Roger Ebert's Proof 3D TV 'Doesn't Work With Our Brains'

In a new blog post written for the for the Chicago Sun-Times, film critic Roger Ebert, who has railed against 3D movies and television, offers up what he says is proof that the technology "doesn't work with our brains and it never will."

Ebert came to this conclusion after reading a personal letter from Academy Award-winning film editor and sound designer Walter Murch, another critic of 3D technology. Murch's letter argues that the problem with 3D is evolutionary. Our eyes and our brain, he writes, simply cannot keep up.

From Murch's letter:

The biggest problem with 3D [...] is the "convergence/focus" issue. [...] [T]he 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.

So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so [of watching a 3D movie] 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.

In Ebert's opinion, Murch's letter proves that 3D is a failed experiment. "It doesn't work with our brains and it never will," Ebert concluded after reading the letter. "The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed."

Ebert's harsh stance against 3D films is well documented. Last year, he posted a tweet calling the technology "a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices." Two months later, he penned a Newsweek op-ed entitled "Why I Hate 3D (And You Should Too)."

To read Ebert's entire blog post, including Walter Murch's complete letter, visit the Chicago Sun-Times.

Comments

[BlueHorde]

07:44 PM on 02/14/2011

Mr. Ebert (or rather Mr. Murch whom he references) is quite right about the unnaturalness of present 3D video. But of course the same is true of conventional "2D" cinema - we are focusing on a screen at a fixed distance, which represents objects at far nearer and farther distances - it is completely different from, say, looking in a mirror with one eye where you still focus at different depths. Let our brains interpret the unnatural 2D presentation as representing a world with depth. Non holographic 3D gives more information, but like 2D fails to match focus and depth. That information gives us an even better illusion of depth than 2D, at the cost of making our brains work harder. Most 3D could benefit from producing a 'flatter' display of depth rather than the exaggerated version we commonly get - by not letting the discrepancy between focus and parallax be as pronounced in most of the film we would have less fatigue, and greater impact when we really want it. 3D has its value, but it needs to be toned down.

[saluk]

12:51 PM on 01/26/2011

I like 3d, but after it has been around a while it's not as impressive or exciting as it once was. The magic is gone, much like the magic has been gone from cgi and visual effects for at least 10 years. Time to get back to making stories you actually care about instead of focusing on the fad of the day.

[PaulantonyWoods]

07:15 AM on 01/26/2011

Ladies and gentlemen the show has started the popcorn is hot and the 3d will melt your brain. What utter hype and hysteria, unfortunately for some people it will not work through no fault of their own but rather a myriad of reasons. I enjoyed Avatar, Tron and am eagerly awaiting alien3d (Alien 1979 being the greatest movie ever or very highly ranked in my opinion). Cinema is still the only way to experience the art of film and 3d cinema is shortly going to be come a milestone in the visual expression and artistry that will soon be written in the Art history books alongside Leonardo, Rembrandt and Velásquez. Personally I am loving 3d and it is easy to produce even from your bedroom if interest and you have a pair of red and blue glasses take a look - at this rough draft intro for my movie. Which will when the 3d is corrected be dilivered in all 3d formats !!

[Russell Pike]

12:14 PM on 01/26/2011

Sadly enough, the Alien 3d prequel has been canceled and is being spun off into a new sci-fi movie called Prometheus. How much it still has to do with Aliens is up in the air.

[ThreeCrows]

11:36 PM on 01/25/2011

Scene 1 EXT: DAY
A booming voice from the heavens begins to speak to Roger.
VOICE
Roger, how dare you speak ill of 3D.
ROGER
Who is this?
VOICE
Who do you think it is?
ROGER
Is this James Cameron?
VOICE
Well, uh,uh...
ROGER
It is James and our 3D sucks.
VOICE
But I'm King of the WOORRLLLDDD!!!
ROGER
3D still sucks and you're overcharging at the box office.
VOICE
But I need the money Roger.
ROGER
Why?
VOICE
Linda Hamilton is my ex-wife.
ROGER
Oh, nuff said, but don't make a sequel to True Lies.
VOICE
Ahhh shoot, okay.

[cdbaker2]

02:04 PM on 01/26/2011

Okay. That was hilarious!

[Supercruize]

03:33 PM on 01/25/2011

Lots of 3D Fantasy avatar popcorn fans defending the fad without even considering his argument. He has a valid argument. A lot of 3D viewers complain of sensory overload. Its true, just try watching Shrek 3D for 15 minutes. The fact that we have to wear glasses that force our eyes to see two different images ought to tell you that 3D is only good natural and not simulated. Period.

