Ebert: 3D movies suck

Roger Ebert hates 3D movies as much as I do. For me, 3D causes a headache, always means that part of the screen is blurred, makes movies too dark, and the magic of 3D quickly fades away as the brain becomes accustomed to it. Ebert received a letter from Oscar-winning editor/sound designer Walter Murch, who worked on Apocalypse Now and Captain EO, which describes in technical terms why 3D movies are such a pain in the eyes (and the ass) to watch:

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

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

• [Anonymous]

  The real problem is using convergence as a cue entirely. Convergence is really only used for things within 3 feet of our face. Beyond 3 feet our eyes are almost parallel, and use an entire different set of cues to resolve distance.

• [atomx_web]

  I have a partial lazy eye, and yes, sometimes I can see depth properly. 3D rarely works for me now, but worked AMAZING for Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds” when I was in Universal Studios.

  Recenly watching “TRON” in 3D, I’d take the glasses off to watch the non 3D scenes, and back on for them, and it was ok (I saw the bikes and people pulled out from the screen, but it wouldn’t have made any real difference. The only thing that was REALLY good in 3D was in the Pirates of the Caribbean previews, when the sword came through the door at Captain Jack Sparrow.

  And the worst thing about it, was that Justin Bieber was in 3D too.

  • [Anonymous]

    I have 10% vision in my right eye and can’t see 3D movies. When I was a kid, Captain EO with Michael Jackson at Disneyworld worked just awesome, but that was the last time it worked for me. I hate 3D not because it’s gimmicky, but because I can’t see it, period.
    I think that whole debacle is tough for me to give an opinion about; I don’t experience the headaches, I thought Avatar was no more fun than any other CG movie. I guess I’m trying to say that maybe accessibility is a part of the discussion that most people don’t even take into consideration…

• [Flying_Monkey]

  The brilliant Walter Murch is right about this particular ’3D’ technology, which wasn’t the first and won’t be the last. One day, perhaps, there will be a genuinely immersive 3-dimensional form of projection and viewing, but you know what? This isn’t it.

• [DSMVWL THS]

  Yes, 3D cinema is “unnatural”. So is 2D cinema — we’ve just had 100 years to get used to it. So is 2D photography — but we’ve had 150 years to get used to it. So is 2D painting simulating 3D perspective — we’ve had centuries to get used to it.

  It’s all one form of neuro-optical hack or another.

  Yes, I understand that a minority of the populace actually can’t handle current 3D imaging systems, and I feel bad for them, and hope that better technologies will come along.

  But the “case” against 3D isn’t “closed”. It’s barely been explored yet as an artistic or technical medium. I think Ebert is half-serious and half-trolling.

  • [Jack]

    Flickering two disparate images to screw with one’s mind and mimic a real life effect is not the same as 2D as you describe it.

  • [catgrin]

    “Yes, I understand that a minority of the populace actually can’t handle current 3D imaging systems, and I feel bad for them, and hope that better technologies will come along.”

    If you really understood the technology, then you’d understand that this isn’t a case of, “build a better one & everyone will be fine.” Many people lack the ability to use depth perception to the degree of sharpness required to enjoy a 3D movie past the point of distraction from technology, and I’m not even referring to those who have lost their binocular vision altogether.

    Here are a few examples:

    * People who have drastically different eyesight between their eyes can have problems. This is because the forced focus confuses eyes that are already working hard to adjust. Prescription lenses aren’t designed to work with secondary lenses (3D glasses) and so may not work well, especially if tinted or polarized.

    * Even very mild astigmatism can cause issues. Because nothing is ever correctly focused, even if only one eye is affected, the brain may have trouble interpreting the intended views, and nothing will be sharp. This is a headache giver. (Think about any time you’ve gone to a movie and it’s been slightly out of focus. How long did it take for the audience to complain?)

    * People affected by motion sickness also often react to 3D. This is for the same reason that they get sick on a boat (ground doesn’t match horizon), but here it’s depth-based.

    Unlike 3D, 2D cinema and perspective painting rely on a single depth interpreted by our brains as a single depth – albeit with a very realistic world view. The “neuro-optical hack” of perspective drawing has more to do with symbology than our brains physically “seeing” depth.

    • [DSMVWL THS]

      “If you really understood the technology, then you’d understand that this isn’t a case of, “‘build a better one & everyone will be fine.’”

      Not only do I understand the technology, I built my own 3D camera rig. Here are some of my 3D photos (in red/cyan anaglyph format).

      I fully comprehend the technical limitations of current 3D imaging, and the opthalmological and neurological problems that some people have with it. I know people who can’t see it, and I know people who get headaches, dizziness, or nausea from it.

      Yes, it is a considerably more complex “hack” to the eye-brain system than 2D imaging. We have had longer to get used to 2D — and yes, it’s also biologically comprehensible/processable by a larger population. (But not everyone can even make sense of 2D imagery. Anthropologists have supposedly found populations that don’t comprehend the visual information in a photograph.)

      I stand by my point that both 2D and 3D imaging are “unnatural”. We have to learn the skills to make sense of them.

      And I do believe that some form of holography may eventually make 3D imaging accessible to people who can’t get much use out of the current systems.

      • [catgrin]

        Nice gallery (used my Coraline glasses, I like the boomboxes best!). No offense intended, but I stand by my original statement. You’re not arguing similar technologies. You’re arguing symbolism versus brain/body function.

        2D imaging and 3D perspective do not require interpretive devices. Ours brains aren’t interpreting the images as if they are, in fact, three-dimensional. Instead, what our brains are doing is referencing similar past views to make sense of the new stimulus. We do this all the time, and start doing it very young. Think about little kids drawing yellow circle suns. Now google “how to draw a yellow circle sun.” Now google “how to draw a sun.” You’ll see that even as adults we (in the U.S.) know the sun is a big, yellow circle. Once that circle is on a page with a horizon line (after we learn the idea “horizon line”), people will mostly interpret it correctly – regardless of any mild vision issues. Even color blindness may not affect the interpretation.

        Now go to Amazon.com and look at children’s books. You’ll see that the imagery is simplified. It takes a while for a brain to learn how to interpret the flat images and relate them to their real-world partners. Symbol interpretation is adaptively learned, but it isn’t really a physiologically adaptive trait. (You don’t need to grow a better pair of eyes to learn the new concept.)

        3D in any form requiring an interpretation directly from the eye will always suffer from the weaknesses I noted (and others). Unless a form stimulating the optic nerve or brain directly is designed, the imbalance of stereoscopic vision will detract from the enjoyment of the experience. Our eyes aren’t designed to interpret data from both the dominant and non-dominant eye at one time. The result is flickering, ghostly, and confusing to our brains. (Just stick your hand in front of your dominant eye and keep working at the computer for a while in a dark room if you want to see how disorienting it is.)

        That’s what film 3D is trying to force onto us.

        We would have to physically adapt an alternate viewing capability to be able to use 3D tech without adaptive lenses, and that’s even at our physical best. So, there really is a world of difference between the concepts. One illusion is purely mental adaptation (learning), one illusion is mainly physical with some mental interpretation from the devices we use to be able to perceive it.

        • [Jesse M.]

          3D in any form requiring an interpretation directly from the eye will always suffer from the weaknesses I noted (and others). Unless a form stimulating the optic nerve or brain directly is designed, the imbalance of stereoscopic vision will detract from the enjoyment of the experience.

          Is the “imbalance” you refer to the convergence/focus issue? If so, what about holograms? We’re not going to have holographic movies anytime soon, but they might plausibly come sooner than movies which “stimulate the optic nerve or brain directly”.

          Our eyes aren’t designed to interpret data from both the dominant and non-dominant eye at one time.

          Don’t understand what you mean here, isn’t all depth perception based on “interpreting data” from both eyes “at one time”? How are 3D movies any different in this sense?

          The result is flickering, ghostly, and confusing to our brains. (Just stick your hand in front of your dominant eye and keep working at the computer for a while in a dark room if you want to see how disorienting it is.)

          But there the issue is the fact that you’re getting totally different input to the two eyes, as opposed to both eyes seeing near-duplicates of the same image, with the slight differences being used by the brain to infer depth. That’s what happens both when we go out and look at a real 3D scene and when we watch a 3D movie. As far as I know the only difference between real-world 3D and 3D movies is the convergence/focus issue (well, and also the fact that we don’t see instantaneous “cuts” from one scene to another in the real world, although if we turn our head quickly we can come pretty close)

        • [catgrin]

          First, apologies for the delay in response. I was out last evening and didn’t see your comment until today.

          The imbalance I was referring to was natural defects in every person’s eyes creating no possible standard for stereoscopic 3D using glasses. It just can’t be done. Even in two people with 20/20 vision, one may have more active rods (by being younger, for example) and be able to perceive the effect as shown through polarized lenses better. In another set with both 20/20 and equal percentage light vision, one may have some retinal scarring, and that may create interruption in the 3D projection only for the areas where it interrupts his sight. People’s eyes are organic and flawed. They are far too varied to use a static interpreter for a universally-successful 3D experience.

          Yes, ours eyes do work together all the time, but not equally. In binocular vision, the brain uses them like a “find the difference” picture. One eye (usually the one with better vision) always takes the lead, and supporting data providing depth cues is handed out by the other eye. We also actually see in a series of still frames as data is sent electronically to our brains. Real world 3D is different from imposed 3D because in real world 3D your eyes are working cooperatively, with the non-dominant eye supporting the dominant one, while film 3D using existing technology basically makes your eyes fight.

          Part of of the way movie and photo 3D works is by forcing our dominant eye to allow equal and competitive status to our non-dominant eye. (Maybe my original statement should have been, “Our eyes aren’t designed to interpret markedly disparate data from both the dominant and non-dominant eye at one time.”)

          Here’s another way to see it in action that will help relate that hand thing I wrote about to 3D: Put on a pair of red/green 3D glasses, check out DSMVWL THS’s photo gallery (link at comment #117) and you’ll see the problem more clearly. (It shows up really well against a white computer screen.) Pay attention to the color from the lenses while you try to look at the pics. Your brain isn’t seeing a combination of red and green. It flickers between red and green rapidly while the eyes argue for dominance (with such dissonance in information, your brain can’t make your eyes work comfortably together.) That’s where the flickering in 3D comes from naturally, no projector or motion film necessary. Some projectors help alleviate it, but some make it worse, and for some people it means nausea or a headache.

          As far as holograms go, I’m sorry if I haven’t voiced my opinion on them yet. Holograms are an interesting option. That’s because they don’t require an interpretive device (glasses), and are read by both our eyes and brains as though they are three dimensional objects. Holograms seem to be the best way to create a 3D experience that can have universal appeal. With advances in photorefractive polymers, people are now creating movable, rewritable holograms. So, while huge theaters full of hologram films may be some way off, I think we’re definitely heading toward some similar unique experience – at least on a small scale.

    • [chgoliz]

      I don’t think it’s that simple. (You probably don’t either, since you used modifiers in every sentence.)

      Every one of your examples:

      * People who have drastically different eyesight between their eyes can have problems….

      * Even very mild astigmatism can cause issues….

      * People affected by motion sickness also often react to 3D….

      applies to me, plus the fact that I’m “old” (approx. 50) and wear bifocal contacts. Yet I enjoy the forced focus of 3D. Instead of tiring out my eyes/brain, it relaxes me because the focus is tightly toward the center. I don’t have to decode peripheral images as much. (Now if we’re going to talk about what passes for storyline in most 3D movies, on the other hand…not so enjoyable.)

      I’d be interested to hear what 3D is like for people with actual peripheral vision damage.

      • [catgrin]

        Actually chgoliz, that directly relates to my point. My voice wasn’t passive to denote weakness of argument. The problem lies with the way that the brain and the eyes are communicating together. Since what I’m discussing is an organic issue, it’s not true 100% of the time, and can be altered in a person by secondary factors.

        Just like all those people who could never see the peace symbol floating in the Magic Eye book, there is a percentage of the population that will never, no matter what they do, be able to correctly view 3D movies through their eyes. (legally blind, no depth perception, massive reaction to the tech) Then there’s a group who can view 3D with trouble and may (if possible) learn to exercise that type of focus better, reducing the reaction they have to 3D. (Some may not be able to do so because of the type of eye problem they have.) At a cost of $20 per movie, and a headache or nausea, they may not choose to. Instead, they may forego the pain and if 2D is available, just see a less-expensive (and more enjoyable) version of the same flick. Then there’s the rest of us. People who are naturally good at manipulating focus depth or have eyes that are well-trained to adjust to depth, and aren’t overly effected by any of the quirks of 3D. We’re the ones who see the films.

        Even we, on a bad day may choose not to go to a movie where “exercise for your eyes” is part of the menu. So, even members of the group who opt for 3D may choose 2D if their eyes are tired. I can vouch for this because I’ve done so with five other people all nodding their heads that 3D sounded terrible right then (on a Friday after a very long week).

        (Your set of eye issues is unique to you. Most people do work harder to view 3D than a 2D feature film. That’s why the suggestions for “shorts” and “video games” have come up a few times. May I suggest you try your local dollar theater? If you’re going to where the screens are largest, you’re paying a premium for discomfort. Serious recommendation BTW, not being snarky.)

        • [chgoliz]

          My voice wasn’t passive to denote weakness of argument. The problem lies with the way that the brain and the eyes are communicating together. Since what I’m discussing is an organic issue, it’s not true 100% of the time, and can be altered in a person by secondary factors.

          I don’t always express my thoughts well: that’s exactly how I understood your use of modifiers. I didn’t think you were using a weak argument; rather, that you were aware that what *could* happen didn’t necessarily mean it *would* in every instance.

          As for size of screen, thank you for the suggestion. I don’t watch movies on huge screens very often, so I don’t think that’s it. It’s probably just tired eyes getting lazy, or too used to focusing on a computer screen. But I’ll keep your suggestion in mind, and make a point of sitting further back if I find myself in a large screen situation.

• [apoxia]

  Am I the only person not to have seen a 3D movie?

  • [Anonymous]

    No, apoxia, you’re not the only one.

    I have yet to see any of these current generation of 3d movies in 3d. I’ve seen one or two in 2d (Despicable Me, I believe), but that’s it. No Avatar, no Tron, nothing.

  • [HDN]

    Nope. I haven’t either. I’m not paying more for a gimmick.

  • [Pantograph]

    I’m living under the same rock as you. I will probably go see that Tron thingy in 3D though.

  • [snarf]

    No you’re not alone. I haven’t seen one either and I feel no real urges to do so either. I only really want to see Jackass 3D in 3D because I feel that the hilarious stupidity of their concept matches the concept of 3D. In stupidity that is. But I think I might have missed it’s run in cinemas in my town. Well well…

  • [daen]

    No. And I’m not intending to.

• [stereosphere]

  Most people seem to enjoy 3D. I feel like more of my visual system is lit up and I get a more sculptural feeling from the images.

  A minority has trouble viewing stereo pictures. For them, theaters should provide glasses with the same polarization in both lenses. The picture would still be slightly dimmer than in 2D, but the convergence/focus (and other) issues would be gone.

• [IronyElemental]

  I wonder if my little scenario is common enough to impact studio revenues:

  You see, I would’ve taken my 3.5 year old daughter to see Tangled, but it was in 3D and I don’t think she’d have worn the glasses the whole time, which means she would’ve wanted to watch it without glasses, which I wouldn’t have allowed, which would have led to a meltdown, which I’d rather avoid, which means we see it on DVD. Sorry, Disney and local theater. No money until my family can actually watch your movie in peace.

• [sirkowski]

  I think a lot of people are afraid to diss 3D for fear of seeming reactionary. Like the people who preferred Mono when Stereo was introduced in music.

• [Anonymous]

  It may not be for everyone, but I know very few people who disliked Captain EO, not to mention the Muppets 3D. I feel for those who experience too much eyestrain, but saying the magic fades away is just being bitter; color and sound haven’t gotten old yet, so why would depth perception?

• [Jesse M.]

  Something I don’t understand about the convergence/focus issue–how does your brain “decide” how to focus, if it isn’t just automatically tied to the depth your eyes are converging to? Is it something like a rapid trial-and-error where you focus to whatever degree makes the object you’re looking at clearest? But if that were the case, I don’t understand where nearsightedness would come from, since it results from the lens failing to focus the light on the retina…

• [Ito Kagehisa]

  If I watch a movie in 2-D, if it’s a good movie I become cognitively involved with the unfolding of the story, and it’s “real” to me for the duration of the film. I see it just like a real series of events, even if it’s animated or highly stylized. I have a complete idea of what’s going on – scents, distances, thicknesses, textures and temperatures, all these are obvious to me if the movie’s well made.

  If I watch a movie in 3-D, I spend the first fifteen minutes actively managing my eyes and brain, and then once that’s settled, it’s exactly like watching a 2-D movie, except with the possibility of a migraine chaser.

• [Jack]

  The problem is the debate should not be whetehr 3D sucks or not, but whether feature length films containing 3D are good or bad.

  I think after 1+ hour, 3D becomes tedious.

  But I really think it would be neat to have a machine at an arcade that—for like $1—you get to see some cool & neat 3D “reels.” Kind of like the old arcade machines that flipped cards. But a modern version that shows 3D coolness.

• [Teller]

  Mr. Cory is correct. It’s a nice novelty for some, but for me, the 3d glasses add yet another impediment to melting into the film and story.

• [Lobster]

  This is heartening to hear. My eyes don’t quite work normally so I physically can’t see the 3D effect. I’d never felt disabled before, till the 3D craze kicked in.

  • [BookGuy]

    I’m with you. I’m mostly blind in one eye (except for a tiny bit of peripheral vision), so I don’t really see life in 3D, let alone movies. I tried it once recently, what with the new 3D craze gaining traction, just to see if I could watch. It was excruciating. I couldn’t focus, and it felt like someone was drilling a hole in my forehead.

    I wouldn’t really classify myself as visually impaired in any real way–I don’t struggle to navigate through the world at all since retinal disparity is only a small part of how people navigate (as I understand it from studies in perception)–but it still makes me feel a little sad.

    It’ll be interesting to see how many people are affected by it. I wonder how off your eyes have to be for it to be a bother? Is a slightly lazy eye enough? What about a slightly turned eye that never really caused a problem before? A slight difference in visual acuity between the two eyes, and if so, how much?

    • [Angryjim]

      It’s funny in a weird way. Actually it is an impairment. However, it’s generally not a problem, and especially not one that anyone else notices. I suppose it would be like someone colorblind going to a color movie and being nonplussed. I know several people who just have a stigmatism in one eye or are a little walleyed, or cant focus both eyes at once. Unlike color blindness, this seems to effect a large percentage of the population.
      I’m sorry for people who can’t experience 3d. I think it’s a fun experience.

      maybe the colorblind thing is not the best analogy, because we have other ways of seeing depth with one eye. perspectice and motion convey depth in our brains. But true stereoscopic imagery, is like adding a whole extra dimension to that.

