# Movie 3d: Winner or Flash in the pan? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 27, 2011, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219 "2011-11-27T05:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/61 "2011-11-30T03:14:46Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > He’s missing the point. The reason _The Dark Knight Rises_ shouldn’t be in 3D isn’t because of concerns about image quality, it’s because Batman movies aren’t the sort of movie that benefits from 3D. There’s also the fact that the Dark Knight tends to operate in, well, dark settings, which means that the movies would be extra-vulnerable to the inherent 50% or worse brightness degradation caused by the process. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/62 "2011-11-30T03:28:18Z")
Heck, the new _Tron_ was a complete waste in 3D for that reason - most of the characters were dressed in black, most of the landscapes were in black, most of the vehicles were black, with neon highlights. Watching it in 3D was like watching a bunch of kids running around at night waving flashlights. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/63 "2011-11-30T04:08:57Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Evidently there is, as indicated by the cited examples: Bollocks - you might just as well point to four random 2D flops and conclude that the film industry in general is in jeopardy - besides which, “Harold and Kumar” is well-reviewed and doing great box office. 2011 saw\* Rio, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, Hugo, The Cave of Forgotten Dreams\*, and _Tintin_. (I’ll leave off _Harry Potter_ because it was fake 3D.) That’s not even touching the plethora of 3D films which are arguably crap (such as the latest installment of the _Final Destination_ franchise) which still manage to out-compete comparable offerings in 2D. Next year looks even better - we are looking forward to quite a few top-tier titles such as _The Hobbit_, _Prometheus_, _The Amazing Spider Man_, _Frankenweenie_, _Life of Pi_, _Brave_, _ParaNorman_, _Jack the Giant Killer_, _The Lorax_, _Wreck-it Ralph_, and 20+ other titles. > [@](#): > > Actually, the experience will be precisely identical: […] _The Hobbit_ is coming out “in 3D.” 3D gives me a throbbing headache. . It is not possible for a properly-made 3D film to give you a headache. Common causes of this in the past were impossible interocular distances (necessary because of the size of the cameras) being difficult for the viewer to reconcile, and rapid and frequent switching between near and far focal points. Technological advances in cameras and post-production technique (together with filmmaker education) mean this will _never_ happen now. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/64 "2011-11-30T04:37:45Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > It is not possible for a properly-made 3D film to give you a headache. Whether or not **Steve MB** can _possibly_ get a headache from “properly-made” 3D films, I at least can report identical outcomes: 1. Captain America is coming out in 3D. I cannot see 3D and must either refrain from paying the extra money, or pay extra money for a diminished experience. 2. The Hobbit is coming out in 3D. I cannot see 3D and must either refrain from paying the extra money, or pay the extra money for a diminished experience. No headaches, true, but I suspect that my failure to discern objects jutting from the screen has had minimal impact on my viewing experience. I won’t make any predictions but I _do_ hope this is a passing fad. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/65 "2011-11-30T05:24:47Z")
I’m no fan of 3D, but I’ve never noticed this dark image thing you all are talking about. They seem to play movies at the required brightness level here\*. \*Australia ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/66 "2011-11-30T12:36:13Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > Bollocks – you might just as well point to four random 2D flops and conclude that the film industry in general is in jeopardy The telling statistic is the ratio of 2D to 3D revenue; that cancels out the individual film’s success or lack thereof. [The trend line is clearly dipping below breakeven for 3D](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/09/who_killed_3d.html). > [@](#): > > It is not possible for a properly-made 3D film to give you a headache. And it is not possible for there to be American tanks in Baghdad; their crews are too busy burning their stomachs in hell. :rolleyes: Oh, wait; you said “properly-made”. Does the mysterious studio that does it “properly” serve sugared porridge in their commissary? > [@](#): > > Common causes of this in the past were impossible interocular distances (necessary because of the size of the cameras) being difficult for the viewer to reconcile, and rapid and frequent switching between near and far focal points. Technological advances in cameras and post-production technique (together with filmmaker education) mean this will never happen now. No technological advance short of holodeck-style projection can overcome one of the fundamental causes of ThreeDee nausea (conflict between the presence of binocular parallax and the absence of head-shift parallax). ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/67 "2011-11-30T14:25:01Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > It is not possible for a properly-made 3D film to give you a headache. Please provide an example of a “properly-made 3D film” and then provide your scientific research which demonstrates that it is impossible for that film to give anyone a headache. Anyway, for now I find 3-D to be disruptive rather than immersive, at least in a movie that is supposed to have characters and a plot, in contrast to an amusement park type of movie. I haven’t seen _Hugo_. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/68 "2011-11-30T14:54:42Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The telling statistic is the ratio of 2D to 3D revenue; that cancels out the individual film’s success or lack thereof. [The trend line is clearly dipping below breakeven for 3D](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/09/who_killed_3d.html). This is the most convincing argument I’ve heard yet for why this latest wave of 3D movies will become part of a fad just like all the waves that came before it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/69 "2011-11-30T16:06:55Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > This is the most convincing argument I’ve heard yet for why this latest wave of 3D movies will become part of a fad just like all the waves that came before it. The most obvious interpretation is that theater owners overinvested in 3D projectors, then found themselves holding the bag when fading demand was spread across a glut of 3D screens. Being as susceptible to the sunk-cost fallacy as anybody else, they are slow to adjust by reverting to 2D projection or at least dropping the 3D surcharge. Reality can only be denied for so long; eventually the number of 3D screens will shrink to fit its niche, and the per-screen totals will settle somewhere near a 1:1 equilibrium with the main 2D releases (still a net loss for the studio, since 3D doesn’t have 2D’s post-release home-video market, but they too are likely to succumb to the sunk-cost fallacy and soldier on for a while). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/70 "2011-11-30T16:31:48Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > still a net loss for the studio, since 3D doesn’t have 2D’s post-release home-video market …yet ---
**Author:** ![Enright3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/enright3/32/2897_2.png) [@Enright3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enright3)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/71 "2011-11-30T18:43:13Z")
I seem to like animated 3d movies better than live action ones. But I can take it or leave it. What I don’t get is why 3d TV is being shoved down our throats. There’s no way I want or care to watch everyday tv with 3d glasses on. What a pain in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/72 "2011-11-30T18:45:27Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The telling statistic is the ratio of 2D to 3D revenue; that cancels out the individual film’s success or lack thereof. [The trend line is clearly dipping below breakeven for 3D](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/09/who_killed_3d.html). This is anything but a death-knell for 3D and is perfectly explicable when you consider that 3D conversions account for the lion’s share of movies which are shown in 3D and also on a significant number of 2D screens. Actual 3D is still a reliable draw. There are definitely points I agree with in the linked article - ticket prices need to be normalized, and (most importantly) studios need to stop shovelling crappy 3D conversions at us just because they can. Other points not mentioned is that they need to understand their audience a little better and not bother with 3D for movies where the target demographic is \<7 years old. [/QUOTE] > [@Gallileo](#): > > Please provide an example of a “properly-made 3D film” and then provide your scientific research which demonstrates that it is impossible for that film to give anyone a headache. The mechanism of the eyestrain and potential for inducing headache in older 3D presentations is well-understood, this comes from rapid and frequent changes in apparent convergence. (And worse, poorly-registered images.) Stereographers have a now better understanding now of what is necessary for viewers’ comfort, and have a wide array of tools which make this easy to deliver. Scenes are set up from the start (and adjusted in post) to keep the apparent depth of focal objects consistent between shots. Optically, there is now no significant difference between watching a current 3D movie and watching a stage production. What mechanism do you propose which might induce a headache? A polarized light allergy? > [@Enright3](#): > > There’s no way I want or care to watch everyday tv with 3d glasses on. What a pain in the ass. Agreed - I am still looking forward to the day that they come down below my price-point, though. I don’t think anyone wants to watch _The Big Bang Theory_ in 3D, but BluRays of good 3D movies and Xbox games? Count me in. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/73 "2011-11-30T18:48:28Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > still a net loss for the studio, since 3D doesn’t have 2D’s post-release home-video market > [@MrDibble](#): > > …yet The buy-in required for 3D TV is really far out of the reach of the average TV watcher and currently offers little content in return. Not to mention that 3D Blu-rays are being priced at an even steeper premium than theatrical 3D movies. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/74 "2011-11-30T18:57:30Z")
What is it that makes a given person “unable” to see the 3D effect? Is there a specific eye defect that causes this? I’ve seen it mentioned before but don’t understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/75 "2011-11-30T19:06:40Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > What mechanism do you propose which might induce a headache? I already explained that – the presence of binocular parallax and the absence of head-motion parallax sends conflicting signals, which is the basic cause of motion-sickness-type problems. Maybe the theaters could give out head clamps for an extra $4 premium. Another problem occurs when theThreeDee specs are precariously perched over another pair of glasses – when the lenses shift out of place, the polarization plane gets a bit off kilter and cross channel bleed-through blurs the image. > [@](#): > > Other points not mentioned is that they need to understand their audience a little better and not bother with 3D for movies where the target demographic is \<7 years old. How so? If anything, kiddie animation seems to be 3D’s natural niche market. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/76 "2011-11-30T19:09:25Z")
