I’ve received a lot of emails on my post about Why 3D Does Not Work. Many agree, but some others seem to have problems with it.
For those left scratching their heads, here are five simple points:
- The 3D object exists on a 2D plane. There is no weight to this 3D object. It’s paper-thin.
- 3D effects draw attention to themselves and take us out of the film experience, distracting us from the narrative.
- 3D can cause a loss of sharpness to the image. Particularly in fast-paced sequences images can become blurred, losing clarity and resolution.
- Our eyes adjust quickly to 3D. We most likely will notice 3D effects at the start of a film but not at the end. If we’re not actually noticing it, it might as well be 2D, because:
- The ‘2D’ image already has an incredible depth that is totally convincing. It’s part of the reason why both photography and film have remained so powerful to this very day.
In 3D individual, isolated spectacles are most effective, for example a bubble leaving the screen and heading towards you, a fish swimming out from the ocean or a secret passageway extending deep into the screen.
3D is most effective as a novelty, not as a sustained visual system throughout a feature film. And there has not yet been a film to prove otherwise.
Photograph (US, J. R. Eyerman, 1952) of an audience at Bwana Devil. Originally published in Life Magazine, hosted by and co. of Google.
The Classic Film Show 
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 23, 2010 at 4:29 am
John
# The 3D object exists on a 2D plane. There is no weight to this 3D object. It’s paper-thin.
I don’t get this one. You make it sound like you are mad that the footage literally isn’t 3 dimensional when played on a screen.
# 3D effects draw attention to themselves and take us out of the film experience, distracting us from the narrative.
To each his own. How is this any different from having amazing visuals? Is the 3d really that much of a distraction that the majority of viewers can not pay attention to the story. Heck i think this would encourage people to watch a film multiple times to get the full story.
# 3D can cause a loss of sharpness to the image. Particularly in fast-paced sequences images can become blurred, losing clarity and resolution.
I haven’t seen enough action films in 3d to refute/confirm this. All I can say though that as technology, it continues to advance.
# Our eyes adjust quickly to 3D. We most likely will notice 3D effects at the start of a film but not at the end. If we’re not actually noticing it, it might as well be 2D, because:
Again this is like the previous. Though I think what can become apparent is that not every scene needs to be shown in 3d. Also I personally disagree with your last sentence. Of course you will get used to it but that doesn’t mean it turns into 2d. Watch a film midway in 3d and then finish it in 2d(and as a 2d version of course). You will have to readjust.
# The ‘2D’ image already has an incredible depth that is totally convincing. It’s part of the reason why both photography and film have remained so powerful to this very day
This I see as whining. So what if what has worked before and will work tomorrow still work. I was unaware that people couldn’t try anything new. To properly utilize 3d was another tool(like using different lenses and cameras to be a desired shot) requires skill and creativity.
I agree with you that 3d has yet to be perfected for everyone to use. I certainlly don’t think a normal romance/comedy movie needs to be in 3d. But action films and other movies where amazing visuals are a major part of the package can benefit from 3d. I don’t see how it’s any different from using various cameras and other tech to film and present.
3d really does work but like everything in cinema………it doesn’t work all the time. I’m “sad” that you didn’t enjoy Avatar in 3d(or at all). You are right about the hype machine but then it’s difficult to promote a movie like
“This movie is alright, not bad, not terrific, some of you may like it. others won’t, some will be indifferent, it probably won’t blow your mind, but it will be okay”
I enjoyed the movie and enjoyed watching it in 3d. I found that it added a cherry on top of my sundae. I could have enjoyed it without 3d but the cherry was nice.
But again I don’t expect 3d to be useful outside of certain types of films. Film in itself is a novelty. Its art and art is a matter of perspective.
January 23, 2010 at 5:12 pm
nicklinn
John did a great rebuttal above. Though I thought I would add a few points to his.
2. That would be a decision of the director. Most using 3d have took a heavy hand with it to really but it into the fore-front yet others like Cameron chose to far more subtle with it.
3. That is an artifact of poorly calibrated convergence or older shutter glasses. Modern polarized projection shouldn’t have that problem if the projectors are properly calibrated. If you are noticing this you should talk to the manager of the theater.
That is not to say there is no disadvantage to polarized 3d. You will certainly lose colour depth thought the polarizer and it’s actually very visually apparent.
