Slashdot Mirror
Do You Have a Secret Immunity To 3D Movies?
An anonymous reader writes "Not everyone who fails to be wowed by the latest Hollywood wave of 3D movies is necessarily criticizing the movie or the 'gimmick.' The author states: 'At least 12% of people have some type of problem with their binocular vision but less than five percent have severe visual disabilities, making appreciation of 3D tricky or impossible... For the 12%, two-eyed vision can be improved with supervised vision therapy. If anyone else out there, like I did, suspects 3D is a giant con, then perhaps a trip to the optometrist is due.'"
And he's not interested in your fancy 3D stuff at all.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Hmmm-- it wouldn't be hard to get pairs of special "2-D" glasses that let you watch 3-D films in 2-D... just make glasses with the polarization on both eyes the same.
Then you could calmly watch your 2-D movie with your friends who watch the 3-D movie.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The "department" names are often the best part of /. for me...
I can *see* the 3-D but it does not "immerse" me any more than 2-D. It doesn't *wow* me either, and it seems 3-D is just a whiz-bang gizmo to sell pricier tickets. IMHO, of course.
For the 10-15 minutes or so, I'm quite aware that the movie is in 3D. After that I totally forget about it and would probably be just as happy watching a 2D version (that is, unless it contains obnoxious "reach into the audience" effects).
I was having problems with my eyes... so I went to an optimist. He said everything was going to be okay.
Is it an eye problem? Perhaps. I have a slight astigmatism and wear glasses when I'm reading a book or looking at a computer monitor, but otherwise don't need them.
The article reads like someone who doesn't "get" 3D is brain damaged. Maybe that's true, but for me, I've enjoyed it since movies, TV, and games all look like "real life" to me. That is, my 3D vision is poor, so 2D looks just as good as 3D to me.
I consider it an enhancement - I can watch a 2D movie, which to me looks as good as the 3D version, but I don't have to pay an extra $2 and I don't have to wear the stupid glasses.
Also, Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans were shot in 2D and then post processed to give them the illusion of being in 3d...and the effect is shit.
-Xoltri
I believe the push for 3d movies is primarily because the major studios have realized how little really original good new product they have to offer.
For TV manufacturers it's because whereas the jump from standard def to high def was a distinct quality improvement to the point that people did it, they now realize these people have no reason to do the "every few years upgrade" cycle that their bottom lines desperately want. So they have to come up with a new "innovation" to get people to buy new TV sets.
Of course.. I could be crazy.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Normally I don't see the world in 3D (bad eye alignment, they tried surgery, but it didn't fix it) but for some reason the current round of 3D movies work for me, where the old red and blue glasses don't. I'll probably be first in line for a 3d TV set just so I can see things in 3 dimensions occasionally :)
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
The main reason they are pushing 3D so hard is it makes it harder pirating the movies. The fact that we have to pay an extra 25% to see them just adds insult to injury.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Well, there's some talk to Alice in Wonderland in the article. Alice in Wonderland is NOT in 3d. It's in semi-3d. So it leaves the experience somewhat lacking. How to Tame your Dragon. That's actually in 3d. Avatar, that's actually in 3d. Alice is the 'colorized' move of 3d.
Here's an example: I went to see Avatar in 3D. There was a trailer for Alice in Wonderland just before the movie started. My eyes went buggo (real medical term) and I had a hard time focusing and concentrating on the trailer. IMHO, the 3D was hyper-exaggerated for 3D sake rather than being unobtrusive. Avatar by contrast was flawless. The 3D was just under the surface if you will. IMHO doing 3D just because its trendy is the wrong reason to do it and the execution usually sucks. The only other "event" in 3D that I found unobtrusive was the Jetsons show at Universal Studios Orlando. Everything else gives me a headache.
...there is a movie that depends on 3D to tell the story. No movie I've seen in 3D to date has used 3D as anything more as gimmick, always the same old concept of something flying towards the audience. I may be a used-car salesman's best friend, but even *I* know when I'm being taken for a ride.
Here is a simple test to dertermine which group you fall into:
1. Hold both your arms in front of you with your hands about a foot (0.3 meters) apart.
2. Make fists with your hands.
3. Extend the index fingers of both hands towards each other.
4. Bring your index fingers close together and attempt to touch their tips precisely together.
If you can do it, you can enjoy 3D movies.
If you cannot, go to a vision therapist.
You can also try the above test with one eye closed. You will almost always fail at step 4.
I am blind in one eye
So I am not even going to go to one to see what the hype is all about
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I have Strabismus. The operation to correct it failed and as a result I have perfect vision, but out of one eye at a time. Actually that's not quite true, I can see things out of the corner of both eyes at a time but can only focus my central area of vision using one eye at a time. This means I have no real debth perception, making 3D movies pointless and giving me a perfect excuse for knocking drinks over when I have had a few too many :-)
I'm one of those people with difficulties with binocular vision. I normal vision is entirely 2D...no depth perception at all. Apparently I"ve never had it, and until I watched a 3D movie (at the age of 39) I never knew I was missing anything. Needless to say when I first experienced depth perception I just about fell out of my chair. While I haven't investigated trying to correct the vision problem, I certainly am a huge fan of 3D movies. On the plus side, from my perspective normal movies are just as good as real life.
I am of the 5% for which it is uncorrectable. If given the normal 3D glasses I can watch the movie just fine.
The 3D effects are optically real; my brain will flatten them back down to 2D the same way it does with real objects.
3D can be immersive if done properly, but studios go for flash or for those annoying "something's going to hit you in the face" effects. The most immersive 3D experience I've had in the movies was Ice Age 3. Everything else (yes, including Avatar) was sub-par.
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
As a single eye viewer, 3d does not work. Yah I enjoy paying for a blurry, headache inducing experience. Wait, meet me at the corner bar on Friday and I'll enjoy that blurry headache inducing experience more.
If anyone else out there, like I did, suspects 3D is a giant con then perhaps a trip to the optometrist is due'"
Or perhaps it really is a giant con. 3D *is* a gimmick promoted by an industry which has run out of ideas, and will die a death like 'stereovision' before it. I can see the 3D effects, and have no interest in it.
Just as Jaws had a 3D version almost 30 years ago, there will be the occasional film which uses 3D now and then, but to imply that all films must use 3D from now or that people need 'vision therapy' to watch crappy 3D movies is preposterous, particularly since the best recent example of its use are films like Avatar and Clash of Titans which are not worth watching the first place. It's not like colour or sound which make film more engaging and bring it closer to real life, it's a silly add-on which distracts rather than helps to immerse. Let me know when they actually have holographic projection and I'll be interested in a real advancement in the technology.
