Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

3D study

Danno Anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Anecdotal: As a 9 year old boy in 1952, I watched three 3D movies and the novelty wore off. I never wanted to see another one and apparently so did the rest of the USA as 3-D movies were dropped. I have to wonder about the viability of all the money being invested again today in 3D.
---------------------------------

3-D means headaches to many, yet companies push on
Email this Story

Jan 20, 6:08 AM (ET)

By PETER SVENSSON
Google sponsored links
LG LED LCD Monitors - E60 - The Absolute Style - Slimness, Straight Edges & Eco-friendly.
www.LG.com

Flat Screen TVs At Sears® - Save On Flat Screen TV At Sears® Official Site. Shop Now!
www.Sears.com/FlatScreenTV


NEW YORK (AP) - From Hollywood studios to Japanese TV makers, powerful business interests are betting 3-D will be the future of entertainment, despite a major drawback: It makes millions of people uncomfortable or sick.
Optometrists say as many as one in four viewers have problems watching 3-D movies and TV, either because 3-D causes tiresome eyestrain or because the viewer has problems perceiving depth in real life. In the worst cases, 3-D makes people queasy, leaves them dizzy or gives them headaches.
Researchers have begun developing more lifelike 3-D displays that might address the problems, but they're years or even decades from being available to the masses.
That isn't deterring the entertainment industry, which is aware of the problem yet charging ahead with plans to create more movies and TV shows in 3-D. Jeff Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc., calls 3-D "the greatest innovation that's happened for the movie theaters and for moviegoers since color."
Theater owners including AMC Entertainment Inc. and TV makers such as Panasonic Corp. (PC) are spending more than a billion dollars to upgrade theaters and TVs for 3-D. A handful of satellite and cable channels are already carrying 3-D programming; ESPN just announced its 3-D network will begin broadcasting 24 hours a day next month.
Yet there are already signs that consumers may not be as excited about 3-D as the entertainment and electronics industries are.
Last year, people were willing to pay an additional $3 or more per ticket for blockbuster 3-D movies such as "Avatar" and "Toy Story 3." But that didn't help the overall box office take: People spent $10.6 billion on movie tickets last year, down slightly from the year before. People went to the theater less, but spent more.
3-D TV sets were available in the U.S. for the first time last year, but shipments came in below forecasts, at just under 1.6 million for North America, according to DisplaySearch. Nevertheless, TV makers such as Samsung Electronics Co. and Panasonic are doubling down on 3-D and introduced more 3-D-capable models this month at the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Those models cost more than regular ones and require glasses, just like in theaters.
Research into how today's 3-D screens affect viewers is only in its early stages. There have been no large-scale scientific studies.
A study of 115 South Koreans watching 3-D screens close up found that 3-D caused more eyestrain than 2-D. The research prompted the Korean government to recommend that viewers take a break of up to 15 minutes after an hour of 3-D viewing. But that study was based on glasses with red and green lenses rather than the ones used in theaters and with TVs.
Based on an unscientific, online survey, the American Optometric Association estimates that 25 percent of Americans have experienced headaches, blurred vision, nausea or similar problems when viewing 3-D.
TV makers do their own testing, but don't publish results. Samsung warns on its Australian website that its 3-D TVs can cause "motion sickness, perceptual after effects, disorientation, eye strain, and decreased postural stability." The last part means viewers risk losing balance and falling.
"We do not recommend watching 3-D if you are in bad physical condition, need sleep or have been drinking alcohol," the site continues.
Nintendo Co. says children aged 6 or younger shouldn't play with its upcoming 3DS handheld gaming system with 3-D technology, because it might affect vision development.
3-D screens and glasses create the illusion of depth by showing different images to each eye. That simulates the way objects that are at different distances in real life appear in slightly different places in each eye's field of view.
That's enough for most of us to perceive a scene as having depth. But our eyes also look for another depth cue in a scene: They expect to need to focus at different distances to see sharply.
More specifically, our eyes track an approaching object by turning inward, toward our noses. Bring something close enough, and we look cross-eyed. 3-D screens also elicit this response when they show something approaching the viewer.
The problem is that as the eyes turn inward, they also expect to focus closer. But a screen isn't moving closer, so the eyes have to curb their hard-wired inclination and focus back out. This mismatch between where the eyes think the focus should be and where the screen actually is forces them to work extra hard.
"That causes at least part of the discomfort and fatigue that people are experiencing," says Martin Banks, an optometry professor at University of California, Berkeley.
The problem is magnified if the screen moves close to the viewer - exactly what's happening if 3-D viewing moves from the movie theater to living rooms to game gadgets like the 3DS.
There is at least anecdotal evidence of a growing problem. David Hays, an optometrist in University Place, Wash., says patients came in after seeing "Avatar," complaining of eyestrain or the inability to see the 3-D effect. He expects to see more as the technology spreads.
Roger Phelps, an optometrist in Ojai, Calif., says viewers who suffer the most with 3-D are those who have trouble getting their eyes to converge properly in normal life.
"If you tend to get carsick easily, you might be one of those," Phelps says.
Yevgeny Koltunov, a 39-year-old New Yorker, has gone out of his way to find theaters showing 2-D versions of such movies as "Iron Man 2" and "Alice in Wonderland." His daughter, 13, also refuses to see 3-D movies.
"It doesn't look all that spectacular to me," Koltunov says. "For the most part, they give me a headache and make me dizzy, by the end."
Moviemakers do hold back on 3-D effects to minimize eyestrain. "Avatar" avoided gimmicks such as objects suddenly appearing to jut out of the screen. Filmmakers also try to make sure that the most significant part of a scene, such as the lead actor's face, appear to be at the same distance as the screen. That way, the eyes are less confused.
But this approach also limits moviemakers' creative freedom, and it doesn't solve the eyestrain problem entirely.
Banks is working on a longer-term solution. He and his team at Berkeley's Visual Space Perception Laboratory have put together 3-D "glasses" - really, a desk-bound contraption - with lenses that accomodate the eyes' natural inclination to focus at different distances. He says the setup reduces eyestrain and mental fatigue from 3-D images, though it may not eliminate them entirely.
A reporter who tried the device found it provided a very lifelike illusion of a box coming toward him on a track.
At the University of Arizona, optical sciences professor Hong Hua is working on wearable, helmet-like displays that also allow the eyes to focus at different distances.
Commercial versions of these setups are at least several years away, and even then, are more likely to be professional tools for remote surgery or industrial design rather than consumer items.
Even further away is the prospect of live holograms, which could create 3-D images that could be viewed without glasses, from all angles.
Until then, Phelps recommends sufferers sit as far back as they can in 3-D theaters. Another solution: close one eye, or put a Post-It note over it like an eye patch. That way, 3-D goes back to being 2-D.
---
AP Technology Writer Jordan Robertson contributed to this report from Berkeley, Calif.
 
