Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You never saw "The Stewardesses" did you? I was projectionist at the time, and the doofus manager got a phone call asking for someone in the audience. He sauntered down to the front of the auditorium, got DIRECTLY in front of the screen, and started asking for Mr. Jones, EXACTLY when, as it were, the seas parted and the object of veneration was revealed in all its glory... wrapping around his head.
The audience loved it and so did I. I only wish I had been holding a towel so I could have tossed it to him to wipe off his head.
You should do more research. 3D is very bad for your eyes and brain.
BTDT. If you are determined to be serious, then yes, it can. However, I am willing to bet that you are just parroting some 3-D critic like Ebert, who has little or no knowledge and fewer facts. My guess is you have lumped ALL 3-D visualization systems together because of a general dislike. If you have, I'm not aiming the following at you, because you are already blinded by your own prejudice, but at those who might actually believe you.
If you are a fighter pilot, regular 3-D viewing is strongly discouraged because it can mess up the fine tuning of your depth perception. Many, if not most, 3-D presentations use a shifting of the various depth levels to accommodate the medium being used. An example of this is the anaglyph presentation of 3-D in magazines. The red and cyan images are shifted until the object of attention has the least color fringing. That allows the reader who doesn't have the glasses to see the image, which often appear very close to normal. The brain picks up on that divergence of focus and image separation and accepts it as normal. Most people agree that it is an inferior presentation method, but it is cheap, uses existing technology, and gets the job done. It falls out of favor quickly, whenever it is re-introduced.
The various anaglyph forms otherwise tend to get a bad rap. They are not inherently "bad" for the eyes, but do have the disconcerting effect of selective exhaustion of the cones and rods, resulting in a few minutes of strange visual effects after prolonged viewing.
Free-viewing is more often what is of concern to some, but if you will do YOUR research, you will find that a part of the therapy for certain eye problems is the USE of a type of 3-D, where the images are pulled apart or closer together to encourage strengthening of some muscles and retraining the eyes.
With field sequential 3-D, there are issues with flicker (as with ANY movie or video). Those can be obviated by use of over/under or side by side projection, or increasing the frame rate. Flicker is highly overstated as a problem, when the 24 fps rate of movies is an abomination in and of itself.
Douglas Trumbull is one of the few who actually proposed reasonable media improvements that would be required for proper presentation of movies - both 2-D and 3-D. He got shot down years ago, taking some of my investment money in the process.
If you read my multitude of posts on the subject, you will know that I harp on the fact that the cinematographers of today do NOT know the language of 3-D movies, and are prone to the use of idiotic effects meant to impress eight year old boys. I also push for ORTHOGRAPHIC 3-D, a term that apparently only I use, meaning that not only is the lens separation of the camera at the nominal 63mm, but that the presentation is designed to mimic the exact angles of the real scene, and the images are unshifted and corrective lensing is used to minimize focus/depth disparities.
As for 3-D being bad for the eyes and brain, might I suggest that you are using the pot to call the kettle black. Computer displays are absolutely horrible for the brain and eyes (as are photographs and books to a lesser extent), in that the resolution of the writing and anti-aliasing present the reader with a fuzzy image. This causes the brain to have to constantly range the focus of the eyes back and forth to attempt to focus and locate the image of the letters on the screen. If you look at a page of writing on a computer screen and are somehow prevented from being allowed to see the frame of the display, there is a very good chance that you will not be able to correctly estimate the size of the letters or the distance from your eyes.
In summary, the "dangers" of 3-D are the same dangers that limited minds have always faced when presented with something different. In case it has slipped your attention, we live in a 3-D world.
BTDT. If you are determined to be serious, then yes, it can. However, I am willing to bet that you are just parroting some 3-D critic like Ebert, who has little or no knowledge and fewer facts. My guess is you have lumped ALL 3-D visualization systems together because of a general dislike. If you have, I'm not aiming the following at you, because you are already blinded by your own prejudice, but at those who might actually believe you.
If you are a fighter pilot, regular 3-D viewing is strongly discouraged because it can mess up the fine tuning of your depth perception. Many, if not most, 3-D presentations use a shifting of the various depth levels to accommodate the medium being used. An example of this is the anaglyph presentation of 3-D in magazines. The red and cyan images are shifted until the object of attention has the least color fringing. That allows the reader who doesn't have the glasses to see the image, which often appear very close to normal. The brain picks up on that divergence of focus and image separation and accepts it as normal. Most people agree that it is an inferior presentation method, but it is cheap, uses existing technology, and gets the job done. It falls out of favor quickly, whenever it is re-introduced.
The various anaglyph forms otherwise tend to get a bad rap. They are not inherently "bad" for the eyes, but do have the disconcerting effect of selective exhaustion of the cones and rods, resulting in a few minutes of strange visual effects after prolonged viewing.
Free-viewing is more often what is of concern to some, but if you will do YOUR research, you will find that a part of the therapy for certain eye problems is the USE of a type of 3-D, where the images are pulled apart or closer together to encourage strengthening of some muscles and retraining the eyes.
With field sequential 3-D, there are issues with flicker (as with ANY movie or video). Those can be obviated by use of over/under or side by side projection, or increasing the frame rate. Flicker is highly overstated as a problem, when the 24 fps rate of movies is an abomination in and of itself.
Douglas Trumbull is one of the few who actually proposed reasonable media improvements that would be required for proper presentation of movies - both 2-D and 3-D. He got shot down years ago, taking some of my investment money in the process.
If you read my multitude of posts on the subject, you will know that I harp on the fact that the cinematographers of today do NOT know the language of 3-D movies, and are prone to the use of idiotic effects meant to impress eight year old boys. I also push for ORTHOGRAPHIC 3-D, a term that apparently only I use, meaning that not only is the lens separation of the camera at the nominal 63mm, but that the presentation is designed to mimic the exact angles of the real scene, and the images are unshifted and corrective lensing is used to minimize focus/depth disparities.
As for 3-D being bad for the eyes and brain, might I suggest that you are using the pot to call the kettle black. Computer displays are absolutely horrible for the brain and eyes (as are photographs and books to a lesser extent), in that the resolution of the writing and anti-aliasing present the reader with a fuzzy image. This causes the brain to have to constantly range the focus of the eyes back and forth to attempt to focus and locate the image of the letters on the screen. If you look at a page of writing on a computer screen and are somehow prevented from being allowed to see the frame of the display, there is a very good chance that you will not be able to correctly estimate the size of the letters or the distance from your eyes.
In summary, the "dangers" of 3-D are the same dangers that limited minds have always faced when presented with something different. In case it has slipped your attention, we live in a 3-D world.
3D technology used so much these days can only mean one thing:
1984 MKUltra subliminal messaging.
Well the 3D technology is also getting cheap, that's is also one of the reason why the movies are coming this year
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should do more research. 3D is very bad for your eyes and brain.
