By Harry McCracken | Monday, January 24, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Roger Ebert gets a fascinating, cogent, passionately anti-3D letter from film-editing legend Walter Murch and concludes that it closes the case on 3D movies. I tend to agree…
3D isn't doomed, it just needs more math applied to it than currently happens.
Good bigger than life 3D requires 2 imaging cameras, and a a depth mapping camera, and a convergence calculation filter in post.
This is a lot of work and expensive, but it makes the headache go away and produces a hyper-real sense of depth.
He says, "how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?"
It's my impression that "the people" aren't the problem but the industry itself. People already don't want it. The industry keeps force-feeding us 3D and unless we boycott movies altogether more often than not we reluctantly put up with 3D for the story behind the trickery. I think 3D is ruining movies but in a capitalist society will the Film and TV industry really just give up on the whole thing after they have dug their heals in so deeply and stubbornly?
They said the same thing about color TV (so I've heard).
I personally like 3D. I think it makes movies, when done right, look more real than HD alone can do. It is somewhere between looking at a photo and looking at a real-life scene. And for video games, it brings you just one step further into the action (Gran Turismo is amazing).
I personally don't get headaches, neither does my wife, and the Panasonic glasses are actually quite comfortable. And, after seeing the CES coverage, I'll be the first in line to buy a 3d home video camera.
Hey, someone has to play devil's advocate.