Earlier this year I got a condition of the optic nerve that permanently damaged my left eye in a way that can’t be corrected with glasses. My peripheral vision is fine, but I’ve got a lot of fuzzy gray blind spots in the center of that eye’s vision. It’s nearly impossible to read anything with just that eye unless the type is very large (larger than large print books but not necessarily HUGE) and high contrast. It’s sort of like looking through mist. I can still see the shapes of things (unless they are small and happen to be inside one of the blind spots) and some of the colors, so I’m not blind.
What I’m wondering is whether I’d be able to get anything out of a 3D movie now. I haven’t been to one since before my eye was damaged. All I’ve been able to find on this issue are threads and articles for people who are fully blind in one eye, but nothing for someone with a condition like mine. I don’t want to go to The Hobbit in 3D and have it make me sick (I already occasionally have issues with feeling nauseous when the blurred vision overlaps the vision from my good eye). Does anyone here have experience with this or knowledge that could help me out?
My Mother and sister each have the same condition from birth, a lazy eye, which prevents them from seeing 3D in real life. My sister corrected hers with surgery, but apparently can still not see in 3D. They also, therefore, cannot see 3D in movies.
So I think if you can see 3D in real life, you should be able to see it for a movie. I don’t think the principle is in any way different.
In principle, yes. In practice, some of the artistic choices (for example depth of field - some people find their eyes straining to refocus things that are in the background, and out of focus on screen) may be uncomfortable - this is true for some people with normal vision, and may be worse for those with visual impairment.
If you take an eye patch and be prepared to wear it under the 3d specs, you would then see the movie in 2d - that is, try it in 3d and if it’s uncomfortable, put the patch over your bad eye and watch the rest in 2d
Or it may be better - my mom has no depth perception in real life, but sees “something different” in 3D movies. My guess is that those things you mention that actually exaggerate, not just replicate reality, are what she can pick up on. She quite enjoys 3D movies, but finds them even more startling than the rest of us, since in real life things don’t “pop out” for her. (Parallel parking with my mom is…not fun.)
I think this is sound advice. There’s really no way to predict what you’ll see, and coming prepared is a good way to not throw away $12 on a ticket.
^ This happens with me, too. In real life my stereoscopic vision sucks, my brain never really learned to integrate the two visual fields that well and while I don’t see double neither do I have much binocular depth perception.
Probably not as bad as WhyNot’s mom, though, as I am able to parallel park (though I found it more difficult to learn than the average person). Or maybe I just compensate really well (there are a lot of other cues to depth).
Some 3D film systems work for me, some do not, and some actually give me more stereoscopic vision than I have in real (as opposed to reel) life.
I like the system we have at home - it’s active 3D so you have to remember to recharge the glasses, but there’s an option to set them for seeing a 3D image as 2D which is extremely helpful for those who can’t tolerate the 3D but still want to see the movie. No eyepatch required.
Another “same here.” I have crossed eyes and normally have trouble resolving the two images given by my eyes into proper 3D. 3D images, though, work really well for me (except for those scattergram things), and I tend to get more out of the experience of watching a 3D movie than friends who see normally. I guess it’s why I loved 3D comics as a kid, had all of the 3D video games, and was an early adopter of 3D TV technology.
I’ll second the eyepatch suggestion; I had eye problems a couple of years ago, and it took several months to regain vision in my left eye; during the slow healing process, the cloudy vision offered by that eye was a distraction, and I used an eyepatch to block it out when seeing 3D films at the theater with friends. Kind of a pain, since I wore the patch, then my glasses over it, then the 3D glasses over my glasses, but it worked.
Sounds like you and I have a similar condition - optic neuropathy. I have only partial central vision in the right eye, with some peripheral vision which is useless for regular sight. I just bought a new 3D TV not expecting much, but the results are surprisingly amazing.
I recall an article about the slow uptake and poor popularity of 3D films and TV, which suggested that possibly up to 30% of the population does not “see” 3D. For one reason or another, they cannot get any benefit from a 3D technology.
I know I have no problem with 3D, I just don’t care.
The people who developed IMAX (and IIRC, Doug Trumbull for some speciall effects research) determined that beyond about 25 feet, 3D had less to do with stereoscopic vision; the illusion of reality was more determined by sharpness and lack of flicker - hence the hi-res IMAX film, and the higher frame rate. You can get vertigo from non-3D IMAX.
