Senses: Watch and Burn
Why 3-D flicks might not be the best pick
By November 1, 2011 - last reviewed on June 9, 2016published
They make your head hurt.
Moviegoers who saw a film in 3-D were about three times more likely to experience eyestrain, headaches, and trouble with vision than were those who saw the 2-D version. It could be that the parts of the brain responsible for perceiving 3-D visual input couldn’t do so properly, either because of a failure of the technology or limitations in those brain processes, says lead researcher L. Mark Carrier. “It’s also possible that any 3-D images that didn’t ‘work’ for the viewer created an uncomfortable sensation in the eyes.”
They don’t boost enjoyment.
Viewers who watched 3-D movies didn’t feel more immersed in the action or experience more intense emotions than 2-D viewers. They also didn’t remember the film’s content any better. Carrier’s research refutes the idea that 3-D television and movies could improve learning by making the content more engaging. “The only effect of 3-D presentation was an increase in discomfort,” he says.
They cost more.
On average, 3-D movie tickets cost about $3 more than the 2-D versions. “For some people, the 3-D visual effects might be pleasing and interesting and worth the extra money,” Carrier says. But for most of us, flicks are best enjoyed flat.