> There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances.
When you increase the width of the aperture of a lens (your pupil) you decrease the depth of field in sharp focus. It's a fundamental limit of optics.
On a bright day you have a lot of light and your pupil is narrowest, bringing as much as possible into focus.
> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.
I watched the Hobbit in 3d and thought it was awful. You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur.
I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried.
> You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur.
That was my experience as well. I find it head-ache inducing. It really doesn't emulate true 3-D vision very much at all and I would personally not pay any extra money for the experience.
Follow-up - Rogue One sucks in 3D. It's only an annoyance, blocking the set for some stupid spaceship models that wouldn't have been impressive compared to Babylon 5.
Also, the movie is Star Wars so there's no drama whatsoever. Literally everyone in the film is killed within seconds of their mission being accomplished.
Similar experience with the latest Star Wars. I saw Nightmare Before Christmas years ago and it was all in focus (memory hazy here) and the 3D distance made it look like it was a play, on a stage. I absolutely loved it. I've never seen another 3D movie since that I thought was good for the same depth of field issues discussed.
When you increase the width of the aperture of a lens (your pupil) you decrease the depth of field in sharp focus. It's a fundamental limit of optics.
On a bright day you have a lot of light and your pupil is narrowest, bringing as much as possible into focus.
> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.
I watched the Hobbit in 3d and thought it was awful. You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur.
I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried.