Hardware "Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed."

[Snailface]

I don't think this applies to glassless technology.

This topic is categorized as "3DS", check the icon.

I'm referring to the article which refers to glass wearing technology, which to tie it in to the point, the 3DS does not have, instead it has glassless technology.

The only point I'm trying to make is that it's insane for Ebert to declare* 3D has not only failed but failed into the future -- that's what his bold thesis/blog-title suggests. I've witnessed a real-life example of 3D working beautifully so I know this jerk is wrong. Experience trumps theory.

Ebert bases his declaration-of-fact on a famous cinematographer's opinion as an open-shut case. I believe personal experience and popular opinion carry more weight than one industry windbag.

 

[DigitalDeviant]

D

I don't think this applies to glassless technology.

This topic is categorized as "3DS", check the icon.

I'm referring to the article which refers to glass wearing technology, which to tie it in to the point, the 3DS does not have, instead it has glassless technology.

The only point I'm trying to make is that it's insane for Ebert to declare 3D has not only failed but failed into the future -- that's what his bold thesis/blog-title suggests. I've witnessed a real-life example of 3D working beautifully so I know this jerk is wrong. Experience trumps theory.

Ebert has always opposed 3D, I saw an old video of him from the 80's i think, and he sayed that "2D will always look more 3D to me". Well I think as the technology gets better the image will get better, I mean there is a reason directors like Cristopher Nolan stay away from 3D, its the dark image that it creates, but perhaps it will get better, again its all about taste and nuance, I understand that 3D works better for some people more than others.

 

[Snailface]

D

I don't think this applies to glassless technology.

This topic is categorized as "3DS", check the icon.

I'm referring to the article which refers to glass wearing technology, which to tie it in to the point, the 3DS does not have, instead it has glassless technology.

The only point I'm trying to make is that it's insane for Ebert to declare 3D has not only failed but failed into the future -- that's what his bold thesis/blog-title suggests. I've witnessed a real-life example of 3D working beautifully so I know this jerk is wrong. Experience trumps theory.

Ebert has always opposed 3D, I saw an old video of him from the 80's i think, and he sayed that "2D will always look more 3D to me". Well I think as the technology gets better the image will get better, I mean there is a reason directors like Cristopher Nolan stay away from 3D, its the dark image that it creates, but perhaps it will get better, again its all about taste and nuance, I understand that 3D works better for some people more than others.

Yeah, there always seems to be backlash when technology threatens to change art. People actually once said that film would be a passing fad, for instance. That said, I agree that 3D is not necessarily always good for films, games, or whatever -- it has to be applied appropriately to be effective.

 

[DigitalDeviant]

as the great Guillermo del Toro has said '3D when applied correctly, works' well I'm paraphrasing but yeah, if applied in a creative manner it definitely will maximize impact. The problem arises when 3D is done in post, e.g. future star wars 3D films, IMO.

 

[M[u]ddy]

Other things, like that "focus/convergence" thing apply to the 3DS but don't apply to movie theaters.

No it applies to stereoscopy in general. No matter where and with or without glasses.

 

[Veho]

ddy]No it applies to stereoscopy in general. No matter where and with or without glasses.

In a cinema, the screen is so far from the viewer, it's at an efectively infinite distance. Your eyes don't have to "focus" on the movie screen the way they have to focus on objects that are closer to you. Same with the convergence point, because the eyes are so close to parallel you don't notice the difference. In that setting, all the "focusing" (bringing things into "focus" and blurring things that are "out of focus") is done (or should be done) by the film itself; your eyes don't have to refocus at any time, because the objects are still at a practically infinite distance. Except, of course, when stuff jumps at you from the screen and pokes you in the eye, but having something poke out at you and halt two inches from your face is unnerving and bad for the eyes in real life too, not just in 3D videos. Having stuff poke that "far" out the screen is the fault of the director, not the 3D technology. It's like blaming color TV because half the film is nothing but the screen strobing in neon pink.

Again, the convergence/focus problem happens when the screen is closer to the viewer, like with TVs, computers or handheld devices.

 

[FireGrey]

WTF he can't just say that and then say "case closed"
It's like Japan dropping a bomb on the U.S. and saying 'don't fight back'

 

[antwill]

Except that article is in relation to films. The depths of fields involved in the average 3DS game will be much smaller and makes the comparison to films irrelevant.

That guy may know why 3D in FILMS will never work, but he should stay away from being used as a source for 3DS bashing.