Go watch something like Memento, Le notti di Cabiria, Psycho, Les Enfants du Paradis, Hotel Rwanda, The Lives Of Others, Read my lips, Downfall, Ghandi, Oliver or Mississippi Burning and compare it to one of these blockbusters in 3D. There really is no comparison to the trite crap like Avatar which gets churned out by mainstream studios.
How does 3D work? Two cameras with the same lens separation as the human eye (roughly) photograph the scene in parallel, resulting in 2 images taken from slightly different viewpoints. (Or this can be synthesised in software, but the principle is the same.)These images are then arranged so the left one is viewed by the left eye, and the other by the right eye. This can be done with a viewer (as by the Victorians who discovered it) or by projecting polarised images and using corresponding polarised glasses.
Now, the secret of this is that for the illusion to work, the viewer must see the images at the same magnification and from the same viewpoint as the original camera. You cannot turn your head to look at a different part of the scene because, in the real world, doing this would alter your point of view, and since the cameras were fixed, the point of view is fixed.
Now think of a movie theater. All the viewers are in different positions around the auditorium. They see the on-screen images from different viewpoints with different magnifications. Only a small number of them (probably close the center) see the 3D effect as it should be seen. The further from the center, the less realistic the effect.
Of course when Hollywood execs and selected critics go to special screenings, they can be placed close to the ideal position and the illusion will be quite good. But the majority of the paying public will be sufficiently far away from the ideal to be dissatisfied.
3D technology doesn't work in a cinema because of quite basic optics. It could be made to work well with properly designed single-viewer head mounted stereo imagers, and I suspect that Oleds will do a very good job before long. But in a movie theater, it just cannot work properly.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Back in the 90s (probably before most /. readers were born), there were these Magic Eye pictures which you had to stare at just right to see the 3d picture out of the seemingly random dots. Quite a few people couldn't see those either.
Back in the 80s I found out that I can't see stereograms. I though that there was something wrong with my stero vision. I can, however, see the new 3D movies just fine, so now I don't know.
Some people can see 3D just fine with contacts but with eyeglasses only their central vision gets good 3D.
I have good depth perception when I look at something straight-on but I find 3D distracting when wearing glasses especially when I'm not looking straight at it.
The cheesy red-and-blue 3D is even worse with my particular pair of glasses. Chromatic abberation is NOT your friend.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The games I play have been 3D for almost 20 years.
Why should I pay $8 (or whatever) to just watch?
I only see out of one eye so this 3D movement is lost on me :(. I have never had depth perception or the ability to watch 3D movies/games. The positive side is I wont feel compelled to upgrade my LED TV when the 3D ones come out.
The fact that so far no director has exploited the availability of depth dimension to improve the storyline is what makes current 3D a gimmick.
Besides of that, I find myself difficult to "get" the 3D effect, mainly because of visual impairment. My right eye view is quite bad and it can only be improved to a certain degree with glasses.
It is funny every time I go to an optic to get a new graduation, because the machines they have, which automatically get your eye graduation *always* fail misserable (e.g. I never get to see the "focused" house/ballon/etc with my right eye).
But in my opinion you do not need to be very intelligent to understand that given the way current 3D technology works, the worst vision you have the worst the 3D "experience" will seem.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Once upon a time in the land far from deranged copyright lawyers named Hollywood the ruler of a nation complained he could not see the film in 3d which had been remade many times by the evil lawyers.
The evil lawyers gorged out the emperors eyes and the emperor thought he viewed he film. His subjects pointed out that he also was not wearing any clothes either.
Yes I saw 'alice' in 3d - not very 3d at all, in fact if hollywood and the corrective vision industry wish to call me retarded in some way then good for them. I like being insulted dont you ?
I find that my eyes/brain fill in the 3D of 2D movies quite effectively. If they show a picture of a corridor my brain seems to make it look 3D and when someone walks behind someone else my brain doesn't shout, "Hey, that's flat, he just disappeared!" Instead my brain reconstructs the 3D image and it all seems to work.
In 3D movies, if I look closely I can see that it looks more 3D than normal movies, but once I'm immersed in a good story I don't really notice the difference very much (unless the movie is full of "boo" gimmicks, which I can do without).
I've seen true 3D effects in theaters in theme parks like Warner Brothers movie world and Euro Disney and these contained real 3d scenes with figures appearing right infront of you with the feeling you could touch it (people were grabbing into the air etc) but these theatre 3D effects are nothing compared to that, it's a different technology and a lot of the movies are post processed to give the impression that it's 3D footage. I for one will not go out of my way to see a movie just because it's in "3D".
Yes, these exist.
I'm sure they have been in the US for years, but as I live in a small town in the US the only place I've ever seen these is in China. They are 3D (usually "in your face" type of 3D) with additional effects such as air jets, water sprays, and one even had a little rubber hose activated by air to simulate a snake under your chair. The most creative one also had several devices in the seats themselves to simulate being hit or touched by various things. It was rather strange, and it really freaked out my colleagues. My kids (two of whom were with me in Guangzhou on the trip) really enjoyed it.
For those of you who are saying 3D is a gimmick, you should try these so-called 4D movies.
... for me. It might be cool, but I do have a vision problem that makes 3D glasses useless for me. I haven't seen any recent attempts at 3D, but I'm hoping it doesn't still have that weird echo/shadow look to it so I can enjoy the movie in 2D without feeling like I'm going to walk out bug-eyed :).
Do they have special glasses that improve overall story and character development? I tried beer goggles, but I end up forgetting most of the movie.
I was born (prematurely) with eyes that did not point correctly and one eye was lazy. Corrective surgery (circa 1975) corrected my left eye. However, due to my right eye being lazy, they were never able to fully correct it. As a result the brain ignores a great deal of input from this eye. Visual therapy helped, but was not able to fully adapt. This is a brain issue on how it interprets the visual data and discards it. I just saw a specialist in this area not long ago. While the test they ran was mind boggling, there simply isn't much they can do. For me 3-D is wasted.
