Walter Murch: "Why 3D doesn't work and never will."

jlee562

Sr Member
Ebert, who himself has a distaste for 3D (one that I share with both these men), posted a letter he received from famed editor (among other roles in the film industry) Walter Murch.

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. - Roger Ebert's Journal

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?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch
 
Well, that's like... your opinion... man. I've seen good films that were shot on 3D and I wouldn't see them any other way. I get it and it works for me.
 
Walter is the man ;)

I am currently reading the interview book "The conversations" by Michael Ondaatje, where Murch talks a lot about editing and his work on Apocalypse Now and English patient and the interviews show how much of the trade he knows.

Amazon.com: The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film (9780375413865): Michael Ondaatje: Books

TRON Legacy did not feel like it really needed 3D, as do a lot of other films.

I really don´t know what part of the movie experience could be really enhanced by 3D? How does 3D support storytelling, except for action sequences where the audience could be immersed into the action?
"Despicable me" had a roller coaster ride sequence, and I really enjoyed that experience, but that was "it". The rest of the movie in 3D? Welll...
Same goes for "Up". 3D animated features IMO can make the most out of 3D (hah!) but they too don´t need the "enhancement".

"Movement" of imagery was a necessary advancement, sound was a necessary advancement, "colour" was a not so necessary advancement, IMAX was a good experience but not a necessary advancement. What is 3D if not an unnecessary advancement? It´s inevitable, though.

Anyone already see one of those TV sets that give you 3D without the use of additional glasses?
 
One of my film school professors made "The Conversations" a required text...one of the few books I hung on to. It's a great read.
 
I agree with his views on 3D not being a good way to watch media, however, I don't agree with his "evolution" view point... But that's not what the OT is about.

In short Amen.
 
It's story that makes a movie. Nothing else. Not cgi, 3d, holograms, or anything else. STORY!!

Anyone remember sensa-round? A gimmick from the 1970s that would make you 'feel' everything on screen. They used it in crappy disaster movies. Not too much sensa-round now-a-days.

The things we remember from years back is because of STORY. Little cartoon drawings on pulp stay with us because we liked the story.

If hollywood execs would do their job and stop trying to pay someone else to do it then all movies would improve.

And that's the story.
 
Inherently intellectual arguments that are put forth with the emotional call-to-arms "...period!" or "Case Closed!" are automatically suspect to me and have a higher hill to climb than precepts offered up without a perceived and assumed endpoint right up front, there, at the beginning. Me, I think that borders on the intellectually dishonest.

I mean, I know Ebert probably doesn't write his own headlines, but, dang.
 
Yeah, I don't know if I'm ready to write 3D off just yet.

That said, Walter Murch is an authentic genius whose comments and opinions I tend to take seriously.
 
Yeah, I would not be inclined to write Murch off as simply an old man complaining about technology. And I'm not saying that because I happen to agree with him in this instance. Murch is a guy who knows what he is talking about.
 
Murch is a true Renaissance Man.

His commentary track on the THX-1138 special edition is reason alone to revisit that film. And, as mentioned, his book The Conversations is a must-own for anyone interested knowing how and why the human brain processes cinematic images.
 
I've never cared much for 3D. It looks cool, but the depth is usually exaggerated beyond anything realistic.

I remember seeing the early Showscan films from Doug Trumbull, 65mm film shot and projected at 60fps. The high resolution and smooth motion was far more realistic than anything I've seen in 3D.
 
You can throw all the bells and whistles on anything and I'd still rather watch a scratched up 16mm film with real heart and story. Why doesn't Hollywood focus on that?

I have nothing against 3D, it just doesn't add anything for me. Despite the added dimension Avatar was flat as Hell.
 
I see people asking for story but most pocketbooks support every over produced cgi, 3d showcase tinsle town puts out.
 
how long did it take to fizzle out in the 80's?

Less time than this, I think, but that's also because there wasn't the home entertainment industry backing it.

I'm not sure it'll fizzle the same way, though. I think, more likely, that it'll always just be a minor player. It'll be added to some stuff, but the bulk of stuff won't really get folks interested. Plus, so many people bought HDTVs in the past few years that I doubt you'll have quite the same level of market interest in buying ANOTHER HDTV just because it has 3D. Finally, I don't think that 3D has the universal appeal that higher resolution has.

It'll burble along for a while, and the cable companies may have a channel or two devoted to 3D sports and such, but I doubt it'll really ever take off the way some hope.
 
Back
Top