He's gonna bash the 3DS anyway, because he already hates 3D, and he also hates video games. I oft wonder why he remains popular.

Bluestar was/is popular?

(Joking, Bluestar.)

This article never was bashing the 3DS, nor games. The only mention of those two terms in the article was in the comments section. So no he wasn't bashing the 3DS or video games in this article, way to remain biased and not read the damn thing.

 

[M[u]ddy]

In a cinema, the screen is so far from the viewer, it's at an efectively infinite distance. Your eyes don't have to "focus" on the movie screen the way they have to focus on objects that are closer to you.
It come close infinite, so the negative effect won't be nearly as bad as in front of a TV screen, but it's still there. You also often have thing the come close enough to you, that your lenses would have to refocus, if it was real. It doesn't have to poke your eyes.
QUOTEIn that setting, all the "focusing" (bringing things into "focus" and blurring things that are "out of focus") is done (or should be done) by the film itself;

No it should not. When creating a stereoscopic image there should never be any blurry areas.
If you would just look in the middle of the screen all the time it would be fine, but you don't. You will look at the background sometimes and if the background is blurry you eyes will try to focus, which doesn't work.

 

[Veho]

ddy]It come close infinite, so the negative effect won't be nearly as bad as in front of a TV screen, but it's still there. You also often have thing the come close enough to you, that your lenses would have to refocus, if it was real. It doesn't have to poke your eyes.It's so close to infinite, it's indistinguishable. If the screen is far enough, and in most cinemas it is, the focus is at infinity. If the object is sticking out of the screen enough for your eyes to try and refocus or converge on it, it means the object is too far out of the screen; the effect is too exaggerated.

QUOTE(Mddy @ Jan 26 2011, 12:05 PM) No it should not. When creating a stereoscopic image there should never be any blurry areas.
If you would just look in the middle of the screen all the time it would be fine, but you don't. You will look at the background sometimes and if the background is blurry you eyes will try to focus, which doesn't work.

2D movies use exaggerated depth of field for effect, and the object the film is "focused" on is sharp while the background is blurred. The eyes don't try to focus on the background, probably because the point of the effect is to draw the eyes towards the sharp object.

 

[M[u]ddy]

If the object is sticking out of the screen enough for your eyes to try and refocus or converge on it, it means the object is too far out of the screen; the effect is too exaggerated.
Yes and that's is why the maker of the film should not exaggerate the pop-out effect.
The area where convergence matters is about 10 meters. Now if you sit in the front rows of the theater the screen could be in that area.
It's also more likely the pop-up objects penetrate the 10 meter radius, if you are close to the screen.
It's easy to avoid by the makers and the audience, but it's still an issue, thus it does apply to movie theaters, to a certain extent.
QUOTEThe eyes don't try to focus on the background, probably because the point of the effect is to draw the eyes towards the sharp object.

Have a nice read:
http://realvision.ae/blog/2010/10/bringing...d-storytelling/

 

[dsfanatic5]

I don't know, I've watched a lot of 3D movies, and it never felt like I had to "work too hard" to obtain the experience. I like 3D movies, I don't wear corrective lenses, I don't get headaches, and I will buy the 3DS regardless. Sure it's a gimmick, but at least it's a gimmick that brings value to the experience for me.

Walter Murch made some great movies, pioneered audio in films, but the article make him sound "butt-hurt" that he didn't invent 3D. The article is too tech-heavy for the average consumer who simply watches a 3D movie, and loves every minute of it.

 

[Oveneise]

Ugh... I hate 3D movies. I remember seeing avatar in 3D, and while it was cool looking and all, I got kind of dizzy and some major headaches... something I've never experienced before at the movies or at home on my TV. But the difference is that this is a handheld, and if 3D really is a turn off, then just switch to non-3D mode.

 

[Veho]

ddy]Yes and that's is why the maker of the film should not exaggerate the pop-out effect.
The area where convergence matters is about 10 meters. Now if you sit in the front rows of the theater the screen could be in that area.
It's also more likely the pop-up objects penetrate the 10 meter radius, if you are close to the screen.
It's easy to avoid by the makers and the audience, but it's still an issue, thus it does apply to movie theaters, to a certain extent.
[...]
Have a nice read:
http://realvision.ae/blog/2010/10/bringing...d-storytelling/

Yeah, the front rows...

Those have problems of their own, unrelated to 3D: you don't see the entire screen, because it's too large from where you're sitting. That's a drawback even with 2D movies. The front row (just like the stuff that pokes out of the screen too much) is a boundary condition where the tech breaks down.