I like to list my disabilities as super powers, so, I have independent vision, which is actually Strabismus, but distinct from a "lazy eye". I have 20/20 vision in each eye, but they do not work in constant binocular mode. I can focus on two objects at once, and at will I can change eye dominance. I have been to many (4) optometrists and the consensus is that it is neurologically sourced(I have other well-known neurological issues), and not muscular (or perhaps muscular but well compensated), or that since I have conscious control over it, that the surgery (to tighten the muscles) would likely cause harm or unpredictable effects.
3D movies take great conscious effort, and are therefore less enjoyable in general, but this does not completely exclude the category, it just doesn't count as a selling point, but as an "also ran" additional feature.
I was born with a muscle defect in one of my eyes and I don't have binocular vision. One eye is primary, the other acts as peripheral and I'm constantly switching between what's currently primary. I was told that I could try surgery but that the surgery is almost certain not to actually make the eyes line up properly, just better than what it currently is.
So yes, in my view this new stuff is gimmickly and exclusionary. In my view even more so than all the dolby 100.20 sound stuff (I had the equipment back in the 90s).
I want good, wholesome stories, something enjoyable to watch with characters I can connect to, not high tech shovelware.
Strange thing... I had an eye operation for strabismus when i was 2-3 year old and was subsequently told I might not see depth properly...
Doing the which circle is higher and the catch the fly wing tests, I have more trouble than average but still managed to maintain some 3D vision.
The weird thing is that I always had the feeling I had a better 3D ability in my head than others (over compensation?) and a weirder thing is that when I go to a 3D movie I get the feeling that since both my eyes are forced to see different things, it forces them to both be in the action and thus 3D seems much more "3D" than in my day to day life.
What I don't know is if that is normal or if it's a by product of my poor 3D vision? Are you guys feeling 3D in the theather is just like real life or much more than it should?
Or maybe the SFX guys are overdoing it haha, I don't have a reference to point to though, last 3D movie was a while back...
Can't wait for 3D cell phones and the line without lenses to check them out and see how screwed up I am... ;-)
But I see that isn't what you meant.
Think global, act loco
Will vision therapy fix a blind eye or lack of color vision?
When movie theaters pay for an eye transplant, I'll entertain the thought of paying for a 3D movie.
Seriously, didn't we figure out decades ago that 3D movies just aren't anything special?
I would love to be able to watch 3D movies, but the parts I want to look at (background action) are always blurred and I walk out of the theater with a head-banger of a migraine. My wife is the same way, except she claims that she does not watch the background like I do. An example of interesting background action would be "Natural Born Killers", not anywhere near a great movie, but the background scenes tell the rest of the story as the foreground limps along.
When 3D is as focused as 2D, then maybe I'll try again.
Due to vision problems
sorry, the current push for 3D movies is just more of the same fad that has come around again. Lots of people will not go see the movie in the theater if there is not a 2D version playing.
One of my eyes is considerably weaker than the other, which causes that I lack depth perception based on stereovision (I still have some based on focus). Still, the only time I can enjoy seeing in 3D is in a 3D cinema... I'm not sure why but only the images on screen are 3D for me...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
...now that you've told everyone. I will have to be more careful about who I tell my secret immunities to in the future.
...that you youngsters are trying to add to my moving pictures? You already had to go and add sound to it, so I can hear all the yapping instead of the music, and now you want to add color? Damn it, I like me some intertitles. What's next? You'll try to add smell, or make it all Three-Dimensional or something, won't you? Or replace it all with something drawn by a com-PEW-ter. Get the hell away from my moving pictures, damn it. And GET OFF MY LAWN!!
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
Avatar in 3D was much better for me than 2D.
I think the reason was they artificially made parts of many scenes in Avatar 2D (and 3D) out of focus. Even some mostly static scenes.
It's not pleasant trying to focus on something that just stays out of focus - ever tried reading those "out-of-focus" texts? That's how Avatar 2D felt like in some scenes. I kept getting the "can't focus properly" feeling in my eyes.
At least with Avatar 3D, I had better idea of what areas in the scene the director wanted me to focus on.
Didn't help for the motion blurred scenes though. I don't like motion blurring. It sucks. In real life if I'm looking at a moving object, it's sharp, the rest of the scenery might go blurry, but it doesn't matter - I'm looking at the moving object. Then if I look at the rest of the scenery it's sharp, the moving objects go blurry.
Make the moving objects blurry, and they'll remain blurry when I try to track them and so I get that "can't focus" feeling which I dislike. Yes I know movies are 24fps. No I don't care that real world recordings of moving objects in 24 fps get "naturally blurred".
Fact is 24 fps sucks. It's way too low a frame rate. Back in the old days 24fps was excusable (it was a technological feat even - keep the film moving so it doesn't burn up, and have each frame pause momentarily before the next frame is moved in, etc).
Nowadays 24 fps is disappointing.
I like going to regular 2D movies and whipping out my 3D glasses and ooohing and aaaahing at the "effect".
This guy's the limit!
Avatar was a rotten movie, but the 3D-spell partially worked. There were several times when the director wanted me to focus on someone or something and the spell of "being there" was broken. I couldn't choose what to look at if I got bored and wanted to focus on something else in a scene.
This was done in the 50s and early 60s.. It wasn't well received. Wide Screen (Cinerama) was more broadly accepted vs. the cheesy 3D that those B-Rated 50s flicks had.
The 3D stuff that's being done now is still more to get a "wow" factor but it truly doesn't add to the story or entertainment value. I've seen 3 3D movies this year and no, I don't like it.
Maybe when the characters become holograms and are sitting next to me in the theater, then I'll be impressed.
NOw if you'll excuse me I'll go back to listening to my 8-Track of "Sha Na Na"
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
When I saw "Up" I saw 3D used perfectly for the first time. No gimmicky shots, no pointless stuff coming out of the screen... the 3D was an enhancement, nothing more. If 3D is used like that, I'm in. But I suspect more films will be like "Journey to the Center of the Earth" which was just abysmal. And the oscar for "Most Gratuitous Use of a Bolo Paddle in 3D" goes to...
My reaction to 3D TV is completely different to that of the theaters. The theaters have an immersion effect with complete depth and images seemingly pulling out of the screen. 3D TV however seems flat by comparison, it's almost as if I'm looking at a diorama. It has a rearward depth and no pulling effect at all. I've talked with numerous people about it and it seems that it's just a handful of people with that problem.
When showing a group of folks the 3D TV I was a bit offset by a customers reaction. She apparently had a stroke some years down the road and could only see out of one eye at a time. Not sure how that worked, but when she had the glasses on and watched the TV she said she could actually see in 3D, It totally amazed her.
