Go to www.squarespace.com/nerdwriter for 10% off your first purchase.
GET MY BOOK HERE: amzn.to/3EPDQKt
Support Nerdwriter videos: / nerdwriter Subscribe: bit.ly/SubNerdwriter
Watch the most popular Nerdwriter episodes: • How Donald Trump Answe...
Facebook: / the-nerdwriter-3141415...
Twitter: / theenerdwriter
Patreon: / nerdwriter
SOURCES
www.thewrap.com/3d-progress-l...
www.rogerebert.com/roger-eber...
variety.com/2010/digital/feat...
www.brainfacts.org/thinking-s...
stephenprepasmd.com/depth-perc...
www.researchgate.net/figure/M...
MUSIC (via Epidemic Sound)
Wendy Marcini, Elvin Vanguard "Lost In Translation"
pär, "My Sweet Ding-Didely-Dey "
Watch More Nerdwriter:
Latest Uploads: • Video
Understanding Art: • What The Truman Show T...
Essays About Art: • What The Truman Show T...
Essays About Social Science: • How To Correct Donald ...
Popular Videos: • How Donald Trump Answe...
The Nerdwriter is a series of video essays about art, culture, politics, philosophy and more.
An additional problem is if you watch the movie with subtitles, because i am dutch and we never translate the audio (which i think is a good thing, because the voice is a part of an actor performance) we have subtitles for all foreign movies (and in the theater without personal choice). For a 3D movie the subtitles are in a sharp 2D plane of it's own, which is on-changing and often not the same plane where the focus point in the picture is. So then there are two sharp planes to switch between if you are reading and looking at the action. Having to adjust even more and thus breaking the emersion even more.
I wish I was dutch..... let's watch a movie in Beverwijk's theater someday, yes? :D I live like 2 min walk away from it
During Avatar I remember a lot of moments where the subtitles would jump to unexpected places to not "break" the 3D of the movie. But if you were reading the subtitles, that was also mildly annoying, and if you were trying to not look at them, the movie would shove them in your face anyway at some points.
Yep!
even in CGI cartoons the models are in 3d but all effects fire smoke vapour etc is flat. and a lot of movies are filmed by luddites and they are out of focus
Not here. Subtitles are in 3D as well. They are also placed in different places on the screen, not always at the bottom and centered. Sometimes drawing your eyes to what you should be looking at.
On the topic with the smaller screen: I don't think the screen itself is shrinking in 3D. The problem ist that the "stage" for the action is not a rectangle that extends the screen towards you, but rather a cone that gets smaller with less distance to your eyes. Therefore the closer the objects are to you, the less space is available for them. Making it hard to feel immersive when you are just a bit too far away from the screen. This was the case for me when watching the new Avatar and I could see the 3D space ending outside of the cone instead of having it "surround" me. Sitting closer might solve this by moving the edges of the cone more in the peripheral field of view.
Yeah that's probably it. It makes it look smaller because it feels like a window.
Correct, and therefor there is a limited space in which you can do your 3D stuff. So it is mainly poking things in your face, so you know "how 3D" it is. But it is always in front of you. No objects will pass you by. Every thing has to happen in the cone from the screen edges, to your eyes. Another thing is that you can only see the 3D the camera sees, so the view of "3D" objects will not change if you move your head to see the side of the thing in front of you. You can see depth, not 3D.
That also works in combination with another issue: A 2d movie is a window to a larger space behind the screen, which is in 3d movies the concave area. But audiences of 3d movies expect convex effects reaching out of the screen else they claim they have not seen 3d because humans are idiots. So it is tempting to just change the convergence point and have pictures in front of the screen which then get cut off - but not as we perceive it by a window but just in that space in front of the screen just as you described it.
the screen getting smaller is not just for 3d glasses. I got prescription glasses recently and i went to the theatre and all the screens looked smaller
I had a very different experience. For the river childhood fishing scene, I even noticed myself moving my head to try and see around the tree that was in front of part of the scene (which the camera then panned around). I thought that was very clever and immersive. I do wish they’ll improve the lighting technology though so the color perception can be improved.
I wish it felt immersive to me, sounds fun
These are good and well researched reasons which I agree with, but I still thought the 3d in Avatar was very immersive! it actually changed my mind that in some circumstance it's more than a gimmick, I usually actively avoid 3d. It was a very large imax theatre so that does directly negate some of points mentioned, the image was very bright and the screen was so massive it did not shrink with glasses on.
Agree very much with this. I think the points would certainly apply to several 3D movies I’ve seen in the past but I either didn’t notice it in the Way of Water, or I found that it didn’t apply because of how the format I saw it in overcame the video’s suggested challenges
His 3rd reason was not very well researched at all lmao. Just said he “feels” like it’s smaller even when providing no explanation or evidence.
@@NicholasOoni disagree barely any pop outs sadly
exactly.
First time I noticed the forced focus was when I saw Prometheus in 3D and two characters were standing around a kitchen island covered in bottles, and I was curious what wine they had been drinking. Some of the bottles on the island were actually closer to the camera than the actors were, but yet I couldn’t see them.
That's depth of field though, not necessarily the fault of 3D. It's actually explained in the video
@@TIPworks yeah but that's the point right? 3D is supposed to make it feel more immersive. But it would only be truly be immersive if you could say "oh I'm curious what wine they're having, let me focus on that real quick" without being limited by depth of field / the focus point of the camera
@@TIPworks no it wasn’t blurry in the foreground. It just wasn’t the 3d focal distance. If you watch the scene in regular 2D it looks fine; you can look at the bottles no problem.
My cousin used to drive a forced focus.
I like the scene in Prometheus 3D where they activate Weyland hologram and the room extend in size, it felt like a magic trick. I was surprised. But many time the camera angle are old 2D style, I think the cool scene they got was merely a chance/accident. Sadly, the Prometheus 2D has nothing cool, the cinematography is mediocre due to the bland industrial grey/black theme of the alien planet. At least on 3D they have strong point in visual magic with the hologram and the spaces (walkway, hall, corridor) of the spaceship & alien base.
For me, the main issue is that it constantly reminds you that you're watching a movie. I even went to watch a 4D movie once, with the moving chairs stuff. It was just really distracting, because you're focused on the technology over the story.
I think 3d and 4d are good for, like, theme park rides, where most people are there specifically for the novelty. But yeah for a serious film it'll just be a distraction.
I think there's also a level to which 3D fails to be immersive (at least to me) because the problem its gimmick exists to solve is already one that cinema has lots of solutions for. Depth is created in set design, in the shot composition and so on. We're already experts at creating depth illusions in film so adding 'real depth' just isn't much of a selling point. That and my brother is completely unable to get 3D films to work for him (he has a thing with his eyes where making them do too much work causes one of them to stop sending feedback [like a lazy eye, but seemingly random as to which eye stops] so he gets at most 2 minutes of 3D, then watches the entire rest of the movie through one eye, which tends to make him feel ill) so that soured me against them.
^That. There is a learned grammar which has to be followed for the 2d screenings. So what 3d can add without breaking those rules is very limited.
Stereoscopic 3D can just make the depth even bigger. It is an enhancement like surround sound. Sure, you only have two ears, so two speakers could be argued to be enough and you could argue that we have good enough tricks to get good audio out of just two stereo speakers, but if you've experienced real good surround sound then you know it just pushes things even further.
