Why Are Trekkies Against 3D?

[The Laughing Vulcan]

How much of the 3D in what you percieve is actually down to the binocular vision supplied by 2 eyes?

How much of it is down to parallax? How much is down to field of view? How much is down to context?

As an experiment. Close one of your eyes, and look at the world. Does the world suddenly look as flat as a sheet of paper to you?

If so, then I concede to your argument, and that 3D films are indeed the way forward, and shall commence burning my 2D DVDs forthwith. Fifthwith even!

 

[Forbin]

re: 3D computer displays. Again, there are a lot of people who don't see 3D well. While 3D displays may be a nice option some day, they damn well better be able to display in 2D as well, for those of us who need or prefer it.

I'm thinking of a project we did at work for the US government. Even though we're running MS Word 2008 at work, the gov't required us to submit it in Word 2003, because they needed it to be compatible with every desktop in their offices. We actually had to have our IT people create backdated virtual desktops for us to use the older software. So while a new 3D OS will be cool as hell, it still better operate at 2D on older systems and for people who can't/don't wanna use it.

 

[Forbin]

How much of the 3D in what you percieve is actually down to the binocular vision supplied by 2 eyes?

Um. All of it.
3D requires two overlapping points of view. Otherwise depth can only be interpreted by movement (ie something in the foreground moves faster than something in the background) or interpretation of the scene (ie, that person is smaller than this person, therefore that person is further away).

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

How much of the 3D in what you percieve is actually down to the binocular vision supplied by 2 eyes?

Um. All of it.
3D requires two overlapping points of view. Otherwise depth can only be interpreted by movement (ie something in the foreground moves faster than something in the background) or interpretation of the scene (ie, that person is smaller than this person, therefore that person is further away).

Kind of contradicting yourself there.

 

[JarodRussell]

When we watch a 2D image, our brains apply the third dimension to it without needing the technology to help us out.

lolwut? When we watch a 2D image, we see a 2D image.

You can't tell what is suppose to be in the background and what you're suppose to be focusing on when looking at a 2D image?

That has NOTHING to do with 3d perception.

As an experiment. Close one of your eyes, and look at the world. Does the world suddenly look as flat as a sheet of paper to you?

Please, go ahead and try it. Run around a whole day with one eye covered. Try to pour liquid in a glass, play some ball, throw some hoops, etc...

How much of the 3D in what you percieve is actually down to the binocular vision supplied by 2 eyes?

Um. All of it.
3D requires two overlapping points of view. Otherwise depth can only be interpreted by movement (ie something in the foreground moves faster than something in the background) or interpretation of the scene (ie, that person is smaller than this person, therefore that person is further away).

Kind of contradicting yourself there.

Where?

re: 3D computer displays. Again, there are a lot of people who don't see 3D well. While 3D displays may be a nice option some day, they damn well better be able to display in 2D as well, for those of us who need or prefer it.

That's a no brainer. Of course you will be able to switch to 2D.

In fact, I don't get that anti 3D ranting at all. All you need to do is wear glasses that have only one polarization and you can watch a 3D movie in 2D in theaters.

 

[Bishop76]

When we watch a 2D image, our brains apply the third dimension to it without needing the technology to help us out.

lolwut? When we watch a 2D image, we see a 2D image.

Either you're deliberately obtuse or you actually don't understand what I meant by this. When you look at a 2D image, your brain interprets it in three dimensions. I can tell who is in front of who or in front of what object by simple contextual clues such as size, positioning, and the various angles of objects. When you watch a movie, you know where all of the action is taking place in all 3 dimensions WITHOUT stupid shit jumping off the screen at you. It is a gimmick.

And I'm not railing against 3D in general, I'm railing against 3D as it is now. If I thought it looked or was amazing, I'd be all for it. At this point, it's a joke. It typically looks like 2D images projected at varying distances off the screen or it's a stupid object flying off the screen at the audience and usually that also looks like crap and is as much a gimmick today as it was in the 1950s.

 

[JarodRussell]

When we watch a 2D image, our brains apply the third dimension to it without needing the technology to help us out.

lolwut? When we watch a 2D image, we see a 2D image.

