twooffour said:

TMBTM said:

I think Nolan wanted to say that having depth of field is redundant, because in real life it is your eyes that makes the focus on things. So having blurry parts on screen in a 3D movie looks nothing like "real life 3D".

I liked the 3D in Avatar, but having depth of field (making part of the picture blurry, to focus your eyes on something) was weird. I think in 3D movies the focus needs to be "infinite". Meaning no blur anywhere. That way the audience focus on what they want. Of course this kind of thing would lead to have the movies in two versions: one with depth of field, for a 2D exploitation, and one without, for the 3D exploitation. And I don't know if this is doable.

Interesting points, although I admit I've never really paid attention to depth of field in movies, and its effects on the viewer.

Does a lack of it (or at least, uttermost lack of it?) strongly impact the way one perceives a 2D image?

Yep. See this picture:

Here depth of fields "forces" your eyes to focus on the foreground object. It's a 2D way to simulate what your eyes do in real life. There are shots like this in Avatar but I feel it is "redundant" when used in 3D movies.

What I would call "real life 3D" would be to have the background as clear and precise as the foreground. Resulting the eyes of the audience to focus on what they want. With depth of fields in 3D movies you of course can focus on the background BUT it still looks blurry, and that is not how we see 3D in real life.