I know this might not be a great solution for your brother since 3D movies aren’t very common but you should let him know that he could make his own pair of “2D” glasses for those situations in which he’s more or less “forced” (so to speak) to watch a 3D movie with other people. All he needs to do is to get ahold of two new or previously used pairs (the glasses return bin outside of a 3D movie theater room is a good place to obtain them) then he will need to pop out one of the lenses from each. Make sure he pops out the opposite lens of each pair, like the left one of the 1st then right one of the 2nd. Then you swap out the lenses of each then replace them onto the other. Now he has two “2D” glasses for himself and a friend. There’s tutorials on KZhead on how to do this in case my explanation wasn’t clear.
3D isn't a gimmick, no more so than color was when first introduced - and it wasn't introduced perfectly from the outset either, was overused at times, and conflicted with the drama of film noir effects which didn't translate well to it. 24 fps, on the other hand IS a terrible gimmick, one we can finally solve except that people have problems with smooth video because it reminds them of VCR of all things.
I went to an Imax in the Berlin Sony Center once and was blown away by the immersive Documentary about Dinosaurs. It was simple 3D animation but everyone in the cinema would flinch whenever something charged towards them. It was great, unfortunately it has been disassembled and a 2D cinema put there instead. I will never forget how good the effects were.
I have also enjoyed 3D movies that were documentaries - the type they show at museums about space, dinosaurs, or the ocean. James Cameron even made one of these. I think that genre works better because we want spectacle. And the narrator gives you the idea of “Let me show you.” But it doesn’t work well if you’re in a fiction story, even one where the world building is key.
@@alexh4935 This makes a lot of sense.
@@alexh4935 I remember our planetarium had a viewing of a documentary about navigating via the stars and the projected onto (into?) the domed roof of the planetarium. That worked incredibly good as well!
I have a very low opinion of 3D and generally avoid it. However, I agree that watching 3D vs IMAX 3D is not the same, and the latter is far more prone to immersion. So if a film is showing in an IMAX theatre, I don't mind seeing it in 3D, but if it's in a regular theatre I would rather avoid it. On a sidenote, I love BIG theatres, and I hate that when the same film is being shown in multiple theatres, the 2D one is often much, much smaller, which is annoying, because I feel forced to watch it in 3D because I was a big scree. I also think it's not right that theatres charge the same regardless of the size of the room. IMO all standard theatres should be the same size with IMAX being bigger.
I saw Avatar on a huge IMAX Laser screen, and I have never felt more immersed in a film. It was like I was looking through a window
How are these two sentences not opposites?
@@MammaApa It's a matter of how you frame it, would be my guess. If something's happening outside your window, that means it's happening right in front of you--as much as they're used as a metaphor for distance, watching something through a window can also imply a sense of closeness and immediacy. If you're not the kind of person who easily gets "sucked into" a movie, if you can't decompartmentalize the myriad sensations happening on the screen to the tactile reality that you're still sitting in a chair in a theater, shifting the focus from being inside the world of the movie to watching the world of the movie play out behind a thin layer of glass could be helpful. It's a more voyeuristic way to engage with it, maybe, but not necessarily less "immersive."
Absolutely agree with you, its almost like the quality of the theatre you go to, will change your expierience. I kinda feel like Mr Nerdwriter missed the mark here, condemning and categorizing 3D as just not good and without merit. Ofcourse if your expieriences with 3D are all bad then you’re probably not gonna be positive to it. The thing that upset me with this video was how it was connected to the way of water, which has been the best 3D expierience i’ve ever had. I didn’t originally want to see the 3D version cause it tends to be a cheap gimmick that poorly incorporated in the filmmaking. I also wear glasses, but the IMAX screening was 3D and i knew this was an IMAX worthy film. This movie really opened my eyes to what 3D COULD be, if done well, this was the perfect movie in my eyes for 3D. The stunning visuals and vivid life in every single frame in this magical world, but now its encapsulating you fully! The fact that the world extended out of the screen and i was convinced i could reach out and play with the fish myself and touch the greeneries, helped suck me in and keep me stuck to everything that happened. It was incredible, i felt like a child again and that was very special to me. So if anyone is able to go to a really good 3D screening, i would reccomend them to do so, just for the chance they could have the priveliege of expieriencing what i did. Just because the technology or implementation didnt work, shouldnt be a condemnation of the idea of the technology itself. Rather a way to figure out the factors limiting its success. Nerdwriters conclusion and final axiom is that immersion is the penultimate goal of a filmmaker, in the same video hes condemning 3D is to me either lazy, dishonest or fully deluded. Okay i’ve gone on way too long, i guess i felt very strongly about this one. Generally really enjoy his insights and videos, but felt he missed the mark here. Hope he gets to see a good screening of a 3D movie someday and will promptly eat his hat, as one should. Keep it up mr Nerd!
@@ThunderGamingFly Interesting points. I agreed with the Mr Nerd till I read this comment. Now you've got me thinking. Vox made a similar point in a recent video about sound ie *Tech Matters* A quick Google and here it is: "Why We All Need Subtitles Now". In fact, from memory, in that video Christopher Nolan says he explicitly makes films which require a very high quality cinema sound system.
I agree. Even though the 3d tech was new, I enjoyed it. Same feeling with Tron Legacy. It was really immersive for me.
The best movie I've ever seen in 3D was Bi Gan's "Long Day's Journey Into Night", which only uses 3D for the second half of it. All of the drawbacks you mentioned, though, like the darkness, the 'shrinking' of the screen, the flattening of focus, all end up suiting what's happening in the movie. The movie becomes a lot more surreal / dreamlike in the last hour, so watching in 3D helps solidify the difference between the realism at the start.
It is the only 3D movie experience I've ever encountered where the 3D is more than just a gimmick to watch a movie in, but used as part of the visual narrative to convey the story. An incredibly unique vision which can only be experienced in the intended way to make it work. Never seen anything like it
Honestly, one thing I would LOVE is for a film to use that final issue, the one about depth of focus and the inability to focus on things in the background, deliberately. I don't know exactly how, but in something like a character experiencing a dream and not knowing, or them being manipulated by something to alter their understanding of what is - and using that lack of ability to even focus on what isn't in focus to draw the audience in more. Possibly even have the character noticably be unable to focus on anything other than the other person, things deliberately not lining up correctly in a shot reverse shot. Taking this thing that is absolutely an issue, and using the very issue it causes as a technique.
That can already be done in regular 2D movies though, what is the 3D tech adding to it?
@@MaxIronsThird It would be a more visceral experience, if looking at out of focus 3D is as disorienting for you as it is for Nerdwriter, I don't experience this issue though.
Avatar should have been filmed in a way that everything is in focus. So the viewers can chose where to focus their eyes. To me that is the only thing interesting about 3d, I can look at the space people are in or what is happening in the background, while the actors have a dialog. I can even look at an actor in the background, who normally wouldn't have been in focus in a 2d movie. Cameron probably thinks the viewers are idiots, since we're probably not able to figure out where to look and look past the performances 😄
@@mr.b6789 3D movies can't do that, it's not actually 3D, you can't just move your head to the side and see what's behind a character.
