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."

Comments

The glasses can do it too ...

[damn_registrars]

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.

Re:The glasses can do it too ...

[WED Fan]

Or the feeling that you had been mugged at the box office for the extra $3 and told that it's not for the glasses so you'll have to pay each time you see a 3D movie.

Re:The glasses can do it too ...

[GameMaster]

They were telling you the truth. There's no way the glasses cost $3 in the quantities they buy them in. What you're paying for with the additional $3 is the, extremely expensive, new projector equipment in the theater along with the premium experience that 3D is supposed to be.

Re:The glasses can do it too ...

[MBGMorden]

Well, that and the simple law of economics: something is worth what people will pay. People will pay more to see the 3d version, and so they charge more. Simple as that. If you don't want to pay the premium, then go to the 3d showing. Most theaters have 2d versions.

Re:The glasses can do it too ...

[EdZ]

It depends on the glasses. Simply circular-polarised glasses are dirt cheap. The funky multi-layer-dichroic filters used in Dolby-3D (it's like anaglyph, but with 6 specific wavelengths, 3 per eye. Think RlRrGlGrBlBr) are hella expensive. $50 per pair is what I've seen quoted and mentioned by the engineers. I guess the feel that the money saved on not needing a retro-reflective silver screen is better spent on the initial glasses cost and cleaning them between performances.
BTW, is the 'pay for your glasses' thing an American thing? Last time I saw a 3D film (in the UK), the glasses were included in the ticket price and gave them back after the performance.

Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[Drakkenmensch]

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.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[Scootin159]

Similar complaint here: I can only see with one eye. Thus to me, 3D movies only cost more, have a lower contrast and really blurry without special glasses. Of course, I'll still end up watching more of them than I wish because my wife loves the gimmick.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[GameMaster]

I too have worn glasses since childhood. I've never had a problem wearing the 3d glasses over my normal ones, and I purchase my frames from the "big" sized rack at the eye doctor's shop. Don't you think that, maybe, you're just being a little bit of a drama queen?

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[MortimerV]

Maybe your frames are different, maybe you have a big nose, maybe your theater uses differently sized 3D glasses, who knows!

Come to think of it, if you use big framed glasses do they have a separate nosepiece? Mine are small, thin glasses, but the nosepiece adds extra space to them. It's not the glasses pressing into my face, it's the nosepiece on my nose.

If I ever go to another 3D showing, I'm tempted to take the lenses from the 3D glasses and attempt to make them into a clip-on. That'd solve the annoyance of the big frames and mean I only have to wear one pair of glasses!

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[mcgrew]

Get contact lenses. They're cheaper than glasses and you might even get laid. If you have the money you can get your eye's lenses replaced with a cybernetic implant for about $15k.

Glasses SUCK and suck hard; I wore glasses until I was 50, when I fonally got contacts. I had my left lens replaced with the device I mentioned four years later.

Google CrystaLens. Or read this journal.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[ebuck]

I too have worn glasses since childhood. I've never had a problem wearing the 3d glasses over my normal ones, and I purchase my frames from the "big" sized rack at the eye doctor's shop. Don't you think that, maybe, you're just being a little bit of a drama queen?

Let's see. There are three general descriptions of eye defects, shortsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. They can be present in varying degrees. Astigmatism and short (or near) sightedness can be mixed in the same eye. Astigmatism involves an axis which will vary from person to person. There are literally tens of thousands of frames, each with their own dimensions. The standardized parts of the dimensions only extend to critical areas like the nose width and frame arm length.

Having an eye defect, and having been exposed to the world of corrected vision your whole life, how can you honestly tell me that a complete stranger shouldn't have a problem because you don't? Do you lack enough empathy for a person similar to yourself that you want to rub their affliction into their face), or are you actually so undereducated about your own condition that you believe the rest of the eyeglass wearing world is exactly like you?

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[Drakkenmensch]

Great idea! I'm going to pay 500$ per pair of 3D glasses I'll need... one for television, one per movie theater chain (not likely to use the same model, are they?), one per game console, one for the PC...

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[Dynedain]

Get contact lenses. They're cheaper than glasses and you might even get laid.

Bullshit. My wife and I have both worn corrective lenses since childhood, and have very similar vision problems. We just did the math a couple of weeks ago. Over 3 years usage*, my very expensive "designer" glasses from a boutique shop are less than her average-priced daily contacts** from a low-cost source. And that's not counting the fact that eye exams for contact lenses are significantly more expensive. In fact, my wife is considering laser surgery because it would be significantly cheaper than contacts in the long run.

* 3 years is the standard warranty on my glasses
** My wife had to switch from 2-week lenses to dailies because of a corneal infection

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[simcop2387]

While it wouldn't be as cheap as making your own, newegg has a set of clip ons for the circularly polarized films. big long ass url here. I don't know if that set would fit on yours but i'd imagine there are some out there. This might end up more comfortable and last longer than the ones you make yourself.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[aamcf]

There are no advantages of glasses over contacts whatever.

