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

Bruce Watson · June 27th, 2010, 06:35 AM

The 3D partisans should find this story interesting. Turns out that there have already been studies done that show that 3D gaming and TV viewing leads to strabismus. Children under seven are especially at risk. But even adults are at risk if they watch enough 3D.

I don't much care for 3D for aesthetic reasons. But now I wonder if the industry hasn't shot itself in the foot with this headlong rush into 3D.

Dan Brockett · June 27th, 2010, 04:15 PM

That story is freaking me out Bruce.

Dan

Vito DeFilippo · June 28th, 2010, 11:50 AM

Me, too.

I actually remember those VR helmets being announced as the next big thing, thinking they were a cool idea, and then wondering what happened to them.

Sounds like the slight headache I get a 3D movies is something to avoid for sure.

Jeff Greer · June 28th, 2010, 12:47 PM

I can take or leave 3D. I have low vision but still get the effect. I prefer a well done movie rather than something that has gimmicks to make it different than the home experience. I keep thinking Jaws when I think 3D.

For me, the experience of a theater is the experience. When a theater is nearly filled and the crowd is engaged in a great movie, that is a "Theather" experience.

Hopefully, the 48 fps format that someone mentioned early will take the place of 3D. That would be like going from VHS to DVD and then Blueray. That combined with a great movie that generates a great crowd would be my theater experience.

Jeff

Dan Brockett · June 29th, 2010, 09:15 AM

Even though it has been talked about and pushed for years, I have doubts if 48fps will ever see the light of day as a popular shooting and projection format. 3D is visually loud, gimmicky and spectacular, all of the things Hollywood likes. Hollywood doesn't do subtle and 48fps would be considered by exhibitors and a large percentage of the public to be subtle.

It's just like when Blu-ray came out. Something like 70% of viewers couldn't tell the difference between Blu-ray and an upconverted NTSC or PAL DVD. If people pay extra for something, they expect to be hit over the head with the "improvement".

Dan

Mathieu Ghekiere · June 29th, 2010, 11:16 AM

When I went to see Avatar and Alice In Wonderland in 3D, I was constantly just distracted by the 3D effect. It didn't pull me into the movie, it did the opposite. All the people I have been talking to (and literally, all of them) didn't like it either. Everyone I talk to about go seeing a movie in 3D, they all now say: "Meh, I don't like the whole 3D kind of thing".

A week ago I went to see Toy Story 3. In 2D. What a great film. I had no distractions at all, bright colors, and the movie effected me enormously. Because I wasn't wearing any glasses or seeing all kinds of innaproperiate effects, I could also just focus on the story and the emotions.
Glad I saw it in 2D.

Please Hollywood, stop this 3D madness.

Brian Drysdale · July 1st, 2010, 03:33 AM

Here are some 3D TV issues:

BBC News - Quality warnings issued over 3DTV

Josh Bass · July 1st, 2010, 04:14 AM

All this negativity is going to drastically hinder the holodeck development process. Is that what you want?

Brian Drysdale · July 1st, 2010, 07:12 AM

I'd assume that would use a totally different technology to 3D TV.

Josh Bass · July 1st, 2010, 01:23 PM

But if the powers that be feel that we're all satisfied with our simple two dimensions, they're never going to work to give us a third, and the tactile feel. MMMM. . .tactile.

Brian Drysdale · July 1st, 2010, 05:01 PM

YouTube - Virtual 3D Tactile Touch - NTT COMWARE : DigInfo

Or are you thinking of a full suit??

Josh Bass · July 1st, 2010, 05:02 PM

I was just being a jackass. In addition to being 3D, what separates the holodeck from a 2D experience is that the image has substance. . .you can touch/interact, etc. That's what I was getting at.

Brian Drysdale · July 1st, 2010, 05:07 PM

I guess that would depend if it was virtual substance that give the transparent appearance of real substance.

Dan Passaro · July 6th, 2010, 10:16 PM

The one time Ebert agrees with me :D

Allan Black · December 9th, 2011, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

It will be interesting to see where this all is by the end of next year.

Dan Brockett

And here we are now Dan :) 3D films haven't gone away, the hype has slowed somewhat but IMO films and the medium is being refined as producers come to grips with it.