So the complaint is:

3D was a miserable technology before the recent digital revival.

Even now during the digital 3D revolution with all sorts of technological improvements, 3D is not perfect. 25% of viewers report problems- including people who have difficulty seeing in 3D in the actual world.

There are improvements coming, but some people are not thrilled.

You should read reports from when color was introduced.

You can even go back and see a few stories from when sound was introduced, and how people didn't like the new "talkies."

I perceive the world in 3D, in fact its one of the most exciting things about how I see the real world. Creating a 3D "look" has always been a goal of my 2D cinematography.

The tools for 3D film making will get better and cheaper, and more people will learn how to use them.

The tools for 3D delivery are lagging those used in production, but now that there is some momentum they are improving even faster.

I think 3D is here to stay this time, and finally for good technological reason.

In the more distant future our current 3D movies will have some dimension when converted to holographic display.

This is the way we see, and we really ought to be pushing the state of the art, not looking for reasons to stay with the "old ways."

That said, I expect that 2D film making will be with us for quite some time- possibly the rest of our civilization.
 
Some things make no sense in 3D - like imagine a Woody Allen movie in 3D - you would certainly ask yourself "Why?" Others make perfect sense, I think in the future, all the movies that make sense to be 3D will be 3D, but not much more.
 
Some things make no sense in 3D - like imagine a Woody Allen movie in 3D - you would certainly ask yourself "Why?" Others make perfect sense, I think in the future, all the movies that make sense to be 3D will be 3D, but not much more.

I'm imagining a Woody Allen movie in color, I'm certainly asking myself "Why?"

Allen makes no special use of color, its just there in his films. So... why would he shoot color?