Well, actually, the article really is more like going the usual fanboy route of "whoever doesn't buy into the same hype I did, is in some way deffective." Yes, there are some people like you who don't see 3D. But there's a big step from there to basically extrapolating that everyone who says 3D movies are a gimmick must be deffective. It's conflating two notions that aren't equivalent at all.
But what I really wanted to say is: probably it's neither. You're not missing much, but you're probably not as "enhanced" as you think either.
_I_ can see 3D. I even have the expensive NVidia 3D glasses and 120 Hz monitor to go with them, and it doesn't take an optometrist to just put them on and see that yep, it looks different.
But it's equally trivial to just enable or disable it and see if it makes any difference. The truth is, once you get past the techno-gizmo "wow, they can do THAT nowadays?" factor, it makes very little difference.
It's not like the difference between BW and colour. With that difference, you could basically go "oh, I didn't know she had a green dress", because really there is no easy way to automatically reconstruct the colours in the scene.
But with 2D vs 3D, basically the brain is already damn good at extrapolating the depth in that scene. And we've all had decades of 2D TV, and 2D photos, and 2D video games, etc, to train at that. Making the movie 3D essentially doesn't give you much information you didn't already _have_ anyway.
Or to put it even shorter, and as the subjective impression is really all that matters: yep, to me 2D looks like the real thing too, once I stop thinking about its being 2D or 3D and just watch the damned movie or play the damned game. I can _see_ the 2D or 3D when I look for that, but when I'm immersed in the action or the plot, really, the brain extrapolates that extra axis anyway.
In the end, as someone _who_ can see 3D, I actually decided to dump that stupid 120Hz TN monitor with its washed 6 bit colours in the corner, and get a good 8 bit MVA monitor instead. The colours and saturation look grrrreat, and as I was saying the 3D isn't all that important anyway.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I find the 3D movies darker and less vibrant. I also wear glasses so the 3D glasses overtop of my glasses is awkward, heavy and the 3D glasses are too far out from my head so they're a bit blurry. Bleh.
The value of 3D over 2D is no more than the value of color over black and white. I do not have binocular vision, but I do not see how my enjoyment of a movie in 3D will be degraded any more than someone with severe color blindness has problems with color. I've not seen any recent 3D, so I don't know if it is still the cheesy crap that was tried 40 years ago (or currently in Disney theme parks). I live my life in seeing 2D in a 3D world. Not a big deal.
You're right. How to Train Your Dragon was *great* in 3D -- especially the scenes with flying. On top of that the plot, while aimed at a teenage audience, is actually pretty good.
Plus, who doesn't like vikings? :-)
... and 3D is a gimmick.
Instead of spending money on the 3D equipment, buy better scripts and actors.
If Lars Von Trier can make a movie and shoot it on video and have it sell because it's a good story, so can Hollywood.
Golly gee, I might be more motivated to see a movie then.
--
BMO
Wife and I went to see Clash of the Titans 3D this weekend. Mixed bag in my opinion.
I have an astigmatism in one eye, and basically whenever I get glasses, the one eye is usually a bit "off", regardless of how much the eye doctor does the "Is 1 or 2 better...1....or 2...." thing, as telling the difference becomes an exercise in frustration. It's not a problem in everyday life, but having the 3D glasses on magnifies the effect, to the point where I was constantly adjusting both my glasses and the 3D ones.
Also, it could have just been the glasses my wife and I were given, but it seemed like wearing them significantly dampened the brightness of the movie. Which became annoying in, say, Medusa's Cave or any other dark part of the movie. Considering how directors love to use darkness to hide CGI imperfections these days, I could see this as being a serious problem.
There were definitely some "Oh, wow" parts of the 3D experience, but overall, I think I'll be taking a pass until the technology gets better, or it's basically forced upon me.
You should have noticed or been informed during your license's vision test if you did not have binocular vision http://www.losteye.com/driving.htm
The last time Hollywood rolled out 3D gimmick was in the mid-50's they were attempting to stave off the loss of audience to the rise of television.
hmmmm... I wonder what they're trying to compete against this time? anyone? anyone? Bueller?
And now TeeVee is bringing out the 3D gimick. hmmmmm.... I wonder who they're afraid of ?
it's a wonder that newspapers haven't figured out a 3D gimick. Magic eye page 3 girls or summthin'...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I wear glasses. Plain old-fashioned glasses. And the 3-d glasses are uncomfortable and don't fit right. Duh. I can see the 3-d images, but they never quite focus right, because the glasses aren't on my face right.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Because 3D movies couldn't possibly be a pointless gimmick, there must be something wrong with my vision.
I'd attempt an eye-roll, but I'm sure I have an undiagnosed problem with ocular dexterity that prevents me from doing it correctly.
sic transit gloria mundi
I have really enjoyed the added value of 3-d, even on alice in wonderland I thought it was great. Maybe a whole lot of people just aren't seeing what I'm seeing.
I thought it was OK. The in depth effects were pretty cool, but when things come out of the screen, it was kind of cheesy. This is no different then what they have been doing at Disney World for years. It just makes me wonder, when people become tired of the 3D effects, will they start to put out Smell-o-vision.
I've long since given up the waste of life hours called TV and movies, and re-allocated that time to things that actually improve my life. You'd be amazed at how much you can accomplish without the bottomless pit of mainstream entertainment dragging you down.
The last I checked my right eye has 20/20 vision. My left eye however is more like 10/20. So my right sees for everything but whatever is blocked by my nose. As such my depth perception is very poor. Only in the last few years I found myself amazed that I'm able to see some depth in those Magic Eye pictures (though I can only see boundaries, not enough to get the picture or see varying depths. All that to say 3D is useless to me where glasses are required. The technology is out there for "autostereoscopic" TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopic). My way of seeing 3D in the world is by moving my head and watching the foreground move faster than the background. These TVs would work the same way. I'll wait for them to become viable before jumping on the 3D bandwagon.
The goggles do nothing!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I can do this most of the time with both eyes closed. I guess I have x-ray vision?
I have a secret immunity to hype (it's my super-power).
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I am near-sighted in one eye and far-sighted in the other and have pretty poor depth perception as a result. I can tell 3-D movies are in 3-D when something is flying right at you out of the screen or whatever but otherwise they leave me totally cold. Glad to hear I'm not alone!
Also, I long ago stopped driving as a result of my vision problems, for which all of you should be thankful.
Even when done well, and I suppose Avatar is the gold standard, much of the time the 3D effect creates artificial depth that detracts from the sense of realism. Of course, Avatar wasn't intended to be particularly realistic, but even the interior scenes in the various labs and spaceships seemed very unrealistically stretched in the third dimension. It became quite distracting and annoying. Yes, gee whiz, you can make objects appear at any depth, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. There are times when they really should turn it off or tone it down a lot. I never got the sense of subtlety in the 3D effects, they were always in my face. Like music that goes from loud to loud to very loud.
I'll be impressed with 3D when the technology lets me focus (and subsequently, blur surrounding elements) on what I want to focus on so my vision isn't forced into the director's "focus-box". Currently, its a gimmick that doesn't improve much, is tiresome after the first couple times, and will destroy a film if poorly implemented.
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
Well, I kind of lost interest in 3D after I lost the vision in my left eye to a tumor. Since that time, I've sat through 3D movies while my family enjoyed them. I put on the glasses just so I can watch the 'flat' version. It's funny to watch folks around me dodge things and I just sit there calm as can be. :)
I cannot say that 3D television stirs me to lust for the newest T.V.
most 3d movies they give you a pair of sunglasses to wear for the movie, well those don't work too well if you are wearing prescription glasses.
if they want me to enjoy the gee-wiz factor of 3d they need to make glasses that can cover regular prescription glasses, or clip-ons.
only 3D movie I've ever been able to watch was avatar and that was because Imax gives you 3D glasses that can fit behind prescription glasses
A group of us went to see How To Train your Dragon a few weeks back- great movie if you haven't seen it.
I have zip binocular vision so out of curiosity I asked the other 5 adults how the effect worked for them. We were all surprised to learn that each of us experienced 3d differently. The range of responses went from my "I can't tell the difference..." to "I felt like I was flying on a Dragon's back and had to move to avoid being hit..." Some folks were closer to my experience, things were in 3d but the effect was marginal and others tended towards the other end but didn't quite feel like they were immersed in the experience.
I had no idea binocular vision capability is spread out on a gradient. I had assumed you either had it or you didn't. So perhaps, your binocular vision lies closer to mine than to the person who felt like dodging obstacles.
I can easily see that if my brain was tricked into thinking I was in imminent danger or thinking I was flying how great the effect would be.
About halfway through "Up" in 3-D, I got the classic "funky stuff in the visual field" symptom of an incipient migraine, which was followed (fortunately after the movie ended) with a classic migraine.
Between that and the extra charge for the glasses they try to get you to return, I figure I've seen my last 3-D movie.
Link related.
Well if I had a problem, I won't be able to see any of the 3-D scenes in Avatar and Clash of the Titans.
But I could see a few scenes, which were 3-D. The entire movie was not.
Infact hollywood is putting in 2-3 3-D scenes so that they can get more money out of ticket price.
Case in point. I watched that shrek (4-D) in universal studios, and it was fully 3-D, and I had no problem.
But the current crop of movies, well hollywood is taking people for a ride, and now trying to blame the audience.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
3D will lead to an improvement in show quality just as the 500 channel universe allows us to always find something worthwhile watching!
3D... ho-hum... seems to me that it is Moore's law applied to technology marketing and sales. Now that large LCD HD screen prices are coming down out of the stratosphere, a new round of tech change is required to keep vacuuming $$$ out of our pockets.
I have my vision corrected to 20/20 or better, and 3D holds little interest for me.
Going to the movies and seeing something in 3D is one thing. Gimmick or not, it's kinda fun and 'gee whiz' is why we still go to movies anyways. I had fun watching Avatar in 3D, and was quite impressed with how it was done. A bit hyper-real, but pretty good--certainly not as cheesy as seeing Buckaroo Bonzai in 3D back in 1984.
3D in the home will be another thing. The Masters in 3D/HD was demoed in the lobby of my local cable company last week. Because the image is unwatchable without glasses, you MUST wear them--but if I'm watching TV, I'm also likely doing something else. When a commercial comes on, I'll get up and get a drink or something. Ultimately, I'll be taking my glasses off and on constantly, and that's just damned annoying. Even if I'm watching a movie with no commercials, my TV (sorry, "home theatre") isn't sufficiently set up to make it a big improvement. Bottom line: It's a personal annoyance to watch something in 3D, and most people's viewing habits aren't amenable to that sort of sacrifice.
3D in the home will be a fad, and may survive as a niche, but it won't take over - and you don't need an eye condition for that to be true.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I'd like to see "Clash of the Titans," perhaps at the cheap seats, if only so that I can compare it to the 1981 "Clash" and complain about how much better movies were when I was a kid. ;-)
-- haaz.
If anyone else out there, like I did, suspects 3D is a giant con, then perhaps a trip to the optometrist is due.'"
3D movies are a gimmick. I had no trouble with the 3D affects of Avatar, its just that the Avatar story was very weak, lame and a rip-off of so many older and better stories. Try "Dances with Wolves".
Which makes the whole process of enjoying a 3D movie annoying--I'm constantly having to take the glasses off and wipe them down, or watch the movie through a thin white haze.
My eyesight is perfect, 20/20, perfect binocular vision. Yet I can't fully enjoy a 3D movie (or looking through binoculars) because my eyes are just too goddamn close together to see through the glasses properly. Why can't there be 3D goggles, or at least frameless glasses.
I have an eyesight condition that seems to prevent me from being able to "enjoy" 3D films at all.
The condition I have is called Nystagmus, basically my eyes "Wobble". My left eye is considerably worse than my right eye and I have apparently compensated by concentrating on my right eye. The End result? My left eye contributes almost nothing to my vision, just a bit of peripheral vision. When I close my right eye, I can't even read size 72 font on a screen less than 1ft from my face.
This also means I don't have proper depth perception. Apparently, my brain has compensated for this as well so it isn't much of an issue - I can still tell when things are closer or further away and I have no issues picking up cups without knocking them over or anything like that. A fully productive member of society (or at least I would be, if I wasn't so lazy).
Anyhoo, I digress. The side effect of this is that the 3D tech doesn't work. It all looks the same to me. Without the glasses, it's a blurry image, with the Glasses, it's just like watching a normal film. So 3D makes no impact on me what so ever.
But I'm not upset or angry about it, I'm actually quite happy. When 3D becomes all the rage, if it ever does, I'll be able to get a nice cheap, good quality "non" 3D TV on the cheap. I'll be able to settle for the regular, "not 3D" versions of films and such.
