- Question
Is 3D unnecessary?
Does 3D add anything to film, or is it a gimmick? This entry sets out the two positions on the question — that 3D is unnecessary, and that it is not — weighing immersion against cost and discomfort.
Position 1 of 2
Read this position →Yes, 3D is unnecessary
This position holds that stereoscopic presentation adds nothing a film needs, since depth is already conveyed by composition and camera movement, while the format costs the audience brightness, comfort and money for an effect it soon stops noticing.
Position 2 of 2
Read this position →No, 3D is not unnecessary
This position holds that stereoscopic depth is visual information rather than a gimmick: it changes how space, scale and distance are read, and a film composed for it uses that information in ways a flat version cannot reproduce.