DDD

[Bort]

Ebert hates 3D?  Why hasn't he ever mentioned this before?

THE MAN HAS NO TONGUE! LAY OFF HIM!

Cutler, Ebert...

WHO IS NEXT IN ELI'S REIGN OF TERROR?

[BBM]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?

Brechtian alienation... Now I get Avatar!

Ebert hates 3D?  Why hasn't he ever mentioned this before?

I don't care for 3D, but big tits I do like.

I don't think the Rog had a problem with that.  Because wasn't he good friends with Russ Meyer?   

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?

Brechtian alienation... Now I get Avatar!

Ebert hates 3D?  Why hasn't he ever mentioned this before?

I don't care for 3D, but big tits I do like.

I don't think the Rog had a problem with that.  Because wasn't he good friends with Russ Meyer?   

Indeed he was. Ebert famously wrote the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."

[CBStew]

Question.  Who visits this thread to read about Roger Ebert?

[Yeti]

Question.  Who visits this thread to read about Roger Ebert?

Thank you. I was pissed it was getting bumped with out DDD tits

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Question.  Who visits this thread to read about Roger Ebert?

Thank you. I was pissed it was getting bumped with out DDD tits

[morpheus]

http://Happy Lady Pr0n Day.  (This seemed like as good a thread as any.)

EDIT: Really, I've done this before.

[Richard Chuggar]

[imghttp://www.mydaily.com/2011/02/22/happy-lady-porn-day-porn-for-women/]http://Happy Lady Pr0n Day.[/img]  (This seemed like as good a thread as any.)

Sweet dude.  Thanks.

[Saul Goodman]

Happy Lady Pr0n Day.  (This seemed like as good a thread as any.)

[Tonker]

Happy Lady Pr0n Day.  (This seemed like as good a thread as any.)

I actually have a ladyporn channel here in my cable package.  I forget what it's called, but it's full of soft-focus hugging and a conspicuous lack of teabgagging or facials.

[thehawk]

Happy Lady Pr0n Day.  (This seemed like as good a thread as any.)

I actually have a ladyporn channel here in my cable package.  I forget what it's called, but it's full of soft-focus hugging and a conspicuous lack of teabgagging or facials.

I thought it would be an attractive man nodding and pretending to be listenting to whoever is watching.

[Richard Chuggar]

Happy Lady Pr0n Day.  (This seemed like as good a thread as any.)

I actually have a ladyporn channel here in my cable package.  I forget what it's called, but it's full of soft-focus hugging and a conspicuous lack of teabgagging or facials.

I thought it would be an attractive man nodding and pretending to be listenting to whoever is watching.

Thanks 30 Rock

[thehawk]

Happy Lady Pr0n Day.  (This seemed like as good a thread as any.)

I actually have a ladyporn channel here in my cable package.  I forget what it's called, but it's full of soft-focus hugging and a conspicuous lack of teabgagging or facials.

I thought it would be an attractive man nodding and pretending to be listenting to whoever is watching.

Thanks 30 Rock

That's Studio 60 to you, bucko.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Intrepid Reader: Chuck

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Bump.

[Oleg]

Just in case there was any question about it, they're real.

NSFC (NSF Chuck)