[DaveC19]

01:47 PM on 01/25/2011

Yeah he is right, 3D is a fad and confuses my brain.

That is why I walk around with one eye closed.

[allardkent]

03:56 PM on 01/25/2011

What you see in a 3D movie, and what you see walking around are different perceptual phenomena, thus, the discomfort 3D movie viewers often experience, a discomfort not imposed upon people walking around, one eye closed and otherwise.

[General Public]

01:11 PM on 01/25/2011

I've got nothing against 3D, but I hate flat-screen monitors (they can only do ONE resolution, their "native resolution") and hate wide-screen monitors (hello? all the video games ever made prior to them were made for 4:3 aspect ratio monitors... way to ruin video games). The fact that all the computer monitors being sold now are wide-screen flat-screen garbage with the wrong aspect ratio and only one video resolution they can display properly is just PATHETIC. What ever happened to good old CRTs (Cathode Ray Tubes) with a 4:3 aspect ratio? If you get a good one, it can display higher resolutions than the standard HD 1920x1080, like for instance I had a monitor awhile ago that could display anything up to 2048x1536. Looking at a document on one of these wide-screen LCD monitors is ridiculous... you can only see a few lines at once. But they are even worse for gaming... much MUCH worse. I'm using a laptop right now with a 1024x600 screen. You know what they should call it instead of wide-screen? Short-screen. It's not any wider than monitors used to be able to display, but it is much shorter vertically in how many pixels it can display. Instead of wide-screen, let's call it short-screen to emphasize how awful it is, how ridiculously short it is. And LCDs with native resolutions look blurry in any other resolution. Combine that with short-screen and it SUCKS.

[DaveC19]

01:51 PM on 01/25/2011

Someone somewhere decided everything should match movie aspect ratios.

I guess that means that no one does anything but watch movies anymore.

I do agree that widescreen is a much worse use of floorspace. You get much less screen area for the same footprint than you did with 4:3.

[thaggas]

09:00 PM on 01/25/2011

Widescreen's recent domination is because our field of vision is essentially 16:9. It's easier to design and create for the space because aesthetically it's what we've been viewing our entire lives.

[MightyPheonix]

02:04 AM on 01/26/2011

I'd rather have a screen that takes up a bit more width, than lose 1/3rd or more of the image due to letterboxing or pan & scan.

[FlibberFlabber]

08:33 PM on 01/25/2011

I get around this by having a two-monitor set-up, one is in the horizontal widescreen aspect, the other is set on its side and shows a vertical aspect. Depending on what I'm doing, I use one or the other screen. Obviously this isn't for everyone, but it is pretty convenient having two screens.

[IraFlowers]

12:48 PM on 01/25/2011

We have a 57 inch 3D TV at are house and it's fantastic. Much better than the movie theaters. The picture is bright, the 3D is great and the eyes only strain a little. I've never had a headache, yet, with a 3D viewing. But I have had several with 2D viewings. I work in the film business and I understand that 3D is no gimmick. The amount of money and resources being put towards stereo motion pictures is astounding. It's a boon for everyone in the industry. New techonolgy means new opportunities and more jobs. Very important.

Very shortly here 3D will be standard in all TV's sold. It's just going to become normal in the next 10 years.

Yes it can cause eye strain and headaches but just like anything with a bit more practice the human body will get used to it. Eventually the home TV's will not require glasses and you'll be able to enjoy the stereo experience with out looking like Buddy Holly.

--

[Rich McCracken]

11:26 AM on 01/25/2011

I'm married to a neuroscientist and we'll be laughing about this for a while. My experience is that 3D increases retention much like studying while baroque music plays in the background. Emotional response is stronger as well. Most brains adapt to prismatic glasses. 3D is no different. My guess is that Mr. Ebert's brain (and Mr. Murch's as well) have lost their resiliency as they have not continued to learn and grow as they have advanced in age. This is no different than old folks not being to adapt to rap or hip-hop, or to learn new technologies. It's simply easier to gripe and nay-say when you can't adapt.

BTW, for adopters: running the refresh rate at 240hz seem to reduce aliasing in the Z axis, producing less flat layers at various depths and a more seamless depth. You lose the 24 fps flicker that makes it look like a movie, but I think it's worth it.

[allardkent]

04:04 PM on 01/25/2011

Ah, for the days we didn't have to think about adjusting our refresh rate to 240hz to reduce Z axle aliasing and to lose the 24 fps fluckering. But then I am an old guy who would rather do the twenty-three skidoo than hip with those hoppers, or use these new-fangled eyepoddie thingamajigs.

