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."
NO NO NO NO NO.
It is NOT 3d, it is NOTHING LIKE 3d.
The "object" that I am viewing (the flat, 2d, screen) is a fixed distance from my eyes, the parallax for EVERYTHING displayed on the screen, and the focal length for EVERYTHING displayed on that screen is the same.
This is as "3d" as those optical illusions are "motion". eg NOT.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
It's such a strain to wear an extra set of glasses for a couple of hours a few times a week (at most)? I think not. (Yes, I know what I'm talking about - I wear glasses every waking hour too.)
Take your karma whore drama queen act elsewhere.
how's that different to 2D movies where the background is out of focus?