Either you're deliberately obtuse or you actually don't understand what I meant by this. When you look at a 2D image, your brain interprets it in three dimensions. I can tell who is in front of who or in front of what object by simple contextual clues such as size, positioning, and the various angles of objects. When you watch a movie, you know where all of the action is taking place in all 3 dimensions WITHOUT stupid shit jumping off the screen at you. It is a gimmick.

That's depth perception and not stereoscopic vision. You can tell, but you don't actually see it that way. And sometimes, you can't tell.

And I'm not railing against 3D in general, I'm railing against 3D as it is now. If I thought it looked or was amazing, I'd be all for it. At this point, it's a joke. It typically looks like 2D images projected at varying distances off the screen or it's a stupid object flying off the screen at the audience and usually that also looks like crap and is as much a gimmick today as it was in the 1950s.

Oh man, you're still talking about that conversion crap. Have you actually ever seen a movie filmed in 3D?

 

[Bishop76]

Yeah, I can show you some forced perspective or altered shots as well. I'm not impressed. It's actually a cheap way to make some special effects work in films too. When the intent is not to trick, your brain still translates it into 3D. In fact, in the second shot, your brain is still translating it into 3D, it just is placing things wrong because it lacks other, essential information. That first shot is just a photoshopped focus trick and the second cuts off important details at the bottom of the frame that our brains would need to properly set the objects in their place in three dimensional space.

And I have seen a movie filmed in 3D (The aforementioned Avatar). It still looks like 2D shit at different levels in 3D space.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yeah, I can show you some forced perspective or altered shots as well. I'm not impressed. It's actually a cheap way to make some special effects work in films too. When the intent is not to trick, your brain still translates it into 3D. In fact, in the second shot, your brain is still translating it into 3D, it just is placing things wrong because it lacks other, essential information. That first shot is just a photoshopped focus trick and the second cuts off important details at the bottom of the frame that our brains would need to properly set the objects in their place in three dimensional space.

And I have seen a movie filmed in 3D (The aforementioned Avatar). It still looks like 2D shit at different levels in 3D space.

Please stop that "translating into 3D" shit. It's simply not true. The brain is not translating anything into 3D. It simply tells you based on experience what is what. Why do you think you have two eyes?

Show me some stereoscopic forced perspective shots if you can. You won't be able to. And that's the whole point.

And I've seen Avatar, too, repeatedly, in 3D, and what you say is again not true.

 

[Bishop76]

No, I won't stop it. It is true. Your brain translates every visual you see into something you can understand. And yes, there are optical illusions - which is usually contradictory information and the brain translating it incorrectly. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not so.

And please, stop spending money on multiple viewings of shit movies. If you keep seeing them, they'll keep making them.

 

[JarodRussell]

No, I won't stop it. It is true. Your brain translates every visual you see into something you can understand.

That is true. But it is not "translating into 3D".

And yes, there are optical illusions - which is usually contradictory information and the brain translating it incorrectly.

Stereoscopic vision gives you more information, eliminating the illusion.

 

[Forbin]

How much of the 3D in what you percieve is actually down to the binocular vision supplied by 2 eyes?

Um. All of it.
3D requires two overlapping points of view. Otherwise depth can only be interpreted by movement (ie something in the foreground moves faster than something in the background) or interpretation of the scene (ie, that person is smaller than this person, therefore that person is further away).

Kind of contradicting yourself there.

Nope.

 

[estar9821]

A significant enough portion of the population gets really nautious when watching 3D...myself and some family members included. For that reason, I hate it and always try to see stuff 2D. I felt like I was going to throw up while I watched Avatar in 3D. I liked the movie, but I ended up watching the rest of it blurry.

 

[itchy01ca]

^ it's not a matter if being upset or not, he has a point. It's hear to stay this time. Thankfully a glassesless version is in the pipeline, as us super hi-def. The new technology will keep on coming. It's up to film makers to use it wisely.

No, it's not here to stay. Enough directors are saying no to the idea and enough people are NOT showing up at the theaters that it WILL eventually be shoved under the carpet again. Until they invent a 3D experience that everyone can enjoy, people MIGHT go see ONE 3D movie in a year. And that's just people who want to watch 3D. There are millions of others who just don't want to or can't.