That article you linked to is interesting, but it's basically what I've been saying. You use parallax to establish the spatial relations, and use depth of field to "focus" on the object of interest.

When the 3D effect is subtle, when it just adds some depth to the picture, you don't need blurring because the relative distance between the background and the foreground, compared to your distance from the screen, is so small, your eyes wouldn't have to refocus from one "layer" to the other in real life, and you don't get the reflexive urge to refocus. When objects are standing out in the foreground, depth of field emulates the focus.

However, when the object is sticking way out of the screen, the whole thing breaks down and we get the dissonance and the eye strain and the headaches. But that's a boundary condition that should be avoided. Like any technology, 3D has its limits, and movie makers should stay within those limits. With 2D, people are already so used to the limits it places, they aren't even aware of them.


But back to the convergence/focus thing. In a cinema, the screen is at an effectively infinite distance, so your eyes are parallel and unfocused/relaxed, and you're letting the movie itself do the (virtual) focusing and parallax. The focal distance and the convergence point are the same (unless, of course, you're sitting in the front rows in a small cinema) so the eyes (and brain) don't get confused.

The 3DS, on the other hand, is where it applies, in full force: the focus is a foot from your face (really really close), and the convergence point is all over the place, and it's something new and weird, and eyes are trying to refocus on things they can't focus on, and hence all the reported headaches. It will take getting used to.

 

[DiscostewSM]

So, from what I understand based in this thread, because the focal distance and the vergence distance are not the same due to the screen, the 3DS can't translate a true 3D effect ....or can it?

From what we know, Nintendogs + Cats uses the camera to recognize your face, so the animals can react differently depending on who is looking at them. So, if that is possible, couldn't the hardware possible be used to determine where your eyes are looking at on the screen? Probably a painstakingly hard process, but assuming it can, it could then approximate the lost focal distance from the edge of the screen to the point you'd be looking at within the 3D world, and generate that as the focus point.

Just a thought.

 

[Real Vision]

Have a nice read:
http://realvision.ae/blog/2010/10/bringing...d-storytelling/

....

But back to the convergence/focus thing. In a cinema, the screen is at an effectively infinite distance, so your eyes are parallel and unfocused/relaxed, and you're letting the movie itself do the (virtual) focusing and parallax. The focal distance and the convergence point are the same (unless, of course, you're sitting in the front rows in a small cinema) so the eyes (and brain) don't get confused.

The 3DS, on the other hand, is where it applies, in full force: the focus is a foot from your face (really really close), and the convergence point is all over the place, and it's something new and weird, and eyes are trying to refocus on things they can't focus on, and hence all the reported headaches. It will take getting used to.

Hi All,
I only registered to comment on this thread, I'm the author of the article linked to above.

Actually, in a 3D cinema The screen is at a fixed distance and our eyes are ALWAYS focussed at this distance (the physical wall that the cinema screen is on). However our convergence/divergence keeps changing to bring different parts of the scene into (virtual "focus"). We are capable of de-coupling focus and convergence with out eyes. This needs to be understood.

To put it another way... In a 2D movie the images that have been photographed and projected on the screen, always have their sharpness (focus) baked in.
If we look at a 2D movie, we cant "refocus" or make sharp any area of the scene that is "out of focus"...
Over time.. our eyes and brains have quickly come to disregard these out of focus areas in a 2D movie, that is why we do not get headaches so easily and Directors can thus use Rackfocus and DOF as story telling aids.

In 3D Stereoscopic 3D movies, we are still adapting. The "illusion" of two different viewpoints of the same scene fools our brains enough (at this stage in our evolution) to actually make us WANT to try and fuse (or focus) on areas that are blurry.
Again this all depends on how absorbed we are in the story and the central characters/objects... but if we are sufficiently bored or curious, we will let our eyes roam around, and any semi-focussed imagery will hurt.

The brain will slowly learn to disregard such semi-focussed imagery, all in due time, just as we have adapted to 2D movies.... But until then, caution is advised and that's why many people recommend infinite DOF and smaller camera sensors for 3D movies.

The article above suggests to completely blur out the background, so as not to even give people the chance to get distracted.
TRON uses this very well, here's a review of that movies depth usage : Tron 3D Depth budget Study

Just to recap: We ALWAYS focus at the physical screen in a 3D cinema, and our convergence / divergence shifts to accommodate the various parallax changes both negative (out of screen) and positive (inside the screen).

Best Regards!
Clyde DeSouza