@@MaxIronsThird It's very easy and done before. I have a 3d TV from 2011, back then there were demo video's that show this effect. Also, you can make your own 3d content with two cameras next to eachother, you try it for yourself. What do you think will happen if both cameras are set to infinity focus?
I didn’t seem to have any of these problems. I felt really immersed throughout the whole movie and loved seeing the depth of field in some scenes. And the movie looked plenty bright when I watch it. Never once thought any of the scenes were too dark.
This made me think about how you can focus on an object in the "distance" in VR games. I started to desensitize myself to motion sickness, and one of the aspects that helped me was learning to focus (or not focus) on a distant object while moving in VR. The vignette effect while teleporting in VR is also a massive help with these things. It closes off your peripheral vision and makes it comfortable to move.
Newer VR headsets have eyetracking, so the place you're looking at is always "in focus", without having to render everything(outside of that) in super high resolusitons at all times, different from a regular console on TV does. PS:objetcs in the "distance" move at a lesser speed, minimizing the motion sickness.
Focusing on far away objects instead of close objects is actually a well-trodden strategy for motion sickness in the case of cars, so it makes sense it would apply to VR as well. For VR though, it's usually best to take it easy and play games that use "advanced" movement methods (i.e using the thumbstick) in short bursts with lots of breaks and allow your body to adjust over time. But yes, as you discovered, comfort options like reducing FOV when moving can make this process a lot more comfortable!
@@MaxIronsThird There is only around 4 headsets that have eye tracking, PSVR 2, Quest Pro and the Pro Eye versions of the Pico Neo and HTC Vive. Most people have a Quest 2, a old Rift or Vive or a Valve Index...
@@MaxIronsThird That's not how VR headsets work. Even the few headsets that do have eye-tracking, don't use it for focusing anything. It's simply not something you need to do in games, as everything you see already is clear, in focus and tracked from your position. Eye-tracking is used for controlling things, such as moving an avatar's eyes or as a game mechanic. You _could_ use the eye-tracking for focusing on a stereoscopic video viewed in VR of course - but that's something entirely different, and specific to video.
@@Cimlite I'll add that it's mostly used for Foveated rendering, which renders full res the center of your vision and progressively less on the outer vision. So these headset can have great resolution while still running fast and smooth.
It's funny that you use this exact movie as an example because I actually thought the 3D on Avatar 2 was the best I'd ever seen done on a movie - it really made me jump a few times when things were coming towards the camera and I also didn't lose the feeling of the third dimension during the entire run. Something I've never felt since the first time I watched a movie in 3D.
Yeah. This video is way out of touch on its topic.
@@breadordecide Maybe to you. I agreed with it all
@@ixICocoIxi Did you watch TWOW in 3D?
A well-made Nerdwriter video, but have to agree. I found Avatar 2 in 3D to be really immersive. Did not notice any of the issues outlined in this video
@@breadordecide I agree with you but it‘s only out of touch with both our realities. Everyone has a different one.
Many of these points are regurgitated from an old article on Roger Ebert's website. All of them require caveats. The focus/convergence issue is all but irrelevant for movies on the big screen due to the distance involved. Brightness is down to the theater. It makes a big difference when they do it right. Miniaturisation only applies to parts of the scene. 3D puts a scale on things but also has the ability to make background elements look monumental. Like you're looking through the screen to something too large to fit on it. Dinosaurs can appear life-size, even Godzilla scale. Ultimately, seeing is believing, and in the case of a well-crafted 3D movie like Avatar, or Kiss Me Kate, or even Robot Monster the benefits are plain to see, and you're just not getting the full experience without it.
Best 3D film I saw was Coraline. It was done so well and suited the stop motion
There is another de-immersing feature though I do feel like it leads to 3 smaller screen. The 4th wall breaking in two ways 1) Items in the film that project toward you out of the screen often start to interact with the other things your room. They are above the seats in front of you or above your legs. You could sometimes feel like you could reach out and touch them. Now you are aware that they are in your world rather than in the world of the film. Sometime they even clip the edge of the screen which pushes this even more and emphasises that their fantasy screen world is within your room. 2) Items further back feel like they are in a window. This window is now a window in your room. Without 3d we let our eyes fall at the intended target on the screen, We ignore the edges of this world. We are immersed in just what is in there. We don't take in the irrelevant frame or anything else in our room.
Window violation
I think you mean 4th wall breaking but yes, 3D often does this in a very literal sense and just like in the metaphorical sense it takes you out of the movie world and back into the real world. Sometimes this can work well such as in a comedy like Jackass 3D but in a serious film it's not really what you want.
@aspzx oh yes. All this 3d distracted me from 4th wall. Thanks. I'll try to edit my message with that.
"Sometime they even clip the edge of the screen" that is literally impossible.
I think a related reason that the screen seems smaller is another aspect of the interplay of the distance to the screen and eye convergence. In 2D movies eye convergence never comes into play. Our eyes are de-converged so things seem far away and big. In 3D movies eye convergence makes our brains think that things are close, and therefore small.
“In 3D it was almost like Gatsby’s sober examination of the unrestrained materialism and absent moral centre of the roaring twenties jumped right out at you” _Norm MacDonald_
Saw this on a 6 story iMax 3D screen. Was absolutely immersive and spectacular. I feel like this video only really applies to typical 3D in theaters. IMAX 3D was incredible and made a huge difference. The glasses work differently and the brightness is not as much of a big deal. Highly recommend.
this exactly i never watched the new movie in theaters but i was able to watch the first one that rereleased a few months ago in imax 3D and it was easily the best experience i've ever had. watching any other movies in 3D while not being filmed for it is an eye sore and definitely takes you out of the movie. avatar didn't do this for imax 3d
I've watched around 200 3D movies and not just 2 so I feel like you should have added (to me) at the end of every argument in this one. 3D movies are far MORE immersive for me. They provide greater ease in determining the relative mass or scale of subjects so that I feel like I'm watching actual people rather than giant floating heads. I also appreciate that needing special glasses means a more dedicated experience where my periphery is literally blocked out.
I would slightly push you on this - try 3D at home if you can! It’s definitely an investment and quite niche. But if you can get your hands on a secondhand 3D television, watching 3D movies at home is a whole different level of immersion. My friends laugh at me, but Megamind, Avatar and Polar Express at home are an absolute spectacle. Early 2010s blockbusters had 3D Blu-ray combo packs more readily available, and a lot of those are amazing, especially the animated Dreamworks and Marvel movies. There’s a 3D movie in the Criterion Collection too. We’re a small, niche community, but there are dozens of us - dozens!!
Yo we gotta talk I definitely wanna get my hands on a 3D TV, in a huge 3D fan
I need to get a 3D TV or projector at some point. I've just been ripping my 3D BDs into SBS so I can watch them in my VR headset. And it's nice, but I would love to be able to just plop a disc in and play and not have to wait a couple hours for the rip and conversion to finish.
Heck yeah. And many of those 3-D combo packs you can still find in bargain bins. Boutique blu-ray labels like Vinegar Syndrome, Kino Lorber and 3-D Archive are trying to keep older 3-D cinema alive as well. It is a niche genre and a legit artform when done right.
