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

Hollywood is churning out 3D blockbusters a breakneck pace… that either means one of two things: It’s a desperate attempt to revitalize a sagging industry with a higher priced format… Or, it’s catching on.

Home audiences have largely shunned 3D… but the top grossing films of all time at the box office have been 3D. Filmmakers like James Cameron and Martin Scorsese argue for the format, saying it’s a more immersive experience. But with poor transfers, required glasses and muddy artifacts around the edges of characters and object, other filmmakers argue that it’s anything but immersive.

What are your thoughts… is it an annoying, headache inducing fad, or the future of filmmaking?

source: Playlist