AP reports on trends in 3D

Sunday, January 23, 2011

AP reports on trends in 3D

Posted by Hollywood Slinkyon 20. 01 2011in News Chat

The Associated Press has today trend Hollywood cinema 3D labelling as the future of entertainment despite the fact that this makes the nausea of millions of people.

Article notes optometrists identify even one in every four viewers experience discomfort, headache, or dizziness of 3D cinema and television.

The AP reports:

That does not deter the entertainment industry, who is aware of the problem still charging ahead plans to create more films and broadcasts television in 3 - d. Jeff Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc., called 3D "largest innovation has happened to halls of cinema and film lovers since the color.

There are several studies to increase eye fatigue caused by 3D, including one in Korea of the South, where they found viewers should take a break of 15 minutes from 3D media every 60 minutes. Nintendo is same booked with their new 3DS noting too 3D in children less than 6 years could cause problems with their vision of development.

Section is finally offering medical explanation of discomfort and concerns.

AP goes on to say:

3D monitors and lenses to create the illusion of depth by showing different images for each eye. That simulates how objects that are at different distances in the real world appear in slightly different places in field of vision in each eye. It is enough for most of us to perceive a scene as with depth. But our eyes also seek a different depth marker in a scene: they expect to need to focus at different distances to see sharply. Specifically, our eyes follow an object approaching turning inward to our nose. Bring something quite closely, and we expect Loucheur. Displays 3D has also raise this response when they show as something like the Viewer. The problem is that, as eye inwards, they expect also to focus more closely. A screen is not move closer, so the eyes have curb their inclination cabled and focus back out. This discrepancy between where eyes think that focus should be and where the screen is actually required to work virtual hard.

It is a rather in-depth article and found in its entirety here.

Personally, I like 3D when used sparingly and appropriately in a film that actually lends in the middle. Unfortunately, it is becoming so commonplace, I lose interest. I am especially not a fan of stereoscopic conversion of 2-D films, which usually translates into poor quality anyway. Between glasses, gadget, the screen a game to make obvious use of 3D and the light is dimmed, caused by polarized lenses, I usually just find 3-d to a distraction that costs me an extra $4 boring in my local theatre.

My wife, however, is one of the 25% who became very sick of it and actually vomit after a single film. I can certainly attest that that adds not my experience.

I am not anti-3-D, I just need it, and I think that the filmmakers have not learned to adjust their styles lead to make it work. Work precarious camera at hand for scenes of action, for example, are exceptionally disorienting and inducing nausea as sensitive and would be easy to move away from Director.

Until Rodney and Ebert throw down in hampered to decide the future of 3D, another sick person, or 3 - d love?