• [Anonymous]

  My son, Early Adopter (not his real name), bought a 3-D tv and player. I guess it’s not the same as theater viewing, but from what I’ve see so far, 3-D offers all the depth an realism of, oh, say, your average 1890′s Stereopticon.

• [Elmo Gearloose]

  Sheesh, it’s only a matter of time till all of the technical bugs get worked out. The first motion pictures looked barely legible and contrasty; the first talkies sounded tinny and scratchy; the first color movies were like acid-induced palettes. But each of those innovations drew crowds and money and spurred refinement. “Field of Dreams” got it backwards: “If they come, you will build it”.

  I saw “Captain Eo” thirty years ago. That 3-D experience was leagues beyond “Avatar”. I remember being stunned by the solid objects floating just a couple of feet in front of my face. The 3-D system didn’t discomfort me at all. “Captain Eo” closed at Disneyworld a decade ago but has recently re-opened. Go see it (but ignore the juvenile story and admire the scenery and music).

• [Anonymous]

  People made similar arguments against sound in movies, and then against color in movies. As far as I’m concerned, the richer and the more immersive the experience the better.

  I’m waiting eagerly for when they make me wear a headband during a film that induces emotional states.

• [Anonymous]

  I wish Ebert, Cory and others would stop painting 3D with a broad brush. There are some 3D solutions that are very good at not giving people headaches, looking vivid etc. RealD, for example, has a silver-coated screen for extra light reflectivity and fires extra frames per second to reduce strobey-ness.

  Those are engineering problems. The more difficult argument against 3D is that it doesn’t add to the story, which is absurd. Just because some films are not “improved” by 3D, doesn’t mean some films can’t be. UP in 3D very subtly increased the depth of the images as Carl got further and further out of his comfort zone.

  Give filmmakers some time to create a vocabulary with how they use depth, just as it took time to settle into conventions on use of sound and color.

• [Hank]

  I have two problems with 3D movies.
  1) Tickets cost to much already, and I don’t like the premium charged for 3D showings.
  2) In a well-done movie you get drawn into the story and your brain supplies the 3D information and you don’t pay attention to the fact that you’re watching a 2D image. In a 3D movie you see the third dimension and so the experience is similar to 2D, except when they do something so egregious that you get pulled out of the story and go “Ooooooh, 3D!” which then defeats the purpose of having it in 3D.

• [Anonymous]

  My eyes don’t converge often. I can’t easily catch a baseball. I can’t really see 3D movies. I’ve only rarely seen the 3D effects, and they came at a cost of blinding headaches. For the most part, I see the same thing with the glasses off as I do with the glasses on.

  I’m elated to learn that there are functionally-sighted people who are frustrated with the 3D experience. It’s being pushed onto us like it’s the end all, be all of the movie going experience. I, too, can’t wait for this fad to, once again, go away. It’s just about making money – putting butts in the seats… not developing good stories. Bye bye 3D.

• [Brainspore]

  Moviegoing is a subjective experience by its very nature so I’m not going to try to convince anyone to like 3D if they don’t enjoy it. But considering that there are almost always alternative 2D screenings available for every movie shot in 3D I don’t understand why so many people feel the need to complain about it.

  I personally liked watching “Avatar” and “Up” in 3D, while some 2D films have given me motion sickness from rapid camera movements and frantic quick-cut action scenes. (600 million years of evolution didn’t prepare us for those, either.)

• [Anonymous]

  My 15 year old daughter gets horrible headaches from 3D movies. We thought it was just a fluke after Coraline, but then we went to TRON and she had to take the glasses off after a few minutes. I’m almost 50 and I have no problem with 3D, so I don’t think it is an age thing. She gets carsick very easily – I have wondered if there is a connection.

• [chgoliz]

  One of the things I like about 3D is that it’s easier for me to focus than with normal movies. Yes, it’s a smaller field of focus, but it’s 100% clear to me. I have always had very bad eyesight which is rapidly getting worse in middle age (now using concentric bifocal contacts). Maybe this is why 3D works well for me?

• [Donald Petersen]

  I never had much of a problem with the convergence/focus issue. I used to make my eyes do that for fun, as a kid. Later it became useful when I wanted to see the images in those weird 3D books and posters that were a craze in the early 90s… can’t remember the name of the technology, but it consisted of a bunch of black dots and squiggles on a white background (at first, then color ones came out) that looked like utter nonsense, until you let your eyes converge on a point a few feet (for posters) or inches (for books and handheld pages) behind the plane of the image, and then suddenly you could see the sailboat that Ethan Suplee couldn’t see in Mallrats.

  But 3D is still currently a gimmick when it comes to filmmaking. It’s a nifty gimmick when used correctly. I liked how well it worked in Avatar, and I loved how well it worked in Coraline, but the 3D effect was pretty broken in the new Alice in Wonderland (just one of a great many things that were failures in that movie), and I’ve avoided 3D movies since. I can tell from a trailer whether 3D is going to be helpful to a movie’s storytelling toolbox or not, and it’s almost always not, for this moviegoer. The goggles are a pain, the added-in-post-production 3D is utterly unwatchable, and the darkness and focus issues are an even bigger issue for me as I get older and my eyes don’t make adjustments as quickly as they used to.

  Some technological advances genuinely help make the moviegoing experience more enjoyable and more immersive. Color and sound are obvious ones. Stereo sound, and then surround sound, really helped immersion too, without placing any additional burdens on the audience. The introduction of Cinemascope in the early 50s arguably helped immersion, too… at least, that was the selling point: that you’d get to see these huge panoramic vistas instead of the boring old square image that you’d find on TV (or on competing studios’ movies, for that matter, until the other studios started licensing Cinemascope from Fox). Personally, I don’t have a huge preference for widescreen movies over 4×3 ones, but apparently most people do, and again, it doesn’t really place a burden on the viewer. Cinerama was kinda gimmicky, too: three cameras shooting simultaneously, and so you’d need three projectors linked up and projecting in sync, side by side. You could sit in the theater and marvel and the size and resolution of the picture, but it was still just a big flat image, only now it cost a hell of a lot more to make.

  Unlike all these advances, 3D does place a burden on the viewer: the literal one of those thrice-damned goggles, and the additional burden of crossing one’s eyes in unaccustomed ways. In this sense it’s a gimmick not too far removed from William Castle’s ass-zapping Tingler. IMHO.

• [Scurra]

  You know what? I saw The Lion King in 3d about ten years ago, and it was absolutely amazing. Of course, it was in a real theatre with actors and everything, but I can still recall significant moments with great clarity – and they were almost all the things that simply cannot be done on film. Even though I think that the original 2d “Circle of Life” is one of the finest pieces of Disney animation committed to celluloid, the theatrical version of the song completely blew it away.

  And yes, I’m also one of those people who has problems with watching 3d films – and is finding it increasingly hard to find screenings that are just in 2d. I would really love a pair of those “reverse polarised glasses”.

• [Crashproof]

  “Eye pain” no, but the problem is horrible blurriness in some cases (Avatar) and stupid cheesiness in most cases.

  Also, 3D glasses are almost never quite comfortable for people who wear glasses already.

  Coraline worked great. Tron Legacy worked great. (But the trailer for POTC4 looked HORRIBLE in 3D, because it was obviously filmed in 2D and upconverted to Viewmaster format by half-trained monkeys.) Up and 9 both worked fine, but absolutely didn’t need 3D to be equally entertaining.

• [Anonymous]

  haters of the current level of 3-d technology are something i simply do not understand. it’s fun. maybe you folks aren’t seeing it right? jeez. i’m not talking “metalstorm: the destruction of jared-syn” era stuff here. there have been some great and fun examples of 3-d movies lately. the last spy kids movie (“Game Over”) was just freaking awesomely fun 3d entertainment (and a good movie in its own right, story-wise). sure, the 3-d in the last shrek movie sorta sucked, but it (the 3d) was just sorta sandwiched in, i think, as an afterthought, from the look of it. yeah, coraline was awesome too. my gosh.

  i shudder to think what SPEED RACER would have looked like in 3-D (if they did it in 3d, i missed it). whew…

  don’t be hatin’…

• [Anonymous]

  I think I would like 3D if it wasn’t for the flickering.
  Granted, I’ve only yet tried Real3D but that flickered to the point of being almost unwatchable.
  Had to put my sunglasses on in addition to the 3D glasses (as the image gets dimmer the flicker is less disturbing) to make it (almost) bearable.
  There are probably something odd with my eyes as I haven’t yet heard anyone else having these problems.
  Even a normal (digitally projected) movie usually flickers a bit in the whites, but with 3D it was horrendous.

  Until the tech improves or the (possible) 3D fad fades, it’ll be a lot less going out to watch a movie.
  Which is kind of sad since it’s something me and my wife always have loved doing together. It’s not
  that there aren’t any good 2D movies, but that the movies made in 3D now appears to coincide with the common ground of our taste in film.

• [mdh]

  So – you have to focus on foreground, midground, and background? sounds like quite a, um, challenge? Since things in the real world are also 10, 60, and 180 feet away it sounds like maybe binocular vision itself is the big issue here, with a side of get-off-my-lawn on the side… but not projection technology per se.

  I think maybe I don’t understand the complaints I see raised in the post and subsequent comments. It just sounds like it’s a pain in the ass for some of you to leave the house, and many of you want to blame something other than genetics and conditioning for it.

• [funchy]

  Don’t like 3-d versions of movies? Don’t go to one.

  I LOVE them. I need a good reason to pay to see a movie when I can just wait for it to come on Netflix. Give me a good IMax theatre and 3-D and suddenly it’s worth it to put up with people who are playing on their cellphone during the movie, the ubiquitous crying baby in every screening, and the sticky floors.

