Originally Posted by whiteslashasian
[TROLL POST] By that argument, wouldn't 3D enhance our viewing immersion as we live and interact in a 3 Dimensional world? [/TROLL POST]
Sure, if a 3D movie was actually three dimensional. But it's not. Edit: What I mean to say is that 3D images do a terrible job trying to "recreate" what people actually experience. Real life, unless you have severely screwed up eyes, does not look anything like a 3D movie. Simply put, it's because your visual cortex is better, faster, and more adaptive than a camera. A 3D movie (television or video game) is a 2D image that (instead of letting your brain interpret and add depth as in every other 2D media) tries to force an illusion of depth by tricking your visual mechanism with two slightly disparate images. But we already
see two disparate images, (since we have two eyes) so they have to eliminate that natural process through technology or we'd see a jumbled, blurry mess. Basically, they are trying to recreate an adaptive and natural part of how your brain and visual cortex function, and replace it with something artificial. So instead of becoming more "natural" or "realistic" it's actually kind of the opposite. Making a 3D movie that is natural and replicates what our eyes would actually see would be pointless, because it would look a lot more like the 2D image we already project in a regular movie, the main difference being that the image would change as you moved around the theater.