Reason #4 was my biggest problem with 3D. Though what I did like about Avatar is that they used the 3D for depth, not for making things pop out at you.
seeing the vines and tiny animals in the foreground smacking directly into the wall of the cinema was incredibly immersive! i love when my eye is drawn to the blank wall by movement
slightly different take here: Avatar the way of water is probably one of the (if not the) most immersive 3D movies I've ever seen. Cameron really figured out how to do it right. Agreed on all your points applied to other subpar 3D movies though
I saw Avatar 2 in 3D when it came out, but I didn't notice these problems that much. I thought that the 3D in that movie was quite well done, although, let's say it, it's a useless gimmick. It DID bother me though, when I went to see Titanic, in 3D when it was re-released a few weeks ago. I know this movie by heart and I often watch what is in the background because of all the attention to detail in the costume. In 3D it was impossible ! Everything that was not the main focus of the shot was completely blurry.
2D to 3D upconversion is a usually a joke, and studios calling the result true 3D are basically committing fraud. Although... I've seen an upconversion of the Wizard of Oz to 3D and it was actually surprisingly effective, I think because the camera moves in many of those shots and gives a good upconverter something to work with. Although 3D during the opening black+white is surreal.
I'm a VR developer and stereographer 1. The convergence speed of your eyes is very quick, most movies dont even have as much depth as real life. 3D actually help you identify items faster and tricks your brain into thinking its seeing more resolution and it comes out as more detail as shown in studies. 2. its dark, but some theaters or 3d tech have different luminance, so its not a problem of 3D itself. if you watch a 3D movie in VR, its perfectly bright. 3. your depth of field arguement I'm not sure i understand why it traps you? your eyes dont actually try to focus the blurry image, just as your eyes would not try to focus a blurry picture in your actual life. if you have a blurry photo on your phone and hold it behind something else in front of you, your eyes do not look at the blurry photo and try to sharpen it. I'm not sure this subject is researched enough on your part. if you dont like 3D, cool, but i wouldn't make a video that comes off as factual, when it isn't. if anything, you might put off someone else from trying it who might otherwise love it.
Fantastic video! Rapid editing cuts exacerbate the issue of sudden shifts in parallax convergence. While 3D has never worked for me (due to the reasons you expounded on), I do think Gravity is worth considering as a unique advancement in overcoming some (not all) of 3D’s shortcomings. One huge contributor is Cuarón’s affinity for long takes. I believe the average shot length is around 45 seconds (with a generally fluid camera), so abrupt convergence shifts happen less frequently allowing the eyes to better settle in. 3D’s inherent issues still persist but I think Cuarón was smart to approach 3D in the way he did.
Actually, Avatar addresses the convergence shift between scenes (in many cases) by starting the change in ocular convergence near the end of the prior scene, so your eyes are already aligned with whatever the next scene's requirement is. It's brilliant. This can't be achieved with rapid cuts of unrelated video though - that's doomed to fail.
I am fascinated how much this video contradicts my own experience. 1. After at most 20 minutes, I get used to the focus/convergence situation and adjusting for it becomes instant and automatic. No eye strain, no headaches. (Then again, I don't get headaches or motion sickness, ever, so maybe I've got an advantage there. Still, this shouldn't be an issue with normal length movies at least.) 2. I've never noticed any problems with the brightness. While a brighter projector might enhance my experience, the current setup does not deny me any immersion. 3. I have no idea what you are talking about the screen feeling smaller. I can't imagine what could cause this. I'm used to wearing glasses, maybe the unfamiliar frame in your peripheral vision tricks your perception? Anyway, whenever I switch between 3D glasses and no glasses to compare the differences, apparent screen size was never an issue. 4. Modern movies have become a lot better at using deep focus as much as possible when they are made for 3D. Even so, I do not feel any discomfort while looking at blurry 3D and I do find your description of your experience quite puzzling. I suspect the issue lies with what you said near the beginning: You have not watched any 3D movies for 10 years or so. Your brain is just not used to the setup. These are novel circumstances for your visual system and it is simply lacking the training to deal with it. Right now, you are like a person, well into their adult life, who never before watched any movie on any screen, and then went to the cinema for their first time to see a ("normal" 2D) movie, only to complain about all the cuts being confusing. How jumping from one persons face to the other during dialogue was making them dizzy. How a panning shot gave them vertigo. You are so new to this experience, this might as well have been your first time. No wonder you are overwhelmed and disoriented. This is a new thechnology with new challenges for your brain, for your visual perception, for the interplay of all the muscles in your eyes. You need to get used to this first, before you are able to enjoy the benefits. Go and watch a 3D movie once a month and before the end of the year, at least half of your complaints will have vanished.
Solid post, spot on. The comments are full of so much ignorance being spouted authoritively by people who've hardly seen a 3D movie in their life. Suddenly they're all experts.
The number 4 point is why I haven’t gone to see a 3D movie since the original Avatar. You have these beautiful fantasy landscapes that are a blurry mess when you’re trying to take them in because only the characters are in focus, it drove me nuts. It’s nice to see I’m not alone and hear someone explain it more eloquently than I could.
It actually not explained at all. James Cameron chose to film it all with this shallow depth. What he should have done is film it all in focus, then the viewer would be able to chose where to focus anywhere on screen. This is the largest benefit of a 3d movie, but Cameron chose not to include that effect.
@@mr.b6789 Someone should tell James Cameron how to make a proper movie, what an idiot!!
I find Avatar (the first) works much better in 3D because in 2D the alien plants and everything merge together and are harder to visually parse, but in 3D they're all crisply distinct from each other even without "knowing" what they are. Again, this sort of thing relies on filmmakers knowing that depth-of-field is a 2D film technique that usually doesn't work in 3D.
The dimness of the picture also presents the problem images look less real, as color range, vibrancy, and contrast/brightness work together to give the impression of depth and realness to an image. You ever stare at a bright HDR TV and feel like you can be sucked in?
The issue with the image being dark and having not enough foot Lambert is solvable: if the 3d cinema uses one protector per eye at the same brightness used for 2d projectors (normally they only have one projector for both which keeps switching polarity to display frames for the left and right eyes in an alternating way). One 3d cinema in my town used to do this till they got bought by a big chain. The image was nice and bright.
Hard, hard disagree with this whole video. I felt super immersed in the world of Pandora when I watched Avatar 2. I think it's one of the best uses of 3d as a format since its inception. One of the other best instances of 3d is Henry Sellick's Coraline, a movie that changes the distance of focus when Coraline travels to the other world. You can feel the space between the characters. It's so difficult to explain, but something I'm so glad I got to experience.
Yeah, it's all theoretical and doesn't line up with my own experience at all. What am I gonna believe, my own lying eyes or take the word of someone who hadn't seen a 3D movie in over a decade? Coraline was an excellent example, later Laika films did not put as much thought in their approach to 3D.
all nice in theory, but I must say I experienced none of these issues. Got no headache, the colors of Pandora popped like crazy, the screen was as huge as it should be and I didn't have any problems to focus on whatever I wanted. I feel like you went into the movie specifically looking for all these issues because you know the theory behind them well. I doubt most normal people would attest that they had any of these issues in Avatar.
Same for me. Seeing Avatar 2 in 3D was a trueley unique experience I wont forget for a long time
I'm a "normal person", and I hate 3D movies. I noticed some of these problems, but it's nice to have a full analysis of why I dislike it.
