The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Can you be partially blind to 3D movies?
Satsumomo
Rated PG!Registered User regular
Rated PG!Registered User regular
I do not enjoy 3D movies very much.
Yes, I can see all the 3D effects, stuff pops out and it looks amazing. But I constantly see shadows around objects that are near the edge of the screen. This seems normal.
However, if the camera decides to pan, or if something moves quickly, everything becomes a stuttering mess, and objects gain trailing shadows of themselves and it's just a mess for me.
I mean, it's not too bad, but for example any fighting sequence with fast camera movements is pretty much undecipherable for me.
Is this normal 3D movie stuff, or am I not able to see 3D when it pans around?
Yes, I can see all the 3D effects, stuff pops out and it looks amazing. But I constantly see shadows around objects that are near the edge of the screen. This seems normal.
However, if the camera decides to pan, or if something moves quickly, everything becomes a stuttering mess, and objects gain trailing shadows of themselves and it's just a mess for me.
I mean, it's not too bad, but for example any fighting sequence with fast camera movements is pretty much undecipherable for me.
Is this normal 3D movie stuff, or am I not able to see 3D when it pans around?
Satsumomo on
0
Posts
i am blind in one eye and i can't perceive 3d effects
22 inch monitor, sitting at about 19" from it, this text is kinda blurry with my right eye.
How is your color vision?
Given how 3D works these days there are a few ways in which having wonky eyes could screw it up. I don't know if your problem in particular could by the issue. Have you tried your set up on anyone else? How do you go with other 3D set ups (i.e. other 3d tvs, at the movies etc)?
Sounds like this to me, too. There's only so far the tech can go in trying to trick your brain. You have more than one way to judge distance, and the effects only trick one of them, part of your brain can still tell it's all images on a flat surface.
I see the same effect the OP mentions with fast camera movements in 3D movies. I'm pretty nearsighted, but no lazy eye or really notable vision problems. I've found I don't see it happen if I consciously focus on the screen and not an object on the screen, though. But if I do that the whole illusion breaks down, everything looks flat and unnatural and you notice little things like images not all lining up with each other.
Now, my fiancee, on the other hand, has a lazy eye, and she has a hard time seeing 3D effects properly at all, she's complained she has a hard time keeping her eyes focused on the image and not the screen. Your brain can interpret depth with only one eye, but the 3D glasses can't fool your brain without both.
we humans have meny diffrent ways of detecting depth. some only need one eye and some need 2. ones that need only 1 eye are things like overlaping (one object is partly obscureing another so you no the obscured object is further away). relative size (things seem smaller ther further they are away) parrall objects converging on the harizon. paralax ( car window look out and objets closer more in oposit directions and disten objects move slowly in your direction) to name a few.
all the above are lerned threw experence. you lern how big a car is . so if its smaller than it is its further away.
with two eyes
(coped from wiki) Stereopsis or retinal(binocular) disparity - Animals that have their eyes placed frontally can also use information derived from the different projection of objects onto each retina to judge depth. By using two images of the same scene obtained from slightly different angles, it is possible to triangulate the distance to an object with a high degree of accuracy. If an object is far away, the disparity of that image falling on both retinas will be small. If the object is close or near, the disparity will be large. It is stereopsis that tricks people into thinking they perceive depth when viewing Magic Eyes, Autostereograms, 3D movies and stereoscopic photos.
3D films create there effect by tricking the brain by makeing you see two images and think they are 1.
1 eye sees the image in a sligtly diffrent position to the other eventho the images are diffrent. becase the eyes are disasosated they are perseved to be the same image / object and the brain is "tricked" to thinking it is in 3 dimentioan space.
so there are menny reasons why people dont see 3d films that well. you get people that have a lazy eye. so they dont see as well with that eye. thus hindeting Stereopsis. squints and mussel imbalences do the same thing. because if you are seeing the image in not the place intended to "see" the 3d its not going to work. some small musell imbalences that diont effect evey day life, can cause you to come out of a film eith a bit of a head ache. and some people just never develop the abilaty for Stereopsis.
sadly the films are all made for a pair of ematropic eyes.
