The problem with 3D, from what some filmmakers were saying, is that it entirely changes how you shoot video. The long "following" shots can make people sick in 3D, and you end up doing a lot more static camera stuff. Think about this in sports. Those wonderful cameras on the wires that follow the action around would, it seems, never be workable in 3D. Too much movement. Our brains don't mind it in 2D, but combining a moving camera and 3D messes our equilibrium up.
If this is all true, then I might actually prefer 2D with all the cool camera movement than a static 3D.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The problem with 3D, from what some filmmakers were saying, is that it entirely changes how you shoot video. The long "following" shots can make people sick in 3D, and you end up doing a lot more static camera stuff. Think about this in sports. Those wonderful cameras on the wires that follow the action around would, it seems, never be workable in 3D. Too much movement. Our brains don't mind it in 2D, but combining a moving camera and 3D messes our equilibrium up.
If this is all true, then I might actually prefer 2D with all the cool camera movement than a static 3D.