Experiences do differ, it's possible people who naturally have 20/20 ish vision are more sensitive to the focus + convergence agreement and feel ill quickly when the two are at odds or the mind can't decide which of the two channels is lying. *I* don't have this problem at all, but wearing glasses forced me I'm sure not to just cope with that, but also that if I *really* look at the view of the real world through my glasses (not a 3D film here) - many of the straight lines are actually curved my the optics of my corrective lenses, and the view makes the world look a bit smaller than it should be (like 2" off the diagonal of any monitor - bummer).
Great editing and a very interesting topic!
I have a narrower than average interpupillary distance (my eyes are too close together), which means that the two camera eyes used to film the movie are too wide apart for me and the 3D image more blurry to me than other people. VR displays look perfect to me because VR glasses allow me to adjust the interpupillary distance. This also fixes the brightness issue, as each eye has its own screen.
I'm wondering if a lot of this is simply an issue with both regular theatres, and way some 3D movies are filmed. I used to get terrible headaches in cinemas, but I watched Avatar 2 in both IMAX and Dolby and in both cases I felt fully immersed and came out of the cinema headache free. The movie felt bright, alive, and except in a few cases in lower frame rate scenes where something passed in front of the camera in a slightly juddery way, I almost forgot I was watching a movie - I just felt THERE. I've experienced a lot of the issues discussed in this video in 3D movies in the past, and for a while I swore off 3D movies entirely in favour of 2D Laser IMAX, which only costs £2 more at my local Cineworld and is usually vastly superior. They were only showing Avatar 2 in regular 2D, or 3D IMAX (or ScreenX which has extra side screens which I'm not sure I'm ready for yet) so I decided to give it a chance and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll probably still stick to 2D for most other films, including things like Dune 2, but I will HAPPILY watch the rest of the Avatar films in 3D.
I've actually gotta disagree with this one, at least in the case of Avatar: The Way of Water. Most 3D is tacked-on and gimmicky, and falls into many of the traps you describe here - but with Avatar is made explicitly and intentionally for the 3D format and thus, for me anyway, works way better than anything else. The underwater stuff in particular was probably the most immersed I've felt in a movie in ages.
Another well edited video, I’m honestly impressed by how you have good footage for each example; like when talking about depth of field (5:15) you showed the exact shots you were explaining with scenes from movies many might recognize!
for reason #3 my art teacher said that glasses give us a frame to see the world! basically 3D glasses (or just regular glasses) closes the space around us and makes us focus on the rectangular shaped area through the frames of the glasses which then makes the theatre screen seem small and contained
Would be interested in your opinion of the 3D movie experience in VR. One lens for each eye, rather than polarized lenses to create the 3D effect would overcome some of the issues mentioned in the video. You can scale the screen (in certain apps) to exactly how you want, including curvature.
Yeah, the dim issue and the windowed issue don't apply. The convergence point has never been a strain for me. The focus issue would be challenging I think. I'm interested to go back and watch a couple 3d movies thinking about that specifically. With fully digital movies it would be interesting how good a 360 (maybe 3 or 6 dof) movie could be made. There would likely be different techniques for focusing your attention. If it could work it'd be very immersive.
Damn, Avatar 2 was the most immersive movie I've ever seen
God, the focus thing was hitting me when I went to see a different Cameron film in 3D (Titanic). I only went because I’ve never managed to see it in theatres and the 3D almost made it an adverse experience.
Personally felt that there was progress on the 2nd film 3d wise, I think this area is still in it's infancy from what I've been reading there are screen developments still occurring & essentially this is a new process being pushed on older technology formats (projectors) . current Projectors have always had many limitations especially showing higher frame rates and brightness all of which is compounded as an issue the larger the screen gets. I Don't think we should halt the development of this space, there are some interesting things being made with Point matrix volume LED's screen/cubes once graphene is more useable, we can essentially create volumes cube screens, I hope the exploration of depth continues to become traditional theatre ultimately but recorded.
I think 3D movies in VR might be where it's at. I've only watched a few clips and trailers of 3D content in VR theaters but I feel the upside come in to full effect there and some of the downsides are diminished.
I love watching 3D Movies in my VR headset, although I also enjoy all movies in VR as less able to be distracted by people, phones, pets etc.
I feel like with VR headsets you can actually fix a lot of the issues you've mentioned with 3d movies. However I think you'd still be right that sometimes a filmmaker and cinematographer will be limited when it comes to certain effects like DOP.
Having watched dozens of movies in 3D both in theaters and mainly in VR headsets, I find that a movie planned and well done 3D improves the experience overall and draws me more into the experience ie is immersive. My first viewing of Avatar was in 2D on a flatscreen and it was ok. I watched it a second time on an IMAX 3D and was blown away by how I was DRAWN in to the world and appreciating everything on screen and noticing everything in the background that was visual noise when in 2D. Same goes for Dredd 3D and Mad Max: Fury Road. Your complaints are legit but they have solutions both technical and in how to edit/present the movie. Brightness can be addressed by increasing the lighting but also with VR headsets where each eye gets a full brightness image without need of polarizing lenses. Focus and Convergence, umm, that's a much more technical solution being researched for VR headsets and can't be solved in theaters. The "shrinking screen" I've not experience but might be more a diorama effect where you're thinking you're looking through a hole in a box into another location. Forced focus though would mean try not to do that in movies meant to be seen in 3D, much like you DO NOT want lots of jump cuts as the brain needs 10 to 15 seconds to adjust to a new scene or orientation. Note all of this changes with VR headsets and 3D movies. There you can have generated scenes so the user sees everything in real time based on where their head is positioned and their eyes are looking. While there can be "edges" to a scene, you can open it up so it's more like watching a theatrical play from the third row. Problem is at the moment, a number of "VR movies" think you need to make the viewer the mute main character which is lazy and unimmersive. The best are when you're the silent and unseen viewer in the room witnessing the action (see "The Lost Hours" for an early experiment on this concept).
Years ago I was part of a research project to address some of these issues. We used an infrared eye tracking system to adjust rendering of a CGI scene (a simple video game) to match where you were looking (and focus) and point of convergence. (To address your points #1 and #4.) It worked OK though still a bit clunky and odd... but required an expensive eye tracking system, and not possible in a movie theater with multiple people of course. Some VR goggles now however do similar things to try to prevent VR sickness.
I felt the same way when watching Gravity. I ended up rewatching it on a standard screen and was way more immersed and loved it. Avatar 2 didn’t give me that problem, funny enough. And I was really worried it would. I thought the 3D was great and really added to the experience.
Planning a film for 3D is different from targeting 2D, trying to satisfy the conventions of both at once would be very limiting. It's perfectly possible for a film to fit well only one of the two media, even if it's a technically perfect 3D film.
Gravity in 3D kicked so much ass
The illusion of the screen being smaller must only be related to the frame. I wonder if this effect is the same for people who regularly wear glasses and those who don''t. I can't attest to what you're experiencing, but I can only imagine it's the frame of the glasses. Maybe similar to the optical illusion of a distant object through a close window. As you move closer to the window frame, the object in the distance appears to get smaller not bigger. My guess is that the frame of the glasses is creating a similar window so allows the screen to look smaller than it would without the context of the area outside the screen. The area that the glasses frame covers.
As someone who had been wearing glasses for the greater part of my life, I can certainly confirm this. While I don't have any issues getting used to this set of second frames that are now in my view, my friend kept complaining about their field of vision being so small.