• [Wally Ballou]

  Regarding the use of “3D framing” and gadget shots designed to show off a 3D effect, I wonder if anyone here remembers “Dr. Tongue’s 3-D House Of Stewardesses”???

  Coming out of Tron 3-D, my wife mentioned the good Doctor, and we laughed for ten minutes straight.

  • [futnuh]

    Regarding the use of “3D framing” and gadget shots designed to show off a 3D effect, I wonder if anyone here remembers “Dr. Tongue’s 3-D House Of Stewardesses”???

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u4tTFEF_XE

    “They laughed at me in Budapest …”

  • [MandoSpaz]

    Probably the finest 3-D use of a brandy snifter of all time.

    • [Wally Ballou]

      We still pass stuff at the dinner table Dr. Tongue style.

      “Would you like some …… MUSTARD????”

      It wasn’t until the SCTV eps finally came out on DVD that the kids found out what the heck Mom and Dad were doing.

• [wolfwitch]

  I guess I’m one of the few people who actually really loves and enjoys GOOD 3D movies. That last point is the key though- there are a lot of crap/campy 3D movies out there, as well as those that just weren’t shot well. I’ll hold ‘Piranha 3D’ and that god-awful ‘Clash of the Titans’ remake out there as examples. 3D shouldn’t be a crutch for an otherwise terrible movie, and studios only hurt themselves by churning out 3D garbage.

  There are a large number of people (even the industry admits this) that can’t watch 3D for genetic and other reasons. This is very-very unfortunate and I believe is why there seem to be so many 3D “haters” out there. I guess I’m just lucky not to be one of them. I sincerely hope great 3D movies like ‘Avatar’ (and, I’m hoping, ‘Sanctum’) continue to be made. I personally loved ‘Despicable Me’ and ‘Resident Evil: Afterlife’ too, although the latter was a bit too campy in spots.

• [gaberussell]

  Another issue with 3D that comes out of the focus/convergence issue is the fact that you as the viewer don’t have control over what depth you’re focussing at. On Avatar, I found myself trying to focus on parts of the frame that weren’t in focus. I was presented with multiple layers of depth, but when there was an object in the foreground and the cinematographer had focussed on the background, my eyes seemed confused. In the real world, my sense of depth means that I can see the coffee mug in front of my computer monitor, but I have the ability to freely switch my focus back and forth between the mug and the monitor.

  • [Uncle Geo]

    “Another issue with 3D that comes out of the focus/convergence issue is the fact that you as the viewer don’t have control over what depth you’re focusing at.”

    Exactly. The things a missing from the technical discussion here are the cameras. When setting up to shoot 3D, the axis of the camera lenses, just like your eyes, need to be aligned to converge at one point in space. Your eyes dynamically adjust convergence as you choose to look at close and far objects but the cameras are locked. If you are not looking at the point the cams are set to converge at then every other point will feel a little off.

• [Anonymous]

  I can’t stand the glasses they touch my cheeks and forehead and cause itching since they don’t stay in place and have to be tweaked. I don’t want to wear god damn hipster/kim jong il gigantor glasses, sell me some nice ones for $30 or something. And just stop forcing 3d down my gullet. I would have enjoyed Tron more in 2d, the 2d scenes, I took my glasses off and was just as wowed. The movie companies just started doing this because home theatres are more enjoyable then being around a crowd of annoying people. Yes there is home 3D, but for me with a 140 inch projection screen, I have a home theatre, I have not seen the price on a 3D home theatre projector yet, but I’m not wasting my time on a tv set with 3d until more games have 3d support.

• [unit_1421]

  The bigger rip off than the fake 3D films are Non-IMAX films being shown on IMAX screens and CALLED IMAX.

  • [GuyInMilwaukee]

    I think those are now officially known as LieMax.
    AMC theaters are the main culprit.

• [GuyInMilwaukee]

  After suffering through The Green Hornet in 3D, although I don’t think the 3D was really the issue, I’m done with 3D unless the tech is improved. I’ve never had pain issues other than the pain of wearing heavy glasses and squinting to see the darkened screen.

  The only movies that I feel were enhanced by 3D were Avatar and How To Train Your Dragon. The flying scenes really worked and gave it that wow factor. Everything else has failed. At this point 3D will be keeping me OUT of the theaters.

  It’s time to shut it down and retool for another day.

• [olmsteader]

  All Ebert and his “expert” have successfully proven is that they don’t understand the problem to begin with.

  “their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is”

  This is not a problem inherent to the technology itself. The human eye can view elements at different depths, but typically more gradually without rapid and extreme change. The issue really is an editing issue and not a technology one. Careful editing of cuts can do much to alleviate the strain put on the eyes by avoiding rapid and frequent changes of the focal distance. Because of this fact, movies that are properly edited for 3D may not translate well to 2D and vice-versa.

  • [The Hamster King]

    In order to understand Murch’s criticism of current 3D technology you need to understand the difference between accommodation and convergence.

    Accommodation is when the muscles around the lens of your eye change the lens’ shape to bring an object into focus. It’s why a close-up thing is blurry when you look at something far away. While accommodation does provide the brain with subtle distance cues, it operates completely independent of binocular vision.

    Convergence is when the muscles attached to your eyeballs pull them together (toward being cross-eyed) or apart (toward being wall-eyed). It’s why a close-up thing is doubled when you look at something far away.

    When we look at objects in the real world, the distance cues provided by accommodation and convergence agree. The shape of our lenses correlates with how cross-eyed we are. The same is true of a 2-D movie — our lenses are focused on the screen, and our eyeballs are aimed so that objects at the distance of the screen fuse into a single image.

    But 3-D movies break this connection. Our lenses are still focused on the screen, but our eyeballs are aimed at points that are closer or farther away, depending on the action. This sends a mixed distance cue to our brains. And, mixed sensory cues is a recipe for motion sickness in many people.

    Note that this has nothing to do with the quality of the current 3-D systems. It won’t go away as the tech gets better. It’s an inherent flaw in any system that simulates 3-D by presenting each eye with a 2-D image.

    • [George William Herbert]

      Note that this has nothing to do with the quality of the current 3-D systems. It won’t go away as the tech gets better. It’s an inherent flaw in any system that simulates 3-D by presenting each eye with a 2-D image.

      It’s an inherent flaw in any system that simulates 3-D by presenting each eye with a 2-D image at fixed distance.

      One can imagine optical systems that get around that, but it would seem to require not using a single projection screen and some pretty fancy optics directly mounted in front of each eye.

    • [Anonymous]

      The question is, is it a fatal flaw? Obviously some people are bothered by it, and others aren’t.

    • [Angryjim]

      OH ho ho ho! But I just though of a waay to disagreeeeee with this here science. Yeah that’s very true for objects within’ a close focal range, but at the distance most people sit from a movie screen. there is a tapering off of that focus issue. In a camera it’s what 10ft or more is aprox equal to infinity, right?

      just thinking out loud. anyone…?

• [Anonymous]

  Simple fact of the mater is that 3D does nothing to make a good story better and certainly can’t salvage a crappy story. Far too many directors have become enamored with CG fluff and have almost alltogether forgotten that characters and plot are the most essential elements. Once upon a time, Spielberg & Lucas understood that visual effects were a tool to propel story, but they’ve lost their way and are now little better than Bruckheimer, Bay, or McG.

  I really respect that Christopher Nolan has taken a stand against 3D.

  By the way, I’m one of those minority for whom 3D doesn’t work due to strabismus. I don’t get headaches, but it does tire my eyes and wearing 3D glasses on top of prescriotion eyeglasses is not at all comfortable.

• [Daemon]

  Very much a YMMV issue here. Most people don’t get the headaches, 1 stop of darkness is trivial for movie-makers to correct for. Strobing would be annoying, but I didn’t see it in either Avatar or Tron.

  Honestly, the only problem I have with 3D movies is that in most cases there’s no reason it’s there. In Avatar, it worked because it really helped convey the epic scale of things.

  In something like Alice in Wonderland, however, it was a total afterthought. It not only didn’t add anything, it actively detracted from the movie by turning everyone into pop-up-book cut-outs.

• [Anonymous]

  I cannot wait until this fad is dead again, just like it was in the past when people realized it was a waste of effort to produce.

  Until they “break the barrier” of bezels/borders, and use holographic imaging, it is just a stupid horrible gimmick that adds nothing to a movie.

  Put the emphasis back into the stories please!

  • [Anonymous]

    People keep mentioning that most 3-D movies have weak story lines. Is it so hard to notice that most 2-D movies also have weak story lines? Writing is obviously a separate issue that needs to be addressed.

    As for the darkness, at least that will be very easy to fix. Running the projector twice as bright is not exactly a difficult innovation.

• [MrJM]

  My brother contends that 3-D movies aren’t failed films, they’re actually failed amusement park rides.

• [gohf]

  What about mirrors? Constant plane of focus but ‘fake’ convergence to see things closer or further from the mirror?

• [Drowse]

  I’ll chime in to say… ME TOO!!!

• [Emo Pinata]

  What does it matter if all releases continue to do both?

• [Joe]

  This analysis applies to techniques that rely on creating two images and presenting one to each eye. It wouldn’t apply to an alternative technology that presents the same light field that one would see if there were a real 3D scene in front of you (perhaps based on holography). In that case, you wouldn’t need funny glasses. Alternatively, perhaps you could wear gear that tracks eye movements and the eyes could be presented with the right light pattern on a much smaller scale, so that you could be totally immersed in a scene. This would probably create vertigo though.

