Why I Hate 3-d (and You Should Too)

[diesel]

Why I Hate 3D Movies - (and you should too)

Interesting news article. Seems to follow some of the main concerns fellow forum members share about 3D TVs and the lack of true 3D content and it's all a marketing ploy to sell new equipment without bringing anything tangibly better in terms of content...

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

<snip>

Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.

Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.

I didn't realise Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland weren't shot in 3D?

[kwarrior]

Interesting, very interesting...I didnt realise that Alice was not 3D...just goes to show, how little it takes to convice people that they are watching something that, well, they are not!!

Why I Hate 3D Movies - (and you should too)

Interesting news article. Seems to follow some of the main concerns fellow forum members share about 3D TVs and the lack of true 3D content and it's all a marketing ploy to sell new equipment without bringing anything tangibly better in terms of content...

I didn't realise Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland weren't shot in 3D?

[Eth Nick]

Thanks for posting it.

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.

Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they "need" 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargogain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

Exactly - no one was thinking "I wish this movie was in 3D" 2 years ago. It took a massive campaign & a heavily visual-dependant example in Avatar to alter many mindsets into believing that 3D is a neccessity..

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.

Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn't. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don't believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.

Didn't think about this. I don't want everything in focus. Every single object/person becomes a distraction as you're trying to take in more than you should, & potentially miss what you need to be focussing on....though, in saying this, i'm sure depth of field could be implemented in future 3D standards. It's just that, right now, it's in its' show-pony stages..

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?

Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are "intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination." Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don't know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it's the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don't mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or "fake IMAX" for original IMAX. What's the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.

A massive turn-off for me. 3D ruined Avatar, & it had some of the most vivid, beautiful colours in a movie. Imagine how much worse (tinted) a regular movie (say like Saving Private Ryan) would look, with its' already dull colour palette turned down a few notches. You'll lose many objects in the darkness. Also, Shindlers List - the red dress won't appear as vivid & Sin City - the use of colours wont be as pronounced, sending filming techniques backwards in a big way imo.

6. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.

The sole reason for this premature & uneccessary push.

7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.

Along with the curiosity of the masses (thanks to a gigantic marketing campaign & the director involved) was the main reason Avatar was so successful. Not because it was a great movie.

The article mentions Alice in Wonderland & Clash of the Titans were the next 2 biggest earners of the year. I can't believe this. He must have got it wrong........please tell me he got it wrong, because it just proves how people can be manipulated into thinking 3D is the greatest thing ever. I didn't think people were so easily convinced....

MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it's 400 percent better.

This would give me more incentive to go watch something at the cinema than 3D...

Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market.

I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed.

Agreed, on both counts.

The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a premium viewing experience they can't get at home. But they're betting on the wrong experience.

Another good point in an interesting article.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Ralfi

[Ozivillan]

Why I Hate 3D Movies - (and you should too)

Interesting news article. Seems to follow some of the main concerns fellow forum members share about 3D TVs and the lack of true 3D content and it's all a marketing ploy to sell new equipment without bringing anything tangibly better in terms of content...

wheather 3d takes off or not people can jump on board with the technology for very little more than a standard TV. and with current promotions (samsung 3d promotion) theses prices look very tempting. 3D has been dropped onto the home consummer very quickly and with the TV stations jumping on board overseas and here it looks like 3D is here to stay,. will be intresting to read reviews of how the Socceroos and state of origin games look in 3D

[Owen]

3D has been dropped onto the home consummer very quickly and with the TV stations jumping on board overseas and here it looks like 3D is here to stay,. will be intresting to read reviews of how the Socceroos and state of origin games look in 3D

What cameras are they using for this “3D”, Sony don’t make any Pro grade 3D video cameras from what I can see and Panasonic only seem to have a little hand held semi pro model that’s only suitable for close up work.

So is it real 3D or simulated 3D?

Edited May 22, 2010 by Owen

[MACCA350]

The article mentions Alice in Wonderland & Clash of the Titans were the next 2 biggest earners of the year. I can't believe this. He must have got it wrong........please tell me he got it wrong, because it just proves how people can be manipulated into thinking 3D is the greatest thing ever. I didn't think people were so easily convinced....

My cousin went and saw Clash of the Titans in 3D..........said it was an absolute pathetic attempt and should never have been released in 3D.

cheers

[DrP]

In a world where Hollywood is so devoid of ideas that it has to resort to turning arcade games into movies and sell the garbage that results by including 'multi-million dollar whiz-bang special effects' is it any wonder that the '3D' bandwagon is being loaded up the roof with wares to sell?

