May 26th, 2010 -- Written by Rodney
Bill Nye the Science Guy has teamed up with VSP Eyecare to create some webisodes to learn about medical conditions of the eyes, and the very first episode happens to deal with 3D Films. The video aptly plugs the use of the iPad, as well as VSP’s current promotions, but it is interesting to see him address this trend.
Nye delivers his message with is standard TV Personality presence and discusses the disorientation that 3D may cause for some patrons. Is it a myth?
It is medical fact that 3D viewing can have an effect on a portion of the viewing audience, and its good to know that there are some simple fixes you can practice that can offset the disorientation. They estimate that 30% of people in the US suffer from the condition that MAY cause this disorientation. If these tricks don’t work for you, then you can just opt to see the movie in its traditional presentation.
Some people are over reacting and suggesting that ALL theaters will eventually be 3D. While its a popular trend and perhaps something that will grow, until they overcome these limitations they wont want to limit the theater’s patronage by making movies exclusively in a format that may affect such a percentage of their audience.
Should they improve this technology to perhaps using special screens and projectors that would provide an effective 3D presentation without the use of glasses, then I could see a shift in theatrical presentations.
Until then you will always have the choice.
Thanks Bill Nye!
Posted in 
There are probably over 20 theaters in Manhattan playing Shrerk 4 in 3D and two that played it in both formats.(At least the first weekend, I haven’t checked again).
If that’s not a sign of 3d take over, I don’t know what is. I’m not saying all movies will be 3d, but the ones released in 3D will only be able to be seen in 3d.
I know what is. ALL theaters showing all films in 3d in every city. Thats a takeover.
There are still more films NOT in 3D, and will likely always be the case. Only the big summer blockbusters and megabudget films are getting the treatment. I doubt they would ever see the need to make a dramatic character film without any effects in 3d.
While it is the popular trend right now (for certain genres) and may one day become the standard go-to effect (for certain genres) I still don’t believe they would impliment a standard that excludes any portion of the viewing audience, or force it on films that have no benefit by the effect.
What you described is an actual takeover, but before that day comes there will probably be signs.
And I repeat. I do not think all movies will be in 3d, but when Spider-man, Captian America, the Avengers, and Pixar films come out, I may not want to see those movies in 3d. I already have to travel past mutiple theaters playing the movies in 3d, to get to see the same movies in 2d. One day I may not even be able to do that.
And by the time that happens, it likely wont matter.
There will be improvements to the technology (this is an improvement over previous 3D techniques) and until Home Theater follows this unlikely revolution you speak of, there will always be DVDs in that format too.
There are still people watching television on tube sets, and while the market is flooded with the technology for the last 5 years, there is no reason to think that someone might not have a flat panel or a 3d panel in 10 years either.
I just don’t want to see some movies in 3d. It is not that special to me. And to make it worse, I have to pay more to see something in a format I do not want to see it in, or travel out of my way to see it the way I want to.
I can almost gurantee you that 3-D will take over and 2-D will become a thing of the past by 2020. It’s not paranoia or over-reacting. If you look at how things are progressing with the format, then you’ll see it’s almost certain.
It is over reacting - to expect that the technology would become the standard for EVERY film is absurd.
People are ranting like the cinematic experience is universally ruined, while the grand majority of patrons are enjoying the effects.
While it may one day become a more commonly used effect, it is an over reaction to assume this will happen to every film, or that its ruining cinema.
@” to expect that the technology would become the standard for EVERY film is absurd.”
Actually it’s not as it’s happening right now.
Every film? I know its happening a lot for some genres, but there are still MORE movies coming out that are NOT 3D than with.
Personally paying $20 per ticket is out of my price range for a movie, especially when bringing the kiddo along. There is a reason we hit up AMC theaters before Noon on the weekends it’s called $6 matinee! At least the matinee for a 3D movie is $9 (last I paid). I’d be okay paying a higher price for the likes of a Pixar movie because I know it’ll be worth it. All other movies I’m perfectly happy watching in 2D.
I also have my problems with 3D disorientation, but to me the problem got solved once I picked myself a seat in the backrows. Another factor that was kinda disturbing the experience is polarized glasses (the ones that flicker).
I had less problems with Dolby Digital 3D technology.
I really believe in the benefits of 3D stereoscopic screening, not only for film but also for any other forms of media, since it is the (biologically) natural way to perceive your environment stereoscopically.
Therefore it should be easier to focus 3Dimensional stuff compared to 2Dimensional stuff, because it is not as dependent on, eye-exhaustive high contrasts.
Technology should adapt to human intuition not the other way around.