• [thebelgianpanda]

  Antinous, thanks for that, even if you would prefer I got off your lawn :)

  I wear glasses–additional optics are either uncomfortable or embarrassing–, the pictures are dark, and the effect wears off in ten minutes. 3D can be amazing, but it is still really primordial. that’s all.

  p.s. the thing that annoys me the most is hardware companies want to sustain revenue growth that has come from flat screen adoption by selling 3D as the next thing, when it really isn’t.

• [Anonymous]

  I’ve only seen Avatar in 3D and one of those blue things could have reached out given me a handjob and the movie still would have sucked.
  I’m still open to 3D in theory but the story needs to be good.

  • [robulus]

    You should see it in 2D. It’s like watching fluorescent vomit drip down a wall in a dark alley.

    If ever there was a strong argument for the transformative power of 3D, it’s Avatar in 2D.

    • [sdmikev]

      Wow, that might have made Avatar enjoyable for me.
      I thought it was one of the worst movies I’ve ever paid to see in a theater. I almost walked out it was so stupid. Right on par with Star Wars, Episode 1.
      And I’m on board with the message; I have no doubt in 150 years we’ll still be using our military might to ruin the world (universe). But jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, gimme a movie that doesn’t suck so damn bad.

• [gwailo_joe]

  Pay extra. to wear glasses. that cause the screen to lose color and clarity for the occasional ‘ooooo!’?

  Not me pal. Thumbs down.

• [yupgiboy]

  The current digital polarized single projector 3D is inferior, no getting around it. The single projector 3d in the 70s and 80s was better and the dual projector 3D from the 1950′s is astounding. If filmmakers would start making real 3D movies (two cameras, on set special effects) instead of CGI and conversion 3D and hiring people who understand 3D photography, people’s opinions would be better. They don’t have to be gimmick movies, either. DIAL M FOR MURDER is, for all intents and purposes, a filmed stage play and it KILLS in 3D. Just wonderful.

  I think a big problem is the lack of reverse parallax in the current films. Nothing ever seems to come out at ya anymore.

  The only current 3D movie that I thought was well done visually was the MY BLOODY VALENTINE remake. Everything else has been sub View Master. Oh, U2 3D was not bad at all, either.

  • [Angryjim]

    BINGO! Someone write a good article about this. The only 3d that looks natural is 3d shot with dual cameras and projected with dual projectors.

    Many of the new 3d movies (at least live action) are digitally converted to 3d and when they do that they make a lot of mistakes. some elements look flat, sometimes inside out,, and that will definitely hurt yer brain.

    I saw bad day at black rock in 3d at The film forum in New York. Dual projector projecting a movie shot with 2 cameras. Beautiful technicolor print(s). Very few gimmicky in your face sequences. It was like looking into a view-master (another method of actually viewing 2 bits of film) or watching a stage play. Or like being there really. so sweet.

    • [Angryjim]

      correction. I saw “inferno” in 3d at the film forum.

• [peterbruells]

  Perhaps I’m gravele mistaken, but don’t make most cameramen and directors use of depth of field, making part of the picture blurry?

  Can’t say that 3-D bothers me. Doesn’t thrill me, either, but I had no problem at all watching Avatar and appreciating the 3-D effects, which gave a little depth to the movie. But then again, I just flip through these autostereogram books, too.

• [pjcamp]

  This is a bs argument. Your eyes are both converged and focused on the screen where the light source is. Making an object appear to be 10 feet behind the screen doesn’t mean it is really there and it doesn’t mean you have to focus 10 feet behind the screen to see it.

  In any case, convergence doesn’t matter much at distances that are very much larger than the distance between your eyes. In that situation, they are pointed in directions that are to your neuromuscular system undetectably different from parallel. At ten feet, the convergence angle is less than a degree. At 30 feet, is is 2/10 of a degree. Angles that small just don’t make any difference.

  Film editors are not scientists and should avoid pretending to be. Much less film critics. Trigonometry seems to be beyond them.

• [George William Herbert]

  A lot of commenters aren’t really reading the OP – The problem isn’t differing convergence distances, it’s focusing at the screen (80 feet, in his example) and then converging in and out from that at different distances than the focus distance. It’s the differing convergence and focus distances which is the problem.

  That the 3D effects work ok for many people most of the time indicates that we can converge and focus differently, and perhaps it will turn out that people are trainable to get over this problem. However, it’s clear that long movie eyestrain and the number of people just outright objecting to the effect from the beginning is a real and serious problem.

  One of the things I noticed about Avatar 3D was that it did it mostly as a window out into a further away world, out at screen distance, rather than bringing action in close. I think that worked better than some of the alternatives people have done, with much more out-of-the-screen / shorter convergence distance effects. The out-of-the-screen may seem cool, but if it’s also an item of eyestrain or failure of some people to see it right, then that’s perhaps something to either just write off doing or budget very carefully in the movie.

  • [Angryjim]

    eh. I know. It doenst hurt my eyes. I know what yer saying, but my eyes dont hurt. Our eyes may not be built for this but they are pretty versitile muscle/nerve-things. Again, some people have eye problems and I truly feel for them. Because it’s a rad experience.

• [Antinous / Moderator]

  Most of you whippersnappers probably don’t know that you need twice as much light at age 50 as you did at 25 to see the same thing. I’m not going to pay ten bucks to simulate the experience of sitting in the closet with the light off.

• [Anonymous]

  lolz. this 3d BS is so contrived. have u ever asked for 3d? nope, me either. maybe ill get ‘used’ to it, or not, personally i like a nice blu ray. screw 3d, can we get past 1080? photoquality? lifelike? 3d was made to raise ticket prices, thwart bootlegs, and convince us all to buy hd’tvs AGAIN this year. this aint my first rodeo kids, when big corporations tell you you ‘need’ something u dont want to raise their bottom line, i know to run, run, run away from the evil. this isnt even getting into the proprietary fail crap that is 3d glasses, or their obnoxious cost, or the logistics of having enou/breakking them, or dizziness or viewing angles or the all types of other havoc it must play with image quality. avatar was amazing, dont get me wrong, but i saw it twice, fell asleep the 2nd time, and the plot/story/dialogue/ideas/science suuuuuucked. unobtainium? really? not to mention that element name was stolen from the core, and the whole story stolen from somewhere else, and the 3d dvd/bd released at chrsitmas as a near year long plot to make everyone buy the movie twice without the technology upgrading in that time. epic fail mafiaa, ill tapdance on ur grave :)

• [norskamerikansk]

  Dear Apreche (commenter number 2)
  Rock and Roll concerts cause premature deafness and/or tinnitus.
  http://www.ata.org

  http://ezinearticles.com/?Rock-And-Roll-Aint-Noise-Pollution—Baby-Boomers-And-Hearing-Loss&id=972688

• [jmzero]

  There seems to be no end of people telling me I should hate 3d.

  I don’t. I think it’s fun. It makes certain kinds of movies a little better (eg. How to Train Your Dragon had some fun chase scenes, and I really felt the size of the big dragon more). It makes racing video games way better (I get a much better sensation of speed). It’s not a huge deal in any way, but it’s nice. It’s a small improvement for me – certainly not for every film, but nice on some.

  Watching 3d doesn’t bother me at all, even in extended sessions – despite all the proof that it does. But even if it did bother me I don’t know that I’d be able to work up much hate. I just wouldn’t watch it.

  All in all, why do so many people care so much about this one way or the other?

  Eventually, it will just be a feature on most TV’s. It’ll just be too cheap to not be included. Some people will use it, some won’t. There will probably always be a 2d mode on almost all media. I don’t see why anyone is excited or angry – and, make no mistake, people are excited and angry about 3d. I swear Slashdot explodes in angry nerdtosterone every time 3d is mentioned.

  Some people like it – including me. If you don’t, why do you care so much?

  • [catgrin]

    “All in all, why do so many people care so much about this one way or the other?”
    Mostly because this is a take it or leave it sort of tech. 3D either enhances your viewing or it doesn’t and if it doesn’t, it can be problematic. As more than one person has already posted, it’s already true that not every movie theater is bothering to show both 2D and 3D versions of 3D movies as they are released, so there’s already exclusion for people who can’t use the technology. More than that, since 3D is now being incorporated into TVs, people who cannot use the tech will still pay a premium for it if a desired product is only available with it. (It’s like buying a house with new carpet if you plan on installing hardwood. Yeah, the stuff isn’t bad, but it’s an unnecessary expense.) Your argument that you can still watch in 2D doesn’t mean a thing. Whether or not you can shut it off, you’ve still paid for a 3D TV.

    “Some people like it – including me. If you don’t, why do you care so much?”
    Well, partially because by adopting the use of this technology some filmmakers have found yet another way to ignore story. It also sucks that a 2D version of a movie shot and edited for 3D will always appear awkward due to flattening and in-focus extraneous items.

    Now, just to be clear, I own Coraline, and I’ve got a set of Radioactive Blackbelt Hamsters in 3D in my comics, so I’m not opposed to the idea of 3D. For me, the problem is overuse and misuse of a trendy technology. If people want to write good stories that can make good 3D movies, then I say go for it, but the mainstreaming of 3D is purely a way to increase ticket prices. Some stories simply aren’t meant to use the device, and when it’s included it forces the issue and takes away from the story.