Apart from the fact that glasses can correct some vision problems that contacts cannot.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[bangwhistle]

I've worn glasses since I was a tyke. I wore contacts when I was younger and worried that glasses weren't "attractive" but now find glasses easier to care for than contacts. I have several pair with different looks, including sunglasses and all are multifocal. If 3D really catches on and one technology is settled on, it would be nice to go to the optician and buy 3D glasses with prescription lenses. Going to the movies - take along your 3D glasses. You wouldn't need multifocal lenses, UV protection, tints or anything fancy. I could see them costing less than a typical pair of everyday glasses. Indeed when home 3D TV hits it stride, having a prescription pair would be a no-brainer.

Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams!

[interkin3tic]

If contacts only marginally improves his vision, he doesn't even need glasses.

I meant that 3d is only a marginal improvement. It's just a not-so-cheap gimmick. A 3D movie is at best slightly better than a 2D version of it.

There are no advantages of glasses over contacts whatever

Dry eyes, sensitive eyes, fears about touching one's eyes, cosmetic value (to some people), personal preference, cheaper, less time in the morning and evening, headaches, and aamcf's point, just to name a few.

Give me black and white

[SoupGuru]

I'd take a black and white movie/show with a decent story over Avatar and its ilk and damn day of the week.

Make the 3D fad go away

[FrankSchwab]

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

Re:Make the 3D fad go away

[Beardydog]

I do. I absolutely can not get enough 3D content. I suffer through Red/Cyan anaglyph just to do my gaming in 3D. I've only seen two movies in 3D, as I'm fairly offended by the price (especially after the article, which I think made Slashdot, about non-sterile glasses, covered in cooties), but I hope to get my hands on a second projector soon, so I can chop up my cootie-encrusted theater glasses and live out my darkest, most polarized fantasies on the nearest reflective surface.

Re:Make the 3D fad go away

[brasselv]

Why do the movie companies believe that we want 3D?

Because otherwise you have no reason to upgrade your Blue-Ray player.

Re:Make the 3D fad go away

[GameMaster]

"I get distracted by the film reel change indicators also."

That, right there, should be all the clue you should need to tell you that your are abnormally over critical.

Re:Make the 3D fad go away

[mcgrew]

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?

because they're young and refuse to learn from history. 3D has come as a fad periodically during my life; I have a 3D movie on VHS (usues the two color cardboard glasses). The 3D at Epcot is impressive, but I agree with you that it doesn't and won't add to the experience.

As to why they think you'll buy it, how else are they going to get you to shell out on a new TV?

Depth of Field

[MBCook]

Call me back when they fix the depth of field issue. The whole scene needs to be in focus so that when my eyes aren't looking at precisely what the director wants, my eyes don't try to focus on something that can't be focused on.

Then Ebert is really against 3D because of how much darker the picture is, when normal movies are already projected too darkly half the time.

At this point, it still seems to be a gimmick. I remember reading that 3D ticket sales had fallen from 85% (or so) of ticket sales in some of the earlier 3D movies this year to ~40%. Clearly, people are realizing that it's usually a scam for an extra $5 from you.

Cameron worked on it for 10+ years. Nolan explicitly fought against making Inception 3D because he didn't think it would work. There is no way the no-name director of American Pie 7: Bagpipe Retreat is going to do 3D well.

Re:Depth of Field

[Beardydog]

I think the 85% may be at least partially due to hype, saturation, and (I suppose to a much smaller degree) technical details.

Avatar was hugely hyped. No other movie since has had so much energy poured into its marketing, particularly focusing on the sweeping majesty of the 3D. I watched in on a crummy screen, in 2D and was so horrified by the film itself that I have no plans to see it... but a kajillion people did. As a science fiction film, it also appealed more to the types of people interested in 3D, and technology. Shrek: Forever After appeals to a lot of people who just don't are about the 3D, or aren't even aware of the option.

Additionally, several of the movies that came out shortly after Avatar were "faked", with 3D added once the film was in the can. As huge fan of 3D, I am not willing to sit through a film stuffed with someone's idea of appropriate parallax. I want accurate parallax, dammit, or I want no parallax at all.

Re:Depth of Field

[GameMaster]

I'm a big fan of 3D, but I have to agree with you on the depth of field thing. I've gotten used to it, for the most part, but when I started watching 3D films, I had the same problem you did. I suppose that this would be an easy thing to fix for 3D rendered films (Shrek, Toy Story, etc.) but for live action films it will require new cameras with infinite focus.

Re:Depth of Field

[Daniel_Staal]

With a standard movie, when your eye can't focus on something it just files it into 'pattern on wall' and ignores it. In 3D, your eyes think they should be able to pick out objects and focus on them (because they can switch parallax to them), but they can't.

