Submitted by: James More

Who reads regular film reviews, it certainly has noticed: film critics do not like 3D. Apart from the fact that the movie was good or bad, is invariably mentioned that the third dimension was unnecessary and makes the viewer yearn for aspirin. What exactly is going on with the 3D movie? In the following text I will argue that the distrust of 3D movies is due to three factors. First, the viewer often unrealistic expectations about 3D, which is probably due to misunderstandings. Second, in many directors and film producers failed to 3D ‘right’ to use in their movies. Finally, the current 3D technology collides with inherent problems that can not simply be solved.

Each film is a 3D movie

In the cinema you wear glasses with two polarized filters. These filters ensure that the left and right eyes receive slightly different picture. When our brains integrate the image into the left visual cortex (perceived by the right eye) with the image in the right visual cortex (perceived by the left eye), the stereoscopic effect is created. Just like in the real world we see depth by the simple fact that an object is viewed from two different angles.

A major misconception about 3D is the idea that only this stereoscopic effect contributes to the perception of depth. Stereoscopy is called binocular dieptecue since the depth arises only when both eyes work together perfectly. However, there are a lot of monocular dieptecues suggest that depth, eg .:

– Size perspective: the fact that an object will be displayed far smaller on the retina

– Detail perspective, the fact that close objects will show more detail

– Motion parallax: that will quickly move close objects than more distant objects (just look out when you are in the train)

All these monocular dieptecues result in a perception of depth and you have no 3D glasses needed! It is therefore not surprising that film critics often require 3D “only a small contribution to the film” and viewers disenchanted return home: the stereoscopic effect is only one of the many dieptecues which our brains use. You could even say that every film is a 3D movie, but that the current stereoscopic 3D movies have just one extra dieptecue. The added value of a 3D film is very limited, but many viewers do not seem to realize this.

Degree of headache depends on film budget?

If the stereoscopic effect but a small contribution to the depth perception, why do I feel a headache than squinting at a 3D movie and not a regular movie? This is according to research mainly due to the way stereoscopic images filmed by directors of 3D movies. Directors and by extension film products have as main objective to blow the audience from their seats with 3D effects, assuming that viewers will be talking about that one naastig bullet came flying into the face of the screen.

However, research has shown the existence of a ‘zone of comfort’. This is a limited, defined area in the visual field in which our perceptual system accepts differences in the image on the left and right retina. When, however, the differences are too large outside the comfort zone, the visual system have to work too hard to integrate the images into a whole, and we will get a headache. Objects from the screen to come is not done from a cognitive-perceptual point of view, but do of course the film producers once wise … Although there is no research to support it, there is probably a large inverse correlation between budget and know-how film and perceived headaches.

About the Author: Download free 3D movies

3dmoviest.com

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=1948010&ca=Entertainment}