Planet Earth is pretty spectacular the way it is.

One of the most spectacular pieces of 3D I have seen was from the Japanese Moon obitor. Seeing the Moon in 3D and an earthrise made travelling over the Pacific to NAB last year worthwile.
A friend of mine is working on a 3D system for operating theatres.
I spent several hours last night with around 100 local guys looking at the new pig nose camera from Panasonic and a 3D mirror rig using 2 SI-2K camera.
The Panny camera was only a prototype and has a problem with the zoom servos not tracking during a fast zoom. Doing that produces an effect that will "rip the eyeballs out of your head".

Bob.

I can just imagine what different zoom rates on right and left would do - as you say "rip the eyeballs out of your head" :-)

mikey

"But why is the 3D debate always about movies?

Because that's who's focusing on it at this time and forcing it upon the viewing audience (at another $5 to $7.50 a pop!). I will NOT pay $15 - $17.50 for a movie ticket. Period!

On the other hand, I agree with you John, there are other, more appropriate applications, such as engineering.

Honestly, I don't think "Planet Earth" would have been any better being in 3D. Obviously, we disagree on that. But that's Ebert's point, and I think he makes it very well. His argument is well thought out and well presented in both aspects--aesthetics and technical.

Ebert said, "In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus." This made me laugh. It's ironic that many of those who are tripping over themselves to get shallow depth of field are also clamoring for 3D. Take your pick, you can't have both.

I would like to see more on the MaxiVision48 projects he talked about. That's sound intriguing to me.

The shallow DoF advocates usually talk of "making their videos more cinematic", where the real point is to be able to separate the subject from background clutter, which 3D achieves without needing shallow DoF. The other use of shallow DoF, to hold attention on a particular portion of the image without regard to composition and lighting, often fails because the eye (certainly mine) soon tries to see what is in the out of focus regions. 3D demands deep DoF, so shooters will have to fall back on composition to direct attention.
Regarding other applications, 3D has been used for more than 20 years in various science fields, molecular imaging perhaps being that most often cited. I used it in simulations of military air operations (air combat).

Why I Love 3-D Movies (And You Should Too)

Roger Ebert always gets two thumbs-up from me, even when I disagree with him. But his one-sided review of 3-D is clamouring for more depth:

1. It’s the reclamation of a dimension.
When I look at early colour movies, I’m always amazed at how unnatural and ostentatious it all is. It takes a while to get things right and for them to become an integral and invisible aspect of the viewing experience. Our approximations of reality become more refined with experience. And our acceptance rapidly accelerates.

2. It adds an indefinable something to the experience.
I don’t want Black and White colourized. I don’t want 2-D spatialized. 3-D has to spring organically from its own ground.

3. It can be focus-enhancing.
When experimental visual artists started working up off the page-plane, they found ways to lead our eyes that would have pleased their forebears. Experimental 3-D cinematographers will too.

4. Although it can create nausea and headaches, there are workarounds.
Heck, 2-D cinema can be stomach-upsetting too! Some people just can’t go to the movie theatre because the flicker triggers migraines. 3-D, with a faster over-all frame rate might help to mitigate that. For those whose problems are muscular, the special way that looking at 3-D requires (without inducing medical distress) can be learned.

5. 3-D can be as bright as any 2-D movie.
That’s just a technical matter. (Now, the IMAX stuff, that is concerning. Giving us less while leading us to believe we are still getting more. Not right.)

6. Theatres will have brand-new state-of-the-art projectors.
Well, casino capitalism died the year before last, and we’ll have its zombie corpse walking around for awhile yet, but it could happen that we will reject profit-oriented everything and return to campfire storytelling. As an oral storyteller, that’s where my heart would be, but in the meantime, I’m really enjoying the excellent picture—improved in every way—of our local theatre’s brand-new state-of-the-art projector.

7. Movies are still reasonably priced.
As long as we allow laissez-faire capitalism, prices will always be undemocratic. But as far as my entertainment dollars go, even with the premium, movies are still affordable, more so than many other things. As for faux 3-D, no fawning from me. Neither no yearning.

8. Serious dramas will be improved by 3-D.
Not, of course, the serious dramas which have already been filmed in the grammar of 2-D, but the ones to come. The developing grammar of 3-D will allow movements of association and understanding not possible in 2-D.

9. Hollywood—whenever confronted with an emerging technology like radio, TV, the internet—adapts in ways which further the cinematic approximation of our everyday experience.
And of course the emerging technologies continue to adapt as well. Every change holds a loss as well as a gain. Still, I wish we did more oral storytelling around campfires.

As for 2-D at 48fps in comparison to 3-D, why does it have to be either/or? Certainly the new equipment that projects 3-D could handle it as well. So the infrastructure would already be in place. That would leave it to movie studios and film-makers to see their way through to making their content in that format. Just as they have seen their way through with 3-D.

Tim Robertson
Apologetically Unapologetic 3-D Lover

"I will NOT pay $15 - $17.50 for a movie ticket. "

Yikes! You're getting ripped off big time. The local cinemas here charge the same $5 to $8 per ticket with no price increase for 3D.