Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Do You Have a Secret Immunity To 3D Movies?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the also-they-hate-cilantro dept.

Medicine 495

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.'"

cancel ×

495 comments

No, but my dad has amblyopia. (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817048)

And he's not interested in your fancy 3D stuff at all.

Re:No, but my dad has amblyopia. (1)

kelanden (1680090) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817472)

My father suffered from estropia [wikipedia.org] as a child which was later surgically corrected. His eyes do not naturally focus together, so he does not have working depth perception and cannot see 3D movies. He can consciously adjust the convergence of his eyes so that they focus together, but it takes too much effort to maintain for long periods.

It doesn't seem to bother him, though. Talking to him, it seems that his terminal difficulty with parallel parking is far more annoying.

Special 2-D glasses needed (5, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817056)

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.

Re:Special 2-D glasses needed (5, Insightful)

wsanders (114993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817136)

Could I pay $5 less to use the 2D glasses?

Re:Special 2-D glasses needed (1)

Jetrel (514839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817536)

Where are my mod points when I need/want them...

5% (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817166)

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 movies do nothing for me. (5, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817360)

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.

Re:3d movies do nothing for me. (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817438)

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.

But the woman in the seat next to you will never forget you.

Re:Special 2-D glasses needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817368)

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.

You just need 2 pairs - pop out the lenses & swap to create 2 pairs of 2D glasses...

Re:Special 2-D glasses needed (3, Interesting)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817444)

You don't need special glasses to see a 3d-movie in 2d. The 3d glasses work fine. They did for me anyway.

I've got various eye-problems related to a severe infection I had as an infant. I've had surgery twice to try and correct my lazy-eye. And I'm totally immune to all kinds of 3d (3d movies, magic eye, etc.). Last time I went to the optometrist she explained that during the years where my eyes were crossed I developed a pyschological "blind spot". Since the eyes weren't pointing the same direction, I could either see double or just shut off the signal from one eye at a time. My brain opted for the latter.

Since my eyes are straight now the problem is theoretically something I could train my brain to stop doing, but I've never had any luck with the eye-exercises they gave me.

I went to see Avatar in 2d. Then I went to see it in 3d. The only difference at all for me was that in the 3d version if I took off the 3d glasses the whole screen looked fuzzy. If I kept them on nothing was in 3d, but the polarization meant that at least I could see the 2d images clearly.

3D, si! Cilantro, no! (0, Offtopic)

Two99Point80 (542678) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817070)

The "department" names are often the best part of /. for me...

Not sure about the hype (4, Insightful)

charleste (537078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817080)

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.

Re:Not sure about the hype (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817164)

When I was watching Avatar I kept taking the glasses off and marveling at how bright/wonderful the colors were without those stupid glasses on.

Re:Not sure about the hype (1)

grrrl (110084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817464)

Me too. I watched a fair bit of it without the glasses as it was so much BRIGHTER in general, and this was at one of the premier IMAX cinemas in my city. The 3D added nothing to the story in the hatch locations, and since the rest was CG it made little difference to me then either.

All in all I thought the 3D was boring, and really just another annoyance in a long list for probably the worst movie I've ever seen, but that discussion is a slippery slope so I'll restrain myself :D

Re:Not sure about the hype (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817496)

You must have had a better system than we had. Glasses off, it looked like someone had smeared the projector with Vaseline.

Re:Not sure about the hype (4, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817306)

I agree. It's a stupid marketing trick. I especially thought this once I saw that Sony was thinking of coming out with all this 3D home theatre equipment. Stupid. Reminds me of the rash of 'clear' products in the early 90s.

Re:Not sure about the hype (2, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817382)

It's double stupid because the geeks who buy this stuff first tend to wear glasses.

Hey dumbasses, that slot is full and I'm not wearing a helmet to watch TV.

Re:Not sure about the hype (1)

royler (1270778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817484)

there is a big difference between IMAX and IMAX Dome (formerly Omnimax). VR headgear seems like the only way IMAX Dome could be brought home.

