Yes, and video games are not art!
Here's my response to this bs when I saw it on another site:
!. Focus and convergence are 2 different circuits in our brain, they work independently. Objects farther than 20 feet don't have a different focus setting than at objects at 20 miles with the small lens of human eyeballs. Focus only comes into play with relatively close objects. On a bright day, like the scene above with the bottle in the foreground, our iris closes down so small that it becomes like a pinhole camera not requiring focus at all.
2. Headaches are caused by over or under convergence in the 3d movie to exaggerate 3d effects, like objects popping out of the screen towards you. This is the fault of the source film, not the 3d system. The 3d filmmakers need to keep in mind that this causes headaches, and that all the viewer really needs is some amount of 3d depth to let the viewers mind know where the objects are in 3d space. That's all we need.
3. Nauseousness is caused by the source film also, and because of the fact that 3d is much more immersive. Take an crazy action movie sequence, and then imagine that you were strapped to the camera as it's jerked around, spun and moved at breakneck speed. That would make you sick, right? They need to tone it down a notch when filming in 3d, if there's a lot of camera movement they must pretend that the viewer is the camera and ask themselves 'will this scene make the viewer sick?'. Watch a good 3d nature film with slow panning and camera movement.
4. 3d is natural, 2d is not. Close one eye and look around the room, then open both eyes. see the difference? In a 2d scene where objects in the foreground are in focus, and background objects are slightly blurred to give a sense of depth, the brain tries to focus the background and is 'confused' also. In viewing a scene without 3d the brain must subconsciously analyse the scene and figure where the objects are in 3d space. This can cause fatigue.
5. The glasses do suck, i hate them. I have a Panasonic 3d plasma and the glasses were designed by someone who wanted people to hate Panasonic 3d glasses. My solution was to attach the glasses with 2 twist ties to the brim of a baseball cap, problem solved! The glasses don't touch your nose, and if you can stand wearing a hat, there's no difference.
6. If your waiting for 3d without the glasses, forget it. Where do i begin. They have a sweet spot, limiting where you can sit and how many viewers can watch. The reduce the horizontal resolution by half. They have artifacts when viewing 2d material. It will be possible, someday, but not in the near future. it would require each individual pixel on the screen to be able to show a different state depending on the angle it is viewed at. Each pixel would have to be like a miniature human eyeball in reverse, with a led retina. Of course the source 3d film must include all the different angles for each pixel also. So we are talking a huge amount of data for each pixel, not just the color of a single pixel, but an array of colors that the pixel will have at different viewing angles, for each pixel and each frame. Possible? Yes, but in how many years? if we don't adopt 3d now, will there be an incentive for companies to innovate and come up with better 3d screens when there's no market? Do you want 3d in your lifetime? I do.