4. Our brain just doesn’t shut off it’s depth perception. It’s always on. What is happening is that you aren’t paying attention consciously to the fact it’s 3d and letting your brain process it subconsciously and you will feel more in the middle of the film.
5. By the same token, a person with one eye can certainly enjoy anything that a person with 2 eyes can. That of course doesn’t mean that something isn’t missing from what they are seeing.
January 24, 2010 at 12:14 pm
3D is awesome and brilliant!
1. The 3D object exists on a 2D plane. There is no weight to this 3D object. It’s paper-thin.
So what?!? That is a totally irrelevant and dumb argument. By combining two images with different perspectives, a 3D effect is created and the image gains “weight”. If you feel the need to walk up and grope the actors, go watch a play, but us normal people sit in our chairs and enjoy the film.
2. 3D effects draw attention to themselves and take us out of the film experience, distracting us from the narrative.
Where do you even get this bs from? Stop making things up! If you are referring to the old 3D horror films when stuff jump at you, that’s no longer done. Directors (Cameron more than any) have learned that zooming in and out and fast cuts don’t belong in the 3D world. By the way, the real world is also 3D, does that mean that you can’t talk to other people because you are distracted by their three-dimensionality? Give me a break.
3. 3D can cause a loss of sharpness to the image. Particularly in fast-paced sequences images can become blurred, losing clarity and resolution.
Read above. Both technology and filming/editing techniques improve. By the way, I didn’t notice anything like that in Avatar.
4. Our eyes adjust quickly to 3D. We most likely will notice 3D effects at the start of a film but not at the end. If we’re not actually noticing it, it might as well be 2D, because:
Hahahahahah, thanks for the laugh!! First you say 3D is distracting, now you say it’s not noticeable, you’ve lost them marbles of yours. If you watch a film with surround sound, do you think about it all the time? Of course you don’t (and by “you” I mean normal people).
5. The ‘2D’ image already has an incredible depth that is totally convincing. It’s part of the reason why both photography and film have remained so powerful to this very day.
Ok now you’re just plain confusing (/confused). So you say 3D doesn’t have any depth, but 2D has incredible depth? So what you mean is that you LOSE depth when you go from 2D to 3D??!? Who helped you write this? W. Bush??
Seriously, none of your arguments are sane, stop writing about this topic, you’re just embarrassing yourself.
January 24, 2010 at 12:35 pm
3D is awesome and brilliant!
5 Reasons Why Color Photography really doesn’t work:
1. The colors are not real, they’re just colored ink, made from plants and God knows what. Oh, and the photographs are paper-thin.
3D effects draw attention to themselves and take us out of the film experience, distracting us from the narrative.
2. Colors draw attention to themselves and take us out of the photographic experience, distracting us from the motives.
3. Colors cab cause a lot of sharpness. Particularly when the photographer is running, falling or just having spasms.
4. Our eyes adjust quickly to the colors. We most likely will notice the colors in the beginning, but not after looking at a few photographs. If we’re not actually noticing them, they might as well be black and white because:
5. The black and white photographs already have incredible shades of gray that are totally convincing. It’s part of the reason why most digital cameras have the option to shoot in black and white.
In color, individual, isolated spectacles are most effective, for example a soap bubble that has colors, a fish swimming out from the blue ocean or a secret passageway with a bright yellow light at the end.
Color photography is most effective as a novelty, not as a sustained visual system throughout in a photograph. And there has not yet been a photograph to prove otherwise. (Of course I’ve only looked at photographs made before the sixties, when I entered my cave, but I’m sure nothing’s changed).
January 24, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Christian Hayes
Surely you’re not suggesting that colour photography is obviously ‘better’ than black and white just because it is a more recent technology?
January 24, 2010 at 9:39 pm
3D is awesome and brilliant!
1. of course I am, technology improves, not degrades
2. that’s absolutely irrelevant, I just gave an example of how dumb your arguments were… don’t worry, I didn’t expect you to get it..
January 24, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Christian Hayes
It really does sound like you need to go away and watch some more films and read some books.
To help you I’ve put together a list:
Once you’ve done that you’ll be very welcome to continue commenting.