Totally in agreement on the brightness/color issue. Haven’t experienced the other issues tho. My only gripes are that with passive 3D, tilting your head to the side breaks the 3D and with active 3D, there is a VERY noticeable stutter at 24 fps. With that said I still found that watching the new avatar with passive 3D was incredible. The shot composition/staging/blocking was unreal. Absolutely the standard for how 3D should be done. I actually quite liked how the depth of field pulled you into a certain part of the frame. I found that actually increased my immersion, as I spent less time frame wandering which is something I usually do. I found it similar to how the Batman used very shallow DoF. I don’t think the presence of 3D changes the whole focusing issue there. I still tried to focus on blurry stuff in that movie until I surrendered to what I was intended to look at
Really surprised you didn't mention Goodbye to Language. Thanks for the summary though, I'm gonna swipe some of this for a VR thing I'm working on.
This is why Hank Green's "2D glasses" are so genius. Though I imagine the dimness issue would still remain even with those.
exactly what i was thinking!
Only movie I saw that I felt did 3D right, was Coraline. Because they treated it such that instead of making things "pop" out of the screen, it felt as though you were looking through a portal into another dimension, which really worked with the otherworldly themes in that movie.
How about the other LAIKA films? All were shot in the same way and released in 3D until _Missing Link._
Exactly, that in-front-of-the-screen thing was popular very early in 3D film (in the red+green glasses years) but is only rarely ever useful when immersion is the objective.
This honestly sounds like a criticism of the 3D tech used in movie theatres, not a criticism of the concept of 3D movies in general. For example, I don't find any of these issues when viewing 3D via a VR headset. The displays are able to show at full brightness, due to not using polarization tech or interlacing. You have an FOV far wider than any movie theatre, so no issues with it appearing "small". The only issue I find is that if you're watching a regular 3D movie, you're stuck with viewing a floating rectangle in front of you, as your FOV in VR is significantly wider than how the 3D movie was shot. You'd need to film a 180/360 video to fix that, and no studio would do that since it's difficult to extract a 2D version for cinema screens from that.
5:52 🤯 until you pointed it out, i never realised that Frodo in that scene was out of focus, i always remembered it like it would be fast focus pull form Gandalf to Frodo, when he enters and back to Gandalf, as he start to speak. 🤯
3D has its limitations. I just adjusted myself to some of these things and reaaally enjoyed the movie. It was a great experience which I will never forget.
For me, especially Avatar 2‘s 3D-effect made it a lot more immersive. The 48hz scenes too, although many people might have a different perception regarding that
I was spell bound by the 3D in TWOW. I saw it both in dolby and IMAX and the picture was gorgeous and incredibly immersive.
I don’t understand how people can say that with the Oppenheimer IMAX trailer playing in front.
The HFR scenes made this movie look like a videogame
The best piece of tech for immersion? Tactile transducers, aka, buttkickers. They fill in the super low frequencies that even sub woofers can't touch, like the 20-200hz range. I've added one to my own viewing area and now any trip to the theater leaves me feeling like I missed a large part of the immersion, even though the screen and volume was so much bigger than anything I have at home. With a transducer, moments don't just look and sound real, they feel real. Every bass note in the soundtrack, every explosion, every car passing, it thrusts you into the world you are watching.
Way of Water had some moments where the 3D worked (a school of fish swimming by or particles in the deep foreground that seemed to stretch beyond the screen), but I experienced a lot of the same issues you did, and one more that was incredibly distracting. Every so often, there was a moment when the objects in the frame were layered in such a way that they felt distant from each other. Several scenes where characters were interacting felt wildly artificial because I didn't interpret them as existing in the same space. I don't have an explanation for this effect, but every time it happened, it was a bullet in my brain reminding me that nothing on screen was real. I did feel immersed in Avatar 2, but it was only when the 3D _got out of the way._ It's a decent gimmick, but it's not the next step in true immersion the way so many people describe it.
I remember back when avatar was coming out and I wasn’t allowed to go and see that film but I did get to try 3D glasses and it was like a whole new world opened up.
Wow especially the dimmness and focus issue bothered me for a long time watching 3D movies but i never really knew what it was. Thanks for this.
Long time viewer, first time commenter :D as per usual I got to comment if I don't agree entirely :D 1. Convergence/focus is problem only for some, and is subconscious so it doens't really lessen immersion 2. Darker movies - yes, but cinemas should compensate, not all do. Again it's not issue with movie itself or 3D. 3. True 4. True, but that's why Cameron had not just DP but also a stereographer on stage. Best 3D is one that's not noticeable and I found that only some people beyond Cameron got that right, an example might be How to train your Dragon. And for those 3D adds to immersion. In majority it's a gimmicky thing that does hurt immersion, and in those cases I believe you're entirely correct. Anyway... love the channel and work you do. Keep up!
I didn't experience any of these issues when I watched the new Avatar in 3D.
I watched Avatar 2 in 4D and I'm going to have to HARD disagree with Nerdwriter here. It was possibly the most immersive movie experience I've ever had. 1. This is a moot point. the 3D in Avatar doesn't necessarily come OUT of the screen into the foreground, it instead pushes the background backwards giving the foreground elements more depth. 2. There was absolutely no noticeable visual difference in terms of luminosity or brightness. 3. This is going to depend a lot on a case-by-case, but for my experience, sitting in the middle towards the back the screen size felt like a regular screen, and I was so immersed anyways that I was never aware of the edges of the screen. 4. No idea what he's talking about here with his experience. I personally can/did not relate to this DoF issue. My take away from this video is that Nerdwriter had a personally bad experience that was/is NOT universal.
Interesting... Did you see the film in IMAX 3D or just regular 3D? I've heard there are differences in experience between them.
@@gordonfreeman5958 regular 3D, we don't have IMAX 3D in my area afaik
I loved the 3d for Avatar, and even experienced a trippy physical sensation during one of the scenes where it felt like I was moving with the rotating camera. Maybe because I saw it in IMAX or the theater adjusted the brightness but I found it super immersive. I think a lot of it comes down to the glasses- mass produced when everyone has unique vision/depth perception/pupillary distance.
I'd be curious to see this revisited with the emergency of AR/VR headsets such as the Apple Vision pro and Meta Quest. I'm yet to try one of these products but the opportunity to watch 3D content at home with the perception of a huge screen. While using some what different 3D display technology might negate several of the issues addressed in the video.
I thought I was the only one who noticed the small screen effect. I always feel like I'm peering into a diorama rather than being immersed in the image. But I have no trouble losing myself in a 2D movie on a big screen when the cinematography properly conveys scope.
The darkness issue is at least solved by newer laser projectors. I saw avatar in 3D laser and it looked tack sharp and bright
I saw it in non-laser Imax as there’s only 6 theaters in the Netherlands that have it.
@@LoveDoctorNL most people see it in non-laser cinemas
No it's not solved. It's better but still dark.
@@LoveDoctorNL it’s a slow rollout. Sadly dependent on imax which owns all its screens (cinema owners aren’t allowed to make upgrades). Some US chains like AMC are converting their standard screens to laser. It’s a necessary upgrade since it enables HDR projection, better color, and better 4K presentation. The benefits to 3D are just natural pickups of the benefits of the technology.