In fact Allen very rarely makes notable use of picture, so maybe he should make a radio show? Save on all those pesky lights, and makeup and such.

"Why?" is the wrong question.

"Why not?" is the right one in this instance.

I suppose interactive storytelling isn't interesting either right? Well , we better shut down the game industry.

Why not 3D?
Why not smell?
Why not proprioception?
Why not hot/wet/cold/whatever?

Story telling will go through these advances in technology when they are practical- and more I haven't thought of yet for a single fundamental reason:

That is how we human beings experience the world.

Once we have those advances... then like the children today bored by black and white motion imaging, children will be unmoved by stories without all those elements.

Most movies today are in color and sound because its a default. Not because every color film uses color as an important signifier.

In the future most films will be 3D... until holography comes along. Then thingswill be holographic... until fully volumetric motion imaging comes along...

It won't end until story tellers can actually give people the experience of the story.

So... are you guys coming for the ride, or are you gonna stick with twodees?

(Say that a few times fast.)
 
But there are certain things filmmakers in my opinion don't seem to get about the use of 3D. First of all, shallow DOF, NO! I don't want to get the feeling that the image is in 3D space, but not be able to direct my eye myself. Secondly, subtitles in movies is a irritation factor, again, I don't want to be forced to shift focus point just to be able to understand the movie. This was a problem in Avatar, and imagine how it wil be when the whole world of film has been converted into 3D. Finally 3D-people seem to be going on about how not so use cheesy effects with things coming out of the screen... really? Honestly, for me, that's the best part of 3D. That's why I loved those Disneyland-attractions as a child, because I was too scared to keep the glasses on when the snake came out right at me. I think it works in a awesome way like in the Pirates IV movie when the sword comes right out of the screen. I don't want to pay extra, and have to wear glasses just to get the sense of some kind of depth. During Tron Legacy I seriously had to take my glasses on and off just to check if it still was 3D. That's just lame. Also the technology is not perfect. Finally - and I haven't met anyone with the same complain yet, though I can't be the only one that feel this way: I can sense the flickering of the image, which I of course can't with a normal filmprojection. I sense the image shifts between left and right eye, which is especially noticable when there's a lot of action. The Green Hornet trailer was horrible. I couldn't seem to be making any sense out of it - sort of like the opening in Quantum of Solace. I'm not sure 48 frames is enough. Also the so called 3D-effect often seem like flat-cardboard figures in 3D space. If this is the future, I surely hope it will develop a lot before we are forced to watch everything in 3D.
 
I think any single film change in any way has and will always have its detractors. Shallow DOF and subtitles are pretty low on my 3D whine list, but I think things should be quite amazing in 5-10 or more years. Everything has its season, but 3D has held on fairly well right now, and it's getting better, just like CGI, DIGITAL cinematography, etc. If you like 3D (I do), then cool, if you don't, wait. If you just want to hate a still burgeoning technology, and have no hope whatsoever (not a direct response to anyone here), God bless ya.
 
It won't end until story tellers can actually give people the experience of the story.

So... are you guys coming for the ride, or are you gonna stick with twodees?

(Say that a few times fast.)

You hit a home run here Alexander.
We are on a steady march toward the realization of conscious participatory dreams.
I will now longer be a "Filmmaker" but a Dreammaker. Its coming.
 
If this is the future, I surely hope it will develop a lot before we are forced to watch everything in 3D.

I don't care to debate the specifics, but I agree with that last sentiment.

The 3D movies being made today are the rough equivalent of the CGI films made in the late 80's and early 90's.

Many here probably remember the "To CGI or not to CGI?" arguments from those days.

3D is very much in the same place. Its still developing, and there are genuine problems. There are still lots of movies that use gratuitous 3D gimmickry.

The good news is that film makers have learned from the past: they remember the gratuitous effects and later CGI of films and have taken that lesson to heart.

The technology will do what it will do, but I think film makers, generally, have learned to try and understand the semiotics of a new technology before throwing it in audiences faces. Just like they had to learn how to use the CU effectively.

Let me put this whole argument differently.

As a film maker think of all the great pioneering CGI movies. What if you had a chance to participate in cinema history like that?

Well, with 3D you do.

So, learn its technology, learn to use its symbolism and learn to push the edges of the art.
 
