Slashdot Mirror
Why Bad 3D, Not 3D Glasses, Gives You Headaches
Barence writes "The most common complaint about 3D is that the glasses give you a headache, but that's not actually true, according to the man who teaches the pros how to make better 3D. Speaking at the BBC in London, Buzz Hays, chief instructor for the Sony 3D Technology Center in Culver City, California, explained: 'It's not the technology's fault, it's really the content that can cause these problems. It's easy to make 3D but it's hard to make it good — and by "good" I mean taking care to make sure that this isn't going to cause eyestrain.' He went on to detail some of the mistakes made by inexperienced 3D film makers, from poor composition of shots, through uncomfortable convergence settings, to overuse of on-set monitors without viewing their content on a big screen. But the biggest admission Buzz made was that not even the 'experts' know all the tricks yet, which is why 3D should only get better from here. In the same seminar, Buzz also explained why 3D glasses are here to stay — at least for the next few years."
At least, I'm pretty sure that the movie Avatar was not physically squeezing on the sides of my head and pushing down on my nose.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Why do I hate 3D glasses? Because I'm near sighted and had to wear glasses every day of my life... now watching movies or television is going to require a SECOND pair on top of the first one? Go to hell, hollywood, for making my everyday life even more impractical than it already is.
I'd take a black and white movie/show with a decent story over Avatar and its ilk and damn day of the week.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I'm sorry, I have yet to see a movie in 3D where 3D provided anything additional to my movie experience other than a headache.
I watched Avater, and was distracted from the movie by the places that the 3D effect broke up badly. Of course, I get distracted by the film reel change indicators also.
Why do the movie companies believe that we want 3D? Heck, why do the television manufacturers believe that I'm willing to spend 2 grand more for it? Does anyone here feel that its a useful addition to a movie? /frank
And the worms ate into his brain.
Your current vision system consists of a pair of 2D image sensors (a.k.a. your Retinas)... so I don't see why the mere fact that the screen is 2D should be an absolute obstacle to re-creating the parallax that makes your 2D vision into 3D.
SirWired
He's the chief instructor for the Sony 3D Technology Center, so of course he'll tell you its not the tech's fault. Its his job to make sure people don't go against this technology. Its all about PR and the millions/billions of dollars invested and wanted to be made from this. Its like when a cellphone loses signal when you hold it in the wrong way, its not their products fault, it's the users fault because to admit "Hey, we screwed up" will cost much more money then to try to trivialize the problem and hope people will shift blame from the real issue (the tech itself).
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
The 3D technology will only proliferate when the porn industry adopts it.
I just hope that it dies before it starts to change the way cinematographers shoot movies, because they are under pressure to make the movie '3d-able'. Composing a film for 3d is an entirely different paradigm compared to the decades/centuries of NORMAL filmmaking and cinematography. I bet in future decades, when people watch today's movies without the lame 3D glasses, everyone looks back at pictures from this era and wonder why everything is composed in the center of the frame, with deep-focus effects and limited pans and zooms.
Not true, the point of view does not respond to changes in head/eye position as it would with a 3-dimenstional object. Your eye can tell that it's not perciving things that really exist in 3 dimensions because of that.
That's probably the cause of the eyestrain. Your eyes keep moving and altering focus to try and sort out whether what you're seeing a 3-d object or not (it seems 3-d but doesn't respond like it's 3-d)
Mirrors. Completely flat. Such good 3d that people have been known to walk into them by accident.
Please, that's not remotely true.
Watch Avatar. Now try to focus on something that's out-of-focus in the background.
"WTF", your eyes say, "I know I'm *supposed* to be able to bring that tree into focus, but I can't!" That's because it's *not* 3D. At best, its a fragile optical illusion.
We use a more than binocular vision to see things in 3d. One way is moving our head position, though in a movie theater this isn't really a big deal. Another important way is by focus. This is one reason why 3d movies cause headaches. When they gimmick out to make things "pop out" of the screen, the image our eyes see doesn't match up with how our eye wants to focus on it.
There's nothing really wrong with 3d movies, it could potentially add something. The current state of 3d movies however is to pack the movies with distracting "HOLY SHIT IT'S 3D!" gimmicks that add nothing.
It IS a gimmick. Note that there is absolutely nothing new about the technology. We've been able to do 3-D since the stereoscope (invented 1838). We've had the ability (and actual existent hardware) to do it with polarized glasses for decades. The old style color based 3-D from the '50s works as well as it ever works on a standard old color television (and so, with a regular DVD player or VHS).
Note the distinct lack of clamor for any of that for decades on end. Note that the 3-D bluray COULD render the 3-D content into the old-style red-blue 3D so it can work on a regular TV. They're not interested in that since it would mean less drooling early adopters paying through the nose for a 3-D TV.
Close. The primary cause of the headaches is that the parallax angle doesn't match with the optical focus.
Your body is wired to have your eyes focus close up when your eyes are crossed substantially (pointed at something close) and focus far away when they are not. With 3D movies, anything that doesn't appear to be roughly in the same plane as the screen is going to cause headaches because your eyes are converging on something closer or farther away, but focusing at that distance. As long as your primary action occurs mainly at the screen depth and there is minimal activity in front of it to cause you to converge your eyes unnaturally closer than the screen, you shouldn't get headaches (assuming the glasses aren't too tight).
I'm assuming that we're talking about passive 3D here (polarization-based). The active systems (alternating fields) cause even more headaches because of how much more they depend on persistence of vision.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Man, that would be awesome. Wouldn't be very practical in a theater, of course.
Then again, theaters aren't very practical to begin with. You're driving halfway across town, paying half again more (per person) than the DVD will cost to buy two years from now, and spending fifteen bucks on a tub of popcorn and a coke, all for the pleasure of sitting there in a chair that looks like some homeless guy peed in it, with a sticky floor, squeezed between two morbidly obese people while their kids sit behind you and throw popcorn at your head, all the while having trouble watching the movie for all the laser pointers and screaming children....
Yeah, I watch movies at home anyway unless I'm on a date, and ideally, even then....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.