I've actually tried to find someone to debunk the complaints about the current mechanics of 3D films, but haven't had much luck. So I'm going to have to run with the idea that a relative handful of movies, filmed with sufficient creativity, are all that should be viewed in 3D.
It appears the vast majority of 3D films are simply gimmicks to give Hollywood more money and some viewers headaches and seizures. Almost all of the articles I've found extolling the virtues of 3D are from industry sources - people who stand to make money off the technology, no matter the value or quality of the product.
I'll start with Rogert Ebert's blog from a year ago in which he reprints a note from Walter Murch to Ebert. He's referencing that letter when he says
I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.
The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.
In his letter, Murch explains some of the issues with current 3D technology and says:
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
(my emphasis)
Here's the blog post: Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed
My friends at Fox News a year ago talked about the side of effects of viewing 3D entertainment:
Based on an unscientific, online survey, the American Optometric Association estimates that 25 percent of Americans have experienced headaches, blurred vision, nausea or similar problems when viewing 3-D.
TV makers do their own testing, but don't publish results. Samsung warns on its Australian website that its 3-D TVs can cause "motion sickness, perceptual after effects, disorientation, eye strain, and decreased postural stability." The last part means viewers risk losing balance and falling.
"We do not recommend watching 3-D if you are in bad physical condition, need sleep or have been drinking alcohol," the site continues.Nintendo Co. says children aged 6 or younger shouldn't play with its upcoming 3DS handheld gaming system with 3-D technology, because it might affect vision development.
Here's their post: 3D Images Make Millions Sick, Yet Tech Companies Push On
(and the film industry).
A rosier picture for the future of 3D is painted by Patrick Miller reflecting on 3D at this year's CES:
I wouldn't be surprised to see a satisfactory glasses-free 3D prototype at next year's CES, a ridiculously expensive one in 2014, and a pricey but reasonably worthwhile model in 2015--just in time for everyone who bought a 3D TV in the last pwo years to consider upgrading. Lucky you.
Here's his post: Why 3D TV Isn't 'Cool' at CES This Year
Here are a few more posts on the subject:
Visit On-Site Technical Solutions for information on how you can move to Google Apps or other Cloud Computing applications. Call us for all of your network computing and business IT needs. We can also help with your data security and mobile computing. Follow us online below. Call or text me at 1-949-212-2168.
Technorati Tags
No comments:
Post a Comment