 

[Xerxes1979]

Does everyone agree that difference in the stereoscopic left/right images rapidly approaches zero only a few feet from your face? I agree with the poster that also posted those depth of field images.
These are all clues the brain needs to reconstruct a virtual space. Large lenses, large models were needed in the past to convince us that we seeing was a fictional analogue of a real life scene.

The effect of stereoscopic vision is at very close range, in nature it was to aid in the manipulation of tools and food within arms reach.

3D is not appropriate for any scenes filmed in the trek universe. Maybe we can watch Geordi push a button after Soran hacked his visor, but for watching the distance shots, no way.

If the TMP Enterprise jumped out at me through 3D it would look more holding a model very close to my face than a 1,000 foot ship.

Electronic polarized glasses are nothing new. I had the original Missile Defense 3D for Sega Master System and that was 25 years ago. Hollywood didn't event anything new.

 

[The Inquisitor]

^ it's not a matter if being upset or not, he has a point. It's hear to stay this time. Thankfully a glassesless version is in the pipeline, as us super hi-def. The new technology will keep on coming. It's up to film makers to use it wisely.

No, it's not here to stay. Enough directors are saying no to the idea and enough people are NOT showing up at the theaters that it WILL eventually be shoved under the carpet again. Until they invent a 3D experience that everyone can enjoy, people MIGHT go see ONE 3D movie in a year. And that's just people who want to watch 3D. There are millions of others who just don't want to or can't.

Neither of us can predict the future but looking at the current market its fair to say, with the investment going into the technology, it isn't just going to vanish this time.

You are correct in saying directors are saying no to the idea, many will, just like some still prefer to film in black and white (Steven Spielberg -Schindlers List) and some prefer not to use CGI (Neil Marshall - Dog Soldiers). Just because a technology is there doesn't mean everyone will utilise it. In the beginning people will capitalise on the novelty. Think about when colour films first broke through or the improvement to camera technology (the zoom).

Many are also spot on about the fact the current technology using glasses can cause headaches in some viewers. I myself wear spectacles anyway which makes it very uncomfortable wearing a second pair over the top. Poor sales figures for 3D TV sets in Japan have prompted investment in 'Glasses-less' 3D TV after market research pointed to the public's disdain for 3D glasses. This technology will be along before long and the 3D glasses will hopefully be consigned to history.

If and when the technology becomes commonplace then its wow factor will be gone and it will be part of the norm as CGI is nowadays. Think back to the release of Jurassic Park, so much was made of the CGI its all most people talked about but that amazement with CGI films is less so nowadays as its simply normal. CGI didn't just vanish, it evolved, the same will happen with 3D.

I'm also pretty certain the option will be given to watch in normal 2D as many customers, yourself included, would demand it. My local cinema has shown most 3D films in 2D also, for people who can't watch without experiencing discomfort.

 

[Sector 7]

Colour. Was it confined just to the movie industry? of course not. Can you imagine television without colour? And computer monitors too..

Imagine?! Heck, I remember it!

My brother and I had problems trying to watch Avatar in 3D. It gave both of us headaches. I also had problems trying to comfortably fit the 3D glasses over my own. My brother became nauseous from the experience. He had the same problem watching Coraline at home in 3D.

Today, I watched an HH Gregg advertisement wherein they are giving away all four Shrek movies in 3D with purchase of Samsung 3D television systems. Friends who work in electronics retail tell me they are having a very difficult time selling 3D home systems.

Until people are willing to buy 3D home systems, it is a fad. Those who want the latest technological fad will buy it, others are apparently not.

 

[AstroSmurf]

I just read a rather interesting and intelligent description of the issues 3D creates for the viewer's brain on Roger Ebert's blog. Check it out here. I now know why I come out of a 3D movie with a blinding headache. I also realize that there may not be a thing I can do about it either. (Of course I need to do a little research of my own to corroborate the information given in the blog post but for now I am accepting it conditionally as fact.)

 

[Bishop76]

^ Great article.

 

[Sector 7]

Thank you for that article, AstroSmurf. This article explains the problems my brother and I have experienced with 3D movies, such as Avatar. I am sending the article to him now.