Re:Depth of Field

[sjames]

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.

Re:Depth of Field

[profplump]

In films that don't pretend to be 3D there's no conflict between the parallax and my focal distance, so I never have any reason to attempt to focus at some other depth. In fact, the limited field of focus is often used to show differing distances, to help make up for the lack of real depth information.

Plus it's *not* impossible to capture a re-focusable image -- you just need to capture the entire light field as opposed to the 2D projection of the light field captured by traditional photography. While not in common use, such devices actually exist: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/

Why not?

[sirwired]

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

Re:Why not?

[sjames]

It's NOT just the parallax. That's just the part that is actually simulated. We ALSO get depth information from the eye's focus. That's why when you close one eye and look around, it doesn't look exactly like looking at a picture of the room.

Note that the parallax is only simulated. The distance between the eyes matters. The 3D camera system just takes a reasonable average separation and calls it good.

Part of the headache is that the parallax says there is a varying depth, but the focus says it's flat.

Try getting around with one eye closed and the other dilated by the ophthalmologist and you'll 'see'.

Re:Why not?

[iamnobody2]

You seem to be awfully emotionally invested in this. Take it easy, you'll have a heart attack. Go see a movie, maybe on of those cool new 3D ones.

Re:Why not?

[clone53421]

No. He is correct. Close one eye and shift your focus from something very close to something distant. Everything out of focus is blurry. In a 3D movie, the focal plane of everything (NOT the parallax, but the actual distance at which the image will be sharp and in focus to your eye) is at the same distance.

There are two different attributes of 3D: Focal distance (how far away it actually is) and parallax (how much it appears to move if you move your head, or perceived by one eye vs. the other).

Parallax is easy to simulate and gives a very strong sense of 3D; focal distance is impossible to simulate (using current technology – it’d require a hologram) and gives a very weak sense of 3D, at a distance. Focal distance is almost a non-factor for distant objects. For near objects, it is much more noticeable.

The key – to doing 3D well, and not causing headaches – is to not cause objects to seem so close to you that the focal distance should be significantly different than it really is. Yes, that means you can’t do your lame jump-out-of-the-screen effects. Too bad, so sad...

Of course the other huge headache-inducer is when the producer decides to play with the lens effects to limit the range of focus... and then half the screen is horribly blurry. If you didn’t want to look at the blurry parts, you’re fine... but as soon as you want to look at something blurry, your eye starts trying to focus on it and can’t. In other words... this can be done, if it is done carefully and the audience only looks at the foreground. However, you had better be damn good at making your audience look where you want them to or else they’ll all hate you.

Re:Why not?

[thetoadwarrior]

I think it's time to take a break and step out of mother's basement for a breather.

Of course its not the tech's fault.

[Kitkoan]

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).

Porn

[jamesyouwish]

The 3D technology will only proliferate when the porn industry adopts it.

Re:Porn

[hviniciusg]

http://www.exbii.com/showthread.php?t=519243 NSFW

3D will die...again

[BetterSense]

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.

Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirrors. Completely flat. Such good 3d that people have been known to walk into them by accident.

Maybe

[SnarfQuest]

Maybe it's not the 3D that gives you a headache, it's the plot (or lack of it).

OK, they ran out of the safe room they had found, and into the scarey laboratory with the evil monster, split up, ripped up/off their clothes (always necessary), and then started randomly pressing every button in sight, and jumping into the first dark room they could find. Why should I be surprised that something bad happens to them? [Noise from banging my head on chair in front of me] Why should I get a headache? [bang! bang!]

Re:Maybe

[Arthur Grumbine]

OK, they ran out of the safe room they had found, and into the scarey laboratory with the evil monster, split up, ripped up/off their clothes (always necessary), and then started randomly pressing every button in sight, and jumping into the first dark room they could find.

I am intrigued by your plot, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Sincerely,
Uwe Boll

Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree

[Abcd1234]

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.

Your brain can tell the difference.

[Inominate]

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.

Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree

[dgatwood]

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.

Very close to my personal gripe

[ebuck]

Exactly. That's why I hate 3d movies, before I get the possible headache.

With 3d movies, since the screen is still flat, only one item can be in focus at any given time. The items in focus are those in the plane where the action is typically taking place, but sometimes something interesting is happening in the background. Attempts to view the background have you focusing on something that will never come into focus. This causes eyestrain and an uncomfortable visual feeling.

Most of the time people want to see what the director wants them to see; however, there were several scenes in Avatar where I wanted to look at the squad tactics in the background. It was quite disconcerting to know that they were permanently rendered out of focus.

If there wasn't part of the screen being rendered with tricks to simulate depth, I doubt I would have been so put off by the other parts of the screen failing to simulate depth in the same way.

Re:It is NOT 3d, you CANNOT get 3d from a 2d scree

[dgatwood]

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....