Well, the ability of deaf folks to enjoy movies as they are exhibited in the majority of commercial movie theaters is limited by the fact that movies employ sound. Absent captioning of some kind, folks who can't hear are at a disadvantage.
Is all this 3-D stuff a phase?
- Thread starter darkshadow0001
- Start date
So, I wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses, and I haven't found that uncomfortable. Nor have I gotten headaches or experienced any kind of discomfort watching 3D movies.
Am I weird?
Am I weird?
So, I wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses, and I haven't found that uncomfortable. Nor have I gotten headaches or experienced any kind of discomfort watching 3D movies.
Am I weird?
not you're lucky.
If you're just short sighted with not much variation between your eyes then you're going to get through without any problems.
IF there's a significant difference between your eyes or you have different conditions (I have astigmatism and mystagmis or something and the end result is 3D movies = headache).
Was HD a phase? 3D isn't. Look forward to the day when all films are in 3D, even non-special FX driven films. The parts where it impresses me most are just looking at people or textures on objects, adds so much more depth to experience. The price to produce the tech will go down as it becomes more mainstream and so will prices to purchase.
HDTV never required those damn glasses. That alone makes a big difference.
Also, HD resolution is a demonstratable, immediate, universal benefit. It's *obvious* that HD is better. 3D, on the other hand, is a gimmick; it doesn't always work, and it's not always needed.
Also, HD resolution is a demonstratable, immediate, universal benefit. It's *obvious* that HD is better. 3D, on the other hand, is a gimmick; it doesn't always work, and it's not always needed.
And, perhaps most importantly, 3D television will be no benefit for more than 99% of the back-catalogue of films and television series. Old films (and quite a few old television series) can be shown in HD to measurable improvement. But as 2D products, the best they can hope for is a 3D conversion, which is still expensive and time-consuming to even approach doing properly. And most material, of course, won't be converted at all.
3D is going to fail because of people's conceitedness.
^ It's not conceited to not want to have to wear glasses to watch TV.
In time, you won't need to.
Heck, look at the nintendo 3DS just released in Japan. Sold out, 3D screens with no need for glasses. In time, TVs will catch up so you won't have to watch them from a very specific distance and from a very specific angle.
Then everyone's happy.
This. I have astigmatism in both eyes to varying degrees and simply can't focus the way I'm supposed to focus to watch this crap. The one time I tried watching a 3-D film (a 10-minute IMAX thing), I spent the whole time fiddling with the glasses trying to find a way to actually see without my eyes crossing. It was miserable and actually made me nauseous. Never again.
Fortunately, I don't generally go to see big studio films, so I don't find my avoidance of the format limiting.
Nope, you'll still have the problem of the convergence plane not being the same as the focal plane. One way to fix that would be to have holographic virtual imaging. What we're being sold is effectively a continuation of the 19th century stereoscope.
By then, 3D will be dead and surpassed by something else, IMO.
Who said that's a problem?
The decent chunk of people who get headaches and sore eyes from their eyes being used in a way they're not designed to work. I'm not sure what the percentages are, but it can't be too small a percentage, because it always comes up in these threads.
The problem with comparing 3D against other major leaps in cinema is that this one isn't duplicating the real world.
People may have thought sound was a gimmick, but it survived because it replicated a sense of the real world. We interpret the sound from a movie as we do sound in the real world. We hear it from a point in space, and our ears know where it came from.
People may have thought colour was a gimmick, but it survived because it replicated colour (sure it's emitting light rather than just reflecting it, but our eyes are still perceiving it the same as a certain brightness of a certain colour).
The problem with 3D is that it's not replicating depth. It's faking it. It may not seem like an important distinction, but the fact is that it's merely trying to trick the eyes into seeing depth by giving us two separate images instead of giving us varying points of depth to look at. Because it works differently, some people have problems with watching 3D movies.
For most people it probably isn't an issue. But there is a difference between this implementation of 3D, and past revolutions in cinema. It probably won't make a difference in the long run, but at the moment I would compare current 3D to two strip technicolor rather than consider it as important as full colour was.
Except that 3D has been around since the '50s and pops up every 20 years or so as "the next big thing." Yes, I know it's improved, but until they find a way to present a movie in 3D without the glasses, it will remain a fad. My concern is that filmmakers are putting so much effort into dazzling audiences with elaborate 3D sequences that there will be an inevitable decline in the quality of the films themselves. Kind of like they do now with CGI. Create this impressive visual spectacle to distract people from the hacky dialogue and ridiculous plots.
While flawed technology would certainly be a point against it, I'll point out that it does at least technically mirror the real world. After all, we do see things in 3D, not 2D. We also don't see things at such a limited distance as we see in movies (where, unless it's Citizen Kane, things go blurry a lot closer than they should).
So, I wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses, and I haven't found that uncomfortable. Nor have I gotten headaches or experienced any kind of discomfort watching 3D movies.
Am I weird?
not you're lucky.
If you're just short sighted with not much variation between your eyes then you're going to get through without any problems.
IF there's a significant difference between your eyes or you have different conditions (I have astigmatism and mystagmis or something and the end result is 3D movies = headache).
I'm nearsighted in both eyes and have a pretty bad astigmatism in my right. Still no problem with the glasses.
I do sympathize with those who can't enjoy 3D movies due to physical discomfort caused by the glasses, I just can't really relate because it doesn't happen to me.
As long as I continue to have the choice between 2D and stereoscopy, I don't mind. If the choice were limited to the latter, or 2D were more expensive than faux-3D, I would mind. They're getting better at the technology, but it has a long way to go.
So, I wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses, and I haven't found that uncomfortable. Nor have I gotten headaches or experienced any kind of discomfort watching 3D movies.
Am I weird?
Evidently not, as there are more than enough of us to make 3D the choice of the studios for the foreseeable future.
It's attempting to mirror the real world, but it does it in a flawed way. There's an article that's been posted everywhere that details the reasons why it's not like how we usually perceive depth.
Basically, the technology tricks us into thinking an object is closer/further away than it really is, but our eyes still need to focus on the flat 2 dimensional screen at a fixed distance to see the images that are trying to mimic 3D. It's a neat trick, but I don't think it's a good long term solution considering that a decent, if only small, percentage have issues with it.
Similar threads