And when people question me about it, I simply tell them that watching ANY film gives me the same exact experience as watching any 3D film, so the way I see it, at no cost to me and for longer than anyone else, I've already been enjoying 3D with every film I've ever watched. It's just MY 3D.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
I had some difficulty seeing some of the images at Avatar. It was still pretty, but I thought there should be more "Popping out" stuff--I literally saw two images in front of the screen, but it seemed like I was missing a lot.
I intend to go back and watch again from a different position in the theater and concentrate on effects more carefully--I think it really is a matter of retraining yourself.
One of my eyes is misaimed with respect to the other, but my brain corrected for it subconsciously. I had never known about it. The condition was discovered by the optometrist when I was taking an aviation physical. They sold me glasses with a prism in the lens that corrects for it, it took a few days for my brain to get used to it. As an added bonus, a low-level recurring headache that was bothering me went away around the same time. I think it was related.
Anyway, I went to see one of those 3D movies with a friend and I was curious if the prism would affect it, so I did some experimenting. While wearing my glasses (with the 3D ones over them) the 3D effect works as it should. Without them however, it doesn't. The image appears to be flickering left and right and the position doesn't "fix". It looks like the old Sega 3D glasses games without the glasses.
I had a "you'll shoot your eye out" accident as a kid, so no, I cannot see in 3D. This completely baffles people: you mean you can't see 3D with one eye? No, it doesn't quite work that way. Frankly, I can't wait for this 3D fad to go away.
Because one of my eyes is completely blind. Anyway, since the 2D version of Avatar was shown at an inconvenient time I went to a 3D viewing with my friend. The goggles help keep the picture sane, but the image was still pretty blurry which was annoying. I know I'll go to movies less often if they insist on doing 3D versions for everything.
Come on, people, double or quadruple the frame rate.
There's a small problem with that. While yes, you could (and I think they should) use a technique like frame doubling (via an X:X pulldown, for example) to increase the actual frame rate output by a projector, when the actual content is being displayed at a frame rate of 24, 30, 60, etc., fps, your eyes can tell the difference.
If a movie were to be filmed and then subsequently projected at 30 or 60 fps, for example, when you watched it, you'd come back with the feeling that it's "fake" or "poorly done." This isn't actually because that's the case, but rather because, as you've become accustomed to watching certain things at 24 fps such as movies and TV shows, and other things at 30 fps such as sports or the news, your brain makes the association that 24 fps content is "film" and 30 fps content is "live." The mystique behind film itself as an art relies on combining so many different factors together to create what you eventually see at the theater or on your home television, and even something as subtle as raising the frame rate by 25% can literally be enough to ruin your ability to enjoy a film.
I wish I had a comparison video to show you, but I've never seen one and am too lazy to look one up for the purpose of this post, but the effect that frame rate has on perception of content really is amazing and definitely not worth dismissing.
The best example I can think of might be the first Spidey/Goblin fight scene from Spider Man 3. While the movie was horrible, that fight and its camera movement were so fast that the frame rate of the recording couldn't keep a fluid image on the screen when I saw it. To increase the frame rate of the entire movie would have ruined it almost as much as Raimi's writing, and doing so for one scene simply isn't feasible.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Now that you have a group of "friends" to study, perhaps you should check the correlation of those who experienced more depth with those who play more sports. Basketball, Football, Golf, and others heavily rely on binocular vision for success, whereas sitting behind a 2-D computer screen at work all day requires none. Perhaps your binocular vision is atrophic from years and years of 2-D stimulation and theirs is hypersensitive because they've been trying to throw a ball into a hoop at varying distances an hour before the movie started. Or perhaps they prefer sports more than you do because they have greater binocular vision than you do... or maybe there is no correlation at all!
Then, to test for a potential cause/effect, grab a class of students. Have half of them shoot hoops, and half play a computer game or draw, and then have them all watch a 3D movie, and rate the experience (based on scenes), and see if even a small exercise before the movie can prime the binocular controller in your brain.
The possibilities, the possibilities!
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
There's real 3D directed by James Cameron, where the movie was shot in 3D. And there's Disney Fake3D(tm), where "3D" is added in post-production. The latter is like watching a multi-layered Flash animation.
Cameron uses depth to add reality, not generate in-your-face "effects". At no time in Avatar does an object come "through the screen". That looks fake, and breaks the mood.
Alice in Wonderland, on the other hand, was shot in 2D, and converted to 3D by In-Three. The 2D images go through a program called "In3gue", which segments the images and adds depth info for each pixel. Once this has been done, the image layers can be manipulated in depth.
Even if the original content was shot in 3D, extensive post-production is required. See this guide to 3D post.
Understand how fake stereoscopic 3D is. In the real world, beyond a few meters, there are no noticeable stereo effects.
An interesting point made by In-Three is that content for kids requires a narrower eye separation. It's well known that objects placed "beyond infinity" by stereoscopy produce much unhappiness in viewers, up to and including eyestrain and stomach distress. Content created for adult human eye separation inflicts this effect on children.
An important problem that hasn't been faced yet is that 3D viewing on smaller home screens viewed at close range requires quite different parallax adjustments than on big distant screens. Merely transferring theatrical 3D to Blu-Ray disks is really going to suck.
I think the 3D effect is pretty cool (I haven't seen it in theaters, but I got to take a look at a TV in BestBuy that had the effect enabled). The only problem I had was that every once in a while I could see the other frame (it was the split 3D effect, with glasses). Maybe I have extra sensitive eyes, or maybe the glasses weren't synced well with the TV, but I wouldn't want to watch a movie with them if I was going to see glitches every couple minutes, even if it was in 3D.
Squirt Guns, Tossing of Rice, Actors on Stage...
this was done back in the 70s... It didn't require Disney or China to "invent" this so called viewer participation.
Avatar was 162 minutes of pure torture for me since I wear eyeglasses. I had to use one hand to support the 3D glasses throughout the entire movie because my prescription glasses kept making it slip off.
In order to keep the two sets of glasses in focus I had to constantly adjust both of them. It was kinda like building an impromptu telescope by holding a lens in each hand.
Because my eyeglasses forced the 3D shutter to be much further away than it's supposed be, I kept seeing color distortions on the screen. I think this is because when one eye is supposed to be "blocked" by the 3D shutters, its peripheral vision is picking up an image through the other shutter.
