Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Medicine Movies

Do You Have a Secret Immunity To 3D Movies? 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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do You Have a Secret Immunity To 3D Movies?

Comments Filter:
  • And he's not interested in your fancy 3D stuff at all.
  • 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.

    • 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.

      • by grrrl ( 110084 )

        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

      • by deniable ( 76198 )
        You must have had a better system than we had. Glasses off, it looked like someone had smeared the projector with Vaseline.
    • by Omnifarious ( 11933 ) * <> on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:25AM (#31817306) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      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

    • 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.
    • by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:41AM (#31817572) Journal
      Avatar in 3D was much better for me than 2D.

      I think the reason was they artificially made parts of many scenes in Avatar 2D (and 3D) out of focus. Even some mostly static scenes.

      It's not pleasant trying to focus on something that just stays out of focus - ever tried reading those "out-of-focus" texts? That's how Avatar 2D felt like in some scenes. I kept getting the "can't focus properly" feeling in my eyes.

      At least with Avatar 3D, I had better idea of what areas in the scene the director wanted me to focus on.

      Didn't help for the motion blurred scenes though. I don't like motion blurring. It sucks. In real life if I'm looking at a moving object, it's sharp, the rest of the scenery might go blurry, but it doesn't matter - I'm looking at the moving object. Then if I look at the rest of the scenery it's sharp, the moving objects go blurry.

      Make the moving objects blurry, and they'll remain blurry when I try to track them and so I get that "can't focus" feeling which I dislike. Yes I know movies are 24fps. No I don't care that real world recordings of moving objects in 24 fps get "naturally blurred".

      Fact is 24 fps sucks. It's way too low a frame rate. Back in the old days 24fps was excusable (it was a technological feat even - keep the film moving so it doesn't burn up, and have each frame pause momentarily before the next frame is moved in, etc).

      Nowadays 24 fps is disappointing.
    • by sznupi ( 719324 )

      Your're definatelly not alone...and for a quite long time already.

      Current proponents forget that we had "3D cinema" available for a few decades now. And "3D photography", stereography, for more than a century (it's not much younger than "normal" photography). Hardly anybody treated it as more than a gimmick over those years.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nmb3000 ( 741169 )

      I can *see* the 3-D but it does not "immerse" me any more than 2-D.

      I have to disagree, but with some conditions. Watching Avatar in IMAX 3D, I definitely felt that the movie WAS visually more immersive in most scenes than it was in 2D. Several times it almost caught me by surprise when I realized I wasn't looking through some window into the world being presented and was instead just looking at a flat screen.

      That said, the 3D image was most effective when used in medium-deep fields. The 3D images of thing

      • Avatar was designed to be 3D from the start whereas Alice wasn't.

        For some, this may be incredibly important.

        Current technology is not true 3D - the actual distance of where your eyes are looking hasn't changed. All the current technology does is present a different 2D perspective to each eye.
        So actually, it is your mind that is creating the 3D effect by extrapolating from those cues and ignoring others (focal distance, lack of physical movement, lack of tactile & smell cues).

        Now some people
  • Optimist (Score:5, Funny)

    by jag7720 ( 685739 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:11AM (#31817090) Homepage
    I was having problems with my eyes... so I went to an optimist. He said everything was going to be okay.
  • by ptbarnett ( 159784 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:12AM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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?

      •     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.

    • by jd ( 1658 )

      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 b

    • 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.

  • by Lord Byron II ( 671689 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:12AM (#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.

    • 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 Gy

  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) *

      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

      • by bberens ( 965711 )
        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 ste
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jer ( 18391 )

        so why do I have to pay 60% more for my ticket?

        Same reason you pay more to go in the evening than in the morning - perceived value. As long as there are enough people who think that the 60% markup on 3d vs. 2d is worth it to them, the theaters will charge the markup. When enough people decide that it isn't worth it, ticket prices will either start to drop off or theaters will stop doing the 3d altogether.

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

        3d is going to live or die by the home theater, not by the movie theater. If TV manufacturers can convince people that they want 3d tv in their home

      • Re:Fake 3D movies. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:55AM (#31817768) Homepage

        You have to pay more because everyone else around you are afraid to ask the same questions and don't walk away when exposed to price gouging.

        Honestly, most Americans are really spineless now. and it started 2 decades ago. I still get looks of astonishment from people when I haggle price. I refuse to buy a car or any big ticket item at the posted price. Most people think that you either get arrested for doing it, or they are afraid to.

        Heck I haggle on small ticket items. When I buy wine, if I find a good one I'll ask for a discount if I buy 3 or more bottles.

        I refused to see avatar until it was almost at the end of it's run. I got a better experience as I watched it in a mostly empty theater on a $8.00 a ticket matinee.. I though it was neat, but not impressed enough to go and see another one or pay more than regular price.

        But then I'm evil... I smuggle in a $1.25 candybar in my pocket instead of buying the $30.00 1 pound chocobar.. at the concession stand.

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bberens ( 965711 )
      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.
  • 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 :)


  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

      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. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Devout_IPUite ( 1284636 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:13AM (#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.
  • 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.

  • ...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.

    • 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.

    • by vadim_t ( 324782 )

      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 s

  • A simple test (Score:5, Informative)

    by prakslash ( 681585 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:14AM (#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 [].

    You can also try the above test with one eye closed. You will almost always fail at step 4.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • 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.
      • 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: (Score:2, Informative)

      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.

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

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

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

      The problem is the brain is actually quite good at figuring out where body parts are in 3D space, even if it only has a 2D image to work with. And the brain can compensate for tools that you may hold as well. Those who are extremely self-aware of position can do it blindfolded.

      At best you need another person who does the movement based on verbal descriptions. Once you lose depth perception it gets very difficult.

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

  • I am blind in one eye

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

  • by mstrcat ( 517519 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:16AM (#31817158)
    I'm one of those people with difficulties with binocular vision. I normal vision is entirely 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.
  • 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 (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.

    • 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.

  • 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.


    • by grrrl ( 110084 )

      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.

    • I have worked on films that are shot in 3D (I work as a sound assistant). Only one of the three DoP's really knew how to use the 3D rigs correctly.

      The major problem with the two that were inexperienced with 3D rigs is they never bothered to 'toe-in' the mirrors so they converged at the correct point. This resulted in the final product making you feel boss-eyed, and would give you a headache after not too long.

      Give it time. It took a year or so for videographers/camera ops to get used to HD ( for example, mo

  • 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.

  • 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.
    • 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.

  • 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 [] is NOT your friend.

  • 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by querist ( 97166 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:27AM (#31817338) Homepage
    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.
  • 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 sin
  • 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 se

  • by Alpha Prime ( 25709 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:37AM (#31817480) Homepage

    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.

  • 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 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...

  • by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Monday April 12, 2010 @11:42AM (#31817578)
    I like going to regular 2D movies and whipping out my 3D glasses and ooohing and aaaahing at the "effect".
  • This was done in the 50s and early 60s.. It wasn't well received. Wide Screen (Cinerama) was more broadly accepted vs. the cheesy 3D that those B-Rated 50s flicks had.

    The 3D stuff that's being done now is still more to get a "wow" factor but it truly doesn't add to the story or entertainment value. I've seen 3 3D movies this year and no, I don't like it.
    Maybe when the characters become holograms and are sitting next to me in the theater, then I'll be impressed.

    NOw if you'll excuse me I'll go back to liste

Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.