If I can only see out of one eye, will the 3-D movie "Avatar" look weird to me?

Oh, I know that - Coraline was just the one that came to mind immediately, and which I knew the system used for the theatrical version.

Absolutely. In fact I would say that a one eyed person still has 3-D vision in most circumstances. Although regular two eyed people get some depth information from the disparity between the images in their two eyes, they also get a LOT of depth information from parallax. In real life, we are always moving about, moving our heads and our eyes, and when we do that, nearby things seem to move relative to the background more than things further away. Unconsciously we pick up on that. We all use it to judge depth, and it is probably more important, in real world vision, than binocular disparity.

3-D movies, however, rely entirely on binocular disparity to get their 3-D effect. This means that a truly one eyed person cannot possibly see the effect, but it also means that even for the two eyed, it can never really look quite natural, because it is missing the parallax effects you should be seeing every time you move your head a little. Unless and until they figure out how to do holographic movies, the 3-D will never look quite right.

When I was a kid, I had a stereoscope toy. It looked like a pair of binoculars and you used it to view two still photographs taken by two cameras next to one another. One of the photos was shown to one eye and one to another to mimic binocular disparity and give a 3D effect, just as in 3D movies. It worked, but it did not look natural to me even then. Yes, some thing looked nearer than others, but I always thought the nearer objects looked like flat cardboard cut-outs rather than the real 3D objects that they actually were.

Yes, that is probably right. My right eye vision is not nearly as good as my left (although I am nowhere near being blind on the right), but I still experience the 3D movie effect quite clearly, to the extent that I have flinched at things coming out of the screen at me. It still does not look natural, though, and I find it distracting. It is much easier to lose myself in the story of a regular 2D movie (but perhaps that is just because I am more used to them).

Here’s a guy who used the Wii’s remote controller tracking to create a 3D effect that relies entirely on changing parallax. The drawback at the moment is it’s only good for one viewer.

Wow, that is very cool! I guess we may be getting more 3-D realism even without holograms (though limited to CGI I guess, and everyone will need their own individual viewer, so it will not be for movie theaters - I don’t see any way around that). It is interesting to see what a strong 3D illusion that video produces just from motion parallax effects, without binocular disparity being involved at all. Presumably you could also combine this with a binocular disparity based system like current movie 3D. That should be awesome.

Incidentally, there is another closely related thread in GQ (where this one surely ought to have been too).

Hi, I’m completely blind on my right eye and have been since birth. I’m debating seeing the film avatar in 3d as the general consensus online is that I won’t experience 3d. However, when I went to disneyland paris a few years ago and saw their 3d movie, with the same glasses provided for avatar, I saw the 3d effects perfectly to the extent where I instinctively moved my head back when I thought an image was passing right on front of us. There is no way this was just my eye adjusting to the movie to experience very slight 3d effects, these were definitely the complete effects.

I have what I thought was impaired stereoscopic vision. My eyes were misaligned until I was around 7 years old, at which point they were corrected to be in perfect alignment, but IIRC I was told by then the brain learns not to use them stereoscopically but to compensate in other ways. So I didn’t think I’d be able to see 3d. But I did… I don’t think quite fully - some scenes seemed like there should be more depth to them when they didn’t, and I confirmed this by closing one eye and the scene wasn’t noticibly different… but there were times when the 3d effects definitely worked. Like when there’s burning ash flying around the screen and it actually looks like it’s flying around the movie theater, that definitely worked for me.

So if you aren’t sure it’ll, give it a try … if your brain sees out of one eye, then the glasses will depolarize the image anyway and you should just see a normal looking 2d version of the movie.

I only have a left eye, my right has been completely removed and I now have a prosthetic eye. I lost my eye in a car accident in 1973, I do not recall what normal vision looked like. The main difference I do notice is lack of depth perception and peripheral vision.
I am going to see Avatar in Dolby 3D this evening, and I will relate my experience as it relates to my situation.

Well I saw the movies, I liked it but it was a bit long and a few parts were drawn out. Having one eye and not seeing the 2D version I really can’t compare it to 2D. Yes it will look weird. The 3D glasses were comfortable.
I obviously can not see it in 3D and I wouldn’t suggest doing so if you have only one sighted eye. Some scenes looked great with or without the glasses. Closeups looked great for the most part but background and left/right areas of the screen were usually blurry. Letters and numbers on computer screens and the language translation script was perfectly readable with the glasses but without, double vision! The blurriness would come and go in some scenes and I didn’t notice any rhyme or reason as to why.
My suggestion: If you only have one sighted eye the 3D version will be wearisome to watch and my eye feels tired from trying to adapt to the blurriness. I hope I don’t have eye strain.

I finally saw it last night. With the glasses it was OK, but some background stuff was kinda of out of focus, but I’m not sure of this was supposed to be the way the scene was shot or not. Without the glasses the closeup stuff looked mostly OK, but the backgrounds were wonky and fringed so I had to wear the glasses. I never got any “3-Dness” out of it (obviously), but I wanted to see it with my son and let him have the 3-D experience. The glasses (to me) did reduce the brightness of the movie somewhat.

It really did immerse you to the point you forgot about the virtual aspect of the movie. The only stuff that reminded you was some stuff was “too perfect” like most of the Navi bodies which were almost all perfect scar free, jiggle free perfection. The big gunship and the shuttle bomber were (I thought) very well done)

I saw it too, in 3d, and had the same results as the previous 2 posters. The film was very enjoyable though and was filmed in such a way that there was a lot of depth between the characters and the background, even in 2d.

However I stand by that the 3d projector in disneyland paris will allow you to see an incredibly 3d film. I’m unsure how it works, but we can only hope it becomes standard for 3d films in future.

Not much to add except I have seen it twice - in IMAX 3D and ‘regular’ 3D. I don’t know if this has been mentioned but the IMAX uses two projectors and the two polarised lenses of the glasses are rotated 90 degrees from each other.

The regular DLP 3D uses one projector and something called circular polarization which is beyond my understanding.

After seeing the IMAX version first, I was disappointed in the regular 3D version which seemed ‘flatter’ and more out of focus than the IMAX version which was simply stunning.