I know I am not alone because half of the population wear eyeglasses.
I'm one of those people (strabismus) and, really, fuck that trip to the optometrist. I tried that "supervised vision therapy" when I was a child and I don't feel like doing daily execises just to be able to see the 3D in 3D movies, magic eye or playing better to tennis.
Also, it has its (dubious) advantages like "watching" through the eye you choose at any time and reaching some degree of independence between each eye ;)
The value is not in 3D. Yes, 3D is a gimmick. BUT, with it comes TVs that can interpolate two different video streams, and sync glasses to block the image you don't want to see. That is how they show you 3D on the TVs. Show one video stream to your right eye, and a different video stream to your left eye. No doubt, we will very shortly see boxes that will interpolate ANY two video sources, inject one of the stream's audio into the SAP channel, and blank out both eyes in the glasses instead of only one at a time. What this will do is give us the ability to have two different people watching two different TV shows at the same time on the same TV.
So, sure, 3D is a gimmick, but having the "3D TVs" will soon mean that I can watch The Office on the same TV and at the same time that my wife watches Tori and Dean.
I have Plot-and-Dialogue Hypersensitivity Disorder (PDHD), which also prevents me from thoroughly appreciating 3D.
Well, a lot of the push isn't just to sell new products, but to sell the newer and more expensive top-tech products. If you just buy the same 20 year old technology that's by now out of patent, you'll probably pay a fraction of what the top-tech now-in-3D stuff would cost at the same resolution.
E.g., at a quick look through the prices of an online store around here (bearing in mind that I did not take the time to look for the cheapest, it's PAL, and it includes the German VAT), and let's pick the 32 inchers and LCD as a more common size for the average Joe, I see a no-name 50 Hz one at 300 Euro (ok, 299), while an 100Hz 3D-ready Sony is 700 (well, 699) and a 200 Hz LG is a hefty 800 (ok, 799).
That's really most of what drives the R&D nowadays. You don't want to just sell Joe a cheap replacement for his grandfather's TV, and barely have a profit margin at all because you're competing with everyone in that segment. (Even your average Elbonian factory can make an ancient PAL CRT TV by now.) You want to sell Joe the latest gizmo with all the cool sounding features and a mile long list of patents, for 2.5 times the price.
And really, to sell to him at all. If you convince him to buy some top end gizmo, that'll be a Sony, Samsung, LG, Toshiba or a couple of other companies total. If you're one of those, the chances it will be _you_ who sell him that new TV just went up. But if he just buys a replacement for his grandfather's TV, with none of the super-duper new features, he might as well buy a cheaper no-name thing from one of a hundred other companies.
Heck, you want to have the cool new features to advertise even if he buys from the bottom end of the models, because you can still be on his mind as that company who makes all the high-tech cutting-edge stuff. People tend to make a hash of it, and their knowing that, say, Sony makes all those cool models X and Y of TVs with all the features, might still convince them to buy a Sony even when they're actually buying the bottom-end model Z which really isn't any different from what anyone else sells in that segment. Sorta like how NVidia has to have a GTX 480 card to sell, because its trouncing ATI in the benchmarks will give people the "NVidia makes faster cards" oversimplified idea, when they're actually buying a cheap 8400 GS. Sony too wants to give people that oversimplified "Sony makes good, high-tech TVs" idea too, basically.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=253449 talks about vision problems and 3D effects from the three Super Bowl 3D TV ads. and Chuck The Third Dimension episode.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Count Floyd pwns you!
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
The real problem for 3D for me anyway, is that it has a fixed-focus. Which always winds up giving me headaches, because my eye doesn't always want to look at the same thing as has been decided by the film maker, and I obviously can't resolve detail in say, the background of a scene. And whenever there's a cut, the focus changes - in a way that's completely unnatural to reality - where there is no such thing as a "cut". Even when it's CGI where they'd have the option of not blurring anything to make it appear "out of focus" it's still unnatural because then nothing is ever OUT of focus. It would be cool if, for instance, in an FPS, the renderer tracked the z-distance of whatever you were aimed at and adjusted the world "focus" based on that distance... then at least you would have SOME control... but anything shot on film, ever, will be limited to a pre-selected focal length, with a pre-selected focus, and thus will never be real enough for it to be worth it to me anyway. Until that is, we all have holodecks.
I can't see 3D movies for a reason that is not due to my vision (well not directly anyway). That is that I can't get the damn 3D glasses to fit over my normal eyeglasses without falling off, and when I do devise a jerry-rig to get them to stay on (usually involving rubber bands that I now know to bring with me to the theatre when it's a 3D movie), the 3D glasses are now too far away from my eyes to have the correct effect. (I keep seeing the frames and my eyes want to focus in on them instead of the movie because the frames are now no longer on the periphery but are now more toward the center of vision since they're further forward than they're supposed to be.)
It seems that if I want to see 3D movies I'll have to get LASIK first to ditch the eyeglasses.
Then again, I'm one of those people who can never get the Magic Eye (tm) pictures to come out right so maybe that won't be enough. I understand the optics of Magic Eye and I know perfectly well why it works, from a mathematical point of view. But where I fail is that I can't decouple my conscious control of my eyeball focus from the conscious control of my eyeball's inward aiming angle, which is a necessary step to making Magic Eye work. You have to *focus* your eyes close at the nearby paper while *aiming* them far away far into the distance past the paper instead of converging their aim to a point on he paper. For me those two things are not seperable commands my brain knows how to issue to my body. It's like asking me to move my pinkie without also moving my ring-finger. The pathway from my brain to the muscles to make that happen isn't available. They're wired together whether I like it or not. For me, the muscles that control eyeball shape (focus) and the muscles that control eyeball aim are mentally grouped together and respond to one single thought. The thought of "look close" or "look far" triggers BOTH motions, no matter how hard I try to separate the two into independantly controlled actions. (When you think about this, it makes sense for a brain to build up that behavior from birth since there is no natural situation where you would ever want to separate them OTHER than the man-made illusion of Magic Eye. A clever cerebellum can learn that these muscle motions always seem to go together and it can develop the learned behavior to marry them together into one single "command" even in a crude brute-force fashion that destroys the ability to command them seperately, as has happened in me.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Actually, I only see about 6 colors confidently. Purple/pink and navy blue/purple are real pains in the arse. orange/brown ranks right up there too.