now also i think the quality of the films come into this aswell. there are diffent methods for 3d used in films red green filters (old stile if you have any of the above or colour blind its not going to work very well)
polarized filters this is probubly the most common
and there is a dolby 3d (or somthing like that) that has these coated lenses that let threw certain wave lenths of light into each eye
and home tvs have lcd shutters
now i think with avatar it was largly computer genarated and the CG artists used monoculer and binoculer depth clues together extrealy well.
where as films that have been shot in 2d and then converted (eg clash of the titans) dont work so well. they have 3d elements added to them that in my case i rejected becase they did not coinside with the monoculer clues that the film was also giveing me. i recal alot of the film had larger objets coming out of the screen that where out of focus and more distant objects sharply in focus.
bit of a ramble there and sorry about my terable spelling and grammer.
in short if you dont have Stereopsis dont bother. and if you have any kind of lazy eye or mussel imbalence you minght not have any fun
if you any sure id recomend going to a full cg kids film. that way there is more chance all the depth perseption clues will work together.
I assumed it was from having astigmatism and my glasses not getting my eyes perfectly lined up with each other.
I also am very left-eye dominant and even with glasses my right eye is fairly weak.
I wear the 3D glasses over my prescription glasses because without is pretty much horrible.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
I should dig up my old glasses and see if it works.
I don't remember how 3D looks to me, I think it looks fine actually when I demoed it. My experiences have come from IMAX 3D theaters, I think those use shutter glasses.
Are you me?
Even thouhg I wear contacts for it I think it relates to one of my eyes having a much more severe astigmatism than the other
Filmmakers seem to be getting a grip on what works well and what doesn't though. Just saw Tangled in 3d, and it looks fantastic. Slow, gentle moves on really close objects, far away perspective on fast switchups. A few little gimmicks here and there, but mostly just used as depth and enhancement. Really nice bit of work as far as the cinematics go.
When you drive at night and see cars with LED taillights, do they appear to flicker? Some people can't see this, some people can. (I actually think everyone's eyes see this but not everyone's brain filters it out.)
While my slightly poor eyesight in my right eye might be the cause, I'm really inclined into the opinion that it's just because I notice stuff that other people don't.
Edit: Gihgels, I haven't noticed that on cars with LED lights, but my I can definitely see my Creative Zen's charging blue LED flicker if I move it around.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/15/3d.tv.opinion/index.html
Some TV watchers cannot see 3D television. Instead, they may see the picture in 2D or in stereo in some cases.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The author's eyes will not let him see 3D images on a TV or movie screen
A small but significant percentage of the population cannot see 3D images
They may be left behind by Hollywood and TV makers' rush to 3D technology
TV makers say users can turn off 3D display features and just view content in 2D
RELATED TOPICS
Television
Internet
(CNET) -- When it comes to 3D television, I don't see it. Literally. The technology that's supposed to convince me that a 3D image exists when I look at a 2D screen doesn't work for me.
Nor does it work for a small but significant percentage of the population -- 4 percent to 10 percent, depending on which expert you ask. Me, and millions of people like me, are being left behind by content and hardware companies as they move to 3D.
I don't mean to complain. It's not the end of the world. Flat-viewers, like me, can watch 2D versions of 3D content. I saw "Avatar" in the non-3D version. As a bonus, the theater was nearly empty--the 3D showing down the hall was more crowded. Plus, we didn't have to wear those dorky glasses.
Of course, we are social beings, and not being able to view 3D means that group or family outings to 3D showings are awkward for the flat viewers, who may have to sit through a showing that will cause headaches or just look bad to them.
But the flat-viewer's experience with 3D imagery can vary. While I find viewing 3D imagery uncomfortable, Daniel Terdiman, another person at CNET who can't see 3D, saw the 3D version of Avatar and wore the 3D glasses. It looked fine to him, just not 3D.
Manufacturers are mute
At CES this year, the trend toward 3D in home television sets was unmissable, but there was no mention by the manufacturers of how this move would affect flat viewers. I was curious how the hardware companies, which fight for every point of market share jealously, could cavalierly ignore the large number of us who won't like this new direction.
It's a lot of market. How are they planning to deal with losing it?
Oddly, none of the HDTV manufacturing companies I reached out to could provide a direct comment on this topic, but I did talk with people familiar with the industry and with an optometrist who has a vested interest in promoting the growth of 3D content viewing.
