Cosmetically my left eye looks fine, but due to a childhood accident I’m missing the lens in that eye so I’m technically a monocular person. Will the new 3-D Avatar movie look messed up if I don’t have binocular vision?
I don’t really know, but I don’t think so. I think 3 dimensional vision doesn’t come from the eyes alone but rather from the brain as well. For example, I can still navigate the world just fine with one eye closed. So yeah… I think you should be fine
As long as you wear the glasses, it will just look 2D. I checked by closing each eye independently a few times through the film.
I would recommend you go see the 2D version because you wouldn’t gain much from the 3D cinemas.
What about us glasses wearers? I’ve yet to see a 3D movie because of that. Will the 3d glasses fit over my glasses?
Yes, and you will look like a dork.
Just like everybody else at the movie.
Really won’t the green (or red) lens effect the tint of the movie if used alone?
Modern 3D projections use polarized lenses and a metallic screen, not the old red/green stuff. So you get full color in both eyes.
I actually have a lazy eye and 3D movies sort of drift in and out of 3D for me, the really glaring effects are always present, but the subtler ones sometimes end up not looking like anything special. So I think it’ll just look 2D to you with the glasses.
It doesn’t use anaglyphic 3D. Nobody’s used anaglyphic 3D for theatrical movies* for a long time. It uses Dolby 3D.
- Coraline’s DVD release had a 3D version that used an anaglyphic system, but the theatrical release used RealD, which is different again.
I’m more worried about scratching or smudging my eyeglasses if I try to fit the 3D glasses over them…
Both The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lava Girl and Spy Kids 3D used anagylphic lenses in theaters.
You shouldn’t have any problems. I have rimless plastic lenses for my glasses and had no issues with the 3D glasses when I forgot to put my contacts on for Pixar’s Up.
That might depend on the cinema (or its chain) that you go to, because I saw it in RealD.
Quite a lot of 3D moviesreleased an at-home anaglyphic form.
Scroll up from my link above, and you’ll find both released field-sequential DVD versions.
And? That wasn’t my point, nor the point I was responding to…
When we have vision in one eye only, we learn to compensate for a lack of three dimensional vision. If you lose the sight in one eye, you would have to learn to pour a glass of water a little differently from what you usually do. When I throw darts at a dartboard, I have to throw them further to my left than what my brain tells me. Otherwise all of the darts will be to the right of the dartboard.
Despite my lack of depth perception, I have a driver’s license. If I can learn to parallel park, anyone can.
The 3-D movies that I saw at the Smithsonian did seem different to me. Maybe it was a special effect of another sort or maybe it was because I have “finger vision” in my bad eye. I can tell how many fingers someone is holding up. I am aware of light. That may be enough to make a difference. Another friend was unable to detect any difference in the same film.
If you have never had vision in two eyes, what you see from one eye seems normal to you.
I wasn’t arguing with you. I happened to see it on the website when I was searching, and I thought it was interesting information. Few people seem to know about non-anaglyphic 3D at home. And anaglyphic 3D sucks, so I thought you might appreciate the info (giving you a chance to see it in a better 3D). I’m sorry you did not.
While it wasn’t a part of your point, I didn’t think it was that big a tangent. No offense meant.
Whoops, sorry about that. That’s why I was a bit puzzled by your response, as it didn’t seem to make much sense in the context I had assumed (which, in my defense, isn’t that unusual around here