Re:Not sure about the hype (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817356)

Well, I doubt it seriously immerses anyone any more than Jaws 3D did. It's popular at the moment, but consider that How To Tame opened much much lower than expected and Titans slipped in profits by far more than expected. If 3D was "the thing" to save Hollywood, why are the numbers not showing it? There's also the fact that 3D shutter lenses (sometimes used for modern 3D films) will cause headaches/nausia in some people because of the flickering. Also, 3D projection is inherently limited - as you move away from the imaginary point the 3D image would have been seen by the observer from, the brain is less able to compensate for the discrepancy between what it is seeing and what it should be seeing if the image really was 3D. There is always an ideal spot, and a very rapid fall-off around it. It's a consequence of the way the image is done. Effective 3D can't be done that way for a large audience. It is only effective to do 3D that way for single observers, which is why you see this sort of 3D being used by engineers, biologists or chemists at individual workstations - much more practical than headset VR or a CAVE system. It's pointless to use it anywhere else.

Re:Not sure about the hype (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817422)

I took my girlfriend to go see Up in 3D back when it came out and her friends warned us that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Sure enough, it was like watching it through some kind of telescope or something. The 3D seemed so weak, I kept asking myself, is it even working? Of course, I'm going off of a sample of one but, if that was what all this hype is about, count me singularly unimpressed.

My experience with 3D (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817086)

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).

Re:My experience with 3D (3, Interesting)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817294)

I'm short sighted, and have a dominant left eye on account of it being substantially less short sighted than the right. Red/green 3d glasses work fine for me (afaik), but magic eye is a complete failure.

Watching Avatar was an interesting experience. When substantial 3d depth into the screen was used (such as the scene on the spaceship at the start with them all coming out of the stasis pods or whatever), the effect was very impressive.

Out-of-the-screen effects, however required headache-inducing concentration to see any depth at all, and even then they largely looked quite poor. When everyone else was busy ducking out of the way, I was wondering why things were only projecting ever-so-slightly from the screen.

Overall, I was disappointed at how infrequently the into-screen effects were used compared to out-of-screen ones (or maybe I was only able to see the depth when it was at its most extreme).
Ocular upgrade, plz!

Optimist (5, Funny)

jag7720 (685739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817090)

I was having problems with my eyes... so I went to an optimist. He said everything was going to be okay.

Re:Optimist (5, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817516)

Did he say your glasses were half full?

I can see the 3D fine... (2, Interesting)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817098)

.... but it gives me a horrible headache.

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.

Re:I can see the 3D fine... (3, Interesting)

Target Practice (79470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817214)

Same here. Slight astigmatism, and I find myself focusing far too hard in the movie theater. I paid attention last time to my eye strain while watching a 3-D movie, and it felt identical to when I'm studying a small coin or stamp intently. So, now I have a good excuse to stay home and organize my pennies instead of wallowing through the latest 3-D tripe with family...

So, yeah. Astigmatic, and under a full moon I turn into a fat balding guy who collects coins and stamps. Wanna make something of it?

Re:I can see the 3D fine... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817314)

    No my friend, if you were to say you also live in your mothers basement, you'd then fit the Slashdot demographic perfectly.

    Welcome to the club. Well, except I'm not fat, balding, a coin nor stamp collector, nor do I live in my mothers basement.

Re:I can see the 3D fine... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817450)

Nah. Your eyes are too good, basically. If you watch an interlaced CRT with a very low refresh rate, you'll get exactly the same headaches for exactly the same reason - your eyes are able to see the flicker and it is causing you migraines as a result. You can get a similar effect from rapidly-flickering lightbulbs within the range your eyes can detect. Either the studios have to ramp up the refresh rate (they probably need to double the frames per second) or you need to give up watching such movies on the big screen.

Re:I can see the 3D fine... (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817478)

I've got astigmatism, too, but watching Avatar in 3d was awesome (albeit having to wear two pairs of glasses wasn't fun). Watching Coraline 3d with red/cyan glasses was painful, though.

Disability? Brain Damage? (2, Interesting)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817100)

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.

Re:Disability? Brain Damage? (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817162)

Certainly I have an eye that does not focus, and my other eye has just taken over and let it give out. Seeing 3D is literally impossible for me (I perceive depth through color variation/light levels).