@@MrThebadger200 Thanks for the in-depth explanation Samuel
Amazing analysis! I couldn’t agree more. I also watched Avatar 2 recent,y and experienced the same thing, I thought there was something wrong with my eyes as it was so blurry!
Some of these issues come with people not being used to look at 3D content. And since we are not exposed to it much, it is not that surprising. I got a 3D vision kit back in 2008 or something, before Avatar came out, which made it possible to play PC games in 3D, and it was absolutely glorious. BUT! The first week I got it, I would get some of these issues, especially some dizziness about trying to take in the image. I was trying to look at the entire screen like I would usually do in 2D but it's impossible! Once you get used to having to focus on something, it really goes much better. So the convergence thing is something your brain can get used to. For the out of focus, I thought Avatar 2 did an amazing job at it, because wherever I looked, I was amazed, and never had this issue of not being able to focus on something. Maybe it happened more when a character's face was prominently showed, in which case, well, I was looking at the character. But otherwise, I could look at all the environment with ease. My biggest issue is the dim screen, that is definitely an issue, especially now that we can have HDR at home and stuff, most movie screens are dim in comparison.
It depends on the 3D tecnology being used in that specific theatre. Laser 3D (the way I was able to watch Avatar 2) does not bring forward objects, instead it gives you depth perception, like you were watching a stage. A good 3D projector also compensates for the drop in brightness and motion clarity (that's why the movie was shot at 48fps). Sure, 16:9 really gives a window perception of 3D compared to IMAX. While watching Avatar 2, I was often fascinated by the texture and detail of smaller objects placed in the scene, like the leaf material of the stilt houses. I think ultimately the problem with 3D is that the quality of the experience is very variable, and theatres using the latest tecnology are extremely rare.
On point 3: I think it's because you have something big and bulky in your peripheral vision while wearing the glasses, so your brain "notices" it and your perception includes that in the calculation, thusly increasing the effective FoV and proportionally scaling everything back. I'd be curious to see if the effect is as noticeable in people who regularly wear bulky framed glasses daily.
Doesn't make much sense on several levels. 3D glasses are not at all bulkier than normal glasses. Those normal glasses that I wear, block some part of my vision and leave some peripheral part blurry, but I am used to that and only notice it when I specifically pay attention to it. But I still observe the effect of a 3D movie screen looking smaller.
One still has peripheral vision around glasses, but currently the only way you can get that for 3D is a one of the rather expensive wide-angle VR headsets. So just considering the frames as the restriction is only part of the story.
Scorsese's Hugo in 3D would beg to differ
You forgot to add “… for me.” I have no problem settling in and feeling like I’m there. Data doesn’t change that. I can watch the 2D version forever at home.
So basically you've listed some technical issues with 3D, avoided listing any pro's, and concluded that 3D isn't immersive. Nice. 1. The focus/convergence issue isn't even an argument. A good 3D movie like Avatar has been designed to put the primary subjects directly on the convergence plane that is the theater screen. That is why if you take your glasses off, you will see that the subject/character is the least blurry thing on the screen. This is also a reason to sit close to the screen or see 3D on a bigger screen. 2. The darkness is a technical problem with 3D that theaters have been dodging for years. If you are going to see a movie in 3D, you should find a theater with laser projectors, or active 3D glasses, like Dolby 3D or IMAX w/ Laser. The lowered brightness was my biggest gripe with 3D until I saw the Avatar remaster in Dolby 3D and realized that it had been solved. 3. If you see a 3D movie, you should sit as close as you can to the screen without craning your neck. I find most people sit wayy further back than I prefer, even in a 2D movie. The screen should be taking up 90+ degrees of your field of view. This way, you'll get the most depth possible. A proper 3D experience on a massive, curved screen will make you forget that you are looking at a screen in the first place. 4. I don't see how this is any different than a 2D film. What's out of focus won't be visible. Again, Avatar is the best at letting you look at everything when you want to, with long shots, wide lenses and deep depth of field. Think of that scene when the Sully's first are walking through the water tribe's village, or the first swimming scene, where everything is in focus. That shot you use at 6:10 doesn't have shallow depth of field in the actual movie, so I don't know why you used it. That one is is particularly beautiful in 3D, and lets you really feel the silent power of Quarritch creeping through the forest. 3D is something you have to go to the right theaters for. If you go to your standard theater and sit in the middle/back. The problems you've listed are 100% going to be a worse experience than a 2D screening. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that with the right movie and theater, 3D offers immersion beyond any other cinematic experience, and Avatar 2 proved this to me, as well as the thousands of other people seeing it over and over in IMAX 3D.
This feels like a video from 2010. And I even doubt this dude even saw Avatar 2 in a real 3D theater. Maybe he pirated a copy on his phone.
@@breadordecide It definitely feels like a dated perspective on 3D, but with so little good 3D movies or proper theaters around the country, I can't really blame him. I just don't understand how he can list immersion as "physical" involvement in the picture, and not realize how much 3D enhances this sensation. I think he just needs to go to a true IMAX theater, of which there are only a dozen or so around the U.S. Too bad Avatar 2 has already left IMAX theaters.
I totally agree with these points, especially with the discomfort added by having to wear 3d glasses on top of my regular glasses. I'm surprised this isn't just a me thing and that there's words to describe how I felt lol
It's only for a few hours, I have glasses as well got used to it quick
I quickly forget i’m wearing them tbh.
A lot of these problems exist in VR right now too. For the focal length problem, the solution is supposedly vari-focal lenses and eye tracking. The focal length will automatically correct itself for whatever you are looking at. Idk if that could ever find its way into 3d glasses for movies because it sounds really expensive, but if it does it would be really cool to check out.
I agree with what is said, but I really do think there's a difference between regular 3D and Imax 3D. I saw Avatar in Imax 3D and thought it was beautiful, I'm curious if these same things translate to Imax
I feel like he saw avatar 3D at his local tiny indie theater and then complained that it looked bad.
Same here. I only had problems with the forced focus issue. I was complaining about it since I saw my first 3D movie over 15 years ago.
i dont think thats case. i saw avatar in the biggest, imax-est theatre in my area and it was a headache-inducing experience. if anything ive had better luck in terms of consistent quality in regular 3d cinemas. but that's just my experience
Did you make the audio weird during the ad read on purpose to make a point about immersion, or is that a mistake?
absolutely agree with everything you're pointing out. I have thought exactly the same! Specially the darkness of the image and how we can't admire the whole frame because the focus is exclusively on what the director wants. 3D is just distracting as hell.
But, assuming that depth-of-field isn't being used, *everything* in a well-shot 3D film should be in focus most of the time. Sure, you're changing your eye convergence to look at different things, but that's part of exactly what we do in real life. I find it much easier to look at things other than the director's plan in good 3D.
I respect your opinion Nerdwriter, but this is definitely not an objective take. Many many viewers find high quality 3D truly immersive. There’s a reason why both Avatar movies have number 1 and 3 spots in the box office. (Not a measure of quality, but of popularity). Both were successes because of IMAX 3D tickets. Avatar 2, while lacking in quality writing, was spectacular and a visual spectacle. 3D IMAX enhanced the experience and provided a separation between background and foreground in a way that 2d could not. It was almost like a special type of Bokeh/ depth of field in the shot. Personally, and from the opinions of many I know who have watched the film, they felt pulled into the scene - be it the reefs or the Forrests, in part because of the well performed 3D. However, 3D can definitely SUCK if not done properly. 2d films converted into 3D leads to a nauseating experience or films that use 3D as a gimmick (life of pi for instance) are miserable. But avatar was filmed in 3D cameras (double Sony cameras connected at 90 degrees) to produce the most in-depth 3D experience possible Regarding your 2nd issue, Laser IMAX has addressed this issue with higher Lux projectors.