Read a movie review these days and, assuming there is even mention of it, arcane terms such as 'plot', 'scripts' and 'acting' are usually associated with the negative. More often than not reviews these days are "OMG!!!!! DID YOU SEE THE EXPLOSIONS!?!?!?!?! THE SPECIAL EFFECTS WERE OMGGGGGGG!!"

Edited May 22, 2010 by DrP

[Tweet]

In a nutshell.......I think Hollywood has lost 'the plot' completely!

C.M

as an add on:

They don't seem to realize they are peeing on their own industry.Without a creditable storyline along with good acting and sets, the technology serves no purpose in holding an audience's attention. Great camera work and expansive scenes all work to captivate an audience's involvement,music and underlying tones so often acts as a precursor to the change in mood within a movie,....romance too is conveyed by music.

If that is not enough, you then have special effects that push the limits of credibility, so surely there are enough tools to convey a creditable 'illusion' from screen to viewer for it to be enjoyable and memorable, without the impost of dimensional distortion.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Tweet

[purpleninja]

I didn't realise Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland weren't shot in 3D?

Clash of the Titans was not only not shot in 3D, but it was converted so poorly that it was pretty much universally condemned.

Hopefully this will mean that future 3D movies will either be shot in 3D or they'll spend more effort in converting them.

Studios need to prove themselves to consumers if they want us to spend money on this technology.

Including the technology in new TVs and giving out free 3D players and glasses might get people to get a 3D capable system, but it won't make them buy 3D titles.

[Hosko]

What cameras are they using for this “3D”, Sony don’t make any Pro grade 3D video cameras from what I can see and Panasonic only seem to have a little hand held semi pro model that’s only suitable for close up work.

The way 3D sport is being shot here for 3D is to use two Sony HDC-1500 cameras with a mount from Panavision or 3ality that either puts them next to each for far away subjects or a system where one camera shoots vertically through a mirror at 45 for the second eye so the lenses can be placed closer together. The two cameras then get fed into Sony or 3ality controller/processor that takes control of the zoom and focus so the operator can control both cameras at the same time, there is a physical convergence control by how far the cameras are angled into or away from each other and then the processors themselves can also alter the convergence.

[geese]

3D TV is rubbish.

I saw sony's offering recently for PS3 and it is total crap. Blur the screen and screw with your vision. What a joke.

The only 3D we will see in the next year will be from Microsoft for Xbox 360. Real 3D cannot occur unless the TV or device can read the position of your head.

Take a look here

[Owen]

The way 3D sport is being shot here for 3D is to use two Sony HDC-1500 cameras with a mount from Panavision or 3ality that either puts them next to each for far away subjects or a system where one camera shoots vertically through a mirror at 45 for the second eye so the lenses can be placed closer together. The two cameras then get fed into Sony or 3ality controller/processor that takes control of the zoom and focus so the operator can control both cameras at the same time, there is a physical convergence control by how far the cameras are angled into or away from each other and then the processors themselves can also alter the convergence.

Wow, that’s a lot of effort and expense to go to considering they can’t be bothered to do most sports in HD, even after 10 years of it coming into use. Bloody ridiculous.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Owen

[CCRider]

3D TV is rubbish.

I saw sony's offering recently for PS3 and it is total crap. Blur the screen and screw with your vision. What a joke.

The only 3D we will see in the next year will be from Microsoft for Xbox 360. Real 3D cannot occur unless the TV or device can read the position of your head.

Take a look here

3d tv is not rubbish. I agree it is not for everyone. As is blu ray large flat panels etc etc.

My son and daughter are so excited about the purchase as well. Everyone is happy and that is what counts.

I have ordered one but I did it because I sold my large 65v10 pocketed close to $2k and then went down 1.8" to a Sammy 63"

The balance is going towards funding my audiophile speakers. My real passion is music.

[pheggie]

What cameras are they using for this “3D”, Sony don’t make any Pro grade 3D video cameras from what I can see and Panasonic only seem to have a little hand held semi pro model that’s only suitable for close up work.

So is it real 3D or simulated 3D?

It's real 3d alright but Sony and Panasonic have very little to offer 3d, they are lightweights in 3d. Real 3d custom cameras are made by 3ality and they are doing Australia's 3d trials.

[jimval1503562898]

3D TV is rubbish.

