urbo73
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 126
- Real Name
- Ryan Campo
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
Originally Posted by Leo Kerr
I saw a 3-D film once or twice [Space Hunter and the Imax Galapagos Islands thing, from the projection booth.] And numerous ViewMaster and Steriopticon thingies, too. While they're a neat gimmick, they never struck me as being particularly realistic. The stereo-slides and stereo-"cards" to me, always presented more like a shoe-box diorama, where different elements of the picture are cut out of paper, and glued into place "in space." Not, for example, a "doll" standing in front of a mural, but a paper-doll standing in front of a mural.
Something that came to me just as I was reading the Ebert-blog, and remembering Cees' post, was one of the most pro-3D people I know is also the person with the worst eye-sight I know. His glasses make old glass Coke-bottles seem thin and delicate. And his vision has been crap since he was born.
And he's wildly in favor of 3D.
I, on the other hand, have always had excellent vision, and never thought much of it.
Granted, this is a sample-size of two. Is there anyone else willing to compare their three-d experiences with their vision?
Leo
Originally Posted by Will_B
Seems like the convergence issue is only a concern for 3D movies that have the gimmick of things "flying out of the screen". Though these objects seem to be near to us, and therefore would seem to require us to shift our eyes to a slightly cross-eyed position, we do not need to -- that would be a waste of effort. So it causes some fatigue.
But if we're looking into a "deep" 3D picture, the technique used in Avatar and Resident Evil (in which things go not "fly out" but rather extend back into the distance), our eyes are already pretty much staring straight ahead into the infinite distance already.
No doubt someone needs to hook up some viewers to machines to measure how their eyes are moving during 3D films, to get a better understanding of whether people's eye muscles are getting an unneeded workout. But even if they are, I doubt this is a problem that "many doctors" would care about -- after all, what about the long term damage caused by watching movies in black and white? It is unnatural, but we do just fine. What about 2D films? Also unnatural. Our mind expects us to need to adjust our focus, but some camera operator already did it for us!
Originally Posted by Leo Kerr
I heard someone say.. and I'm being vague, here, 'cause it was second hand, and I can't remember who was being attributed...
But in short, when you're piecing together a 3D film, you need to make sure that from shot-to-shot, you aren't "jumping" too far in apparent depth. Or that the shot itself changes, allowing the eye to "adjust" to the "location" in depth. Yo-yo-ing too much is a guaranteed way of making the audience sick.
Which is, in itself, a perfectly fine and understandable statement, and probably mostly true.
The challenge then becomes, how do you produce this film? Normally, the film is written, storyboarded, shot, edited, and so on. And the finished film may look nothing like the storyboards. But if you're storyboarding with the "depth" element, and shoot for that, and then the editor says, "we need to do this," but the depth-cues are all wrong, do you re-shoot? Screw the audience?
Or shoot 2-D and do a conversion?
The argument was it was generally easier, and gave better results, to do a 2-D conversion than it was to do a proper 3-D shot, 'cause then when you're doing the conversion, you could control the depth-cues, without having to re-shoot.
Leo
Originally Posted by AlexS2
Kind of a silly article and conclusion, regardless of Murch's pedigree.
3D doesn't work and will never work...sure, except for all the people for which it already does.
Ebert's anti-3D agenda is petty at best