Here the sales of domestic 3D TVs have slowed but 3D live sports TV telecasts are growing slowly. Maybe keeping up with the competition. 3D games too.

Cheers.

June 27th, 2010, 06:35 AM	#61
Bruce Watson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Raleigh, NC, USA Posts: 710	3D may be dangerous to your vision The 3D partisans should find this story interesting. Turns out that there have already been studies done that show that 3D gaming and TV viewing leads to strabismus. Children under seven are especially at risk. But even adults are at risk if they watch enough 3D. I don't much care for 3D for aesthetic reasons. But now I wonder if the industry hasn't shot itself in the foot with this headlong rush into 3D.

June 28th, 2010, 11:50 AM	#63
Vito DeFilippo Trustee Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 1,585	Me, too. I actually remember those VR helmets being announced as the next big thing, thinking they were a cool idea, and then wondering what happened to them. Sounds like the slight headache I get a 3D movies is something to avoid for sure. __________________ . http://www.nosmallroles.com

June 28th, 2010, 12:47 PM	#64
Jeff Greer New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: Crosby, TX Posts: 9	I can take or leave 3D. I have low vision but still get the effect. I prefer a well done movie rather than something that has gimmicks to make it different than the home experience. I keep thinking Jaws when I think 3D. For me, the experience of a theater is the experience. When a theater is nearly filled and the crowd is engaged in a great movie, that is a "Theather" experience. Hopefully, the 48 fps format that someone mentioned early will take the place of 3D. That would be like going from VHS to DVD and then Blueray. That combined with a great movie that generates a great crowd would be my theater experience. Jeff __________________ http://teacherwikiweb.com

June 29th, 2010, 11:16 AM	#66
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	When I went to see Avatar and Alice In Wonderland in 3D, I was constantly just distracted by the 3D effect. It didn't pull me into the movie, it did the opposite. All the people I have been talking to (and literally, all of them) didn't like it either. Everyone I talk to about go seeing a movie in 3D, they all now say: "Meh, I don't like the whole 3D kind of thing". A week ago I went to see Toy Story 3. In 2D. What a great film. I had no distractions at all, bright colors, and the movie effected me enormously. Because I wasn't wearing any glasses or seeing all kinds of innaproperiate effects, I could also just focus on the story and the emotions. Glad I saw it in 2D. Please Hollywood, stop this 3D madness. __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

July 1st, 2010, 04:14 AM	#68
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	All this negativity is going to drastically hinder the holodeck development process. Is that what you want? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

June 27th, 2010, 04:15 PM	#62
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	That story is freaking me out Bruce. Dan

June 29th, 2010, 09:15 AM	#65
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	Even though it has been talked about and pushed for years, I have doubts if 48fps will ever see the light of day as a popular shooting and projection format. 3D is visually loud, gimmicky and spectacular, all of the things Hollywood likes. Hollywood doesn't do subtle and 48fps would be considered by exhibitors and a large percentage of the public to be subtle. It's just like when Blu-ray came out. Something like 70% of viewers couldn't tell the difference between Blu-ray and an upconverted NTSC or PAL DVD. If people pay extra for something, they expect to be hit over the head with the "improvement". Dan

July 1st, 2010, 03:33 AM	#67
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	Here are some 3D TV issues: BBC News - Quality warnings issued over 3DTV

July 1st, 2010, 07:12 AM	#69
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	I'd assume that would use a totally different technology to 3D TV.

July 1st, 2010, 01:23 PM	#70
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	But if the powers that be feel that we're all satisfied with our simple two dimensions, they're never going to work to give us a third, and the tactile feel. MMMM. . .tactile. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

July 1st, 2010, 05:01 PM	#71
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	YouTube - Virtual 3D Tactile Touch - NTT COMWARE : DigInfo Or are you thinking of a full suit??

July 1st, 2010, 05:02 PM	#72
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	I was just being a jackass. In addition to being 3D, what separates the holodeck from a 2D experience is that the image has substance. . .you can touch/interact, etc. That's what I was getting at. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

July 1st, 2010, 05:07 PM	#73
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	I guess that would depend if it was virtual substance that give the transparent appearance of real substance.

July 6th, 2010, 10:16 PM	#74
Dan Passaro New Boot Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 21	The one time Ebert agrees with me :D