The technology has never been better for making and showing 3D films, though it still has a way to go. The brightness issue can't be ignored. I don't want to pay extra for a darker image, even if it gives the illusion of depth. I'd rather have a brighter, more detailed 2D image.

Personally I think 3D works best with partly CG or all-CG shots. Maybe with pure live-action 3D we get into uncanny valley territory?

I'm looking forward to seeing the Epic-shot 3D films (Spider-man and The Hobbit). I'm sure the filmmakers will be flying those smaller 3D rigs all through space, creating some cool shots.
 
...The Green Hornet trailer was horrible. I couldn't seem to be making any sense out of it - sort of like the opening in Quantum of Solace. I'm not sure 48 frames is enough. Also the so called 3D-effect often seem like flat-cardboard figures in 3D space. If this is the future, I surely hope it will develop a lot before we are forced to watch everything in 3D.

3D technology has already evolved.
Im not sure what projector you saw that trailer on but at least here in Germany most theaters project 144 frames a second, where it is impossible to see flicker.
However, this is slowly being replaced by the newest 4k digital projectors that can shoot both images simultaneously in 2k. Thereby eliminating eyestrain completely. Im not experienced in 3D im just stating facts.
 
Some things make no sense in 3D - like imagine a Woody Allen movie in 3D - you would certainly ask yourself "Why?" Others make perfect sense, I think in the future, all the movies that make sense to be 3D will be 3D, but not much more.

Actually, I disagree. Lenny Lipton recently said someone had told him that stereoscopic 3D would not lend itself to "My Dinner with Andre" to which he had disagreed.

The reason is that an intimate setting film like MDA actually could pull you into the characters' world through S3D much better than a planar film can.

To apply that to Woody Allen's great slate of films, wouldn't you like to be immersed in the crazy world of his characters through S3D? To feel like you're in there with them?
 
The reason is that an intimate setting film like MDA actually could pull you into the characters' world through S3D much better than a planar film can.

Disagree. That's the magic of filmmaking, not the technology. Colour is not a barrier either.
 
I'm imagining a Woody Allen movie in color, I'm certainly asking myself "Why?"

Allen makes no special use of color, its just there in his films. So... why would he shoot color?

In fact Allen very rarely makes notable use of picture, so maybe he should make a radio show? Save on all those pesky lights, and makeup and such.

"Why?" is the wrong question.

"Why not?" is the right one in this instance.

I suppose interactive storytelling isn't interesting either right? Well , we better shut down the game industry.

Why not 3D?
Why not smell?
Why not proprioception?
Why not hot/wet/cold/whatever?

Story telling will go through these advances in technology when they are practical- and more I haven't thought of yet for a single fundamental reason:

That is how we human beings experience the world.

Once we have those advances... then like the children today bored by black and white motion imaging, children will be unmoved by stories without all those elements.

Most movies today are in color and sound because its a default. Not because every color film uses color as an important signifier.

In the future most films will be 3D... until holography comes along. Then thingswill be holographic... until fully volumetric motion imaging comes along...

It won't end until story tellers can actually give people the experience of the story.

So... are you guys coming for the ride, or are you gonna stick with twodees?

(Say that a few times fast.)

Well no - go to a museum and you see sculpture (3D) and painting, and some painting that is 3D in some way - the tech for sculpture is as old as painting, but one did not make the other go away.

if you study 3D you realize that it is quite limited as a medium - there are many types of movement you can't do, depth of filed has limitations (no rack focusing) you can't cut too fast, etc. lest you make your viewers throw-up.
 
A 2D image doesn't preclude immersion in a film. I don't think we notice a lack of depth in a 2D image the way we notice a lack of color in a black-and-white image. Something seems off about the missing color, but not necessarily in the 2D image. In fact, even in a 2D image we can still see into the space whenever the background is in reasonable focus, so when I see a movie I don't think, "Hey, this is a flat image!" I believe that the immersive experience of seeing a movie in a theater is caused mostly by the simple fact that you're watching a humongous image.

I bet that most of us would be more annoyed to wake up and find that we see everything in grayscale rather than find out that we lack depth perception. IOW, I think 3D invokes the law of diminishing returns regarding cinema innovations. Its not the leap that color or widescreen was to the art IMO. I don't hate 3D or anything, but I just don't see it enhancing every kind of film.
 