Thanks for advice sonny boy, now I know why Hoss's skin is so splotchy on Bonanza. Can't wait to see Citizen Kane in 3D - Rosebud looked kinda icky in that fire with them old film things.

[allardkent]

04:09 PM on 01/25/2011

"My guess is that Mr. Ebert's brain (and Mr. Murch's as well) have lost their resiliency as they have not continued to learn and grow as they have advanced in age"

After the sarcasm of my previous comment, I just can't let go.

What an absurd and insulting thing to say about Ebert and Murch. I hope you and your neuroscientist significant other have a jolly old time laughing obliviously at people whose intellect and curiosity put yours to shame.

Ebert is a giant. You are tiny and smug.

What a pud.

[Seckmoth]

11:05 AM on 01/25/2011

Don't forget:

1.) If you travel over 35MPH it will cause brain trauma because we were not built for such speed
2.) The waves from the Radio will make you schizophrenic
3.) Television viewing of over 1 hour a day will make you blind in a year
4.) The colorization of film and television is too much a strain on the eye and it will never process it properly and cause nausea and headaches not to mention severe eye damage
5.) The change to Widescreen formatted films will give too large of a viewing area for our eyes to handle and no-one will go for it

and so on and so forth.

These are the same tired anti-technology arguments given every time an advancement is made. Hell even recently HDTV was said to be "too vivid" for us to handle as little as just over a decade ago. By 2020 3D will become a new standard, be a cheap technology, and the issues with perception will have been worked out. Then we will start to hear the anti-hologram arguments begin.

[guitar7masta]

02:43 PM on 01/25/2011

one problem here. while the 1 to 5 you stated were just made up "facts", there have been millions of people reporting headaches from watching 3dtv, so this time, it really is a problem.

[MightyPheonix]

02:21 AM on 01/26/2011

Millions of people have also had headaches from watching regular TV, or movies, or just sitting at a computer. More people suffer from RSI & carpal Tunnel by using a keyboard, yet computers and keyboards don't seem to be at any risk of disappearing any time soon. All that's happened is that a warning is now placed on keyboards. Oddly enough, similar warnings precede most (if not all) 3D movies & games.

As I've stated before, about ten percent of the population can't perceive 3D correctly, and have trouble with any 3D technology­, either due to various eye conditions­, or neurologic­al disorders. For these people, 3D is of no benefit and likely only serves to cause them discomfort & stress. If you're one of these people, well, no-one's putting a gun to your head & forcing you to watch 3D content. Everything that's available in 3D is also available in 2D.

[thaggas]

09:02 PM on 01/25/2011

A recent poll over on DVDActive.com, while unscientific, it was contributed to by mediaphiles. The poll showed that only 31% of home theater viewers would invest in a 3D TV. Add the general public and the number drops lower.

[MightyPheonix]

02:14 AM on 01/26/2011

3D TV sales percentages seem to be on target for the 20-30% numbers though. In fact, in the few months that 3D TVs have been available they've outsold DVD players and blu-ray players over the same time periods when they were introduced. Keep in mind that 3D TVs cost about 3 times more than DVD and BD players did when they were first released as well.

[FrogLips]

10:25 AM on 01/25/2011

3D is a new technology that will have to work out the bugs. Given time it will. How long that will take is anybodies guess. So to try to shot it down now is a little too early. Future 3D may be totally different then today's version. Only time will tell. 30 years ago who thought the internet would be what it is today and in another 30 years computers and the internet, if the current form is still around, will make what we are doing now seem like the stone ages.

[SoMainer]

09:59 AM on 01/25/2011

I previewed several of the 3D offerings at CES and found them all lacking. Never say never but today "not ready for prime time".

[dhonock]

09:49 AM on 01/25/2011

3d make headaches i barely know..

[ScapeGoat]

09:02 AM on 01/25/2011

When electric light was invented, there were people that said that it was unnatural and would destroy your vision. It would never replace gas light.
When Disney did the first full color cartoon (snow white) people said the colors would cause headaches and eye problems.
If 3D was really that bad, people would stop going. 3D is hear to stay.
For those that get headaches (my daughter is one) there is still the 2D alternative.

[GeneralDisarray]

09:01 AM on 01/25/2011

Ummm, Isn't real life 3D? I seem to get around fine without having to put on my 2D glasses.

[thaggas]

09:04 PM on 01/25/2011

The problem is that 3D theaters want our eyes to focus at one length and converge at another. Something they are not made for. This doesn't happen in real life.

(You'd know this if you read the article.)

[MightyPheonix]

02:24 AM on 01/26/2011

If the convergence issue was a real one, then eyeglasses would not work as those adjust your focus point independent of your convergence point as well.