Friday, June 15, 2012


Chicago Sun-Times
The most common complaint we hear about 3D is that it gives the viewer a headache. As Walter Murch puts it, one of the most respected editors and sound designers in the film biz (think Apocalypse Now), "3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another."

What does that mean?

Well, when you watch at 3D movie, you are focusing on the screen, which is a set distance away - lets say 50 feet. But 3D movies attempt to create the illusion of depth, with some images appearing closer and some further away - even though they really aren't. And therein lies the problem.

Convergence is when our eyes naturally angle in to focus on a near object, or become parallel to focus on distant objects. In the real world... the focal point, and convergence point are the same. In a 3D movie, they are vastly different - and our brain and eyes have difficulty processing it.

According to Murch, and we tend to agree, it doesn't matter how advanced 3D technology becomes, it will alway cause this problem - 3D is battling 600 million years of evolution in vision. The only solution is truly holographic images that occupy real 3D space.

Check out the full article at Roger Ebert's Journal


  1. "3D is one of the driving forces for high-frame-rate movies. By shooting at 48 fps, it’s possible to show 24 fps to each eye through a pair of active glasses, for example. It’s probably no small coincidence that Cameron and Jackson are two of the largest promoters of 3D movies, not only shooting them that way but with Cameron converting his own Titanic to 3D for re-release. Like 3D, proponents of high-frame-rate argue that it just takes time to get used to the more realistic images. Jackson says, "That once audiences see an entire feature film", like his The Hobbit, "at 48fps, especially in 3D, they’ll learn to like it."

    "full-speed scenes, 48 fps has advantages. Fast camera moves no longer cause “strobing,” and individual frames are sharper. Action scenes are definitely smoother and more lifelike. These changes may be disconcerting to those used to viewing movies at 24 fps, but new moviegoers could quickly become addicted and not want to go back."

    This quote highlights my main gripe with the 'smeery vision' of 24fps I have always been unsatisfied with.

    I would love to be part of the forces that make holovision a reality. Developing the viewing/display surface is the tricky trick.

    1. From what I understand, 48fps is really necessary for 3D... but from what I've heard from people who saw the Hobbit preview... they were disappointed. For 2D, the film will be downconverted to 24P.

      I agree with you... holographic imaging is where resources should be focused for truly immersive storytelling.