3D Films.

[pachapapa]

Some people have problems watching 3D films such as Avatar. They complain of headaches after 30 minutes or so, yet other people seem to be able to watch 3D for long periods of time. In todays Huffington there is a typical piece challenging the viability of 3D; in which an incompatibility between focus/convergence is proposed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/roger-ebert-3d-tv-_n_813061.html

Similarly some people have a problem discovering the 3D image hidden in a 3D Stereogram, intuitively it seems to me that there may be a positive correlation for people relative to these two virtual representations of  3D images. The link below contains a selection of 3D Stereograms. http://www.eyetricks.com/3dstereo.htm

 

[Clarkkent]

Disparity, the visual device used for 3D, is only one of several methods of perceiving depth.

During infancy children learn to make sense of their visual sensations and it is established that there are corresponding points on the retinas of each eye - so that visual information from a given point will fall on corresponding points in each eye and be perceived as a single point. Not all children develop the ability to use disparity especially those who have uncorrected squints, or squints which been corrected at too late a time in the child's development. Such children grow up never being able to see "3D".  We actually "see" with our brain and if corresponding points have not become active then the brain suppresses visual information from one eye and builds its understanding of the environment from the other.

Such people still see the world as solid and deep, but they use cues other than disparity - and unless challenged (eg by putting on 3D glasses to watch Avatar) - are not very aware of their disability. I don't know the proportion of such people in the adult population. Others may have had less severe problems but which may still cause difficulty when  trying to watch 3D - hence headaches etc.

I can't help thinking that although 3D will be relatively successful in showcase cinema presentations, it may not make a serious impact on television. The manufacturers have only recently convinced the public of the merits of HD, and I don't think sufficient will be prepared to shell out again for 3D. In the 1950s there was a spate of films made in 3D - Kiss Me Kate, The House of Wax etc - which were remarkable for the number of object thrown by the actors towards the camera. It was a short-lived phenomenon.

[pachapapa]

I generally can see the image in a Stereogram pretty well immediately and could have sat through Avatar again. Been trying to convince myself to buy a 3D TV , the wild life scenery stuff is excellent but I find that the dramatic stuff is poorly processed. As an example there is a Fame type dancing school 3D Blu-Ray available where they have made the error of allowing people to pass close to the camera which is extremely annoying making the perception of 3D switch betyween two effectively incompatible  horizons. If you watch football for example on a Samsung with the creation of a 3D image from the perspective of the 2D image it is really not bad and in 1080p quite good. The chances of 3D in rural france is far in the future. So patience rules.

[Chancer]

Cant see any of the images [:(] could it have been losing the sight of my left eye [Www]

I remember how awfull my depth perception was soon afterwards, I was a passenger in a car with a very timid driver, she overtook and the oncoming traffic looked so close to me that I was climbing out of the seat!

I have gradually adapted and the brain has found other means of depth perception but I know that I have also compensated by driving slower and more cautiously which is good news for other motorists and has really diminished  my fuel consumption.

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

Never seen a 3D movie, other than the 10 minute ones you see at theme parks. They always give me headaches. Can never see these hidden images in the stereorgrams either.

As for Avatar, 10 minutes in 2D was enough to give me a headache!

[FairyNuff]

[quote user="Chancer"]

Cant see any of the images [:(] could it have been losing the sight of my left eye [Www]

I remember how awfull my depth perception was soon afterwards, I was a passenger in a car with a very timid driver, she overtook and the oncoming traffic looked so close to me that I was climbing out of the seat!

I have gradually adapted and the brain has found other means of depth perception but I know that I have also compensated by driving slower and more cautiously which is good news for other motorists and has really diminished  my fuel consumption.

[/quote]

Chancer

I have never been able to see the images in those 'pictures' because I don't have binocular vision due to an uncorrected squint (so called lazy eye). I too compensate by driving more cautiously than my husband, in that I don't overtake very often on two-way roads because I can't judge the speed of oncoming traffic very easily. I can't catch a ball or play racquet sports [;-)] either for the same reason. 

Perhaps people get headaches watching 3D because of the system used. Our local cinema has a 'passive' system, which I have no problem with, but I understand that there is also an 'active' system.

FairyNuff

 

[Clair]

I'm not sure I get the reason for the excitement about 3D films. It feels to me to be a frenzy about something different, rather than something of value like HD or even CGI (which I am not a great fan of).

Living out in the sticks, I am unlikely to see a 3D film any time soon, and I have to rely on other people's opinions for now... Like Mark Kermode for instance (he really, really doesn't like 3D!):

• Kermode Uncut: How 3D really works
• Kermode Uncut: The Science of 3D
• Kermode Uncut: The Death of 3D

[cooperlola]

I saw Avatar in 3D.  The technology didn't alter the fact that the movie was cr*p.  Nothing replaces a good script and good acting imho.  Give me The Third Man in good old b&w any day.