    Your two examples, How to Train Your Dragon and racing games were interesting because I agree that Dragon was an entertaining film designed to use 3D well, and was put together cohesively from the start. I challenge you to think of three other recent 3D films that were as well-written, using well-executed 3D, and performed equally well in a 2D environment. (Dragon did, I saw it first with a group of friends in 3D, then with a friend who has no depth perception in 2D. Laughed loudly through the film both viewings.) I believe games make a much better use of the technology because of the group they’re aimed at (people who are already comfortable shifting focus on a flat screen), the intent of the product (maximum immersion with minimum storyline) and because they can be shut off when eyes become tired.

    See, 3D viewing doesn’t just require that your eyes work “some” it requires that they work “well” and “actively” or you’re likely to either have trouble viewing the 3D or get headache-y or nauseous from doing so. Some statistics to back the claim that we don’t all see “straight and true”:

    -In individuals age 12 or older, visual impairment (defined as distance visual acuity of 20/50 or worse due to uncorrected refractive error) is more than 11 million. [Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2002, reported in JAMA, 2006;295:2158-2163]

    - One in six Americans (17 percent), 45 years of age and older, report some form of vision impairment. One in four Americans (26 percent), 75 years of age and older, report some form of vision impairment. [Source: The LighthoU.S.e National Survey on Vision Loss, April 1995]

    • [jmzero]

      Whether or not you can shut it off, you’ve still paid for a 3D TV.

      If it is a significant amount of difference in price, then they’ll go on making 2D TV’s. But I don’t see any reason why there would be a significant price difference going forward. They can gouge now on prices, but that won’t last – the underlying tech doesn’t have any permanent cost problem. If you’re worried about TV cost bloat, I’d be more worried about “smart TVs” that will be streaming Netflix and what not. That crap is going to require big processors and hard drives where there was none before. And it has value drivers other than differentiation to consumers (ie. include our service, and we’ll kick something back.. or Sony trying to wedge in their content) that will push it into TVs even when people don’t really want to pay for it.

      Well, partially because by adopting the use of this technology some filmmakers have found yet another way to ignore story.

      This is a false dilemma. Most movies in any year are crap. We’ve gone through a thousand gimmicks in the last decade. CG monsters. Faux-documentaries with shakey cams. Boobs. 3d can make a good movie a little better – or it can be stamped on a horrible movie to try to trick movie goers. I’ll even grant that right now it may be encouraging more bad movies to be made – but at this point it’s pointless being mad at that and it won’t last. People eventually will get tired of going to bad 3d movies and studios will try to get ahead of the next gimmick.

      I don’t think we’ll see movie theaters showing films only in 3d much going forward, nor do I think they’ll be able to maintain the price premium. People are excited now, but it won’t last.

      But anyways, with all of that said, 3d still makes some stuff better – and I think it’s here to stay. The tech is too cheap to fade away (until there’s a better technology at least) and enough people (though obviously not everyone) like it.

      • [catgrin]

        In response to your response:

        First bit:

        Any additional “feature” adds cost to an item that charges by the feature. For example, in cars, a Mazda2 (their value-minded vehicle has a base price of MSRP $14,180. First feature: trim. That can change the price $1455. Then, if you want floor mats to protect your only flooring option available, they’ll run you another $80.

        The thing is, before you select those floor mats, when you’re selecting “trim,” you’re actually opting for such items as alloy wheels, better stereo, and red piping on your seats. If you want alloy wheels, but hate red piping – too bad, it’s sold in a package, and you’ll pay for it as part of that $1455. Red piping may not cost too much but several unwanted features included in a desired item end up jacking up the price unreasonably making the price outweigh the desirability.

        In an economic climate where people really are counting every dollar they spend, even a $5 feature can be the deciding factor between this TV or that one.

        Second bit:

        Did you read my comment #120? Go there, hit the link, hit 3D at the top of the genre index then read the Upcoming Releases list to the right. This year alone fully half the movies being released as 3D are either remakes or sequels in flagging franchises. (Final Destination 5 is one of them.) It’s not a false dilemma. It’s a true statement that without the addition of 3D, at least some of these things would lay down and die a proper death leaving funding open for other new projects.

        In closing:

        There’s realls only one reason that 3D has the support it does from the studios. The people that the the tech is too expensive to fade away for are actually the movie studios and the theaters. Not only have they had to invest in the tech to create 3D films, the studios have had to invest in the theaters’ digital projectors in order to get them to invest in showing them. Here’s an excerpt from a 2008 Wired article about the cost of going digital to be able to show 3D:

        “In order to install a 3-D system, theaters must have digital projectors. And at the moment, there are only 4,600 digital projectors in the United States, according to the National Association of Theater Owners. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade to digital projectors, and $20,000 to $50,000 more to install a 3-D system. It’s a rich investment, and theater owners may not see much of a return on it: Studios, on average, make 55 percent of ticket sales, leaving just 45 percent for the theater owner.
        One incentive for digital upgrades: A single film print can cost $1,000 to $1,500, and a widely released blockbuster could require the studio to make 3,000 to 4,000 prints, so distribution costs are not insignificant. These costs will largely be eliminated as more theaters upgrade to digital projectors, so the studios are offering to split the upgrade costs with theater owners.”

        (Source: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2008/04/3d_movies)

        Move forward two years. Here’s a link to a July 2010 Money article about the problems with the way that studios have handled 3D, and why they’ve blown it:
        http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/technology/3D_technology_dying.fortune/index.htm

        That’s why so many bad 3D movies are slated for release. They’re trying to justify the investment.

• [fnc]

  I haven’t watched a movie in 3-d yet at the theater, but I’ve tried it out on televisions in the electronics stores. It’s okay, but doesn’t wow me. If anything, I feel like I’m watching a moving diorama rather than a movie.

  I don’t think the technology supports it yet, but what I’d like to see with 3-d tech are movies that give a different viewpoint on the story depending upon where you sit to watch it. Some members of the audience will see things others do not, and vice versa, which gives different members of the audience a different perspective on characters’ actions and motivations. The post movie discussion could be interesting, and repeat viewings would be demanded. Hey, I didn’t say it would be easy, I just think it’s intriguing.

• [Anonymous]

  I would never have guessed that as inconsequential as whether 3D enhances a movie or not would generate so many ad hominem attacks (and both sides are guilty from what I can see here).

• [Antinous / Moderator]

  Coca-Cola…Now With Cilantro!

• [lvdata]

  There are 2 issues that are not being addressed.

  1. CGI vs Filmed with Actors movies.
  I don’t have a problem with CGI like Toy Story, Up, or Chicken Little, in 3d. I get a mild headache from regular movies in 3d either due to quick edits or too much stuff springing out at you. I have NEVER left without a headache from a filmed 3d movie.

  2. Projectors!

  Here in Las Vegas, we have both active shutter 3d, circular polarization 3d, and horizontal/vertical polarization 3d. Active shutter 3d is FAR superior to passive 3d. I tried all 3 with Avatar, and had the faint double vision with the passive glasses. I did end up with a headache from all 3 versions of Avatar, but much less with the active shutter version. For $4 extra, I will only see CGI, and only on the active shutter system, otherwise it is not worth it. James Cameron does make it worth a headache though…

• [Anonymous]

  Unless a form stimulating the optic nerve or brain directly is designed, the imbalance of stereoscopic vision will detract from the enjoyment of the experience.

  But, as the comments show, not more than some people gain from it.

  • [catgrin]

    (Anon #119)

    The problem with using 3D as a wide release (note that whole “wide release” thing) film vehicle or for mainstream incorporation into TVs, is that no matter what they do, a good portion of the viewing audience either can’t enjoy it or doesn’t care about it. Want a sampling?

    From 119 comments on this page, 42 were either negative or ambivalent. (Note: I only counted comments directly related to a user’s perception of the tech. I did not treat neutral, informative comments as “ambivalent.”)

    I’m not saying there’s no interest in 3D. In fact, I found 29 movies set to be released in 3D this year. I do think it’s interesting that of those, at least 15 are sequels or remakes. Fully half of ‘em.

    (data source: http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=3d.htm)

    I would think that lends plenty of credence to the argument that 3D is giving writers a way to extend the lives of already developed properties thereby making their jobs just that much easier. Hello weak writing, and repetition. Goodbye originality.

    It also lends credence to the argument that people are making movies in 3D just because they can (and have made the investment to do so). That means they will script, direct, animate, and edit for the technology. So if you’re like me, just like the scene in Alice in Wonderland where she hops on the heads and you think, “this wasn’t in the book, oh it must be in the game,” you’ll now be thinking about John Candy’s brandy snifter while watching a 3D-animated panda kick butt in Kung Fu Panda 2. At least you’ll still laugh.

• [Anonymous]

  Yeah, that Magic Eye stuff is totally overrated as well. I’d much rather just look at a strange pattern than actually see something “cool” hidden in there…

  (shakes fist at sky)

• [adonai]

  It’s important to remember that while Roger Ebert is generally worth listening to, he’s not always right. 3D is definitely abused by clueless filmmakers, but when used well can be worth the extra couple of dollars.

  Case in point: Coraline and Beowulf were fantastic in 3D. It added to the overall film. Clash of the Titans was obviously bloody awful and the 3D detracted even more.

  As some others have pointed out, Ebert seems to be becoming more “new things are bad, get off my lawn” than anything else.

• [mn_camera]

  So many commenters here, in their eagerness to bash those of us who dislike 3-D (and see it for the failed experiment it is, yet again), miss the point.

  It’s not about the new “shiny thing” at all. It’s about the storytelling. Or in this case, more often than not, the substitute of the shiny thing for the storytelling.

  A good book > a normal movie > a 3-D movie that tosses action in your general direction instead of telling you a story.

  When they get position-accurate holographic projection to the point where it’s practical for motion pictures – notice I said “practical” instead of “affordable” here – let me know. Until then, it’s not 3-D at all, just a cheesy gimmick.

