QOTW: How do you prefer to watch movies: 2D or 3D?

[peterb]

I think 3D is pretty much dead in the water, the effect wasn’t subtle. However 4K gives a 3D effect because the definition is high enough to allow the brain to use the visual clues that is as much a part of 3D as stereoscopic vision.

People who are blind in one eye still perceive a 3 dimensional world, and while accurate location of an object in 3 D space may be impaired, it doesn’t go away.

I saw a demo of 16K TV at a trade show (albeit on a 150” screen ) and the perception of depth (allowing for the fact that the footage was probably shot to emphasise it) was extraordinary (or perhaps I should say outstanding )

16K will be many years off, if only because of the bandwidth requirements and the cost of investment in equipment.

[Ttaskmaster]

If 3D TVs are dead (which they seem to be) then I wonder how that affects the money that will be put into 3D movies if they can't be sold into houses on 3D bluray or rental when it had left the theatre.

They can and already are. Have been since the days of anaglyph 3D. Just a separate disc, or video file. Don't need no fancy 3D TV to screen those.

It's just two images on the same screen, with glasses to direct the correct image to the correct eye... or rather block the wrong one from seing the wrong image, really.
This is why I'm interested in the colour wavelength stuff, as you can have 2D or 3D in the same single image/file and the effect is decided only by the outputting screen... and it's glasses-free.

[Saracen]

Most commonly this is because the 3D has not been filmed/produced correctly. In some cases it's the screening equipment not properly calibrated. It's comparatively rare for people to just be outside the 'average range' for which 3D is calibrated to... The rapidity and severity of your symptoms seem to support my assertion, as well.

I rather doubt it's incorrect setup. Yes, I've tried systems in PC World, and I'll give you that one. Also, in some specialist suppliers, and zi rather doubt they'd cock up. But finally, remember I'm a tech journslist? Some of the systems I've tried, well, let's just say they were manufacturer lab systems, in the presence of product managers, technical managers and company CEOs

As for 'out of range' .... very possibly. A long-term keratokonus problem in one eye, together with what has recently been diagnosed as muscle atrophy in that eye. And more recently, two retinal tears in the other eye which, while corrected by retinal laser surgery (no, not the high street eye surgery) but the hospital type where they 'spot-weld' the retinal tears back together.

Oh, and that 'tear' is as in 'torn my shirt' not 'teardrop in my eye'.

And the welding leaves a couple of thousand tiny laser burn scars, plus some distortion in the eye 'jelly'.

That argon laser retinopexy was after I last tried 3D though, but the surgeon did point out that, in fixing those tears, there was evidence of a couple of minor self-healed earlier tears.

Am I a "normal" subject? No evidently not. But lots of different people have very different eye problems, and some probably don't even know it. Yet. My high street optician certainly missed the retinal tears.

....

Why would it not have the same degree of effect?

Well, I'm no optical specialist or brakn expert, but I suspect it to be the case because of the way we humans "sense" the world around us.

We do not, for instance, see with our eyes. They merely gather electrical data and present it to the brain, which analyses it. We see, as in create a picture of our surroundings in the brain. We know this because we can devise clever ways to fool the brain. Oh, and it's how optical illusions work.

What, according to the latest medical info I've seen, happens is that the brain takes sensory data, be it sight, hearing, smell, touch, wind or rain on skin, etc, and integrates all that data, at a subconcious level, drawing also on our memories, experiences and preconceptions, into a coherent picture for our conscious mind to make decisions on.

The thing is, most people (the blind exceped) don't treat all those inputs equally. By far the biggest is sight with sound usually coming second, but a long way behind.

So .... if we get confusing sensory data from vision, it's much more likely to give the brain problems, as it's providing the bulk of the data the brain "integrates".

On the other hand, give it confusing auditory data and the brain is more likely, as I understand it, to say to itself " secondary data (sound) conflicts with primary (sight) .... so filter sound out."

And hence, less trouble with hearing.

[Ttaskmaster]

I rather doubt it's incorrect setup.

In the case of films certainly, but also computers, there are numerous things along the way right up to the point it reaches your screen, where any number of things not set right will cause problems.