Bruce Berkoff of the LCDTV Association and formerly a marketing executive at LG, noted that for all the hype around 3D, the television manufacturers are not really investing much in putting products on store shelves, nor are they expecting consumers to pay for it yet.
Adding the capability for televisions to display alternating images for stereoscopic viewing through electronic shutter glasses is not expensive. It's the glasses themselves that are, and only a few 3D-capable sets actually come bundled with them. So consumers will be able to soon buy televisions ready for 3D without spending much.
Berkoff, and everyone else I talked to about 3D TV, reminded me that a good 3D TV is also a good 2D TV. You should be able to turn off the 3D display features and view content designed specifically for 3D but in 2D: You just show the view for only one eye. If the refresh rate of the program is high enough, you should not notice much of a difference in picture quality.
Get your eyes examined
From the optometrist's perspective, the inability to process stereoscopic imagery is, for many people, a treatable condition. Dr. Brad Habermehl, president of the College of Optometrists in Vision Development, told me, "You don't have to be a 3D refugee if you get to the root of the problem. The majority of stereo-blind people really can be helped."
Habermehl says that there are methods to teach people to see in 3D. Using graduated methods and physical aids (lenses) as "training wheels," he says, people can eventually learn how to "point both eyes to focus on the same space." It's like riding a bike. Once you learn, the training wheels come off and you can't imagine not doing it. "Vision is definitely learned," he says. "That's what vision training is."
The doctor sounded to me suspiciously like a spokesperson for the 3D television manufacturers, or at least a recipient of some marketing dollars from them. But he's not.
"It would be nice if they would fund us," he said. But after reminding me that "Avatar" had already made $1 billion in box office receipts, he added, "I don't think the industry is worried about this."
Personally, I have no interest in undergoing medical treatment just so I can spend more money on consumer electronics. Although Dr. Oliver Sacks, in a compelling New Yorker article, did make me wonder what my kind is missing.
And regardless of whether you see in 3D or not, the technology is inexorably changing the visual language of movies and television shows. When directors create shows for 3D, they can't rely on cinematic methods viewers are used to in 2D for conveying action, depth, and movement.
Hard cuts and swooping camera moves can disorient viewers new to 3D. The new standard of practice is to lock down the camera and move the action around it, instead of the reverse, which is the case in today's 2D movies. Good 3D movies today will appear subtly more stately and cinematic than 2D shows.
The future of the 3D feature
For all the hype at CES, 3D for the next few years is likely to be a "feature" in the new crop of TVs, according to Gary Merson of the HDGuru3D site.
"It's not black-and-white to color," Merson says. "It's a feature, like Internet connectivity and stereo."
He also points out that the content is not there yet, and that many consumers have only recently upgraded their tube televisions to HD flat screens.
For people like me, for whom the world is flat, this feature can not roll out slowly enough.
this is most likly the problem in your case if you are having problems with avtar and other good films in imax
because it is only minor you are fine most of the time
but light intended to fall on a certain point in you right eye is not falling in the correct place.
the light from the left and right images must fall in the correct place for your eyes to be tricked into thinking its the same object and thus in 3d space.
if you are short sited the light is (would be) focusing behind your retina. so its falling on a place that dosnt match up to create the image.
when the objets are still you brain has more time to prosses it, but as soon as it starts moveing ect. its loads more infomation to prosess.
if you can imagin your bran is already compensateing for you shortsited eye.
also imax (well all the ones i have been to) are the polerized filter method of 3d.
the 3D TV's use the lcd glasses. you may or may not have better luck with a 3d tv. of you site closer to it but then you have to put up with noticeing the lcd flicker.
to be honest tho... if your not fussed go see it in 2d. or dig out you glasses. get used to wareing them again. coz if you only put them on for the first time in ages just to watch a film your not gonna be used to the glasess ad everythiingf elese you will probubly have no fun
Is this why your avatar makes me almost nauseous?
I'm pretty sure that most movie theaters are using dual projectors for 3D movies nowadays.
EDIT: Dolby uses a spinning filter, RealD uses a Zscreen which toggles rapidly between polarizations.
Side note: My first response was, "How on Earth did they get LED flicker while running on DC?" It turns out that they're dimming the LEDs by pulsing the power, so the flicker will appear when the vehicle isn't braking, and therefore at "tail light" strength, not "brake light" strength. (Some cars are worse than others; apparently from the quality of the circuits.)