"Why 3D doesn't work" - Walter Murch (via Roger Ebert)

Jawa Ex Machina said:
How would this type of depth make the image "better", and how would that further the story?
Click to expand...

I edited and expounded above. 3D does add depth. And I believe if shot correctly can increase the feel of "being there" or viewing it as reality. But much like your eyes are a window into the world, we see 3D with them but the world never invades behind your eyes. Everything always has depth in front of you. The same should be true of 3D cinema IMO. There should always be depth beyond the screen, NOT in front of it.

Also, I really think head tracking is the ticket http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I hate to say it, but I don't think 3D is going away this time. Never before have people been given the tools to capture, edit, and display everything in 3D... still cams, video cams, TVs... nah... it isn't going away this time.
Click to expand...

The market has an exquisite history of smacking down the plans of engineers and companies who supply what they want to sell rather than what people actually want to buy -- and it has been shown time and time again that people just don't care about 3D as anything more than an occasional curiosity. Having the tools to make it won't change that.
 
TheReverend said:
I edited and expounded above. 3D does add depth. And I believe if shot correctly can increase the feel of "being there" or viewing it as reality. But much like your eyes are a window into the world, we see 3D with them but the world never invades behind your eyes. Everything always has depth in front of you. The same should be true of 3D cinema IMO. There should always be depth beyond the screen, NOT in front of it.
Click to expand...
I agree that shoving things towards the audience is a big mistake.
But any depth in a stereoscopic image is only simulated depth because we're not talking about a 3D environment, we're talking about two very ordinary 2D images that look almost, but not quite, the same.
And even if we did talk about an actual 3D environment (like in a video game like GTA), in a movie that still doesn't do anything because the object of filmmaking is never to re-create reality. It's always about telling a story, and it's the storytelling that submerges the audience into the film, not the images and not the audio and not the music.

I'm sorry to be the one to say this in a camera forum, but the cinematography is there only to enhance the story.

Even though film is said to be a visual medium more than anything, when you break it down it's actually a psychological medium.
And psychologically, there's no way to utilize a stereoscopic image to support the storytelling without reminding the viewer he's watching a movie, and that's where they wake up and realize they're watching a film.

When it comes to things like CGI and 3D, the problem is always the same. These things get in the face of the viewer. CGI is an awesome tool, but it's great when it comes to removing things from the screen. When it comes to adding things, it's not that great compared to miniatures and make up.
3D is also always a presence. There's no negative space when it comes to 3D. It's all right there up on the screen.

Storytelling works best when it comes to stimulating the imagination. That's why I always say the best and only way to truly create a submersive 3D environment is to use a really good sound mix and surround sound. Enviromental sounds like rain and traffic all around you while you're watching a 2D image works great. You get a much better sense of being in that scene than with any stereoscopic image.

Another example is horror films. It's not what you show, it's what you DON'T show. You avoid showing the face of the monster (at least until the very, very end). Have it wear a mask. Hide it in shadows or off screen or out of focus or behind hair. Use the negative space.
You stimulate the imagination in the minds of the audience, and in their heads they create a 3D environment.

With stereoscopic images (and CGI) it's all on screen so it's ineffective.
 
Last edited:
Gord: Put the red box on the screen and keep it there.
Now imagine the eyes trying to shift focus as if it was moving towards and away from them but it actually staying where it is.

Only the eye muscles are working, the eyes aren't moving. That's where the conflict is.

I'm not an expert on this either, but I would assume they function together through the autonomic nervous system, but they still have to function. Whether it's conscious or not, it's still strenuous.
 
I'm tired of this 3d trend since it bumps up the price of movie tickets for us broke people. Plus those glasses are heavy as hell.

When I saw Toy Story 3 last year, I stopped noticing the 3D effect about 10 min in and the giant glasses were hurting my face the rest of the movie.
 
I really liked the true IMAX 3D experience, with the battery powered glasses that are synchronized with the projector.

The cheap RealD glasses are more like wearing polarized ND gel over your eyes.

After seeing a few movies in 3D now on the RealD system, I'm ready to go back to the brighter world of 2D viewing.
 
TheReverend: "There should always be depth beyond the screen, NOT in front of it." -- this was also my experience. When an object or character "came through" the screen, it made me very aware of the "window frame" which they came through, taking me out of the story. Also the "3D" perception looks simplified, like my memory of looking at Viewmaster slides as a kid, with emphasised background, mid ground and foreground. So, my initial experience was not positive, though it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

They say that 3D failed in the 50's not so much because people didn't like wearing the specs but because most of the 3D films were quite cheap, exploitation type movies. No one likes bad movies in any format. Whereas the type of movies that originally pushed CinmeaScope were expensive studio productions which helped establish that quality "brand" in the minds of the audience. Today there would seem to be some serious studio commitment and investment in 3D films, so I anticipate some effort will be made to make it stick this time around; to make 2D movies seem as obsolete as B/W was when colour was making inroads, and also provide another difference between the theatre experience and TV.
 
