Originally Posted By danyoung >You disagree with the scientific principles by which a human focuses on things?< No, I disagreed with his conclusions. The mind has an incredible capability to interpret the information that's coming in to it. The 3D illusion is a trick that the mind interprets into thinking it's seeing depth. It doesn't work for everyone, and yes, some people get headaches as they try to unconsiously force their eyes into places where they don't want to go. But when it works - that is, when the technical setup is correct and the film was shot correctly - it's a great effect and a cool addition to a somewhat stale format.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well my 3D Blu Ray of Beauty and the Beast arrived at home yesterday. It will be interesting to see how it fares.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>a cool addition to a somewhat stale format.<< Yeah, movies were going the way of the parchment scroll before 3D came along. 9_9
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>He said exactly what I said he said:...<< Never argued with that. But he also said exactly what I said: That it doesn't work. Claiming that he really said it doesn't work "with our brains" is somehow different is silly. About as silly as the whole argument (which I read back when it first came out). >>The focal length problem isn't open to opinion...<< Actually, it is. >>3D motion pictures give your brain unnatural, confusing signals.<< Not my brain. I see 3D just fine, thank you. >>You disagree with the scientific principles by which a human focuses on things?<< The argument is not based on scientific principles. It's based on the opinion of a film editor. (And the fact that he is an Academy Award winning film editor still doesn't make his opinion a scientific principle.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dug and Mawnck, I think you're actually both correct in a sense. 3D "works" in that we do perceive a third dimension. But we don't (and indeed can't) perceive it in the same WAY that we perceive an actual 3D object, because it isn't an actual 3D object; it's a projection on a 2D screen. This discrepancy bothers some people greatly (who get headaches), other people not at all, and other people somewhere in between. But even those whom it doesn't bother are not perceiving the 3D images the same way they would perceive an actual 3D object. Now you can both yell at me.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Now you can both yell at me.<< WHATSAMATTER WITH YOU? That's actually exactly what I've been trying to say all along. I never said it didn't create an illusion of depth, and neither did Roger Ebert. I notice, Dug, that you didn't address the inferior picture quality, particularly on those converted Sony projectors that AMC theaters use. ;-)
