Yeah, there's no way it could actually work without beating the crap out of your eyes. And the video is pretty obviously CGI'd when watching in 1080p. But still... A concept I never really thought of before.
I don't know that is true. The small muscles that control the eyelids have no problems with this, and for people that blepherospasm, it can go on for hours and days, without pain (it is a royal pain to see though). After seeing this - I looked at Wiki, and they have a great number of things that have been tried for 3D over many years. Link Practically, I don't know that people would want there eyes doing the hurky jerky for several hours watching a movie, but I am sure we will see more research into this, or alternative methods, as I don't think that the current glasses are something that people are terribly enthused about. It seems to be more a necessary evil...
Better to ditch 3D, since it looks kinda crap anyway. Every 3D film I've seen comes across more like multiple layers of slightly blurred 2D than anything that actually has depth to it.
...But having your eyes flicker like that for extended periods of time would have adverse effects on the nerves, probably causing increased muscle spasms/twitches in that area. It doesn't matter if it wouldn't cause pain; you'd still cause your nerves a heck of a time.
Have you ever seen a 3D IMAX film? I saw one a couple years ago, it was more of a tech demo than an actual film, but it still blew my mind. So far I haven't seen any 3D effect that's been better. Hopefully we'll get similar quality 3D in our TVs and portable gaming devices sometime in the future.
Yeah, that's the thing. There's an incredibly immense difference between movies actually shot and produced to be 3D, and movies they make "3D" in post-production. Movies shot in 3D actually are made with two cameras shooting two streams of video at once, which can double some of the costs of shooting the movie. Alternatively, some studios when doing the special effects pass of post-production just add some faux-depth to the movie by chopping it in to layers. The difference between the two is night and day, and if you think 3D looks shitty, you need to see a 3D IMAX movie that was shot and entirely intended to only be viewed in 3D. The sensation of depth is absolutely remarkable, to say the least.
I would agree, but then the only movie I've ever seen 3D in a cinema was Avatar, and I actually thought it worked pretty well. The holographic displays in particular looked really awesome. But then I still prefer to just wait and watch it at home, for me 3D just seems like a way to coax people into still going to the cinema. Which I refuse to do whilst the ticket prices remain as ridiculous as they are. Not to mention the price of confections. I only go if it's a movie I've been waiting for for ages, and I can go within a week or so of release.
pretty soon that guys eyelids will just stop working, and then he won't even be able to open his eyes to see the damn 3d!
Yeah, I've seen several. Every 3D movie I've seen has been at an IMAX theatre, including Avatar. Still wasn't convinced. Even when you let yourself get drawn into the illusion you're constantly put off by blurred objects that realistically shouldn't be out of focus in a 3D environment but are in the film due to camera limitations. It's an interesting gimmick, but still feels very much in the prototype phase, and producing films specifically for the tech just takes credit away from what really matters, things like acting and plot.