+1

[bradp51]

Why I Hate 3D Movies - (and you should too)

Interesting news article. Seems to follow some of the main concerns fellow forum members share about 3D TVs and the lack of true 3D content and it's all a marketing ploy to sell new equipment without bringing anything tangibly better in terms of content...

I didn't realise Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland weren't shot in 3D?

The big message I got out of that article was "48 fps" now that would be somthing to see. And there is a whole new range of TV's, projectors and AVR's etc to support it.

It never ends

[morta11]

Saw a Samsung 3D demo at Bondi Junction this weekend.

Wasn't impressed at all - found it flickery and pushed me back to getting a high quality 2D instead

[MACCA350]

Saw a Samsung 3D demo at Bondi Junction this weekend.

Wasn't impressed at all - found it flickery and pushed me back to getting a high quality 2D instead

Same, showing Monsters vs Aliens BD, loss of brightness, could also see the faint outline of a second image. Not very impressed, could see the flickering giving me a headache after a while.

cheers

[SonofGherkin]

3d tv is not rubbish. I agree it is not for everyone. As is blu ray large flat panels etc etc.

My son and daughter are so excited about the purchase as well. Everyone is happy and that is what counts.

Hi

I Strongly urge you to read this, especially considering I don't know how old your children are.

I'm not against 3D per se, I just think its in such an infancy that who knows what the recognised format will be. And the part about messing with your brains natural depth perception, has me very worried.

And finally, "None of the television manufacturers have done any health & safety testing"

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2813511.htm

Keep doing that and you'll go blind

11 Feb 2010

A few days ago I found an odd package waiting in my mailbox. One of the commercial TV networks got my postie to deliver a pair of 3D glasses - very old school, with separate red and blue lenses. I spent a few moments assembling them, and presto! I looked like I'd just walked out of a showing of 1954's Creature From the Black Lagoon.

Now that James Cameron's Avatar has become the highest-grossing film in history, 3D is very hot. The hottest new toys unveiled at this year's Consumer Electronics Show were 3D television sets, 3D Blu-Ray players, and comfortable 3D glasses for the lounge room. At least three US-based cable networks have promised 3D broadcasts will begin sometime this year - for the few people who have 3D television sets. Everyone in the consumer electronics industry sees this as the Next Big Thing: now that everyone has purchased big, flat-screen TVs, 3D is the next logical step, the necessary upgrade that keeps us all on the treadmill of progress. The movie studios have also gotten behind 3D in a big way. Just last week Warner Brothers announced that the two final Harry Potter films will be shot in 3D.

Is this the decade of 3D? It might look that way, but we'd all better hope it turns out quite differently. You see, 3D is not good for you.

How can this be? Isn't the real world in 3D? Yes, the real world of objects is definitely three-dimensional. But that's where the similarity ends. What you're shown on a movie screen - or soon, a television - is not true 3D. That's the source of the problem.

Back in the 1990s I did a lot of development work in virtual reality - another technology destined to be the Next Big Thing. I helped Sega develop a head-mounted display (fancy VR headgear) that could be plugged into the Sega Genesis (known as the Mega Drive in Australia). Everything was going swimmingly, until we sent our prototype units out for testing.

Virtual reality headsets use the same technique for displaying 3D as we find in movies or 3D television sets - parallax. They project a slightly different image to each one of your eyes, and from that difference, your brain creates the illusion of depth. That sounds fine, until you realize just how complicated human depth perception really is. The Wikipedia entry on depth perception (an excellent read) lists ten different cues that your brain uses to figure out exactly how far away something is. Parallax is just one of them. Since the various movie and television display technologies only offer parallax-based depth cues, your brain basically has to ignore several other cues while you're immersed in the world of Avatar. This is why the 3D of films doesn't feel quite right. Basically, you're fighting with your own brain, which is getting a bit confused. It's got some cues to give it a sense of depth, but it's missing others. Eventually your brain just starts ignoring the other cues.

That's the problem. When the movie's over, and you take your glasses off, your brain is still ignoring all those depth perception cues. It'll come back to normal, eventually. Some people will snap right back. In others, it might take a few hours. This condition, known as 'binocular dysphoria', is the price you pay for cheating your brain into believing the illusion of 3D. Until someone invents some other form of 3D projection (many have tried, no one has really succeeded), binocular dysphoria will be part of the experience.

This doesn't matter too much if you're going to see a movie in the theatre - though it could lead to a few prangs in the parking lot afterward - but it does matter hugely if it's something you'll be exposed to for hours a day, every day, via your television set. Your brain is likely to become so confused about depth cues that you'll be suffering from a persistent form of binocular dysphoria. That's what the testers told Sega, and that's why the Sega VR system - which had been announced with great fanfare - never made it to market.