I would rather stick to 2D movies that I know I am capable of viewing and enjoying. There's not even too many of THOSE these days.

-uso.

Re:Disability? Brain Damage? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817494)

    I was right there with you.

    I was born with a cataract in one eye. It got progressively worse. By the time I was 18, my vision was 20/200 in that eye (while 20/10 in the other). I had the cataract surgically removed when I was 19, but the implant caused me to be unable to focus that eye. The lens is rather hard, so it's always a fixed focal length.

    My ability to see "3d" movies was severely diminished for years. It took over 10 years, but now I can partially see the movies, if they are the polarized lens version. Two color lenses just leave me seeing two colors.

    It's been rather odd, where my depth perception has been changing my whole life (getting worse to 18, and then getting better after years). I still can't do those hidden picture illusions, because I can't unfocus one eye. It's actually weird, where I can force one out of focus, and one remains the same regardless of what I do (short of pinching my eyeball, which I'm not up for).

    Since the lens has been changed in that eye, I have other odd problems. I can see farther up into the UV range because the natural UV filter isn't in the implant.

Re:Disability? Brain Damage? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817546)

I've heard this arguement before, how "downloaded pixelated AVI's are just as good as Blu Rays!" because the person who is fine with it doesn't have 20/20 vision.

We get that, you don't notice a difference, but for those of us who CAN actually see the enhanced picture, its a better experience. I don't know what its like where all you guys see movies - but the only 3D movie in the past year and a half that hasn't had a 2D Equivalent showing in theatres has been Avatar. So quit playing it like you are being Gyped $2 - go watch the 2D Version.

Fake 3D movies. (5, Insightful)

Xoltri (1052470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817106)

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.

Re:Fake 3D movies. (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817280)

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.

Yeah, I've been enjoying all the talk about 3D being the future default in which all movies will be filmed. We all saw a $300 million movie implement it very well now I want to see the one hundred $3 million movies implement it at appropriate budget cost before I make my decision. I also learned that my local theater has taken to increased prices for 3D movies [variety.com] ... after inquiring as to why this is they couldn't really produce a good explanation. I offered to bring my own glasses ... I pointed out that it took the same amount of energy for them to display either mode. And Alice was filmed in 2D and just post processed ... so why do I have to pay 60% more for my ticket?

If that's the way things are going, I predict the death of 3D.

Re:Fake 3D movies. (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817486)

3D will be really cool in the sports world. The NFL already has amazing camera work, just imagine the offensive line barreling out of the screen at you. Or riding in the car with Dale Earnhardt Jr. Or standing at the plate while the likes of Randy Johnson fires a 100mph fast ball at you. Lebron James could dunk a basketball right in your face during the NBA finals. The options are vast. It will take forever and a day for that to become reality, but it will be cool when it does and all of this is a stepping stone towards that end.

No... It's a giant con. (4, Insightful)

Churla (936633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817108)

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.

Re:No... It's a giant con. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817392)

The really disappointing thing is that hollywood will gladly spend probably $40million (*) adding 3D to a film like Avatar and its still a pile of shit.
It would cost a fraction of that to get someone to write a better story.

(*) Actual dollars not 'hollywood' dollars.

Re:No... It's a giant con. (2, Insightful)

bberens (965711) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817522)

TV manufacturers aren't *that* worried. Their products still fail after 3-5 years so you'll need to buy a new one whether they have a whizbang feature or not.

Re:No... It's a giant con. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817538)

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.

Yes! It's the same with movie stars.

When the Matrix first came out, I really liked the movie. When I mentioned it, folks would respond with "Oh, you like Keanu Reeves?"

No, that's not it. It doesn't matter who stars in it. A good story is a good story. They could have had chimps with peanut mutter in their mouths to look like they're talking and I still would have liked it because it was a good story! - the chimps would have been better at acting too!

3d movies work for me (1)

Minupla (62455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817110)

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

It is a con (2, Insightful)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817116)

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.