  • [Angryjim]

    People said that about sound movies. Yeah it was all gimmick at first, but that doesnt mean it can’t be done tastefully. like color film..it adds a layer of realism. Maybe you dont always want that. but that doesnt make the medium always bad. Although, yes, I will concur, there are a LOT of bad 3d movies coming out now.

  • [Brainspore]

    It’s not about the new “shiny thing” at all. It’s about the storytelling. Or in this case, more often than not, the substitute of the shiny thing for the storytelling.

    I challenge anyone to make a credible argument that Pixar can’t tell a good story and yet several of their films have been distributed in 3D format. If they compromised the storytelling in any way to take advantage of the latest shiny thing then I can’t tell where, because I still enjoy “Up” on my primitive 2D TV with non-surround-sound speakers.

    Good 3D films may be in the minority but that doesn’t mean it’s fair to trash the whole concept. Just stick to the 2D screenings if you don’t like the experience.

  • [AdrenalineSleep]

    It’s not about the new “shiny thing” at all. It’s about the storytelling.

    As far as I can tell, the argument made by Ebert (via Walter Murch’s letter) in particular instance has got nothing to do with storytelling but is related to the idea that 3D doesn’t work because of a technical problem related to “convergence/focus” issues in the way the brain is trying to decode the image. While I do agree that the whole 3D thing is a bit gimmicky in the way it’s being treated now, Ebert is trying to make some sort of empirical statement about why it sucks. To which I say, “Suck it, asshole. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that it’s not a valid tool in the film maker’s arsenal.”

    Now if only those film making/producing assholes could actually use it properly more often…

• [Spezz]

  I don’t agree with Ebert often, but i’m with him on this. 3D with polarized glasses is 50 year old technology. My guess is the film studios think its been long enough to dust this old gimmick off and squeeze a few more bucks out of it. I’m all for 3d, but we need to actually advance the technology as opposed to polishing a turd.

  • [Anonymous]

    They actually did change the technology. Horizontal/vertical polarization is different from circular polarization, which lets you tilt your head.

• [Boondocker]

  The first film I saw in 3D was Avatar (during its second run; yeah, I held out on both Avatar and 3D for a while). I can only remember three, maybe four instances of 3D, and I don’t think they added much to the film. I didn’t feel sick or get a headache, but I did get pulled out of the narrative every time.

  It’s a cool effect, and I’m not sure I agree that we couldn’t get used to it, but I don’t see it as adding a hell of a lot to the experience of watching a movie. (Yet.)

  • [ncinerate]

    My issue with Avatar in 3d was the horrible blurriness throughout the movie during action 3d sequences (I watched it in 3d IMAX).

    The movie was very fast paced, and during any fast movement 3d scenes my eyes just couldn’t wrap around the movement quick enough. The result was a crappy image that blurred through anything exciting. It was literally hard to follow what exactly was happening as the avatar got attacked in the forest fairly early on in the movie, for example.

    This was an odd experience for me because I have such good natural vision. 3D TV suffers similarly from what I’ve seen, the glasses just end up making my eyes strain and the image doesn’t jive right with me.

    I thought 3D would be the next big revolution, like HD was before, but unless they can make some major fixes I’m not sold on the process.

    I wont even get into the -horrible- movies that tacked 3d on to try and pump box office gross (cough, alice in wonderland, cough, cough).

• [Apreche]

  I have no problem watching 3D movies. My eyes don’t hurt, and I enjoy it quite a bit.

  How are the people complaining about 3D hurting their eyes any different from their parent’s generation complaining about rock and roll/metal hurting their ears?

  What will it take to end this cycle of every generation hating everything new and lauding everything old? Ebert is definitely king amongst the old fogeys, especially with his famously stupid position on video games as art. Looks like Cory is practicing telling the punk kids to get off his lawn.

  Personally, I am making a concsious effort to not be that guy. No matter how uncomfortable it makes me when my grandchildren or great grandchildren are plugging the Internets directly into their brains to stimulate the auditory nerves for some new musical genre, I’ll accept it.

  • [Anonymous]

    Wow…I spend hundreds of bucks every month on new gadgets, upgrade my home/office/personal tech obsessively to stay on the leading edge of things, but I DO get a lasting headache every time I watch those darn 3D movies.
    But Apreche doesn’t get headaches, so anyone complaining of headaches is just being inflexible and stodgy when it comes to adopting the wave of the future :(
    Thanks Apreche…I can’t believe I’m already old. Isn’t that supposed to happen in another two years after I turn 30?

  • [MatthewFabb]

    I think it’s different from parent’s complaining about music being too loud, as from what I’ve seen it’s random who ends up disliking 3D because of headaches or their eyes getting sore. Also I’ve seen it happen to people of a wide range of different ages. Also they *want* to see these movies, just not in 3D.

    Not a problem as people who dislike it, as they can just go see the 2D screenings. Unfortunately, that is becoming harder and harder to do as more theatres invest in 3D projectors because of the extra revenue they can make. At least in my area, a year ago if you wanted to see Avatar in 3D you have to make sure you went to the right theatre. With Tron out this year around the same time, few theatres were now playing it in 2D. I don’t think 3D screens are going to die any time soon, as so far they have proven to be quite profitable to theatres and studios, but the lack of 2D choice is unfortunately going to push those who dislike the new medium out of the theatres.

  • [Auz]

    “What will it take to end this cycle of every generation hating everything new and lauding everything old?”

    It’s hardly new – the basic process is about 100 years old, and Hollywood’s given up on it before.

  • [Anonymous]

    “How are the people complaining about 3D hurting their eyes any different from their parent’s generation complaining about rock and roll/metal hurting their ears?”

    Dude, 3D has been around long before its current resurgence.

    It doesn’t hurt my eyes, but 3D is not something that makes me like a movie any more. Tron Legacy sucks, whether it is in 3D or not 3D.

  • [AdrenalineSleep]

    How are the people complaining about 3D hurting their eyes any different from their parent’s generation complaining about rock and roll/metal hurting their ears?

    Was it not that people complained heavy metal hurt their ears because it was played so loud?

    That minor quibble aside, I agree with everything you said. I don’t particularly mind 3D. It doesn’t hurt my eyes, it doesn’t make me feel nauseous. There are people who can not watch movies where there is too much hand-held camera action going on (Blair Witch, Cloverfield) because they can’t follow the motion without getting sick to their stomachs. I believe it’s more of a personal ability to handle/process some images in their brains.

    There is way too much of a big deal being made about 3D movies. I think it’s totally stupid for studios to go back and make some of their classics into mock 3D versions. I think that the industry in not selling devices and content in a way that is helping sell the technology, bundling high profile movies with high cost “kits” instead of selling them the content that they can use on any device they already own. All this amounts to a big “MEH” surrounding 3D movies and current 3D tech in general.

    This is all subjective though and Roger Ebert saying that the case is closed just because he doesn’t get it is just stupid. I wonder how he weighs his IRON CLAD understanding of how this technology will never work with the evidence that there are lots of people for whom it does work.

    Works for me, I’m just ambivalent.

• [Unmutual]

  99% agreement from me here.

  But really the crux of the problem, with 3D, is editing. Long takes would be required. Action scenes would have to be long, continuous takes with build up and a wind down kind of like aerobics. It would be even more expensive than it is now. But to take a regular old, frenetic and heavily cut film and make it three-dee is a recipe for a migraine.

  I do think 3D has enormous potential for video games. Most videogames are either First Person or Behind the Shoulder 3rd Person, and 99% of the game this camera stays fixed and your perspective doesn’t change, so the gamer settles into a groove and it feels natural; when the character looks at something, it is not a quick cut, it’s a pan of the camera.

  I am actually really hoping to get to play some great next gen 3D games so I hope this fad doesn’t disappear until 3D TVs have at least penetrated the market enough to get the technology on game consoles. . .

• [Brainspore]

  I’d like to propose a truce:

  1. People who enjoy 3D stop trying to convince people who don’t that they’ll love the experience once the last few kinks in the technology are worked out.

  2. People who don’t like 3D stop implying that there is something wrong with moviegoers who occasionally enjoy the sense of immersion that some 3D experiences can convey.

  3. Hollywood continues to produce films in both formats and lets ticket buyers decide which experience they prefer on their own.

• [Gawain Lavers]

  Maybe it’s an eyesight thing (my eyesight has only recently degraded to about 20/20), but I think polarized 3D is great. Not too dark, no headaches, no straining to get the effect. For me the real problem is that in a good movie where the story is immersive enough I’ll forget that the effect is being used. Clever movies like Coraline seem to have a good sense of how long it takes to forget about 3D, and include a dramatic effect to remind the viewers at fixed periods, while I thought the effect was largely wasted on Up, which never seemed to design set pieces around it at all.

  In Avatar the effect I found clever was the 3D screens in the human buildings: since having a screen with depth is not something we expect to see that alienness of it would remind me that the movie was in 3D, and I’d notice the effect again for a little while.

  • [futnuh]

    Maybe it’s an eyesight thing (my eyesight has only recently degraded to about 20/20), but I think polarized 3D is great. Not too dark, no headaches, no straining to get the effect.

    Current generation of linear polarized 3D is objectively pretty bad. There is observable leakage of one image into another – especially for high-contrast light-on-black situations. (Circular polarized is even worse.) It is used primarily because of the low-cost, passive (no batteries required) glasses.
    That you perceive it as great almost certainly has nothing to do with your visual acuity (which by the way I envy).

