movie.
I was going to write something halfway intelligent about how they need to use mini LCDs over your eyes and track your focal point and run that back through the computer so everyone gets their own frame tailored to their focal point. Or, more cheaply, several possible focal points that are pre-rendered and then stitched together based on your focal point. It would go along way to make it more immersive. I hate the fact that the director
I've become disenchanted with theatres lately... (Score:2)
Apparently, the major theatre chain up here in Canada has started adopting the policy of having pre-made bags of popcorn for concession, instead of scooping it for you while you wait, and have the customer put popcorn topping on it themselves at a nearby booth.
While I can agree that this may speed the lines up, it's annoying for people who like the popcorn topping "layered" in the bag.
My wife wrote to the management to compain about this new policy and we were sent two complementary popcorn tickets for
Glad we asked an impartial expert... (Score:2)
Buzz Hays, from the Sony 3D Technology Center says that the 3D isn't a problem, just the techniques involved in making it?
Sorry, but what that really means is that the visual vocabulary available to filmmakers using pseudo-3D is limited because of the risk of eye-strain.
Why? Because this isn't actually 3D. It's stereoscopic, but the ability to focus at different depths is not available to the viewer. Depth-of-focus and stereo convergence being in sync is something that our brain learns to do at a very yo
3D can't give you headaches (Score:2)
Real life is in real 3D* and it's all around you every day.
The problem really is bad technology that tries to re-create a pseudo-3D effect via two flat 2D images with a fixed viewpoint.
* Note to cyclops and other one-eye beings: even if you can't see it, it's in 3D anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if more than two humans manage to have a completely differently behaving brain. So no...
Re: (Score:2)
Circular-polarization contact lenses for 3D (Score:2)
...are on their way: http://www.televisions.com/tv-news/No-joke-3D-contact-lenses.php [televisions.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What would be the point? The only problem with contacts are putting them in and taking them out, and you're only going to want to wear them when you're watching a movie. Plus, the only two types of 3D they would work with is the old red/green tech and the newer but still damned old polaroids. I'd suggest contacts to correct your vision, 3D glasses for movies, and sunglasses for outside in that big blue room with the fusion lamp.
Oops, I just saw your user name. Woosh me well.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't be the only nerd in here who gets artificial butter all over the lenses by the halfway point of the movie. Popcorn salt doesn't do much for them either.
Look on the bright side, however bad it is now, it'll be even worse when the Pr0n industry goes 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
now that we have gorgeous 400Hz LCD screens with amazing contrast and colors
Looks like someone buys a little too much into those made-up marketing figures about 10 billion:1 contrast ratios or 80 billion colors that they put on LCDs. If anything, the new 240hz and 480hz TVs look worse than the older LCDs. I don't want to watch everything so that it looks like a live-action soap opera, thank you very much.