Why 3D Will Fail Again

[Kevian]

Why 3D Will Fail Again


P.S. I do not subscribe to any school of thought here. Came across this article and thought of sharing with HFVians and learn about the general opinion on it.

 

[rajadeep]

Actually this time around ppl are more invested in 3D tech than before... The movies we saw when we were young in 3D were low budget films(like Chota cheatan in India)... Now days most of the top big budget films come in 3D... Also the push to 3D tvs has been too large in the last year or so... All in all I think 3D is here to stay... On a personal front I am not such a big fan of 3D & most of the time my bro & me we look for theatres playing the latest movies in 2D rather than 3D but still I feel 3D is here to stay... Maybe in a few years we will have a specs free 3D...

PS while going through the article I read the author's view that we have 2 eyes so we can view the world in 3D... Does that mean ppl with one eye see the world in 2D???

 

[mbhangui]

I get a headache seeing 3d movies in theaters. It is not only me, but I see many of whom I know speak about this nuisance.

 

[Shivam]

PS while going through the article I read the author's view that we have 2 eyes so we can view the world in 3D... Does that mean ppl with one eye see the world in 2D???

Actually YES, people who have one working eye, see the world in 2D.

Their minds understand the depth using other clues such as relative motion, by their own movement of head to understand the relative distances between different objects, variations of shades, shadows etc...

They can't see the 3D effect in these movies and such movies appear blurred to them.

 

[kneo]

I too believe in enjoying movies in 2D rather than 3D. My biggest grouse is the dark tinted glasses. Once you wear them the entire movie color palette, brightness, contrast, etc. goes for a toss - everything is darker and unnatural. Christopher Nolan is one director who is not convinced about 3D - according to him, it's the director's vision to make shots which gives a perception of depth in 2D. 3D is the future but it's far away.

 

[Shivam]

I too believe in enjoying movies in 2D rather than 3D. My biggest grouse is the dark tinted glasses. Once you wear them the entire movie color palette, brightness, contrast, etc. goes for a toss - everything is darker and unnatural. Christopher Nolan is one director who is not convinced about 3D - according to him, it's the director's vision to make shots which gives a perception of depth in 2D. 3D is the future but it's far away.

I adjusted the brightness, contrast, colours all according to THX standards, as viewed using these glasses and yet I hated the 3D. This is just another way to sell more BluRay players, projectors etc.. And also to prevent piracy.

2D is comfortable to watch and more enjoyable. 3D in my opinion is just a toy for showing off depth like in NASA videos or some underwater documentaries.

 

[sam9s]

I didnt read the article, but with one eye we cannot perceive depth as accurately as with two eyes, try an experiment ... close one eye, raise your left arm with your finger pointing, and raise your right arm as well finger pointing. Keep both fingers at different distance fron your eye, (make sure distance is good enough) then bring both finger close together very very very slowly and try join them, make sure its a very slow procedure. Try to join. You would miss. ...... which you will never with both eyes open.

Reason as I said "with one eye we cannot perceive depth". This does not mean that with one eye we see world in 2D, the worlds is always in 3D, just that the depth is not as prominent as in 3D.

 

[HTuser]

Why 3D Will Fail Again


P.S. I do not subscribe to any school of thought here. Came across this article and thought of sharing with HFVians and learn about the general opinion on it.

I used to experience many issues with 3D cinemas in theaters like mild head ache after the movie, uncomfortable glasses, and vague backgrounds and vague objects in front of the focused object. The URL explains these very well, especially I liked the depth of field issue.

3D is ok for occasionally made good films like Avatar.

 

[Audiodoc]

For better depth perception the brain needs two images from which it calculates depth of field. You can test this by covering one eye and try to catch a ball.

As you will see it will be very difficult to do the same as compared to both eyes open.

The perception of objects in 3D accounts for many more parameters such as lighting, perspective etc. You may have seen many paintings or rangolis which give the illusion of 3D by altering perspective. The world is definitely in 3D however with 2 eyes the depth of field increases.

50 Absolutely Stunning 3D Street Art (Paintings)

 

[BLASTO]

PS while going through the article I read the author's view that we have 2 eyes so we can view the world in 3D... Does that mean ppl with one eye see the world in 2D???

Why not try yourself..

Take an object on your hand (a ball or even just two streched fngers). Strech your hand fully and focus to it wrt the background which is farther away. You will be able to perceive the depth (distance between the oject and background) well. Now close one eye and try. Forground and b ackground will appear in the same plane (2D).