    Regardless of the technology, the fundamental issue remains – one’s eyes are being asked to focus on the screen plane while the disparity (typically) indicates that the object is at some other depth. For some segment of the population, this type of 3D causes headaches, nausea and death. Okay, not death.

    I like 3D. Over the last decade I’ve been involved with creating a number of virtual reality-based exhibits for museums (here’s an old one, http://www.nma.gov.au/kidz/childrens_spaces/kspace/). Most people really enjoy it. But I’ve also observed the occasional person run outside for fresh air to escape sudden onset of nausea. And I’ve seen kids (not old fogeys) vomit. That’s not generational, its physiological.

    Some of this problems are exasperated by very bad implementations of 3D. That includes everything from incorrect 3D model of vision (some people used to just overlay left and right eye camera views until it “looked right”), to bad viewing technology (cheap glasses with bad extinction, unaligned projectors), to really bad editing (frequent jump cuts, especially to different 3D parameters).

    All that said, even the best implementations (and Cameron’s Avatar is about as good as it gets at present) are going to cause problems for some people.

    The question of artistic merit is in the eye of the beholder. This is where I start to become wary of the old fogeys.

• [Xenu]

  I wonder if “heads up” displays have the same problem? AFAIK they use the same trick to make your eyes focus on something that isn’t there.

• [Elmo Gearloose]

  WWOD

  “What Would Orson Do?”

  He would have used 3-D in “Citizen Kane”, I think.

• [ColHapablap]

  The fact that most of the picture that you’re not focusing on is blurred is really the most annoying part. It seems to waste so much of a cinematographer’s work when you can’t really see most of the picture.

  And the worst part of 3D is when you skip it in theaters and watch it in 2D, and can totally tell when a shot was framed for 3D with stuff unnecessarily in the foreground.

  • [ArnoDick]

    When the part of the picture you’re looking at is clear and the rest is not, isn’t it called “field of focus”?

    Anyways, good to see some old-fashioned “Fangled new technology is worthless!” rhetoric. Always warms up my day!

• [Forteto]

  Personally, I feel that while his point might be acurate, I don’t see any reason to be bothered by it. I feel that 3d gets abused however, by marketers and other who want to be able to post “In 3D!” on the poster.

  I loved Avatar in Imax 3D, and I don’t know if its any different. However, right now it seems like 3D is being used a gimick, or trick to try to get more people to watch a movie, as opposed to a part of the movie.

  I saw spy kids 3D, and it was an example of wanting to use cheep 3D to get veiwers, with lots of shooting toward the audience effects, and other such things.

  Avatar was much more subtle, and didn’t do thing just to make them look cool, but instead used 3D to add to the enormas and ridiculously epic landscapes.

  I think that their are some movies that 3D fits better. I don’t want to watch The Office, or Dispicable Me in 3D, but a movie like Tron or Avatar, in which the depth and scenery are a key part of the movie, its ledgitamite.

• [seyo]

  Disagree entirely. I enjoy them immensely. Coraline in 3D was awesome. Tron, which has probably one of the most boring excuses for a “plot” of any movie I’ve ever seen was made entirely thrilling by the superb cg and vfx which when delivered in 3D made me weep in amazement. And I have no eye pain from it. Don’t know where you are getting that from. I wear glasses full time because my eyes have constricted tear ducts which means I can’t wear contacts. So in general they are pretty sensitive. No issues watching 3D movies here.

  • [millrick]

    “the superb cg and vfx which when delivered in 3D made me weep in amazement”

    dude?

    pics or it didn’t happen

• [Tango Charlie]

  Sadly (for me), some local theatres have started showing *only* the 3D version.

  I dislike it for the reasons some people have mentioned already – the focusing-on-a-blurry-thing thing, the too-dark thing, the you-forget-about-it-once-you’re-in-the-story thing.

  Has anyone yet mentioned the weird strobing that happens to fast-moving objects? Traditionally, motion blur helps sell a fast-moving object, but I’m not sure what happens to motion blur in a 3D film – it still happens, of course, but looks stroby and segmented to me. Maybe it’s a frame rate issue? Are modern 3D films shown at 24fps total (so, every second you get 12 frames of information for the right eye, 12 for the left) or does each eye still get the 24 fps its used to?

• [millrick]

  some more info on the debate…

  previous essay by Ebert on 3D
  “Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)”
  http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

  3D viewers as “consumers” vs. “experiencers”
  “What’s in a Dimension?”
  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/magazine/23FOB-medium-t.html?ref=technology

• [Anonymous]

  The evolutionary argument is a bit of a stretch. Yes, it’s true that our ancestors wouldn’t have seen things where convergence and focus are dissociated. But then again, they also wouldn’t have stared at giant screens where focus and convergence are fixed, where the size and scale of the objects changes, and where the viewpoint changes every few seconds. By his reasoning, the act of watching a movie (or TV, or using a computer) is also unnatural and therefore should use a ton of extra brainpower, which should give us headaches.

  It seems a lot more likely that our brains are a lot more flexible than he assumes. We have plenty of practice watching movies and using computers. Perhaps people just need more practice with 3D films for them to seem natural.

• [Sekino]

  I don’t really care whether a movie uses 3D or not. I just wish that there was as much effort and hoopla put towards good writing, well-crafted stories and compelling characters. There is a whole lot of ground left to break in movies without even getting into fancy technologies.

  It seems that most mainstream movies these days are just raping the literary (or graphic novel) world for stories or they keep re-using the same stock plot devices and characters over and over. I was genuinely surprised when the Hollywood writers went on strike a few years back: I hadn’t realized that they were actually still writing. Even in fancy 3D, a boring, asinine movie is a boring, asinine movie.

• [RedShirt77]

  “Why 3D doesn’t work and never will. Case closed.”

  Lets not say never, it will just take us a few million years to evolve this ability.

  • [Anonymous]

    Some people already have it. You can listen to them here, perplexed by the others who tell them these neat things they’re watching are so obviously terrible.

• [wylkyn]

  And what about these here dang-blasted horseless carriages? If them warn’t invented by the devil hisself, what with all the belching of the smoke and going faster than a rabbit with his tail a’fire, I don’ know what! (shakes wrinkled old fist in the air)

• [Maush]

  Hear ye, hear ye!

  I detest 3D movies. They don’t particularly hurt my eyes, but I have to wear stupid glasses, the movie seems darker, and it adds absolutely nothing to the movie for me. Most of the ‘cool effects’ are just annoyances to me, but by far the biggest annoyance is that I have to pay more to see a movie in 3D that I couldn’t care less if it was in 3D or not.

  Please, for the love of god, don’t let 3D tv catch on… please!

• [Tango Charlie]

  And to clarify the headline: 3D Movies don’t suck, but not having the choice between 2D and 3D sucks.

• [Tetsubo]

  My wife can’t watch 3D movies, they make her motion sick. She can’t even watch roller coaster footage in 2D. We tend to wait until the big budget movies hit the cheap 2D theater.

• [xzzy]

  This is a great example of an appeal to authority fallacy. “I hate it, and this really respected editor hates it too, so now we all should hate it!”

  The argument that it “will never work” is pretty ridiculous too. Eventually technology is gonna give it to us, whether we need it or not.

  But other than that it’s a pretty good editorial, nothing like making wild claims to generate a lot of page views.

• [childrednandsmallanimals]

  Murch is without doubt one of the most brilliant film makers around, not only as a sound designer but as an editor– and more importantly– as a film maker who does both *at the same time*. He brings insights into the field few others can. With that said, I think that his comments are dead on– the process should not really be called “3D” but “semi 3D effect”- its an effect that sometimes works (when convergence and distance are the same) but mostly does not. I feel that when I’m looking at a game on a screen and I am able to navigate spatially, that this is more “3D” than “3D” films are, in that my focusing distance is constant and I can direct efforts to address movement through a modeled 3D space. I get more 3D from 3D games on a 2D screen than I do watching an IMAX 3D film, that is to say. I’m sure that there will be a technology that precisely addresses 3D perception in the future, but its not here yet, and a true 3D camera/capture system will be whats needed to deliver the goods in addition to 3D playback. Obviously, a capure system that grabs a huge amount of data– visible light data as well as 3D spatial data, is needed, that is integrated with a playback system that is calibrated with the eye of the person who is watching– literally the muscular or neuro-chemical moves he/she is making while watching. Many of the current films that are “3D” are in fact post-processed films which were captured in traditional cameras which have had serious ‘surgical’ processing to make them 3D– they were never meant to be seen in 3D. With that said, it would be interesting to use 3D as an experimental platform, one used by being extremely aware of the distinctions Murch talks about, in the construction of some very precise, purely optical, images that work with, instead of against, the way the eye actually operates.

• [Anonymous]

  I think the most damning point he mentioned was 3D’s almost “Brechtian” effect on the audience. Brecht used distancing techniques to repeatedly pull people out of the narrative of stage productions to make sure they remained politically engaged. My problem with 3D is that in order for it to have any point at all, you have to become aware of its artifice which pulls you out of the story. I’ve seen a number of 3D films from Beauwolf to Avatar to Tron: Legacy and whilst they were entertaining, they were like theme park rides. The irony is that I found films like Inception and Black Swan far more immersive than any of the 3D films I have seen.

  That said, I think 3D porn is the way forward.

• [Angryjim]

  I can imagine a time when most films are 3d (not saying that will happen), and I’d be lamenting 2d films. Because there is great artistic integrity to 2d films. Composition is more dynamic in 2d. I feel that way about black and white movies now. lighting look so much cooler when you have the limitation of a monochrome film. They are often great. Yeah, it’s just another medium. Another possibility, and some films will always look better in 2d.