But 3D movies aren't 3D.
They're projected onto a flat plane, with DOF rendered to appear to be 3D.
Try focusing on any BG element and you'll see it's rendered with a false DOF, ie: fuzzy. That's why people get headaches and or sick (or it's just a bad movie, but if it's in 3D then... insert spiral argument here) you can't focus on an out of focus picture, your eyes can't process it so BOOM, headache.

There is no such thing as a 3D movie, just a really weird 2D type thing.
 
Gord.T said:
1/ If you look in a mirror do you see 3D? Yes you do. Is it a 2D flat surface? Yes.
Click to expand...
This example doesn't work, because in fact you are not looking at a 2D flat surface, you are looking at, for all intents and purposes, a 3D image. Which is why your brain works fine with it.

You never actually look at the mirror. You look at what's reflected in the mirror. And the objects that you see, you can only see because light is bouncing off of them. And that light has indeed traveled further, so you are in effect looking "into" the mirror.

Here's a simple example -- go tape a piece of paper on a mirror, then stand three feet away from it and point a camera at the mirror. What distance will you get sharp focus on? Well, if you're focusing on the paper, it'll be three feet. But if you're pointing it at your reflection, it'll be six feet. The "depth" that you see in a mirror is legitimate depth, affected by distance, and you're not really focusing on the mirror at all. The light has to travel three feet from you to get to the mirror, and then bounce off and travel three more feet to get back to the lens. There is a legitimate six feet of depth being observed there, which is why your lens has to focus at six feet, not at three where the mirror is physically located.

No, I think Murch is onto something and it makes a lot of sense.
 
"A 3-D (three-dimensional) film or S3D (stereoscopic 3D) film[1] is a motion picture that enhances the illusion of depth perception."

The "illusion" of 3D.

I'll say it again, there is no such thing as a 3D film, only a screwed up 2D-ish thing. Every film projected gives you the x and y axis, it can't give you the z axis even with the magic glasses, hence.... 2D-ish thing.

Even a mirror only gives the "illusion" of 3D otherwise you could reach in to it.
 
But the mirror is doing something fundamentally different than a 3D film is. It isn't a 2D surface, it's in fact a non-surface. It emulates true 3D optically, in a way that works compatibly with the human brain and vision system.

I only brought it up because it was used as an example to disprove Murch's allegations, and I don't think that's a sustainable objection because it is not a surface that you focus on.
 
I just wish they'd quit calling them 3D movies when they aren't. They are at best enhanced 2D movies.

Of course you'd have a hard time selling an "Enhanced 2D Television" to the wallowing masses as the marketing genius types hope everyone will fall for.

I mean Steven Soderbergh is planning a 3-D musical version of Cleopatra (seriously).
barf-bag.jpg
 
You've convinced me about the mirror. I can buy that.

Understanding focusing is giving me a bit of trouble.
I just tried a simple experiment using just one eye so there would be no convergence issues.

I held one finger close to my eye with the computer screen a couple feet behind it.
With one eye I could focus on the finger or the screen with the other item going out of focus accordingly.
I guess that's just muscle control. Then again peripheral vision also has an influence. But that shows that focus is independant of convergence.
Even looking the page of my words and staring at a single word, I can only recognize a couple of words around it. Which probably helps to explain why I don't catch many typos while typing on the fly.


This is getting too complicated for me. I think I'll go watch an episode or two of the Simpsons. Mmmm, donuts.
 
But this is how "3D" movies are made, all non primary layers are out of focus in order to "pretend" to be at a different DOF. Your eyes try to focus on a BG element and can't because it isn't in focus.
No 2D plane can replicate the missing z axis.

231-focus1.jpg
 
It took awhile to sink in but I think I've got it now.

The eye has to focus on the screen because that's where the image is. The same as a picture.
The convergance point is different which was what everyone was trying to explain. I got it. Thanks for helping clear that up for me.

Another thing though, with 3D, the left and right eyes see two slightly different images. That would mean that each eye has a slightly different focal point also. Like trying to look at opposite ends of a word on a page, at the same time, sort of.
So I can see that causing eye strain also. That's in addition to the focal point(s) being different from the convergence point which 'may' cause further eye strain.

So I think I got it finally. In that case I'd agree with the article now.
Tada.


I wonder if that same effect is present with the 3D headsets like the new Sony? Because how could your eye focus on such a close surface?
I have a funny feeling that'll cause headaches too.

Btw, I've never had a headache from watching 3D films. Lucky so far guess.
I have had, often daily, bad eye strain headaches from looking at a CRT screen all day. That all stopped the day I changed to LCD about a year ago. I've been fine ever since. I suspect glare and refresh rates were causing them but I'm not sure.
 
It sounds like an old people discussion here. Is anybody in this discussion under 25? While I don't like 3D, I'm old. Old people are irrelevant with regards to whether or not 3D works. Walter Murch is old. It only matters what 3-25 year want to watch at the movies. If they want 3D, then it is here to stay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top