Also, in some specialist suppliers, and zi rather doubt they'd cock up. But finally, remember I'm a tech journslist? Some of the systems I've tried, well, let's just say they were manufacturer lab systems, in the presence of product managers, technical managers and company CEOs

Yup and I've been to some specialist-ish places too... one benefit of having the Innovation Department in the same building - But unless they actually take the time (which they often don't, because they still have cool stuff to show everyone) to set up all the kit specifically for the individual (a bit like you do when you first start using a Vive/Rift), it won't yield the best results to begin with. Existing individual issues can exacerbate this, but part of the fault still lies with the tech.

As for 'out of range' .... very possibly.
Am I a "normal" subject? No evidently not. But lots of different people have very different eye problems, and some probably don't even know it. Yet. My high street optician certainly missed the retinal tears.

And again, there will be those for whom it simply won't suit, any more than a multi-button gaming mouse will suit someone without fingers, or my bike will suit anyone shorter than about 5' 8".

On the other hand, give it confusing auditory data and the brain is more likely, as I understand it, to say to itself " secondary data (sound) conflicts with primary (sight) .... so filter sound out."
And hence, less trouble with hearing.

My argument (assertion? query? point?) regarding Surround Sound is that SS is used as a background enhancement effect, which is what 3D is supposed to be. People think it's only a gimmick because that's how it's so often used, with the whole Comin' At Ya side of things. Were it to fade back into the background, those able to perceive it would obviously benefit but those not should/would/might still be able to perceive the basic image, in the same way they might not get full Surround immersion but can still hear the noises.... if that makes sense?

Again, going back to the industry in general taking 3D seriously and not misusing it or being lazy about its implementation.

[peterb]

My argument (assertion? query? point?) regarding Surround Sound is that SS is used as a background enhancement effect, which is what 3D is supposed to be. People think it's only a gimmick because that's how it's so often used, with the whole Comin' At Ya side of things. Were it to fade back into the background, those able to perceive it would obviously benefit but those not should/would/might still be able to perceive the basic image, in the same way they might not get full Surround immersion but can still hear the noises.... if that makes sense?

Again, going back to the industry in general taking 3D seriously and not misusing it or being lazy about its implementation.

I refer you to post 65 above.

[Saracen]

Yup and I've been to some specialist-ish places too... one benefit of having the Innovation Department in the same building - But unless they actually take the time (which they often don't, because they still have cool stuff to show everyone) to set up all the kit specifically for the individual (a bit like you do when you first start using a Vive/Rift), it won't yield the best results to begin with. Existing individual issues can exacerbate this, but part of the fault still lies with the tech.

In general cases, setup may be an issue. I can't speak to that In my case, I don't believe a manufacturer will fly a journalist halfway round the world for a product preview and not take care to set it up properly.

As for your view on industry not taking it seriously, I have no knowledge but wouldn't dispute that. But for me, it's academic because something messes me up every time I try it. I can speculate that it's my eyes, though it was pre-retinal tear, and that seems plausible, but it is still speculation and it could be something completely independent.

[snedger]

I would only watch 3D at the cinema.
I usually web search "<film name> 3d or not 3d" and decide whether to spend extra dosh based on the write ups.
If it was a cartoon like Minions then there would be no need to ask - the gratuitous over use in your face 3d effects are too fun to miss.
Recently writeups persuaded me to watch Blade runner 2049 in 3d and I did enjoy the subtle use of 3d.
Basically, I like being entertained.

[Ttaskmaster]

I refer you to post 65 above.

Which is pretty much what I was getting at/thinking toward with the rather leading question and why I'm hoping it will start being used properly.

In general cases, setup may be an issue. I can't speak to that In my case, I don't believe a manufacturer will fly a journalist halfway round the world for a product preview and not take care to set it up properly.

If they have the time, then they ought to measure 'you' and adjust the kit to suit... but when they have 20 different people at the event who all want/need a go?

As for your view on industry not taking it seriously, I have no knowledge but wouldn't dispute that.

