twooffour said:

canofhumdingers said:

I agree with Chris Nolan who basically said that the lighting/shadows/focus/depth of field/etc ALREADY replicate the 3d world & making the movie "3d" is redundant and kind of dumb.

Probably one of the stupidest opinions I've read about anything in a long time.

Hey, can I ask you a question: have you ever tried shutting one of your eyes (or blocking it with your hand if it's too difficult) and looking at your environment that way? The lighting, shadows and shapes, already make it appear 3D! Pfft, why need two eyes then?? Evolution was kinda dumb... but then again, it was blind, hahahahahahaa.

Hi, if you paint a cube on paper, it'll already look 3D without any fancy shadowing or whatever. If you take a picture of your room with your cheap 19$ steadycam, it'll still look, guess what, 3D. Shadowing is already provided by reality.

   ___________
   / / l
  / / l
/_________ / l
l    l l
l    l /
l    l /
l    l /
l_________ l/

The point (that you obviously didn't get) was that they're both simulations of real 3d. When you look at something real, yeah, two eyes allow you to perceive the depth b/c the thing is actually in 3 dimensional space. When watching a movie, it is NOT actually 3d & the 3rd dimension is being implied or simulated either with the clues that allow us to interpret real 3d naturally, or by artificially forcing a 3d simulation with multiple images & goofy glasses. My point still stands.

Prehaps I should try to find the actual quote as Nolan put it much more eloquently than I can.