Video games are one of the great distractions of youth. Children can play them for hours every day, and our testers realized that children - with their highly malleable nervous systems - could potentially suffer permanent damage from regular and extensive exposure to a system which created binocular dysphoria in its users. This is the heart of my concern, because 3D television is being pitched as an educational medium - Discovery Channel has announced 3D broadcasts will begin mid-year - and that medium could damage the growing minds it is intended to enlighten.

All of this is rolling forward without any thought to the potential health hazards of continuous, long-term exposure to 3D. None of the television manufacturers have done any health & safety testing around this. They must believe that if it's safe enough for the cinema, it's fine for the living room. But that's simply not the case. Getting a few hours every few weeks is nothing like getting a few hours, every single day.

One of two things is about to happen: either 3D television will quickly and quietly disappear from the market, from product announcements, and from broadcast plans, or we'll soon see the biggest class-action lawsuit in the planet's history, as millions of children around the world realize that their televisions permanently ruined their depth perception. Let's hope 3D in the home dies a quiet death.

Edited May 22, 2010 by SonofGherkin

[HTPCFreak]

Saw a Samsung 3D demo at Bondi Junction this weekend.

Wasn't impressed at all - found it flickery and pushed me back to getting a high quality 2D instead

High quality 2D + 3D support: not always mutually exclusive though ...

I think manufacturers will soon put 3D in most of their top of the range TVs due to the 3D hype and the need to compete, and the fact that 3D really doesn't cost that much to implement, and so the price premium will actually help manufacturers. So there may come a time that if you want the *best* 2D picture, you'll *have to* get a "3D" TV. This year's Samsung plasma range seem to follow this trend, for example.

The best advice, as always, is to buy the best 2D TV you can afford. But if it comes with 3D, then so be it, you can always not use the feature just like the millions of other underused features that today's TVs come with.

[betty boop]

yep 3D TV is rubbish

heres some articles...

why 3D TV is a pointless gimmick

Francis Ford Coppola brands 3D as tiresome

3D or not 3D

Keep doing that and you'll go blind

[DrP]

Its interesting to see that so many people are experiencing the headache problem that I commented on some time ago. Unless something improves markedly the eye twisting headaches are going to be a significant minus. People will simply avoid watching '3D' for extended periods. Movie length may well be too long for a lot of people.

[CCRider]

Hi

I Strongly urge you to read this, especially considering I don't know how old your children are.

Appreciate the concern. If it poses any risk the TV becomes a 2d viewing medium.

Just wonder how many children out there own mobile phones?

[Tweet]

I wonder how many video stores would carry Blu-ray 3D encoded discs if it were mandatory that a Blu-ray 3D player be used to load it ?

So if the PS3 hasn't had a 3D movie update to its firmware yet, at least to my knowledge, what then are the chances of any current Blu-ray player being made compatible to load it and make it playable in 2D ? ...possibly none.

If that is the case, then 'Blu-ray 3D' really has no established user base for 3D to utilize but rather requires a new player to accommodate it.

Honestly, the Studios must be totally nuts if they think consumers are going to buy into this gimmickry with the cost of a new player and the expected disc markup that will come with it.

C.M

[luuuc]

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.

Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they "need" 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargogain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

I disagree. In Avatar it definitely added to the experience.

Is it necessary? No. Although neither is wide screen. Neither is colour. Neither is audio. But they all add to the experience.

Silly argument.

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.

Agreed.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?

Indeed it is, but again this is a silly argument, as there is no reason that this can't be compensated for in the future.

6. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.

Again, a silly argument.

Yes, there is money to be made, and when making money is the driving force then that is obviously not a good motivation. However just because there is money to be made in a new technology is no reason to write off that technology.

7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.

The consumer will be the judge of how successfully this blatant money-grabbing tactic works. It's just simple supply & demand. If the consumer thinks it is worth it then they will pay extra. If they don't, they won't.

No harm in that whatsoever.

If studios churn out half-arsed efforts or cinemas overcharge with the extra fees then people will stop paying for them. Simple as that. It's no different to popcorn & coke prices being stupidly high.

In summary, yes, 3D is way overhyped. And conversely, the backlash by "purists" and fun police is also way over the top.

(and personally, I have no interest whatsoever in owning a 3D TV any time in the near future)

Edited May 22, 2010 by luuuc