It gets a bit more evident once you know just a few of the things to look for. Even Avatar had some glaring errors, particularly when using forced-focus techniques that are standard fare for most 2D films... but directly counter some of the fundamental principles of 3D. And yes, while it may well be the most advanced CGI ever, coupled with the most advanced stereoscopic image reproduction system ever.... one of the two images is still wonky!

Things like that.
And while fixing them won't make 3D work for absolutely everyone, it would fix a large percentage of the problem.

But for me, it's academic because something messes me up every time I try it. I can speculate that it's my eyes, though it was pre-retinal tear, and that seems plausible, but it is still speculation and it could be something completely independent.

Were I in the industry myself, I'd be quite interested to investigate further and see if anything could be done tech-wise to tackle the problem. I still expect it's a combination of things.

[Saracen]

If they have the time, then they ought to measure 'you' and adjust the kit to suit... but when they have 20 different people at the event who all want/need a go?

And perhaps therein lies the problem.

Any kit that requires each individual consumer to be lab-measured to calibrate it so it works properly is not fit for the consumer mass market.

Any kit that works "adequately" for those "in range" but causes headaches, migraine and/or nausea for those not "in range" is always going to get negative PR, especially if that possibity is not explained up front.

[Jaffo]

The cinema's expensive enough as it is in 2D!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Both - it depends on the film.

[DanceswithUnix]

They can and already are. Have been since the days of anaglyph 3D. Just a separate disc, or video file. Don't need no fancy 3D TV to screen those.

It's just two images on the same screen, with glasses to direct the correct image to the correct eye... or rather block the wrong one from seing the wrong image, really.
This is why I'm interested in the colour wavelength stuff, as you can have 2D or 3D in the same single image/file and the effect is decided only by the outputting screen... and it's glasses-free.

Oh come on, anaglyph 3d means a weird sacrifice of colour such that it is far worse than watching a black and white picture. The reason 3D came back to cinema was that digital distribution made the problems of syncing a pair of projectors go away and cheap polarised glasses made he quality acceptable. You *do* need special 3D kit for that, it is just that the 3D grill on a passive 3D set is reasonably cheap to the point that it really could have become standard. After all, in my youth colour was considered a luxury but is now standard because it is considered acceptable cost by the majority of users, but let's face it even today it would be cheaper to make a monochrome TV set with a third of the driven pixels and no colour filters, you just wouldn't. It comes down to whether you think the complexity is worth it. Heck, high end 100Hz panels should be able to do 3D with the addition of active glasses at additional cost and no impact on the basic TV purchase cost. but they are just going away.

In this case there is a *significant* minority for who the 3D effect is harmful, then there is another group like my son who just simply don't care for it. It will never be universally popular, but as someone in the market for a TV right now I am disappointed in the utter lack of 3D options.

This seems at odds with what we are seeing in movie theatres. A new one just got built nearby, it is fully 3D enabled with 4DX as well which say to be that there is a market for the content.

[Ttaskmaster]

Any kit that requires each individual consumer to be lab-measured to calibrate it so it works properly is not fit for the consumer mass market.

Not lab-measured so much, but even going through the setup for a home-use VR HMD takes time - If I go round a friend's for a VR gaming night it takes 5-10 minutes to set up a new profile, because our eyes are that different.

Most places demoing those would not take the time to do that for every different customer, which is why some walked away thinking it was an insane price for blurry cack.
Perhaps not so much for lab demos, but again depends how long it takes to adjust.

Any kit that works "adequately" for those "in range" but causes headaches, migraine and/or nausea for those not "in range" is always going to get negative PR, especially if that possibity is not explained up front.

I wouldn't expect it to be explained in detail up front, because there are numerous possible factors and it might put people off trying who could very well be fine with it. There will always be some outside the 'normal' range they've catered for as they simply can't cover everything, any more than most vehicles will not fit drivers who are excessively tall or short.

Oh come on, anaglyph 3d means a weird sacrifice of colour such that it is far worse than watching a black and white picture.

It was indeed... But it's still just a double-image and you can get those on a DVD and watch on a normal screen.

The reason 3D came back to cinema was that digital distribution made the problems of syncing a pair of projectors go away and cheap polarised glasses made he quality acceptable.

Yes, but you now also have TVs that can display that same image that the single projector can.

