In modern 3D movies, does each eye's image have half the resolution of a non-3D film image?

Until you get to the point where you are making an actual sacrifice, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about “losing” something.

…apologies if that was a joke I missed. (Seems to me on rereading it you were joshin’. I need more coffee.)

In the context where Revtim was specifically asking for an answer to his original question about loss of resolution, it most certainly did make sense. Yes, you do lose potential resolution. In a 2D system it would be possible to achiever greater spatial or temporal resolution than in an otherwise similar 3D one. However, as I also said, in the circumstances it does not matter because you have plenty to spare. That was the actual point I was making in my post. You selectively quoted from it in order to “correct” me by saying what I had already said (even though, even out of its context, the quoted statement remains true). “Correcting” someone by repeating their point is what does not make sense here!

ETA: I don’t think you are missing any jokes. You are missing the point. You did not pay attention to which question was being answered.

I didn’t think you were kidding - I think Chronos may have been making a joke about the silliness of your point.


It is silly that you are talking about a “loss” of resolution. There is no loss, a stereo presentation simply has twice as much information. Unless you invent a bottleneck well below current technology, there is simply no sacrifice to be made.

You might as well talk about the loss of resolution inherent in presenting a film in colour, instead of in 64 shades of grey. Sure you could get a frame rate which is higher than anyone needs or wants if you did that, but you’re not “losing” anything by going with colour. Stereo presentations do not have a lower resolution of anything, relative to viewer experience - they have more.

I wasn’t intending to make a joke. A lesser degree of temporal resolution is possible with such a system than would be without such a system, therefore the implementation of such a system, factually and objectively, represents a loss of potential temporal resolution. This is an acceptable loss, since there’s a limit to the resolution that can be perceived by the human eye and we’re still well above that limit, but that’s a different question.

I think that the confusion is arising because you’re attaching a value judgment to “loss of resolution”, while I’m not.

I think it’s natural to associate a value judgement with the phrase “loss of resolution,” based simply on the definition of the word “loss” – it denotes the deprivation of something of value.

Forgive me for repeating what may already be clear, but - while it may be technically true that you could exhibit in mono at a higher framerate than a 3D presentation, the digital projection systems in current use were designed to deliver framerates appropriate for presenting very high framerates in stereo.

Back in the seventies when HFR film was first being considered for commercial presentations, research showed that people generally can’t see much difference with frame rates over 60fps - so they settled on 144fps as the ideal high end for modern digital projection - this is the frame rate beyond which (divided by two for 3D) you generally hit the wall of diminished returns.

Yes, with the current standard you could have each eye see 72 discrete frames per second - and you could also opt to go with a 2D presentation of 144 frames per second - but you don’t really “lose” anything by presenting in 3D, because audiences aren’t going to notice a difference between a 72fps presentation and a 144fps presentation - at that point you’re largely just doubling your storage space for no perceptible benefit.

I thought you might be kidding because of the way you phrased that - “you are losing potential temporal resolution. Just because you’ve got plenty to spare doesn’t change that fact.” It’s sort of like saying that “You could have bought groceries with the money you spent on clothes. Just because the larder is full and you’re sitting on substantial savings doesn’t change anything…” Well… of course it does. I guess could have bought more potatoes, but they’d just spoil - there’s more value in the clothes.