I feel like his third and fourth points might be valid. But 1 is questionable and 2 is definitely off.
@@ianc226 His third point is weird. My screen never shrank and I saw avatar twow 3 times.
You have to account for novelty though. I went and saw this movie in 3D because, like Nerdwriter, I haven't watched a 3D movie in years. And now that I have, I probably wouldn't again for another 10 years (Probably when Avatar 3 will come out).
@@iangeorge7913 To be fair, only Cameron uses 3D properly.
Thank you for perfectly explaining something I've felt for years but couldn't understand why.
About the "tilt shift photography figures" comment, I think I have an explanation. This is usually what happens in 3D conversions, but can happen with a particular lens or cg render too. Basically, our experience through our eyes has a field of view that is always consistent regardless of the depth of convergence. This is why the moon doesn't pop out of the sky, it looks 100% flat, same with a mountain that is really far away, just as there is less pronounced perspective so is depth, because the farther you look the less the left and right image are going to differ. Now, movies often employ fov, or rather focal length that is much different from the human eye though show more or less of a subject than a human would see from the same distance for various effects. However in 3D, the same rule will apply, so when using a long lens the subject will appear flatter even it fills the whole screen. In a similar manner if the lens used has a wider FOV than the human eye(shorter, wide angle lens), the depth will be more pronounced making it feel like you are watching a small figure from up close. This is why humans in Skyrim VR feel tiny. With 3D conversions though, the studios often make the subject pop out even when longer lens are used, because otherwise due to the lens choice it might not even look 3D, and the director probably doesn't want to be bothered with shooting and planning for 3D. You could make a line dividing expressionist vs naturalist use of 3D. James Cameron who is still the king of 3D always goes for naturalism, that's why those shots of space in Avatar 2 looked 100% 2D. This doesn't concern Murch's comment about the feeling of size of the screen though. Which is a phenomenon I've also noticed, but I disagree that it shrinks the IMAX screen in half, perhaps only if your watching from far behind. It's just important that it fills as much of your vision as you find comfortable, this has always been an important thing with 3D. The goal is to be more of a VR lite, not things popping in and out of the screen. Also in IMAX image is definitely as or nearly as bright as in a regular screening.
It's HIGHLY dependent on what format you saw it in. I'd forget IMAX and watch it in Dolby Cinema 3D. The fact that you focused so much on visuals alone (Dolby is brighter too) was a huge red flag. This movie was crazy immersive from the sound aspect as well, but most theaters lack the capability to convey that.
I couldn't disagree more! I find (good, natively shot 3D) to be tremendously immersive. Albeit, I've never seen a 3D movie in a theater, only in my home cinema. I've never gotten a headache using my passive tv / 3D setup!
Great video, but a lot of these technical problems we have newer technological solutions to, as much as James Cameron is at the forefront of that there is only so much cinemas can do to keep up especially with dwindling profit margins. And to the other issues, well maybe we need to treat it as a seperate medium; the language of films is different to the language of video games and of music and of fiction and poetry and so on. The language of 3D films, as many as have bean made, hasn't developed into it's own, it's still using 2D conventions and until that changes there's just this whole world of 3D (and honestly probably moving more towards VR at this point) filmic possibilities going untapped. I think framing a video in this way without giving credit to how a lot of these problems can, and already are being solved with other technologies and the language conventions of other mediums (eg VR and video games) is a disservice to the arts and what is creatively and tangibly possible.
While I generally agree, but seeing Gravity in IMAX 3D was a once in a lifetime experience. Almost like an immersive Disney ride.
I saw Avatar 2 in 3D on a true imax screen and it was one of the most immersive theatre experiences I've ever had.
As someone who has not seen a modern 3D movie (and have no interest in doing so) it’s very interesting to hear people’s takes on them, both positive and negative, and hearing how it helps and hinders their experience.
5:18 Did Evan just add a tick sound effect for every bullet put down? What other subtle details did he add that I've missed?
I'm sorry you aren't able to enjoy 3D movies as with many others, I've never had this issue before. I didn't see Avatar 2 but the first one was the best 3D I've ever seen in a movie
Avatar 2 is even better in 3D. Worth seeing before it leaves theaters.
I have felt this about 3D movies for a long time now. I even stopped opting for 3D movies even for the ones that advertised it.
I enjoyed 3D only in Wim Wenders' "Pina". Recommended to enjoy dance as artform performed in a space.
I have a small thought to add on point 3. Perhaps the "smallness" could be in part due to the forced DOF? More intense DOF is associated with smallness. It's often times used to emphasize small details. You don't see it used intensely for large landscapes.
Love your essays normally and would agree that 3D looks terrible on many movies (Transformers 3, Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Mad Max Fury Road, etc), but I thought Avatar 2 used it the best I've ever seen. To me, it feels like Cameron uses 3D completely differently than most other filmmakers: it felt like I was looking deep into the screen, versus having stuff pop out of the screen toward me. I felt like I could easily look around each scene and appreciate the art direction and little details in the background. I think there were only a handful of shots where it felt like something was jumping out at the audience and these were carefully chosen moments in key action scenes where it's designed to shock the viewer and make you jump. It's a shame you didn't have the same viewing experience, it was quite stunning. (The 3D in the Transformers: Rise Of The Beasts trailer before the movie definitely looked terrible though, bad 3D looks like garbage.)
Most upconversions from 2D are terrible.
But they are immersive. At least, the Avatar movies and few others. Bad 3D is the issue, not 3D in general.
Like any other tool, its how you use it. So far, only Cameron knows how to use 3D.
I think what this video strikes at the heart of is that while technology can aid immersion, it's the craft of the story and emotion that truly immerses us into a world. It's a similar thing in video games imo. A game can look graphically realistic, but if it isn't designed well such that it hooks into your emotions, it will never immerse fully.
The movie has to be MADE for 3D. Like, they filmed it/edited it/etc. with 3D in mind. Not just some conversion to 3D for the heck of it like most movies are.
3D isn't useless! The real advantage is that it adds another dimension for the filmmakers to use. With 3D, positioning something closer to the camera isn't just making it larger on screen. Oddly enough, early 3D movies like Kiss Me Kate understood and took advantage of this with dance sequences that moved to and from the camera, not just back and forth in front of it.
Avatar The way of water 3D Imax was insanely immersive.
It depends on which row in cinema you sit
@@Feefa99 Well, dont sit in the front row lol. Anything mid to back is fine. I prefer the left side of the auditorium. My experience was great.
@@breadordecide hey I know it's nitpicky, but I think all places should have same experience from movie, when people are paying for ticket same price, especially when it's billion franchise like this one. Btw 3D is fine for slow, methodical documentary style, but when there is fast pace action on screen 3D is really obstacle for immersion, just sayin
@@Feefa99 Cameron added HFR to the action scenes. This made them clear, easy to see. No blurriness and no headaches.