Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)

[Jon Fairhurst]

3D isn't an either/or proposition for consumers. I expect that people will continue to watch most everything in 2D, but will switch to 3D for special events like the Super Bowl or "popcorn movie night". And, of course, 3rd person shooter games. I'll be really surprised if people start watching Eyewitness News in 3D anytime soon.

For the viewer it's no big deal. A 3D TV doesn't suffer any limitations when in 2D mode. Aside from a relatively small price bump up front, there's no downside.

I'm a bit more concerned on the production side though. I might shoot a 2D film today with shallow DOF (e.g. "House, The Movie!"), but if I'm making a 3D version, I might instead choose a deeper focus. Shallow DOF and 3D don't mix all that well.

And then there's the frame rate. 24fps isn't quite fast enough for a smooth 3D experience. So, while my 2D film is definitely 24fps, and normal scenes have a 1/48 shutter, I might shoot a 3D film at 48fps and 1/96.

So, now my 3D film looks great, but my 2D version looks like "video" due to the fast frame rate and deep focus.

Maybe we need to shoot with three cameras: two for 3D and a third at 24fps, 1/48 shutter, and shallower DOF so I can deliver a high quality 3D AND 2D experience.

But for people watching sports and games in 3D, there is no real concern. We will still watch most content in 2D. 3D will be for special events and experiences only.

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't think a shallow DOF isn't really a part of the "film look"as such, 16mm and 8mm definitely look like film as do 35mm films using deep focus. You can have it on a video production and it still looks like video. Perhaps it's more characteristic of a certain type of film production that people aspire to.

A larger DOF seems to be a characteristic that is important on 3D movies and the 2/3" SI 2K has found a niche shooting them. One DP is looking forward to the 2/3" Scarlet for the same reason.

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

3D is the way of the future, baby.

Meh. So was betamax. So was quadraphonic sound.

3D is only the way of the future if customers buy it. I didn't buy betamax and I'm not planning to buy 3D. I think 3D is the way of the future all right -- betamax's future, not mine.

[Dan Brockett]

Even though I am very cynical about the reasons that 3D technology is being pushed so hard by the studios and manufacturers, I think Glen has a valid point.

There will be money to be made in 3D. Just as some of the early HD pioneers made boatloads of money pushing HD content ten years ago, there will be some money to be made with 3D (at a normal producer level, not a James Cameron level). It smart to at least be knowledgeable about 3D and to know how to shoot with it, even if you have no plans to buy 3D gear. If you have a client who wants 3D, if you can't do it, they will hire someone who can.

Dan

[Vito DeFilippo]

I think one hurdle is just the sheer financial burden of upgrading to 3D capable equipment in the home. A few years back, we bought a widescreen plasma for what seemed an enormous amount of money in comparison to CRT sets. Just the bracket to put it on the wall cost more than most tube televisions of the time.

Now, we're supposed to shell out thousands more to replace it, because I might want to watch the odd thing in 3D? And have to wear glasses and risk a headache to do it? Not a chance.

Technology being what it is, I think some sort of immersive viewing experience is inevitable, but I think 3D's timing is bad. So many people just finished upgrading to HD, for heaven's sake.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

Meh. So was betamax. So was quadraphonic sound.

3D is only the way of the future if customers buy it. I didn't buy betamax and I'm not planning to buy 3D. I think 3D is the way of the future all right -- betamax's future, not mine.

Oh fun... you're actually assuming you'll have an alternative. If all the TVs come out are 3D... what are you going to buy?
Since the industry is all on board, and no competing against each other, all they have to do is take away 2Dtvs and poof... Bruce is buying a 3DTV. Like Jon said, you may watch 2DTV... but you will own a 3DTV eventually.

And the same goes for film. If Avatar 2 comes out, and only plays in 3D... whatchagonna do? Pay your $15 like everyone else and stand in line. Well, maybe you won't, while the other 1,000,000,000 of us do.

Like I said... 3D is the way of the future baby. Why not jump on board and make some money instead of being a hater?

