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.
This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an image interacts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979 for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect of its effect.
Wikipedia writes: "Murch is widely acknowledged as the person who coined the term Sound Designer, and along with colleagues developed the current standard film sound format, the 5.1 channel array, helping to elevate the art and impact of film sound to a new level. "Apocalypse Now" was the first multi-channel film to be mixed using a computerized mixing board." He won two more Oscars for the editing and sound mixing of "The English Patient."
"He is perhaps the only film editor in history," the Wikipedia entry observes, "to have received Academy nominations for films edited on four different systems:
• "Julia" (1977) using upright Moviola
• "Apocalypse Now" (1979), "Ghost" (1990), and "The Godfather, Part III" (1990) using KEM flatbed
• "The English Patient" (1996) using Avid.
• "Cold Mountain" (2003) using Final Cut Pro on an off-the shelf PowerMac G4.
Now read what Walter Murch says about 3D:
Hello Roger,
I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch
-
If this is better suited for the GDF, please move.
Have done, but the story can't grip me after the first viewing, for me Avatar was a onetime spectacle, The best 3D film, seen once on the big screen. I loved it, but i can't watch it anymore 3d or 2d. 3D works as far as im concerned..GOOD 3d not shit 3d.
Completely agree. I watched Avatar in the theater 2D first and I really liked the graphics, wasn't impressed by it because it's all been done before (full CGI characters: Gollum. Full CGI environment: Sky Captain... etc.) it just hasn't been done to that magnitude before which is why it was so different. Then I went to see it 3D (I knew it was a "groundbreaking" movie so I had to have the experience to tell my kids) and I hated it. It distracted from the picture, took the color away and took the charm out of the characters. The story wasn't that good and having the 3D aspect dragged it down even more to a more mediocre film.
In my opinion: Jackass 3D was a way better 3D film it was clever funny and just poked fun and the stupidness of 3D ... and James Cameron and his ego and suck it.
So basically people who get headaches at 3D films are evolutionary inferior to those of us that don't.
Well...It's been good knowing you but you're going to die off soon.
To be fair there has only been two films where the 3D has been executed effectively and convincingly...Avatar and Tron: Legacy.
As for the biology of it...Don't really care...If a film, to me, benefits from 3D then I'll watch it. If it was merely made in 2D and adapted to 3D then usually it's just shit, jaggy and stuttering...As an example of how bad it can be...SAW 3D when the 1st girl's guts come flying out the screen is absolutely pathetic.
I liked Tron in 3D, I thought it looked great... but I don't care to see anything not in a computer world rendered in 3D. I had to go to three theaters to find one not playing Green Hornet in 3D.
__________________
Play League of Legends for free and reference me - GentlemanZombie - when you join
what about Thor?
what about Spiderman?
what about every other superhero that isn't Nolan's last?
btw I love watching Avatar in 3D, it was a spectacle, was well done and not as distracting as many other 3D movies that just throw things at your face... and so far the Bluray is the best BR there is...
though in most cases 3D is distracting and straining in the eyes, I think the movies that best benefit from the gimmick are animated movies, "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs" being the prime example.
I don't hate 3D for the simple fact that is a money-grabbing gimmick, as most who hate it do. I simply don't care about it. It's not like is the only version available, you can watch ANY movie in 2D anyways at the cinema. If a movie is crap, is gonna be crap regardless of 3D or not. Not a single movie is better because of it either, and shooting movies in 3D doesn't hurt a 2D version in the slightest, not in anyway (at least not yet)...
so WHY B*TCH about it?
__________________
"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die." -BANE
Don't know about your area, but 3D gets priority in the larger/better screens here. EG If I wanted to see Avatar in 2D, I would have had to settle for the small screen with shit sound. **** that.
Well, for me, that's the same argument for why a book is better than a film. I disagree. I think films are better than books for the most part.
3D is just another visual tool. That's it. It's a more profound visual tool than a dramatic zoom or a slow pan. But it's still a filming tool and should not be slighted.
As soon as we have vivid holgraphic projections (not the largely transluscent kind) people will love 3d...specially pervs.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 27th, 2011 08:20 PM
