The thing that concerns me is what does this actually add to the film-makers' toolbox? When colour appeared, it added a whole new level of creativity for directors because all of a sudden colour could have relevance. I'm not quite sure what pseudo-3D actually provides the film-maker with in the way of expansion on their ability to tell a story. It looks nice when it works, but I'm struggling to find a situation where 3D as it's currently being pushed in the theatres adds anything to the art of film-making itself.
Sense of scale (and depth) comes to mind, especially in scenes where no other visual cues (such as recognizable objects like humans) are not present. You can look at an image of a building, or aircraft, without truly perceiving how big they are. Similarly with scenes happening at high altitude. Some sceneries could be a lot more effective in 3D, which is probably also something that movie makers will need to address (vomit bags anyone?).
I'm mainly thinking of something like... let's say crossing a narrow suspended bridge, or seeing an airplane on the ground - everyone seems to underestimate the size of fighter aircraft, for example. A modern fighter jet is an absolutely enormous machine and world war 2 fighter planes were also much bigger than people often think.
The thing is, human brain has evolved to handle continuous 3D visuals. It can adapt to handling 2D and cheat itself to think it's 3D, but it is better equipped for 3D. In fact, in visual acuity test it's normal that you get better results with both eyes open than with either eye alone. In other words, we see the world more detailed with two eyes - I suspect our brains does some fancy interferometric on-the-fly processing for increased image quality, in addition to parallax processing for spatial calculations.
Oh and I would also gladly welcome 1000 FPS video for films if it were up to me. Away with the stuttering panning shots!
Poll