(disclaimer: I don't really care much about whether I watch a film in 2D or 3D. 3D is fun, but sure doesn't make a bad movie better. 3DTV however is AWESOME. I saw it about 6 years ago at NAB, and man... sports in 3D? HELLA COOL. Even newscasts looked great in 3D. Not enough to make me drop $5000 on a 3D setup until I have no choice... but still cool).

[Vito DeFilippo]

That's an interesting point Dylan, about manufacturers removing other options to force adoption of a new tech. Not sure if I would agree it's so black and white, but you could make the argument that that's exactly what happened with CRT sets.

Were they removed from production to force adoption of flatscreen televisions, or were they removed because no one wanted them?

Anyway, I'm convinced that this iteration of 3D won't fly, except for special viewing events, because it's just not convenient or comfortable enough. I can't see the average family buying 4 sets of glasses and putting them all on when the kids want to watch cartoons. Especially if two members of the family get headaches everytime. Or do you need 6 pairs in case your buddies come over?

3D can cause discomfort even when well done. Right now, I think we're on the cusp of an explosion of BADLY done 3D material. What is the consumer going to make of that?

I'm not against 3D at all. I think it's coming, but I don't think it will be widely adopted with the present tech.

[Brian Drysdale]

One problem with CRT is the size (in depth) of the larger screen sizes, which would be off putting to many consumers. Although, if you're shooting on location LCD monitors are a pain, in that you have to be nearly square on to actually see what's going on. A quick glance from across the set at a LCD can give you a scare.

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

... 3D is the way of the future baby.

They've been saying this since 1953. No real evidence that this time is any different.

[R Geoff Baker]

Everything old is new again. Hollywood pulled out 3D as the magic solution to television more than fifty years ago -- directors then used the same tired old cliche shots that Cameron resorted to in Avatar. The spear waving about in the audience -- c'mon. It was tired in B'wana White Devil in the fifties, it isn't any better today.

Walk around for a few hours with one eye covered -- you are seeing the world in 2D. Remarkably, it is still pretty darn engaging ... the reality of '3D' is it is only meaningful for stuff within arms reach -- and even then, it isn't like it ruins your life if you only see well out of one eye. So Hollywood has to invent ways to make the effect 'look good' -- John Candy's 3D House of Wax pretty much said it all.

3D, flying cars, supersonic flight .... ain't gonna happen, and won't seem like much if it does. Avatar was a mildly more exciting piece of crap in 3D; watch it in 2D and the one dimensional story, cliched characters and infantile philosophy makes for a forgettable movie; throw in 3D so you can see the same thing with flying projectiles in a murky colour-limited pallette.

YMMV.

Cheers,
GB

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Oh fun... you're actually assuming you'll have an alternative.

History agrees. Where there's a big enough market, there are corporations willing to take that market's money. The assumption you are making is that the market for 2D TV will cease to exist or at least shrink to insignificance. I think that's an unwarranted assumption considering that 15% of the population has actual physical problems (headaches, nausea, etc.) with 3D. And the even larger percent who favor 2D from an aesthetic standpoint.

So yeah, I'm assuming there will be alternatives.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

If all the TVs come out are 3D... what are you going to buy? Since the industry is all on board, and no competing against each other, all they have to do is take away 2Dtvs and poof... Bruce is buying a 3DTV.

An interesting prediction. But wrong as explained above. I won't be buying any technology that gives me headaches. Not going to happen. Why would you think it would? You probably think that I'm buying cable/satellite access too, and you'd be wrong about that also. I'm an OTA and Netflix guy. Because there are always alternatives, even to cable and satellite companies.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Like Jon said, you may watch 2DTV... but you will own a 3DTV eventually.

And the same goes for film. If Avatar 2 comes out, and only plays in 3D... whatchagonna do? Pay your $15 like everyone else and stand in line. Well, maybe you won't, while the other 1,000,000,000 of us do.

You are right about that. If it's 3D or nothing, I'll take nothing. But I don't think the 2D market will be under served.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Like I said... 3D is the way of the future baby. Why not jump on board and make some money instead of being a hater?