> [@OpalCat](#): > > What is it that makes a given person “unable” to see the 3D effect? Is there a specific eye defect that causes this? I’ve seen it mentioned before but don’t understand it. People get multiple distance cues on objects (binocular parallax, head-motion parallax, perspective); apparently some brains process them a bit differently from others and thus don’t deal well with synthetic images that emphasize one (binocular parallax) and exclude another (head-motion parallax). ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/77 "2011-11-30T19:29:17Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Not to mention that 3D Blu-rays are being priced at an even steeper premium than theatrical 3D movies. Not to mention (even further) that adoption by consumers of new audio/visual equipment seems to be slowing relative to the past, in which new technology tended to imply significant quality gain. As of June, at least, Blu-Ray had only penetrated something like 15% of the market ([cite](http://technologizer.com/2011/06/09/the-blu-ray-cup-is-fifteen-percent-full/)) despite half a decade’s availability. If 3D _does_ catch on for home viewing (and it may), I suspect it’ll be very gradual and only once the implied additional cost is low. I doubt it’ll be soon enough to help out theaters. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/78 "2011-11-30T19:45:11Z")
> [@OpalCat](#): > > What is it that makes a given person “unable” to see the 3D effect? Is there a specific eye defect that causes this? I’ve seen it mentioned before but don’t understand it. I don’t know enough about the technology to describe _why exactly_ I don’t see the 3D effect. But it must result from my impairment of binocular vision; I use one eye at a time (particularly my left, while my right drifts off and does its own thang). This has very little practical impact on my life, except for some discomfort when I have to use my right eye for some reason, e.g. to see something outside of the left’s field of vision. Beyond that I fail those little eye exams where (say) one is supposed to see a triangle in a square; I can’t do Magic Eyes; and I can’t see the 3D effect in movies. And I really am quite unable, no scare quotes needed. A modern 3D movie is no different to me from a 2D movie, except it’s dimmer and I must wear glasses that don’t fit my giant head. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/79 "2011-11-30T20:08:43Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I already explained that – the presence of binocular parallax and the absence of head-motion parallax sends conflicting signals, which is the basic cause of motion-sickness-type problems. Maybe the theaters could give out head clamps for an extra $4 premium. How much do you move your head when you are sitting in a theatre? At any rate, the primary cause of motion sickness is the conflict between visual signals and signals from the inner ear. > [@](#): > > Another problem occurs when theThreeDee specs are precariously perched over another pair of glasses – when the lenses shift out of place, the polarization plane gets a bit off kilter and cross channel bleed-through blurs the image. This should not occor with circular polarization. When was the last time this happened to you? > [@](#): > > How so? If anything, kiddie animation seems to be 3D’s natural niche market. There are two reasons that 3D is really not appropriate for very young children. First, just in practical terms, they are liable to be distracted by the oddness of the image looking different with and without glasses, to the point that they don’t pay attention to the movie and fail to be engaged by it. Perhaps more importantly, stereopsis is still developing in very young children, and so they may either simply not notice any particular effect, (and of more concern) it is not known whether or not prolonged 3D viewing has any significant effect on the development of this faculty. I agree that animation looks great in 3D and will line up for features with adult appeal. (_Coraline_ was fantastic in 3D.) But, I went to see _Despicable Me_ twice - once with my wife in glorious 3D, and once more at a 2D matinee so my daughter could see it. 3D is not a good choice for movies where the only people with fully-developed stereopsis are there only as chaperones. > [@Paranoid Android](#): > > If 3D does catch on for home viewing (and it may), I suspect it’ll be very gradual and only once the implied additional cost is low. I doubt it’ll be soon enough to help out theaters. Currently, one in five new sets sold are 3D capable. This is a much better early conversion ration than colour sets enjoyed. (Still too pricey for me, but I am waiting patiently. 😃 ) ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219/80 "2011-11-30T20:24:22Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > stereopsis is still developing in very young children, and so they may either simply not notice any particular effect, (and of more concern) it is not known whether or not prolonged 3D viewing has any significant effect on the development of this faculty. But, according to you: > [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > Optically, there is now no significant difference between watching a current 3D movie and watching a stage production. Putting your two quotes together, this means that very young children should not watch a stage production, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-3d-winner-or-flash-in-the-pan/604219.md?page=5)