That story has been refuted by fellow Vegas forum member, David Newman from Cineform, read this:

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2011/01/another-overstatement-that-3d-wont-work.html

interesting article all the same.

whatever, hollywood will continue developing tech (nique/ology) with enough hype to keep pulling in an audience no matter what.

and we poor buggers will, at some stage, be asked to mimic it on systems that cost as much as the hollywood editors coffee bill for the week.

Thanks for that, I read what Murch had to say and something about it didn't ring true. I've never had an issue focussing on the objects in a 3D movie, some of them quite close to me.

In fact why do you need to focus on them, the image is still on the screen, the object "appears" closer than that but the eye is still focussed on the screen surely?

Bob.

"and we poor buggers will, at some stage, be asked to mimic it on systems that cost as much as the hollywood editors coffee bill for the week."

Isn't that what we've been doing all along anyway? I can now do on a laptop what I used to have to do with a large room full of very expensive equipment. And the quality is vastly superior to the "old days."

true jc, true.....

but once upon a time we had enough time to make all that equipment pay for itself and our wages / profit before it was obsolete - and quite often, it had a fairly good resale price to someone lower down the food chain.......

In fact why do you need to focus on them, the image is still on the screen, the object "appears" closer than that but the eye is still focussed on the screen surely?

But is it????? Take for example, looking at an object in a mirror, you focus on the reflected object, not the mirror.

For me, 3D is yet another way for the market people to take our money, so many have thrown their good SD CRT TV's away for flat screens, yet a majority of people, me included may see a difference with HD, but have been more than content with what we had.

The possible medical side effects are enough to put me off, glasses with shutters..... migraine inducing like strobe effects. We have enough headaches just paying for our kit!!!!

Anthony

Anthony

Anthony J. C.:
Perhaps you would be more happy with Kiniscope black & white and get rid of your HD set. If you have trouble seeing a difference between HD and CRT analog your eyes are deficient and you should not be doing video.
JJK

"But is it????? Take for example, looking at an object in a mirror, you focus on the reflected object, not the mirror."

Well that's true but a cinema screen is not a mirror. If what you're saying was true what happens when you watch a 2D movie, are you focussing on the film in the projector, no you focus on the screen.

Bob.

Thanks for sharing that. That pretty well sums it up for me.

I fully agree with Mr. Murch, "So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?"

With all due respect, I think Mr. Murch's experience far outweighs Mr. Newman's, and he carries the track record to prove it.

If you read my earlier post, I said that "we may see a difference" etc. It is similar to CD and digital audio, many prefer the warmer sound of tube/analog and in fact tube amps and tube mic pre-amps sales are on the up again.

Just because it is the latest in thing, does not necessarily make it better except for the bean counters.

When I can watch home (note the word home) 3D without wearing glasses, or being planted dead center in front of the screen, and without a headache, then this in my opinion will be progress.

Anthony

JJKizak:

If you cannot read my posts correctly, then maybe you should not be doing video!!

Anthony

The problem is not that you HAVE to refocus, the problem is that the brain thinks it has to refocus, because the brain is fooled into thinking that the object is closer than it appears. This is what causes the headaches, the conflict between what the eye sees and what the brain thinks it sees.

Dave T2

This sort of topic reminds me of Vermeer and the use (or supposed use) of the Camera Obscura to achive a sense of depth in a 2D painting.

Vermeer / Camera Obscura Article

JJK,

There are, or were HD CRT TVs that looked very good. In fact, I think CRTs overall are a better image regarding color. Look at the blacks on a CRT and on a LED. IF I could buy a new HD CRT, I would, but the industry is forcing people to LED and LCD TVs.

Dave T2

3D will never work and Murch said it best. Here's why:

When I see a 2D picture I know it's only 2D. I accept that. It's like cave painting. It's a close facsimile of what it is intended to represent. My brain can deal with that.

When I experience 3D, you are trying to trick my brain into thinking this is "real" life. The problem is that the moment I accept that and believe it's real, my eyes wander to other parts of the scene and want to look at them but they are not in focus. My brain thinks that my eyes are not focused and so I strain my eyes to bring it into focus but it will never work because the director doesn't want it to be in focus. So I wind up with a headache and an unsettled experience because depth of field is no longer controlled by my eyes/brain.

This is what I personally experienced while watching Avatar and when I read Murch's letter I couldn't agree with him more. There is a "convergence/focus" issue going on that just doesn't work. You are constantly trying to figure out what the director wants you to focus on and it's frustrating until you figure it out and it's tiring because you have to do it again and again for every scene. 3D will never work until I can focus on what I want to focus on.

BTW, I was at the local Best Buy with my two son's the other day and there was a 3D TV so we took turns watching it and neither of them liked it. So there won't be any 3D TV's at my house any time soon.

~jr

Well, said, John. Thanks for sharing that.

I don't think my family is opting for 3D at home either,
I'd rather put more money and effort into becoming a sound space
designer. (talking about surround sound design)

On the comment about Hollywood coffee budget...
Paying for a 2D movie at the theater instead of 3D, I can afford
a trip to the concession stand for the family.

I can't stand 3D glasses, nor the convergence trick they play on the eyes. Never could.

This whole bruhaha iver 3D is of little interest to me, except why it's cluttering up a program I had hoped would improve previewing and professional format support.

"3D will never work and Murch said it best. Here's why:"

From what I have read and studies on the subject, I think that it can actually work but the problem right now is the way it is being implemented.

Maybe someday when a new technology for it comes out but not right now. Needs to be 'real' 3d and not the cheap tricks!


What I really want.

I would like to have a camera that has the same full dynamic range as my vision. So when looking towards a window I can see both it and the wall next to it instead of one being either overexposed or the other underexposed. Also a smart white balance that can show both indoor and outdoor light correctly at the same time in a room with mixed light such as too many Church's are. Also have the same or better low light capability without tricks or noise than what my eyes have.

Now that would be great!

Dave T2:
I did have a Sony HD CRT for 3 years and you are correct, the blacks were hugely better than the LCD. The linearity of the CRT however was blown away by the LCD.
JJK

Anthony J C:
I read your post again and I am having trouble separating all of the items and processes that you hit on. Sorry for the "zinger" but I just couldn't help it.
JJK