The old red/blue goggles never worked for me. I haven't seen any of the new 3d stuff yet, so don't know if I'll have issues, but with all the blue and green in Avatar I think I'll only be getting 70% of the real effect.
Fast, cheap, correct. You get to pick two.
It would be one of the first smart things the studios had done a in a long time. Digital media itself has no value, it's not finite or limited in any substantial way, there's really no overhead involved in storing or transporting it and the cost of reproducing it is essentially...zero.
The value of all entertainment has always been in the experience. If you want to produce value with your digital media you'd be much better off focusing on ways to improve the theater experience, which you can control and commoditize better.
Sharing movies is simply reality and criminalizing it would be a ridiculous long-term solution, but that doesn't mean there's no way to keep movie making profitable. Avatar was a good start and maybe in a few generations the suits in Hollywood will start to understand why.
Quack, quack.
Most 3D movies released recently were not shot in 3D. Avatar is an exception. Clash and Alice were converted to 3D semi-manually in post-production.
You should have checked Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, duh!
It's a German given name.
Wait, what?
And whereas I do have some sensation of 3D vision, it's not quite as good as what most people have.
I was a forceps delivery baby, and my head and eye socket on one side were slightly misshapen. I say slightly because now at adulthood most people never notice anything off about my eyes or head unless I call it to their attention. Mt left eye droops a little relative to my right eye, but I can mentally pick which eye I favor at any given time. Sometimes it's a blessing, other times a curse. Like if I favor my left eye, my right eye aims oddly skyward. O_o
-- Boycott Shell
I think a lot of people are confusing 3-D with Virtual reality. If you watch a 3-D movie you shouldn't feel immersed. Things are just in 3D.
A bookshelf is like 3D. A room is like virtual reality.
A room however I feel immersed in. When I move I my view changes, etc. This is like VR.
3D movies != VR
Avatar was designed to be 3D from the start whereas Alice wasn't.
For some, this may be incredibly important.
Current technology is not true 3D - the actual distance of where your eyes are looking hasn't changed. All the current technology does is present a different 2D perspective to each eye.
So actually, it is your mind that is creating the 3D effect by extrapolating from those cues and ignoring others (focal distance, lack of physical movement, lack of tactile & smell cues).
Now some people's brains create a more immersive 3D effect than others'. Early cinema goers ducked to avoid oncoming trains. Remote tribes first encountering TV often have similar experiences.
All of us learn to distinguish between TV & reality (probably before our memory works around age 4) and use different brain modes for interpreting each. Books too.
Now, I'm the kind of person who likes to sit in the front row in the cinema and pretend I'm at an IMAX. So when it came to Avatar, knowing that it was my mind making the 3D effect, I hypnotised myself to make it as immersive as possible (yes, I'm a hypnotherapist)
So in the opening scene where you fly over the forest, my jaw dropped and I remember exclaiming “holy shit” out loud. Because I actually felt like I was there.
The concept of having an alternative Avatar reality is the perfect metaphor for coping with this. I felt it was more that my 'Avatar' that was a bit faulty rather than any flaws with my sensory interpretation.
However, I ran into problems about 20 mins in.
For 50 years or more, 2D filmmakers have been panning and cutting shots because they knew that their audience wasn't treating the camera as their own physical perspective. But if you're fully immersed with a 3D experience, it makes you feel like you're moving & teleporting every few seconds.
Avatar was designed to be 3D from scratch and does this much less. Still, after 20 mins I had major motion sickness. Alice in Wonderland was designed to be 2D, does a ton of cutting and panning, and would have been unwatchable for me in 3D.
In the future, I think many scenes will have to be shot twice, or perhaps with multiple, moving 2D cameras and a static 3D camera for the same shot.
I didn't watch any of the 3d movies so far, because I fear I could get a migraine attack.
I know my vision is very sensitive and most probably is the trigger of my migraine attacks.
Can anybody else who suffers from migraine attacks tell about their experience of watching the new 3d movies?
... I still think it's a con.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Might be redundant here, but have wanted to have my say on this for some time, so please don't mod me down for it if I do. Big chip on shoulder about it. I was born with a lazy eye. One of the muscles in my right eye has since birth (despite numerous ops at an early age), and always will to a certain extent, be weak. So I lack stereoscopic vision. This is why I think I am a geek and not a jock - Shit at anything that needs a ball (though if it wasn't for my geek knees I'd outrun the fucking lot of you). The other side effect is that there is not a decent photo of me in existence that doesn't need a good photoshopping (incidentally when are they going to come up with a wonky eye macro...?). But I digress. Anyway, a lot of this 3D cinema stuff is passing me by, I worry about the so called 3D TV (and eventually console, whatever form *that* takes) tsunami that is supposed to hit us this year or next... What I am trying to say is that if the parent is correct and there are approximately 10% of the population of the world that don't have depth of vision, will we be catered for? One of the first posters said that it would be easy to provide a pair of pseudo 3D glasses with the same polarisation in each eye to cancle out the 3D effect. Something tells me this wont work either...? Don't even start me on the craze of the 90's where they published pictures you had to focus on to see the 'hidden' picture...
I was born crosseyed. They did corrective surgery that meant I was no longer crosseyed but it failed in lining up my vision. I have lived so long with my left eye not looking at what my right eye looks at, that I am right-eye dependent, and I am told that if they did more surgery, it would just screw up my vision entirely because my brain is used to using one eye primarily. So, I see with my right eye, and my left is essentially peripheral vision. It means I have limited depth perception, and things like 3D are completely lost on me.
I have zero interest in this whole latest 3D fad. I sincerely hope it goes away. Its been tried many times before and failed each time more or less. It seems like its a case of Hollywood focusing (no pun intended) on improvements to technology and presentation because they can do so, and ignoring the more intangible elements of story and acting.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
And what of those of us not in the 12% and not in the 5% but in the unknown percent with the conditon that allows us to see a 3d movie as being blury, out of focus and shoot at too low a frame rate?
Any fix for that?
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Ah, now I get it. LOL that was fucking hilarious.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I am blind in one eye from birth. I have never seen anything in 3D!
James Cameron is one of my favourite directors. I haven't bothered going to see Avatar - because by all accounts, it's just not worth it in 2D.
Monoscopic in a Stereoscopic world. I am cross eyed, as a result, my brain forgets to connect the 3d world, both for the virtual world of movies, and the real world. But its ok, because the problem is only truly pronounced in things like tennis and racket ball. At least as far as I perceive.