Study: 3D Offers Nothing But Headaches

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Study: 3D Offers Nothing But Headaches

image

According to a new study, not only do 3D films carry a massively heightened risk of causing headaches, the technology also does nothing to increase a viewer's immersion.

Fox News reports:

Moviegoers who watch 3-D films do not experience more intense emotional reactions or a greater sense of "being there" than those who watch 2-D movies, a new study finds. The 3-D versions also don't help you remember the movie better than 2-D versions.

The 3-D movies did, on the other hand, come with a risk of discomfort. Compared with 2-D movie watchers, 3-D movie-watchers were about three times more likely to have eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision, the study showed.

Though California State University's L. Mark Carrier says that moviegoers may enjoy 3D films for other reasons (or for the sheer technological novelty in play), his findings argue that the gimmick is no better a story telling platform than traditional two-dimensional films. "All other things being equal, I would say you're increasing your chances of having some discomfort," Carrier said.

For the study, Carrier and his colleagues surveyed 400 students following a mix of 2D and 3D screenings of recent, popular films such as Dreamworks' How To Train Your Dragon. Participants were then asked to rate the films and describe their emotional reactions to the subject matter.

According to Carrier, those who viewed the films in three-dimensions showed no more cognition or attachment to the movies than those who viewed them in the traditional two-dimensional fashion, though there was a marked increase in headache activity among the former group.

As Fox points out, the 3D films also carry, on average, a $3 higher ticket price than their 2D counterparts.

Before any of you decry this news based purely on its connection to the Murdoch media empire, I will also point to the reams of anecdotal evidence saying this exact same thing since the recent revitalization of 3D. How many of you 3DS owners switch off the handheld's key selling point after a few minutes of use?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, short of vibrating movie seats and physically muzzling teenage girls, the movie-going experience has hit its peak.

Source: Fox
(Image)

Permalink

Earnest Cavalli:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, short of vibrating movie seats and physically muzzling teenage girls, the movie-going experience has hit its peak.

How about vibrating teenage girls? That would improve the moviegoing experience, right? :p

Seriously though, this is one of those "Duh, really?" studies. 3D barely adds anything to a movie, even at its best. And it usually isn't at its best. It also stupidly iflates ticket prices. I skipped on watching Thor because none of the theatres were playing it in 2D where I live. Now I'm stuck waiting for the DVD... :(

Yet, they keep trying to implement it every 10 years or so. It looks like they succeed this time.

You will understand if I say that this is a load of malarkey, right?

Basically? Me likey 3D. Me not worried about little bigger price tag for it. Me thinks this research is like most research of this nature: Based upon skewed figures and inconclusive.

They really needed a study to come to this very obvious conclusion?

Earnest Cavalli:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, short of vibrating movie seats and physically muzzling teenage girls, the movie-going experience has hit its peak.

I guess that means they're gonna have to start making actual better movies...

Dammit.

Glad to know it's not just me. 3D movies hurt my eyes literally. I have to take the glasses off some times and give my eyes a break--which turns the movie into a blurry mess, so I quickly put them back on and suffer. To date, I've only seen two 3D movies. Assuming the original Star Wars Trilogy does come out in theaters in 3D, I will see three more, but then I'm done.

Haha, I keep seeing the question, "did they need a study for this?".

The answer is a resounding YES! Companies and government bodies can do nothing without studies, they are literally incapable of any rational or critical thinking. They in fact only did the study because people were complaining about 3D. So, they had to be sure.... just to be sure that most people weren't wrong and that the minority of people who like them weren't in fact right, that this was the best way to do anything.

Wow, first time I ever believed a story sourced from Fox News. :-P

ImprovizoR:
Yet, they keep trying to implement it every 10 years or so. It looks like they succeed this time.

Actually, its more like 30 year rotation. You know long enough to get the next generation of movie producers to think they have the next big idea. Movie Bob covered this recently.
I have no use for 3D and never did. A little scientific backing is nice though when I declare my disdain for the gimick.
IMAX is totally worth it though. Huge clear picture, great sound thats the way to go. Not 3D IMAX just IMAX.
Oh and can we muzzle the elderly as well as vibrating teenage girls? Also, can we apply shotgun blasts rectally to anyone answering and talking on their cell phone in the middle of the theater? Its okay if your a parent and it vibrates and you leave to answer it but talking during the movie should be an executable offense.

While I can't say that I've gotten headaches from watching 3D movies, I can however safely say that, I'm not really impressed with them. Yay, the movie pulls a matrix slow-mo sequence so they can make the scene pop out at you! whoop-de-fucking-doo!

I'd think that if the whole 3D craze failed back in the day, they would have realized that maybe it wasn't the greatest idea to bring it back.

Also, did anyone else read the thread title as: Sony: 3D Offers Nothing But Headaches, and immediately think it was just Sony taking a shot at Nintendo's 3Ds or was I the only one?

Earnest Cavalli:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, short of vibrating movie seats and physically muzzling teenage girls, the movie-going experience has hit its peak.

They'll be a major influx of women going to see action movies. With lots of explosions and shaky chase scenes, Mike Bay would make a killing off this.

Hmmmm, a quandary. On the one hand it's Fox News, so I feel I _should_ disagree with it. On the other hand, it tallies exactly with my own beliefs about the gimmick that is 3D in films.

I have yet to receive a headache, but 3D has given me a massive case of "I am aware I am wearing these shitty glasses.....all the time', distracting me from the movie and wanting it to end so I can get them off my face.

TwoSidesOneCoin:

Also, did anyone else read the thread title as: Sony: 3D Offers Nothing But Headaches, and immediately think it was just Sony taking a shot at Nintendo's 3Ds or was I the only one?