Re:It is a con (2, Insightful)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817212)

lol wat? How is it any harder to pirate movies? No one cares if the version they're watching on their computer or the burned screener they put in their PS3 is in 3D or not.

The 3D resurge is retarded, it wasn't cool decades ago either, and if the movies weren't all fucking blurry without the glasses, I wouldn't bother wearing them in theatres, either.

Re:It is a con (2, Informative)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817228)

Oh, and current 3D systems have 15-20% less colour saturation so the image isn't as good as it could be.

Alice isn't 3d. (2, Informative)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817120)

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.

I have an alergy to dreadful 3D (3, Insightful)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817122)

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.

Re:I have an alergy to dreadful 3D (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817402)

Did the first color movies have the same problem? "Wow. Why was that door BRIGHT RED?"

Re:I have an alergy to dreadful 3D (1)

shis-ka-bob (595298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817412)

I had roughly the same experience. But during Avatar, there where a couple of moments where I seemed to have a '3D overload' where I took off the glasses for about 30 seconds. I wonder if I could get accustomed to 3D movies and have this effect go away. Many other fatiguing activities become easy with practice.

I will care when... (1, Redundant)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817126)

...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.

Re:I will care when... (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817270)

You should watch Avatar. For all its (many many) flaws regarding plot, you really can't fault the 3D. The only gimmicky thing they had was some soot in the air that was 'in front' of the screen.

Re:I will care when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817308)

...there is a movie that depends on color to tell the story. No movie I've seen in color to date has used color as anything more as gimmick, always the same old concept... (you get the idea) :)

Re:I will care when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817386)

Just make sure you don't try and be clever and say '...depends on sound' cause Fritz Lang's M and Singing in the Rain depend heavily on sound based plot points.

Re:I will care when... (1)

MPolo (129811) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817518)

The Wizard of Oz: contrast between the sepia tones in Kansas with the Technicolor of Oz. A major plot point.

Schindler's List: by coloring only the little girl's coat in the scene of Jews being rounded up, the filmmakers sought to increase the emotional attachment to the people being killed.

Re:I will care when... (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817352)

Isn't it all a gimmick?

I mean, you could take Avatar and film the same story with old tech, with people in rubber suits in the style of the old godzilla movies. Would you actually go to see that in 2010, though?

I don't see it as a revolutionary thing, just another step in special effects. Every time small improvements are added that don't really make that much difference as compared to the year before, but look back 20 years and the difference is enormous, and many people will find it difficult to believe somebody would get deeply emotional about something so horrible looking.

A simple test (5, Informative)

prakslash (681585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817134)

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 [visiontherapy.org] .

You can also try the above test with one eye closed. You will almost always fail at step 4.

Re:A simple test (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817248)

If you cannot, be happy in the fact that you dont need to buy into the latest bullshit reason to upgrade.

Fixed that for you.

Re:A simple test (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817256)

Uhm... yeah. What? When I extend my arms out, since my arms happen to be pretty much the same length, and I do your little test, I can repeatedly hit my fingers together even with both of my eyes closed. Try doing it without extending your arms all the way out -- keep the elbow bent at 45 degrees. It's MUCH harder.

Re:A simple test (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817424)

Uhm... yeah. What? When I extend my arms out, since my arms happen to be pretty much the same length, and I do your little test, I can repeatedly hit my fingers together even with both of my eyes closed.

Try doing it without extending your arms all the way out -- keep the elbow bent at 45 degrees.

It's MUCH harder.

My results: eyes closed, 45 degree elbow bend, 10 tests, 10 successes.

Maybe you should hold two pencils instead. Hold the left pencil in your fist, and the right pencil between two fingers. That should break symmetry, at least.

Re:A simple test (2, Informative)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817264)

This really only seems like it would work if your arms were different lengths.

Different lengths at random, from one second to the next, even.

Otherwise, my fingers line up whether I have both eyes open, one eye open, or no eyes open.

Re:A simple test (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817276)

I can do this every single time with one eye closed. Or both eyes open. It makes no difference.

Re:A simple test (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817354)

I think you have to be drunk for it to be a valid test.

