Here's an interesting article on a segment of the audience that could be left behind if the predicted move to 3-D in film and TV happens. A percentage of people cannot see the 3-D effects. Apparently they have a name for them already: flat-viewers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/15/3d.tv.opinion/index.html?hpt=Sbin
This article is mostly about people who, apparently, can't see any stereo vision at all. Sort of like color blindness. However there are also people like me who, because of strong prescription glasses and astigmatism, can't see some 3-D effects. For example, I can use Viewmasters fine. I can't use binoculars properly because I can't focus them enough to match my eyes so I usually can only look through one eyepiece (trying not to scratch my glasses). And I have been able to watch 3-D movies in the past -- not the big-screen versions, but back in the 80s they used to air old 1950s 3-D and I could watch those OK though I ended up with a headache afterwards. I was physically incapable of deciphering those 3-D pictures that were all the rage back in the 90s. Otherwise I have no problems with depth perception or stereo vision in "the real world" so I don't consider myself quite in the same category as those described in the CNN article.
More recently, when Journey to the Center of the Earth came out on DVD a couple years ago, I attempted to watch the 3-D version with the glasses. And I was rather disturbed to find I could not see the effect at all. This, combined with other similar experiences (which coincided with a general decrease in my eyesight over the past few years caused partly by age and partly by worsening prescription), have made me hesitant to pay out the money to see Avatar in 3-D because I don't want to waste the money and have my view of the film colored by a bad experience (there's a slight pun in there). Fortunately a 2-D version is also showing in my city, though in theatres far removed from my part of town so I haven't had a chance to go yet. The 2-D will probably be out of the local theatres before I have a chance.
Back to the article, I'm glad to see the planned 3-D TVs will have an option for shutting off the 3-D effect. Aside from the fact I don't approve of altering the creative vision of people who created movies to be seen in 2-D, just for a gimmick, it will be good to know that I won't be completely disenfranchised if 3-D becomes the norm.
Are there other people here who fall into the situation described in the article, or the one I described? Whether it's Avatar or one of the 3-D cartoons, have you found yourself having to seek a 2-D option because you can't see the effects?
Alex
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/15/3d.tv.opinion/index.html?hpt=Sbin
This article is mostly about people who, apparently, can't see any stereo vision at all. Sort of like color blindness. However there are also people like me who, because of strong prescription glasses and astigmatism, can't see some 3-D effects. For example, I can use Viewmasters fine. I can't use binoculars properly because I can't focus them enough to match my eyes so I usually can only look through one eyepiece (trying not to scratch my glasses). And I have been able to watch 3-D movies in the past -- not the big-screen versions, but back in the 80s they used to air old 1950s 3-D and I could watch those OK though I ended up with a headache afterwards. I was physically incapable of deciphering those 3-D pictures that were all the rage back in the 90s. Otherwise I have no problems with depth perception or stereo vision in "the real world" so I don't consider myself quite in the same category as those described in the CNN article.
More recently, when Journey to the Center of the Earth came out on DVD a couple years ago, I attempted to watch the 3-D version with the glasses. And I was rather disturbed to find I could not see the effect at all. This, combined with other similar experiences (which coincided with a general decrease in my eyesight over the past few years caused partly by age and partly by worsening prescription), have made me hesitant to pay out the money to see Avatar in 3-D because I don't want to waste the money and have my view of the film colored by a bad experience (there's a slight pun in there). Fortunately a 2-D version is also showing in my city, though in theatres far removed from my part of town so I haven't had a chance to go yet. The 2-D will probably be out of the local theatres before I have a chance.
Back to the article, I'm glad to see the planned 3-D TVs will have an option for shutting off the 3-D effect. Aside from the fact I don't approve of altering the creative vision of people who created movies to be seen in 2-D, just for a gimmick, it will be good to know that I won't be completely disenfranchised if 3-D becomes the norm.
Are there other people here who fall into the situation described in the article, or the one I described? Whether it's Avatar or one of the 3-D cartoons, have you found yourself having to seek a 2-D option because you can't see the effects?
Alex
