EVERY MOVIE THEATER I HAVE BEEN TO DOES COLLECT 3D GLASSES AFTER THE SHOW, HOWEVER IT IS NOT MANDATORY TO GIVE THEM BACK AND PROBABLY IS BETTER TO KEEP AS YOU ARE RELYING ON THE THEATER TO CLEAN THE GLASSES . I PERSONALLY WOULDN’T TRUST THE TEENS RUNNING A THEATER FOR GLASSES BEING CLEANED PROPERLY AND IM NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN PINK EYE OR AN EYE INFECTION. THIS HAS HAPPENED AT THEATERS AND THEME PARKS. AS FAR AS 3D MOVIES GO I PERSONALLY DON’T LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK AS WELL AS THE 3D NOT REALLY ADDING ANYTHING TO THE MOVIE. NOT TO MENTION THE HIGHER COST OF A TICKET AND YES I DO GET BOTH HEADACHES AND EYE IRRITATIONS FROM WATCHING 3D ON OCCASION. AS FAR AS THE STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR OF THIS POST THAT ONLY 15% OF MOVIEGOERS GET HEADACHES/NASUEA FROM WATCHING 3D MAY SEEM LIKE A LOW NUMBER HOWEVER 15% OF 1 MILLION IS 150,000 AND NOT REALLY A LOW # IN MY BOOK.

I’m a Film Director and often scroll the pages for interesting news, and I noticed a lot of debate on this subject, and I have a few facts to provide everyone with to help clarify your arguments regarding 3-D, and how much you lose when you watch it.

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. 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. Most headaches are a result of our brain trying to do so.

From a technical standpoint, shooting on the required digital video does not offer a high enough quality image, since 3D cameras cannot be equipped with prime lenses, which when you work in the business, are essential for superior images.

And to defend Mr. Ebert, I got this one from the ReadD 3-D website itself: “The main trouble with polarized 3D systems for movies is a loss of screen brightness. The polarizing screen in front of the projector blocks half of the outgoing light, causing an equivalent loss of brightness on the screen. Therefore, the viewer perceives an overall dimming by 50%.”

I’ll let these facts speak for themselves, and don’t think they require much elaboration to get my point across. But honestly people, shouldn’t we be more concerned about the one thing contemporary movies lack that 3-D will never be able to provide? How about a story so good it doesn’t matter if it’s in 3-D, because it’s drawn you right in and it feels like you’re actually there.

Give me a pair of glasses that do that and I’ll be first in line. Until then, I’ll gladly wait for “The Tree of Life” in all of its 2 dimensional glory.

I really find no merit in everything being 3D, or even most of a movie in 3D. It would be like taking the Wizard of Oz, and colorizing the entire movie. Then saying “But color is so much better”. You lose the directors perspective, the story suffers, all in the name of “this is cool”.

Until holography is perfected, the glasses stay.

The problem is the glasses are a $40 investment by the theater. (At least the IMAX 3D glasses)

Never called anyone a liar, and never denied that there is a very small percentage of people who get disoriented in theaters.

And the research that indicates how few people get disoriented or ill from 3d was conducted by eye doctors, who have nothing to gain by 3d technology.

I respond and debate with commenters and never deny them their opinion. However when they express their opinion as facts I have just as much right to challenge the statement just as they have the right to express their opinion.

Those who think their dislike of the technique is as widely reviled as they feel about it are just incorrect. It doesn’t make them a liar, it makes them misinformed.

I agree with those people that have said that 3-D is the future and it’s one we’re getting pushed into. You know how black and white used to be it? And now it’s a technique employed by directors to highlight particular objects or scenes? That’s where 2-D is headed. And it’s inevitable considering our home theatre systems are keeping up with the technology. Did you know there’s talk of a 3D channel? At the same time, because 2-D vs. 3-D will become a stylistic choice for directors, I think it’ll be they who’ll keep 2-D around longer than we expect (more so than audiences I mean) because there are some that still use 35 mm film cameras and produce hand-drawn animation who are revered by the film industry and make amazing movies (see Christopher Nolan and Hayao Miyazaki).

I did find 3-D to be dimmer and the colors less bright. I thought it was just because I was essentially wearing sunglasses in a dark theatre where the only source of light is the screen. This did disappoint me and I’m sure there’ll be a lot of movies negatively affected by this. What’s the point of HD if the colors are dimmer in 3D? Give me HD any day. Or maybe they’ll resort to artificially brightening the colors so that they appear normal in 3-D? Who knows?

Lastly, you know Rodney, for someone who keeps saying every person has a right to their own opinion, I’ve read a lot of your replies to other people in which you not only disagree with them but try and shoot down their point. If you’re really okay with people making up their own mind, UNLIKE Ebert, you should be satisfied that you’ve made your point in your article and then leave people alone to voice those opinions you supposedly respect so highly. And don’t call them liars. Just because there’s a small number of people statistically who are unable to go see movies in 3-D without getting ill, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist and doesn’t impact those people greatly. And did you ever consider that maybe the research you read was funded by a studio looking to make money off of 3-D? Lots of people wear glasses or corrective lens wear. So more might be affected then you think even if it’s mildly so.

Most People here don’t understand 3D itself is not the problem. BAD Post conversion Crap 3D is!!!People are so narrow-minded they can not even make the difference. I loved Avatar and enjoyed experiencing the enhanced immersion it provided (and I wear glasses!). I just can’t understand why so much people reject the whole process when it’s obvious Piranha 3d did not play the same league as Avatar, Alice compared to Dragons too and so on…No, they’re like “All of them s*cks because it’s frickin’ 3D!!!”(sic)