I'm not a "hater" and I resent your accusing me of such. I'm merely asserting my preference for 2D technology and refuting your assertion that I'll be forced to buy something I don't want. Your reaction to my preference makes me think that you feel threatened by my position. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but it won't change my mind.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Take a look at the adoption curve for BR, even after the demise of HD-DVD. The hardware and software is still "coming down" to where it MIGHT make sense to buy to replace an aging DVD player or movie. There's no way you can miss that the higher resolution looks subjectively better, and that it's a better picture... but how many people are perfectly happy with their DVDs? I'm buying movies in the multi-format pack, where the BR disk is basically "free" with the SD version... only have a BR player in a laptop...

And while BR is becoming more noticeable as a market segment, I think it's safe to say that until BR hardware and software come close to parity with regular old DVD, it's not going to "dominate". Same goes for "3D", only moreso, as there is not nearly as compelling an advantage, and there ARE negatives.

Average consumer guy will walk into the Big Blue Box, maybe sit down at the 3D demo display, OOOH and AAAH, then look at the premium and walk over to find something else if he needs to buy - 3D is a SMALL fraction of the sets currently available, and just because something is "all the rage" (hype), doesn't mean it resonates with the buyers, or their currently thin wallets.

If next year 70-80% of the sets are 3D, with little or no premium on the price (and it might help to have 3D WITHOUT goofy glasses), THEN you'll see it become "standard" - but you'll notice that with the falling prices of LCD's (they are now "commoditized", not "premium"), the manufacturers are desperate to find a "new" hook - 3D is as good as any, maybe toss in a 4th pixel, make it super flat, roll up, ANYTHING to make the consumer willing to part with more $$$ than just picking the "big Tee Vee on sale over there".

Just like Sony has tried to create a "premium" for BR, and so sees slow market adoption, 3D will suffer the same fate, at the hands and hopes of "marketing" which sees a "cash cow", whether there is one or not.

IMO, this too shall pass. Let me know when "holo-TV" gets here... 3D will definitely be "out" then!

[Gints Klimanis]

While BluRay is visibly better than DVDs, streaming "HD" movies at typical data dates of 2-4 MBps AVCHD are also better than DVDs and even better than many BRs. "Beowulf and Grendel" is one of my favorite movies, but its BluRay transfer is mushy and easily exceeded by quality of most Netflix streaming HD TV series.

[John Mitchell]

I really enjoyed Avatar in 3D BUT it can be distracting. I didn't get a headache but some things to me stood out as anachronistic. Depth of field for example. Watch the scene where the wheelchair bound Sam Worthington/Jake Sully with the poor US accent (would it have been such a big story twist to make him an Aussie?) is reporting on the Pandora natives into his funky video blogger. In 3D the narrow depth of field in this scene is really distracting. At the angle of view the human eye would see this whole scene in focus in a real 3D world, yet the monitor is out of focus while Jake is in. - so the illusion of depth is ruined when 3D depth actually exists. So it seems the drive in 3D should be for long focal depth. Throw away your depth of field adapters I say! Smaller sensors are in. I

I guess the point is that a 3D film in 2D is a compromise and vica versa. They are not 100% interchangeable. I jut read more of this thread and see Jon Fairhurst has already pointed this out - oh well, can't hurt to have two on the same bandwagon...

3D is fine but it is a bit of shame that the biggest breakthrough in display technology OLED has been cast aside in favour of the 3D marketing exercise. OLED promises the sharpness and size of LCD (once they sort out the manufacturing kinks) with the depth of colour and blacks of CRT.

OLED will now have to wait in turn for 3D to penetrate and saturate the market. 3D is actually a much cheaper and more accessible technology, a sexier marketing tool, so it come as no real surprise that it has jumped to the head of the queue.

[Bryan Gilchrist]

The 3D phase won't last long. I don't know why the industry is throwing so much money into it. I have no desire to see movies in 3D (I'm partially colorblind in one eye, so I can't really see it anyway). Sure, it's "neat" now, but people will get bored with it fast.

I don't see 3D lasting past 2011, if that long.

They should just tick with 3D for the rides at amusement parks, and that's it.