"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."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html#more
Based on what we know about depth perception and the brain, do you agree with Roger?
The film editor obviously has a different appreciation for film than your average joe, but he analyzes 3D from the chair of an audience member. He says that in a regular 2D movie if you get caught up in the story you can get lost in the movie and kind of float around almost like an out of body experience. I don't know if anyone has experienced this in a theatre, but you are watching the movie and a distracting noise is made. You feel yourself almost snap back into your body before you can turn to process the noise. Murch holds that 3D is a constant reminder of our body and where it is in relation to the picture, and therefore prevents us from floating off into a sort of trance or meditative state.
Also the mechanisms by which 3D works do seem to go inherently against the fundamentals of our visual system. But there has to be some kind of trick otherwise 3D would not work. Murch says that the trick is to force the eye to have to focus on the main image (the ground maybe?) and an image which appears much closer (you could call it the figure?) at the same time. This creates the illusion of depth and therefore a 3D image. The "3D" part, or the part that appears to be sticking out at us must be in the center of the screen. If it is in the periphery our attention will not be focused to this and the 3D effect will not work. It takes a very specific kind of focusing to see 3D, kind of like those colorful line images that if you stare at the center and move them back and forth you can see an image. By putting something, like the Terminator's hand in the universal studios theme park 3D ride, right in front of your face you are almost literally forcing the brain to focus on it, to direct attention to the new stimuli.
I have always gotten headaches from 3D movies. It was interesting reading why that is. If I have an option to see a movie in 3D or 2D I will always pick 2D. I can't enjoy the movie anyways if I have a headache through the whole thing. I think a lot more people like 3D and won't get fed up with it any time soon. It will be popular till the next new trend comes out.
You would think since our everyday life is in 3D that it would not be a major undertaking to watch a 3D movie. I found it interesting that according to Murch's letter our brain has to work harder to view 3D movies. I also get headaches watching 3D movies and I wonder what part of our brain is "working harder" that may cause headaches? I think this topic might be a good one to explore more when we get into the space perception chapter and possibly the motion perception chapter. I always thought I got a headache at 3D movies because of the large scale motion that occurs when movies use 3D. I get motion sickness easily and thought that might be a reason as well.
Interesting, yet I do not really buy it. I do not have much experience with 3D movies, I have only seen 2 3D movies, and I actually enjoyed it and it I think it is fun and entertaining . So, if average person likes it and do not have headache then I do not see any problem.
I have to disagree, ive gone to a number of 3d movies and never had a problem with it, ive always enjoyed them, generally even more than the 2d movie. I would say that 3d is for some people but not all people.
While I do sometimes enjoy 3D movies, I do see where this guy is coming from. It does take away from the plot of the movie when you have to concentrate on the screen and placement the entire time. I think 3D is fun every once in a while but I am so glad that our tvs at home are still in 2D. Can you imagine having to watch a 3D television all the time? With the glasses and everything. It would be such as hassle, not to mention a big headache. Our eyes just aren't meant for that type of thing. Plus, I don't see why they have to spend so much money on these 3D movies when they are just as good without the 3D. You would think that the money could go towards something a little better! But that is just my opinion. Like I said, I do enjoy them every once in a while. I'm just glad it doesn't have to be all the time. (Yet!)
I also have experienced headaches from viewing a 3d movie. I never thought about what might be causing this to happen and like others have just blamed it on the fact that I occasionally experience motion sickness. After learning about how the 3d image is created (making our eyes focus on the main figure as well as something that appears to much closer at the same time) I can understand how that would "overwork" your visual system and make you get headaches. I find it interesting however, that not everyone experiences these headaches. I wonder why some people can handle the effects of a 3d movie and others can not.
I understand his point. However, I kind of look at it as a smaller scale of comparing a book and a 2D movie. The book is always better because your imagination is doing all the work. But I still do enjoy watching 2D movies. Now move up to 3D, you have to do even less imagining. 3D movies are visually appealing. I saw Avatar in 3D and 2D and it's not nearly as entertaining in 2D. It was an ok story, however the story really has the same basis as multiple others (I always think Fern Gully meets Dances with Wolves). What made the movie great is the visual appeal. There are actually support groups out there because supposedly enough people became depressed after seeing the movie because they would never be able to live in a world as beautiful as Pandora. I find it pretty sad that these exist but I'm sure it would never have happened if the movie had been in only 2D. The movies may not be for everyone, but let the people who love them, enjoy them
The human eye focuses on objects with accommodation; the lens gets fatter as you direct your gaze towards nearer objects, or converge. Convergence when eyes retina rotate inward. It shifts and places the object on corresponding locations in the two retinal images, usually the fovea of each eye. The fovea provides details and focus. In movies, viewers must converge and focus on a screen. In 3D while viewers are looking at the screen, viewers’ retinas must constantly converge and focus objects depending on the illusion “10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on”. This according to Walter Murch is a overload for our brains and gives people headaches. Thus the product is not worth the price. Munch states this that if a film is good, it will not need this effect. I agree with this and think its an interesting topic in the movie world. I do not think that all movies need this effect or that all movies should be switch solely to 3D. It can be an unenjoyable overload for some.
I found this article to be pretty interesting. While I find 3d movies to be very entertaining, I can understand how some people may not like them. It makes sense that our visual system has to work harder in order to focus on multiple things. I thought it was interesting that he pointed out how wearing the glasses makes your visual field smaller and therefore edges are detected sooner. I think it's true that a good movie should be based off the plot and whatnot but seeing things in 3d can bring more excitement; if your brain can handle it.