You *do* need special 3D kit for that, it is just that the 3D grill on a passive 3D set is reasonably cheap to the point that it really could have become standard.

Nothing more special than a TV and BluRay player at 60Hz.
Basic cinema projectors currently do 3D at about 72fps for a film shot in 24fps... which is one point where The Hobbit went wrong, in over-cleverly trying to *film* at 48fps, and where Cameron might be going if he really is shooting Avatar 2 at 60fps, although there are several other points that might also affect that.

However, other projectors will do different formats at much higher frame rates, which is why 3D works so well on computers with 144Hz monitors and I expect standard Smart TVs will be doing the same soon, if they aren't already.

You can display twin images at as many frames as you like, but you still need the glasses.
What I'm especially excited about is the technology that (reportedly) puts slight variances on the colour wavelength of either left or right frame, so only the correct eye picks it up - This means you won't need glasses at all.
I haven't seen much detail released about the tech, but it sounds awesome.

In this case there is a *significant* minority for who the 3D effect is harmful, then there is another group like my son who just simply don't care for it. It will never be universally popular, but as someone in the market for a TV right now I am disappointed in the utter lack of 3D options.

They are still a minority though as even the old 48fps systems in the 80s (so long as they were set up right) saw many people watching without any such problems.

I do agree, not everyone will love it.
I just assert that *more* people would be 'unharmed' if it were both set up and used appropriately.

This seems at odds with what we are seeing in movie theatres. A new one just got built nearby, it is fully 3D enabled with 4DX as well which say to be that there is a market for the content.

A modern DLP cinema projecting a triple flash solution at 144fps costs a lotta money. Getting that same capability into a TV is probably not cheap and still requires glasses.

Home users don't want to keep faffing around taking glasses on and off depending on whether their programme is in 3D or not, as well as there probably being as much of a lack in 3d content as there is 4K... which I attribute to the massively increased production costs and pains in one's proverbial in filming things in 3D properly to begin with.

It's not just having the right camera - Everything must be in 3D, even things in the backgrounds that are miles away. Even in space, the stars must be 3D or it doesn't look right. I forget the exact reason, but things generally need to be much brighter as well, so your lighting costs are massively increased, too.

By contrast, it's piddle-easy to produce 3D content in both animated film and in computer games, as it's all completely digital. I don't know why 144Hz monitors are cheaper than the same for TVs, but they are, which makes a few hundred quid for a VR HMD seem semi-reasonable, and thus more game devs are 'VR-Interested' when it comes to producing content.

Despite aaaaaaaaaall of that and my somewhat unhealthy devotion to Elite Dangerous, I still think everything outside of their cockpit looks like a flat 2D painting in VR!!

[Saracen]

Not lab-measured so much, but even going through the setup for a home-use VR HMD takes time - If I go round a friend's for a VR gaming night it takes 5-10 minutes to set up a new profile, because our eyes are that different.

Most places demoing those would not take the time to do that for every different customer, which is why some walked away thinking it was an insane price for blurry cack.
Perhaps not so much for lab demos, but again depends how long it takes to adjust.

Yes, many stores might not set up properly. That was why I pointed out I had had the exact same reaction in :-

a) PC World, and

b) Several specialist shops, and

c) a manufacturer development lab, system set up by manufacturer experts.

On each, my reaction was as far as I can tell, identical, and within, at most, 10-15 minutes.

While I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it was setup/config problem in option a), and it's plausible that one shop in b) might be slacking, for several tp do it would surprise me. And I'd be very surprised indeed in c).

The fact that the effect was identical, and the timing very similar, suggests pretty strongly to me that, for me at least, setup/config wasn't the problem, even in PC World.

[Bige123]

I prefer 2D due to the ridiculous price mark up of the 3D version. You pay the ridiculous mark up which buys the glasses to watch the movie, then they want you to recycle the glasses as if they gave them to you for free!

[InnocentFool]

3D, but good look trying to get a 3D TV. I have managed to find one and it's out of my price range, which was THE problem with 3D TVs. They were out of the average users price range for a TV, even now the one I could find is over £1,000 when most are spending £300-£600. Make a 3D TV for £600 and it would have stood a better chance of taking off