I did for a second, but then I realized they can't throw any stones since they are making a huge push with 3DTVs, one push being bundled with Resistance 3.

OT: I've only seen one 3D movie and I had a massive headache and my eyes were not happy. I'm hoping this "no shit sherlock" study will convince companies to just stop and recognize it for the gimmick that it is. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Emotional immersion be damned. It looks cool if done right (see: Avatar, Toy Story 3, and [from what I hear] How to Train your Dragon)

When it's used to the same gimmicky effect as the old red/cyan glasses though (look, things jumping out of the screen), it looks crap. Use it for more visual depth, fine. Don't gratuitously fling things out of the screen though.

"L. Mark Carrier says that moviegoers may enjoy 3D films for other reasons (or for the sheer technological novelty in play)"

3D confirmed for tech-hipsters-only.

PS: I'm so hipster I Hated 3D before everyone else.[/ironic]

I can't say I'm surprised. People can't really see in three dimensions more than few yards. The only time I saw a 3D film that really worked for me was 3-D Space Station, a documentary about the ISS. Since that was mostly in tight quarters, the 3D looked natural.

Well, obviously. 3D has always been a gimmick. I've never understood the appeal.

Oh boy. A sourced article that is throwing around statistics like hard fact and truth. I don't really care about the content... this use of such a wonderful scientific field just depresses me.

DaxStrife:
Wow, first time I ever believed a story sourced from Fox News. :-P

This is the first sign of the Apocalypse, isn't it?

Next we'll have people admitting DRM just pisses off legitimate customers.

Perhaps the idea of muzzling teenage girls is "slightly" wrong though? Just saying...

I concur.
I really hate it when a movie is not available in 2D.
So it's more of a reason to NOT go, than an attractive feature.
Especially Marvel does really crap 3D btw, all of their movies have a flawed perspective that kills my immersion. :'(

I've never had a headache from it. But when a 3D film is just overlayed 3D afterwards. It's really annoying. Because you're constantly aware the film is now lower quality than it should be.

'Study: 3D offers nothing but headaches.'

Fixed.

I have never been given a headache from 3D but I do believe it's a waste of time if it doesn't meet the following criteria:

1 - Filmed specifically for 3D
2 - Shown in iMax
3 - Have worthwhile and amazing 3D scenes

If it doesn't meet these criteria, I don't want to see it.
I prefer 2D anyway. It's cheaper (because it's not as gimmicky) and it tends to be better quality, seeing as most films are 3D overlay.

Jandau:

Earnest Cavalli:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, short of vibrating movie seats and physically muzzling teenage girls, the movie-going experience has hit its peak.

How about vibrating teenage girls? That would improve the moviegoing experience, right? :p

I frowned, but then I smiled a little.

I'm not able to go see films in 3D, they give me what feels very much like a bad migraine, that is to say nasty headaches with nausea. Doesn't even take long for that to kick in on me.

The sooner the whole fad just dies off again the better in my opinion, I might actualy want to go spend my money watching films again. I also hope it doesn't really catch on with games in a big way either.

The only movie I've seen that the 3D made immersive was Jackass. To be immersed you have to be a participant in an experience because they would break the 4th wall in most movies the immersion doesn't exist, but in Jackass you take on the persona of the cameraman, the guy watching his friends do something really fucking stupid.

TwoSidesOneCoin:

Also, did anyone else read the thread title as: Sony: 3D Offers Nothing But Headaches, and immediately think it was just Sony taking a shot at Nintendo's 3Ds or was I the only one?

I can see misreading it as that, but keep in mind that Sony is the one pushing all those 3D TV sets, they would not be so happy at this kind of study coming out. Microsoft is the only one in a gloating position as they haven't invested in 3D to my knowledge.

Earnest Cavalli:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, short of vibrating movie seats and physically muzzling teenage girls, the movie-going experience has hit its peak.

They've revived 3D movies for the time being, why not go a little further.

Smell-O-Vision:
Smell-O-Vision was a system that released odor during the projection of a film so that the viewer could "smell" what was happening in the movie. The technique was created by Hans Laube and made its only appearance in the 1960 film Scent of Mystery, produced by Mike Todd, Jr., son of film producer Mike Todd. The process injected 30 different smells into a movie theater's seats when triggered by the film's soundtrack.

Once again science says something I already suspected. I really should be a scientist. Then again this was reported by Fox...

The_root_of_all_evil:

DaxStrife:
Wow, first time I ever believed a story sourced from Fox News. :-P

This is the first sign of the Apocalypse, isn't it?

More a sigh that people will only believe what fits their worldview. you don't like 3D so you will swallow anything that portrays it in a negative light.

The only movie scene that I ever thought was ZOMG THAT IS COOL in 3D was the scene at the very end of "My Bloody Valentine 3D", where the bullet comes out of the screen and you can read the detail on the bullet. But that was in the theater, not the home version. That red/blue glasses thing is complete shit. I will be glad when this 3D gimmick has died.

Meh.. I quite like 3d and its pretty much the only reason why I got to cinemas

I like 3D. If anything, it has enhanced my gaming experience when I play Ocarina of Time.

Blitzwing:

The_root_of_all_evil:

DaxStrife:
Wow, first time I ever believed a story sourced from Fox News. :-P

This is the first sign of the Apocalypse, isn't it?

More a sigh that people will only believe what fits their worldview. you don't like 3D so you will swallow anything that portrays it in a negative light.

I think it's more the fact that the exact same thing has been said every 20 years since it's first inception. In 1950.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here