Re:A simple test (1)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817500)

1) I am nearsighted in one eye and farsighted in the other. The size of things I perceive change dramatically depending upon which eye is dominant.

2) I can do your test flawlessly.

3) I do not enjoy 3D movies.

4) Profit???

Yes - but not so secret (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817150)

I am blind in one eye

So I am not even going to go to one to see what the hype is all about

What's this '3D' anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817152)

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 :-)

Re:What's this '3D' anyway? (0)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817278)

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 :-)

Do you wear an eye patch?

Re:What's this '3D' anyway? (1)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817406)

I had successful surgery for strabismus when I was 2 and I still have no stereoscopic 3D vision. I still can't see the downside considering I get a free pass from the fads that take advantage of it. I'm looking at you, random dot stereograms!

Seeing depth for the first time (3, Interesting)

mstrcat (517519) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817158)

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.

Re:Seeing depth for the first time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817510)

Can you tell us where you tend to drive? I'd like to stay away from that location.

3D movies are overhyped (1)

calibre-not-output (1736770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817182)

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.

3d is a gimmick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817200)

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.

3D is a gimmick (4, Insightful)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817216)

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.

Re:3D is a gimmick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817508)

No real comment here, but I found this funny:

It's not like colour or sound which make film more engaging and bring it closer to real life...

Go watch something like Memento, Le notti di Cabiria, Psycho...

At least you didn't include Metropolis, The General or Gold Rush.

It's not a con, it's simple optics (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817230)

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.

Re:It's not a con, it's simple optics (1)

grrrl (110084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817504)

Good description.

It also gives me a headache because my eyes try to focus on things in the 'background' that are out of focus and my brain can't figure out why. Eye strain ensures. At least in 2D, you just focus on what's fuzzy and you know it is in the background. Perhaps that comes from years of training (watching 2D pictures) but it's enough for me.

Reminds me of those Magic Eye pictures (2, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817234)

Back in the 90s (probably before most /. readers were born), there were these Magic Eye [wikipedia.org] 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.

I can't see stereograms but can see 3D movies (2, Informative)

macxcool (1370409) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817242)

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.

Re:I can't see stereograms but can see 3D movies (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817554)

You may just have never gotten the hang of it. I know tons of people (heck my whole family) who can stare at stereograms all day and not see the hidden image. I can do it, but it took me a good while to figure it out.

Don't forget eyeglasses effects (2, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817260)

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 [wikipedia.org] is NOT your friend.

Fuck 3D movies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817268)

The games I play have been 3D for almost 20 years.

Why should I pay $8 (or whatever) to just watch?

3D porn? (1)

shis-ka-bob (595298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817436)

But I see that isn't what you meant.

Yep (1)

Bearded Frog (1562519) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817282)

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.

It's *still* (e.g. so far) a gimmick... (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817292)

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.

The emperors new eyes (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817318)

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 ?

Definitely a gimmick (1)

doobydoobydoo (446165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817324)

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).

It's just overrated (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817336)

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".

So-called 4D movies (2, Interesting)

querist (97166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817338)

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.

Re:So-called 4D movies (2, Informative)

jayhamm (1422689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817540)

Try going to any amusement park in the United States.

3D doesn't work (1)

bkeahl (1688280) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817358)

... 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 :).

I fall into the5% catagory (1)

starjax (554281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817372)

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.

Independent Observational Vision (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817374)

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.

born this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817380)

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.

3D and vision... (1)

alexandre (53) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817428)

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... ;-)

3D with one blind eye? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817454)

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.

Welcome to the 80s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817466)

Seriously, didn't we figure out decades ago that 3D movies just aren't anything special?

Immunity, No, Migraines, Yes (3, Informative)

Alpha Prime (25709) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817480)

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.
 

More like an allergy than an immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31817506)

Due to vision problems

Jaws 3D (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817530)

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 eye weaker (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817550)

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...

Not a "secret immunity" any more... (1)

TheStatsMan (1763322) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817558)

...now that you've told everyone. I will have to be more careful about who I tell my secret immunities to in the future.

What's this "color" thing... (1)

nathan s (719490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817560)

...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!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...