Tom

First, it has to be understood that 3D is not really 3D. It’s stereoscopy. It’s an illusion. In the same way that stereoscopic sound produces an illusion of audio width (and some depth), stereoscopic cinema produces an illusion of 3D. True 3D is the province of sculptors and architects, not film-makers. So to pick holes in it’s ability to reproduce real 3D is somewhat missing the point. Cinema always was a creative verisimilitude of reality, and never the real thing.

Likewise to say that 3D imposes limitations not experienced in 2D is a failure to see that it is not really the same thing. 3D offers a different experience, and is not something you should just bolt on to a 2D production to boost sales – though many productions currently do, and with dire results.

The example Murch quotes of his experience of editing a 3D theme park ride during the 1980s is, what can I say?, hopelessly inappropriate and outdated. Things have come such a long way since, and are getting better all the time. The problems he is unhappy with are due to specific systems aiming to produce the illusion of 3D, and don’t apply to all 3D systems. A quick example – strobing is specific to single projector multi-flash systems like Real-D, but isn’t experienced in dual-projector systems. And James Cameron is now talking about projecting Avatar 2 at 60fps, which many current projectors are already capable of doing. Problem thus ’solved’.

3D has suffered a dip in popularity since interest peaked a year ago, but it is not going to fade away. In mid-2009 there were about 5,000 3D movie screens worldwide. Now there are over 22,300. The number of 3D titles for 2011 is now approaching 60. 50% to 70% of box office revenues are generated by 3D titles. This is not a fad. The train has left the station.

The situation is akin to the introduction of sound, or of the change from monochrome to color. Both had their vocal critics, who now look somewhat quaint. I respect Mr Murch immensely (really!) but his ’salt shaker’ example is a little baffling. Has he worked in 2D for so long that he now thinks we actually see the world that way? We do not. 2D is a set of conventions that have evolved over thousands of years from cave paintings, to Old Masters, to Orson Welles. But it’s not how we see the world. Is he really unaware of the double images we get naturally, all the time? Here’s a quicky graphic:
http://bit.ly/HowWeSeeTheWorld (the top two are Murch’s own graphic)

As to his criticism that the ‘problem’ of convergence and focus are insoluble, he is talking rubbish. Avatar, regarded among stereographers as a very conservative application of 3D, locked both on to the screen plane. Again, problem ’solved’. But there are better, more elegant, solutions regularly being used now which were unavailable to Murch 30 years ago, for instance ‘active depth cuts’ and ‘floating windows’.

One significant thing I have come to realise, more so since I’ve started actually doing it, and which seems to have eluded Ebert and Murch (and to many of those actually involved in 3D production!) is that 2D and 3D are entirely different animals. To extract the best from either requires a substantially different mindset. A good 2D movie will never really work in 3D, and is somewhat pointless, and a bit of a con. Nor can a 2D movie simply be made by using only, say, ‘the left eye’ from a competent 3D movie. So seeing a 2D version of Scorcese’ Hugo Cabret will simply miss the point. Many producers, with an eye to revenues, will try to tell you otherwise – that you can shoot 2D and 3D at the same time. I believe they are fundamentally wrong, and their thinking that way will produce compromises that will (more often than not) hinder the acceptance of 3D. It’s an issue that, as 3D techniques evolve, will receive increasing debate.

My 2p.

Sources:
‘3D: The Goose That Lays The Golden Egg?’ – Price Waterhouse Coopers http://scr.bi/fNb1eI
‘3D Movie Making’ – Bernard Mendiburu http://bit.ly/3D-M-M (see page 154 ‘Active Depth Cuts’)

“Not necessarily bad” means “could be bad” and what’s not mentioned is that it is bad in many cases.

“Might help uncover subtle disorders” is an incredible stretch. Key words here are “might” and “help”. Perhaps, if it’s used as a medical diagnostic tool by a medical professional, … maybe. Even then, where’s the emprical evidence?

“Children younger than 6 can use” means “kids should really only use appropriately”, for example, in good lighting, with extreme moderation, not so close like right up at the nose, etc. What’s not mentioned is that kids will be kids, they will likely get hooked to the game, and will invariably use it inapproporiately.