If the background is like a floor with tile edges marked (for reference), you will be able to understand better.

 

[rajadeep]

Why not try yourself..

Take an object on your hand (a ball or even just two streched fngers). Strech your hand fully and focus to it wrt the background which is farther away. You will be able to perceive the depth (distance between the oject and background) well. Now close one eye and try. Forground and b ackground will appear in the same plane (2D).

If the background is like a floor with tile edges marked (for reference), you will be able to understand better.

Actually before writing the post I did try it myself... I closed my one eye & looked around & the world pretty much seemed 3D to me... 10 mins back I tried the ball exercise some suggested & yes I had a a slight reduction in motor skills & my coordination wasn't as good as it is when I use both my eyes but I could still judge the depth(it was harder but not really impossible) & could still catch the ball whenever I tried... So I would guess even with 1 eye I was still viewing the world in 3D... But somehow the article suggested that with 1 retina I would only see 2D image...

 

[cha_indian]

Yes, you can still judge distances and speed with one eye...that'z the reason why Pataudi was able to play cricket with one eye!

 

[Shivam]

Eye will see in 2D only, if there's just one working eye. The 3D information is from 'indirect clues' which I had said earlier and brain plays a major role in providing this. The only information that a single eye gets for the depth perception is difference in focus.

Coming back to the experiment with the ball with one eye closed. Try playing basket ball with one eye only.... Or to be more specific try throwing a basket without moving your head left and right.
Beyond 2 meters these focusing clues also disappear and the world becomes totally 2D for the eye, though a lot of indirect clues will still help the brain.

 

[andy78]

Maybe in a few years we will have a specs free 3D...

I think we already have one. But may not be available yet for the common people yet.

 

[Audiodoc]

Shivam is correct that a single eye perceives 2Dimages but at the same time provides cues to the brain .Cues like perspective, lighting and just by moving either the head or the object the brain receives multiple images with a single eye. The brain is a quick learner from these ques and with practice makes the person (say tiger pataudi) to judge the ball. With practice one can judge a ball making some sound even when one is blind, the brain is so pliable. Reasearch has proved that one can percieve objects using ones tongue (a program was aired on discovery a few weeks ago).

But at the end of the discussion the proper depth of field needs 2 images just like you need two ears for stereo music.

 

[koushikp]

From my perspective the real problem of 3D is that it is being shoved down our throats...in many movies we dont have any choice anymore to watch 2D in the theatres...it gives me a headache every time I watch a 3D movie...and am yet to get what the big deal is...the feeling of immersion is all forced and the headache very real...maybe in one or two scenes in the movie you will get a real depth perception and for that you have to endure the nonsense of this gimmick for 2-3 hrs.

 

[HTuser]

3D is being used as one of the mechanism to pull audience to theaters. Otherwise people are waiting the movie to come in channels. Since you can't watch 3D in any channels, people may go to theaters.

It is also being used as a specing for many AV components like Blu-ray player, AV Receiver, TV, Media players, projectors etc. Which will invoke a feeling that your current components are obsolete. Makers of these products wanted to show something new in their latest products and trying to justify the cost increase. 3D, HDMI 1.4a, etc can be added as highlight of the product.

Having said that, the projector I am planning to buy is Epson 8000 which is a 3D capable projector, but I am not planning to upgrade by BD Player or AVR to make my setup completely 3D capable at the moment.

If satellite channels start broadcasting sports events and other programmes in 3D, more people will upgrade to 3D.

 

[just4kix]

I concur with everyone's view against 3d. I hate that nowadays almost all hollywood movies are in 3d. I wish that Avatar had never happened at ask. The only movies that are enjoyable in 3d are animation.

Sent from my GT-I9100G using Tapatalk 2

 

[mk15]

I concur with everyone's view against 3d. I hate that nowadays almost all hollywood movies are in 3d. I wish that Avatar had never happened at ask. The only movies that are enjoyable in 3d are animation.

Sent from my GT-I9100G using Tapatalk 2

It's still just a handful which are in 3D. Maybe max 8-12 movies a year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[paritosh]

Well guys. 3D in its current avatar may be heded for a doom. But I do see some maniac trying to use the dual video stream to a more practical purpose like streamin two different channels symultaneously....
Dont you think its possible?????

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2