March 26, 2010 at 6:33 pm
jackie
there’s an interesting young filmmaker trying to take 3D in a different direction http://www.candlerblog.com/tag/annie-goes-boating/
January 24, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Ben
I think you are all misunderstanding the point being made here. These articles shouldn’t be taken as out-and-out attacks on the aesthetics of the technology, but as a reaction against the real threat posed by Cameron’s film. This is that if 3D continues to become cheaper to do it could become the ‘classical’ norm and replace 2D.
We’re a long way off from that at the moment but it is a possibility, considering the success of Avatar. The very fact that the 3D in Avatar isn’t just based on spectacle but rather trying to normalise the technology shows the beginning of this.
I absolutely agree with the statement that:
The ‘2D’ image already has an incredible depth that is totally convincing. It’s part of the reason why both photography and film have remained so powerful to this very day.
It’d be a shame if there came a day when people couldn’t see that. How many times have I had people say to me ‘I don’t like black and white films.’ The only reason they don’t like them is because they haven’t tried enough, because it’s not their norm. Same goes for silent cinema – nowadays the average person can’t take the silents, but after you’ve watched a few you’ll become hooked. There’s nothing better than a nice b+w silent film, but who knows it!
January 24, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Christian Hayes
I’m glad there is someone who has a real understanding of the history of the technology to actually make an informed judgement.
January 24, 2010 at 9:37 pm
3D is awesome and brilliant!
Dude, just because you like it doesn’t mean everyone does. I’ve watched a bunch of black and white films, one of my favorite directors is alfred hitchcock. You cannot tell me his films are good because they are black and white. Rear window and rope for instance were really good, “even though” they were in color.
“There’s nothing better than a nice b+w silent film”
well I say there’s nothing better than sky diving! who’s right?
Just to correct you, all that stuff about “try it and you’ll be hooked”, that’s YOU, not the rest of the world, don’t be a smart ass and think you know how everybody works. Maybe some people don’t like black and white because color is better, more realistic, have you thought of that. Noo, in your mind we’re all idiots that are afraid to step outside the box and try black and white and that is why we don’t like it… give me a break!
January 24, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Christian Hayes
There are definitely black and white films out there that everyone would like, that’s absolutely true.
If you’re not watching a film because you simply don’t like black and white, you’ll miss out on the majority of movies. Then how can you have an informed opinion on movies today?
And if you think about it, colour can be as artificial as black and white.
January 24, 2010 at 9:42 pm
3D is awesome and brilliant!
Look, I can’t be bothered to come to this poorly designed site to check for replies. Just to clarify what I’m trying to say:
Your reasons don’t mean anything, 3D might not work for you, but it works for other people. I’m so sick of people that think they have the answer to everything, that think everybody is the same as them, only that they’re too stupid to come to the same conclusion.
You should rename this post to “5 reasons 3D really does not work for me”
out.
January 24, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Ben
I was teaching Stagecoach the other day to a class of 2nd year undergraduates – none of them liked it! One student gave a telling response, she wasn’t used to black and white films.
Mr ‘3D is awesome and brilliant’: your notion that the history of cinema can be summed up as one of the development of new technologies that advance the medium’s realism – more properly the term should be verisimilitude – is very old-fashioned indeed.
I think you’ve misunderstood Christian. He’s just taking a stance here- pointing out some problems with the technology, in his opinion. Clearly a silent-film buff does not have the power to have any real effect on the mass appeal of 3D, which looks set to take over cinema as we know it.
Incidentally, I’m enjoying the fact that you all of a sudden sound like you think you’re a victim when you’re being pretty aggressive on this site!
April 16, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Strummoliser
I’ve just come home from seeing Avatar in 3D and I’m feeling a little underwhelmed by the experience.
About halfway through the movie the 3D effect began to turn into more of a heat haze effect. Added to this me eyes were seeing a kind of see-through effect where an object, meant to be in front of another object, actually seemed to be also behind that object – or somewhat translucent anyway. Hard to describe I guess. I was wondering if this is about eyes getting tired or maybe the projector coming out of adjustment. The movie started out with amazing clarity compared with how it finished.
And secondly, those 3D glasses made the bridge of my nose ache and I spent the last 45 minutes occasionally massaging it which neddless to say was quite distracting.
July 7, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Mike
What I find sad is that some 3D fans are so… fanatic. God forbid if you happen to say that 3D is anything less than perfect. They keep comparing it to sound or color in movies. Funny. I did not remember you had to wear some kind apparatus to enjoy a color movie.