Well no - go to a museum and you see sculpture (3D) and painting, and some painting that is 3D in some way - the tech for sculpture is as old as painting, but one did not make the other go away.

That statement embodies an almost perfect misunderstanding of my position.

First off, I didn't say 2D will go away.

I doubt that 2D film making will "go away." The closest I come to saying that is my notion that 3D will be the new default. In fact I guesstimate it will take almost as long (30 years or so) for 3D to "supplant" 2D as color took to supplant B&W.

Secondly- just because a technology is old doesn't mean that it has advanced to its limits. Sculpture is a perfect example of that.

In fact, a marble sculptor from ancient Egypt or Greece would be very comfortable working in the studios of most 21st century marble sculptors. In fact it would hardly be surprising if they could teach 21st century sculptors enormous amounts about the craft of sculpting- they definitely had more experience.

Sculpture has been technologically stagnant for a very long time.

I originally wrote a long tract support the idea that, compared to painting sculpture has been hugely expensive, difficult, time consuming and much more error intolerant.

This is exactly different from my argument regarding 3D and by extension my analysis of the history of sound and color.

A key element of my argument is that 3D film making technology has started to come of age only now. Earlier abortive attempts failed because the technology was too primitive. Practically 3D stereoscopic filmmaking was very expensive, and it yielded poor quality results.

Technology, not the science of 3D, has recently improved. The science behind today's 3D resurrection is absolutely identical to its earlier incarnations. The technology for realizing the theory has improved remarkably. Digital information systems, in the form of digital cameras, are the central improvement.

Digital cameras enable perfectly consistent registration, because the sensors don't move. Since the registration is perfectly consistent, then even if the registration is wrong (which it almost inevitably is in some way) it can be readily converted into perfect registration in post. (I'm overstating my case here a bit... but don't care about the details right now.)

3D is still expensive- buts its getting cheaper. Also for the first time 3D can be created with good quality. Not great, and certainly not perfect, but in my opinion the current 3D revolution is the first time its more than merely acceptable.

Now, I'd argue that the 21st century will hold some real innovations in sculpting technology- ones that open sculpture up to many more people- just as computers and printers created desktop publishing and as computers created NLEs and digital cameras leading... well to Red.
 
if you study 3D you realize that it is quite limited as a medium - there are many types of movement you can't do, depth of filed has limitations (no rack focusing) you can't cut too fast, etc. lest you make your viewers throw-up.

No, 3D is NOT limited as a medium.

However it is a different medium than 2D motion imaging.

We no longer have to use tricks to create a "feeling" of depth in 2D images. There is real depth information being captured, and conveyed to the audience.

Camera motion has often been used to create a feeling of place by moving through a space. That is less important now- as there is actual 3D being imaged. Now we can move through a space as part of the story, not just as mise-en-scène.

Other camera motion, like shakycam, has been used to give the audience more of a "you are there" feeling. Well 3D does that intrinsically. Now, instead of a nervous (or incompetent) documentary/news camera operator we can have an experience more like we experience with our eyes and that wonder camera support and stabilization system called the neck.

Rack focus and other tricks are there to call your attention to a particular item- but they are FAR from the only tools in the film makers arsenal for doing that.

Shallow DoF has been used to hide a lot of shoddy craftsmanship in unimportant areas of a film... and that is less acceptable in 3D.

The practice of these techniques is NOT the point of film making. The objectives remain, and now we must learn new tools.

In many ways many have not yet learned 3D represents new cinematic freedom.

It is right and wise for use to take a conservative tact as we learn and gain experience with 3D. I like the notion of using more camera and editorial technique from older times- the fundamentals as we gain experience.

Eschew needless steadicam and put the camera back on the dolly and be more deliberate with motion and other elements! Light to a t/8 or t/11 and make sure your production design can handle it!

I believe that as we learn which of these fundamental techniques work well we will also learn the new limitations and problems, and we will learn new techniques to show the audience our stories.
 
I did not think much of 3D either. Avatar just gave me a headache. Then I saw Tron 3D at a real IMAX theater in the US and loved it. No headache at all. An awesome visual experience. I noticed the screen was much brighter in the IMAX theater and in my previous experiences with 3D the screen seemd a bit dark. Maybe that was the reason I didn't get a headache with TRON? Anyways, just my 2 cents...
 
Back
Top