Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Medicine Movies

Do You Have a Secret Immunity To 3D Movies? 495

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the also-they-hate-cilantro dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do You Have a Secret Immunity To 3D Movies?

Comments Filter:
  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:08AM (#31817056) Homepage

    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.

  • by charleste (537078) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:10AM (#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.

  • Fake 3D movies. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xoltri (1052470) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:12AM (#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.
  • by Churla (936633) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:12AM (#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.

  • It is a con (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clickclickdrone (964164) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:13AM (#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.
  • by RogueWarrior65 (678876) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:13AM (#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.

  • by wsanders (114993) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:14AM (#31817136) Homepage

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

  • Re:It is a con (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Yamata no Orochi (1626135) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:19AM (#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.

  • 3D is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:19AM (#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.

  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:20AM (#31817234)

    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.

  • Re:A simple test (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:21AM (#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:Fake 3D movies. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@gmai l . c om> on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:23AM (#31817280) Journal

    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 [] ... 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.

  • by bberens (965711) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:39AM (#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.
  • Coordination (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) on Monday April 12, 2010 @12:18PM (#31818110)

    I can do this most of the time with both eyes closed. I guess I have x-ray vision?

  • by dimeglio (456244) on Monday April 12, 2010 @12:33PM (#31818362)

    Nice try. People who are colour blind would then also request a refund since they shouldn't pay for the colours they can't see.

  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:33PM (#31819316)

    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.

  • Re:3D is a gimmick (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:34PM (#31820214) Journal

    Or perhaps it really is a giant con. 3D *is* a gimmick

    It's a gimmick, but it's not a con. I went to Avatar knowing full well that I was in for 3 hours of visual spectacle. I could not have cared less about how good the plot was, or if there was a plot at all. It was a 3 hour light show and it was great.

    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.

    You can rent (or download) any of these for a couple bucks, and you miss out on nothing. If I paid full price for any of these, I'd feel ripped off. (I'd probably fall asleep in the theater too) Avatar on the other hand, if I spent $2 to see it on my TV at home I'd feel ripped off. $15 to see it in IMAX 3d, it's worth every penny. Fancy screens and kilowatt audio systems are the only draw theaters have anymore. They are wise to capitalize on that.

  • Re:Fake 3D movies. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vohar (1344259) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:44PM (#31820384)

    No kidding. I bet most of those "looks of astonishment" are from people working retail.

    Way back when I worked retail there would occasionally be the guy who would try to haggle down the price at checkout. Like my minimum-wage ass was setting prices and not the corporate overlords.

    But sure man, whatever. You keep on sticking it to the man.

  • by BobMcD (601576) on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:20PM (#31820944)

    Watch that next action thriller with a critical eye. The good guy never takes cover, standing in plain sight of everyone with a weapon, and no one can hit him. The bad guys actually make good use of cover, but the bad guy picks them off by the dozen, using two machine guns ambidextrously. Ass hat stupid, I say.

    Perseus [] was born inside a bronze prison, cast into the sea (inside a wooden chest) and subsequently raised by a fisherman. To answer a challenge from his mother's suitor, he vowed to return with the head of the only mortal Gorgon. He outsmarted three oracles and received magical gifts to use on his quest. He somehow managed to sneak up on the lair of the Gorgons and chop off Medusa's head without looking at it while he did it, and without challenge from the other (non-mortal) Gorgons living there. Where did he get the training necessary to resist looking at Medusa? How did he know how to sever her head? Did the fisherman teach him those skills?

    Samson [] once defeated an entire army with nothing but a jawbone from a donkey. It boggles the mind how one person would even be able to do this with modern weaponry, let alone an improvised piece of bone.

    Bilbo [] went from being a hobbit with zero adventuring skill to a renown hero, with absolutely no reason for his survival, let alone success. By all logical accounts, Gandalf sent him to his doom, but he winds up saving the day several times over.

    Ass hat stupid, I say.

    Are you beginning to see the problem here? It isn't exactly the movies, but suspension of disbelief [] in general, that seems to be eluding you.

  • by TrekkieTechie (1265532) on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:39PM (#31821232)
  • by chaodyn (1313729) on Monday April 12, 2010 @04:42PM (#31822202)
    What's better is going to see the movie in the theater and being able to sit through the entire showing in one sitting, without having to pause it to take care of crying babies, requests for drinks of water, wandering 4-year-olds, and barking dogs. We have 4 kids and getting away every now and then to the theater together is much preferred. Otherwise it takes us 3 hours to get through a 2 hour movie.
  • by coaxial (28297) on Monday April 12, 2010 @04:51PM (#31822380) Homepage

    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.

    [citation needed]

    This sounds all sciencey, but I'm going to call bullshit. After you get beyond persistence of vision rates, frame rates are arbitrary. NTSC has a frame rate of 59.94 fps because it was originally 60 fps, but had to be backed down after color television was introduced to eliminate signal interference. 60 you may remember is is also the frequency of that North American line alternating current runs at. Compare this with PAL and SECAM which run at 50 fps. What frequency does electricity run at in PAL countries? If you guessed "50 Hz", you're correct.

    Film didn't even standardize on 24 fps until the 20s, and during the hand cranked film era, it would frequently waver in the middle of the film due to human error. Also, film would frequently be shot at speeds as low as 16 fps, and then played back at around 24 fps.

    But let's get back to adding some cultural baggage to frame rates. There's just nothing to that. Say you watched a movie in the theater, and then at home. It doesn't suddenly "look fake" at home. Yes, it's been transferred from 25 to say 60 fps, but the imperceptible flicker is what matters. Also, fiction and nonfiction (thus the basis of the the 24 fps vs 30 fps subconconcious "tell") are shot on the same cameras. There's just no difference. Yes, back in the 50s before recording directly to video, television shows (both fiction and nonfiction) were filmed at 24 fps, then aired at 60 fps. (This is not to be confused with kinescopes.) [] [] []

  • by toddestan (632714) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:35PM (#31826958)

    Probably the insanely cheap LCD and plasma TVs. They just don't last very long - maybe 3-5 years before they die, whereas the CRT TVs they replaced seem to last forever. Of course, those are the cheap $300 Walmart specials. The higher end models are much better built, but I still don't see them lasting 20+ years either.

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.