Pros and Cons About 3D Film

Advantages



1, Show the movies or images vividly to let the audience be set in the true condition.

2,High brightness, high revolution, high-definition, being more natural and realistic.

3,Can swich the 3D to 2D or 2D to 3D and can play both 2D, 3D resouces.

Disadvantages:

1, Eyes will be tired after watching 3D Film.
2. High price, 3D Film is still more expensive compared with common Film tickets.
3. May have eye diseases watching 3D Film.
4. Lack resources of 3D.
5,People may more focus on the technology instead of the movie itself.



   

 More Informations

• Helath Concerns

     Most of the cues required to provide humans with relative depth information are already present in traditional 2D films. For example, closer objects occlude further ones, distant objects are desaturated and hazy relative to near ones, and the brain subconsciously "knows" the distance of many objects when the height is known (e.g. a human figure subtending only a small amount of the screen is more likely to be 2 m tall and far away than 10 cm tall and close). In fact, only two of these depth cues are not already present in 2D films: stereopsis (or parallax) and the focus of the eyeball (accommodation).
    3D film-making addresses accurate presentation of stereopsis but not of accommodation, and therefore is insufficient in providing a complete 3D illusion. However, promising results from research aimed at overcoming this shortcoming were presented at the 2010 Stereoscopic Displays and Applications conference in San Jose, U.S.
Motion sickness, in addition to other health concerns, are more easily induced by 3-D presentations.
    Film critic Mark Kermode argued that 3-D adds "not that much" of value to a film, and said that, while he liked Avatar, the many impressive things he saw in the movie had nothing to do with 3-D. Kermode has been an outspoken critic of 3-D film describing the effect as a "nonsense" and recommends using two right or left lenses from the 3-D glasses to cut out the "pointy, pointy 3-D stereoscopic vision", although this technique still does not improve the 30% colour loss from a 3-D film
   Film critic Roger Ebert has repeatedly criticized 3-D film as being "too dim" (due to the polarized-light technology using only half the light for each eye), sometimes distracting or even nausea-inducing, and argues that it is an expensive technology that adds nothing of value to the movie-going experience (since 2-D movies already provide a sufficient illusion of 3-D). While Ebert is "not opposed to 3-D as an option", he opposes it as a replacement for traditional film, and prefers 2-D techologies such as MaxiVision48 that improve image area/resolution and frames per second.



2D VS 3D ?


    Another major criticism is that many of the movies in 21st century to date were not filmed in 3-D, but converted after filming. Filmmakers who have criticized this process include Michael Bay and James Cameron, the latter whose film Avatar (created in 3-D from the ground up) is largely credited with the revival of 3-D.
    Director Christopher Nolan has criticised the notion that traditional film does not allow depth perception, saying "I think it's a misnomer to call it 3D versus 2D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it's three dimensional... You know 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2D movie a '2D movie' is a little misleading." Nolan also criticised that shooting on the required digital video does not offer a high enough quality image  and that 3D cameras cannot be equipped with prime lenses.









*************************************
Relex Time
(iced age4 2010)