Ah, there ya go – some people can’t see ThreeDee effects because their parents took them to stage productions when they were too young and messed up their brains!
There is no demonstrable difference, yes. But the development of children’s brains is important enough that I ain’t about to roll the dice on it. This is in the same category of the long list of drugs which are recommended against during pregnancy on the basis of an absence of studies of their effects on fetal development. We can’t in good conscience make any studies, and as there is not much benefit in a 3D presentation for someone without a fully-developed faculty of stereopsis, there’s no call to look at it further.
Quiet apart from that, if there is a single group of people restless enough in their seats for the lack of head motion parallax to approach significance when viewing stereo, it’s five-year-olds.
The last 3D movie I saw was Avatar. I’ll occasionally try a 3D set at Costco or BestBuy. In both the theater and with the set, the effect sucks. I see a shimmering 3D image. It is distracting. Until it chnages, I will not watch 3D. The Salon article linked above leaves me with the impression that it will not go away.
I didn’t mean them as “scare quotes” and I’m sorry if that offended you. For some reason, that seemed like the way to type it at the time. Now looking back, I don’t really see the need for the quotes. Again, I didn’t mean to imply that you were faking or something.
That may be, but the proportion of newly-purchased TV sets with some special capability is not necessarily a good indicator of market share. I’d wager my left pinky that most households buy televisions only to replace sets malfunctioning or donated to one’s children. Anecdotally, our current TV is about three years old, and prior to that we used a TV purchased in the mid-90s — however much I want a 1080p display I doubt we’ll buy another TV until this one dies. Most people I know behave comparably.
(When our old TV died we hired someone from craigslist to fix it; it worked for about three minutes and then he wouldn’t return our calls, despite claiming loudly of his guarantee. Bastard.)
I would think that the biggest counterindication for 3D in kids’ movies is that the parents are less likely to want to pay a surcharge when what they’re really buying is a couple hours of peace, and they’ll get that just as well from a 2D movie.
Note, incidentally, that there is no fundamental reason why “computer animation” and “kids’ movie” should be synonymous. There happens to be a large overlap, but there are still plenty of kids’ movies that aren’t computer animated, and a smattering of computer animated movies that aren’t targeted at kids.
I’d be curious to find out because I’m being told that there’s absolutely no reason for 3D to not look glorious to me and, yet, it doesn’t work for me. I had chalked it up to wearing regular prescription glasses under the plastic 3D lenses but I’m being told that doesn’t make a different either.
Hey, who knows. I just know what I see regardless of what others are insisting I see.
Sure there is. The depth differences in 3D movies still exist on a physical plane and so require no accommodation of the lens. Meaning focusing on one virtual plane wont blur the other virtual planes the way it does when looking at an actual 3d scene. But since most, if not all, 3d pictures already apply a depth of field blur(either as a side effect of simply focusing the cameras or, for cgi, through rendering) to anything not at the depth that the movie makers intend you to focus on it’s probably not generally noticeable.
I’ve wondered about this. I always get a “double vision” effect when watching 3D movies, kinda similar to when I go without glasses. I have very mild shortsightedness, but more astigmatism, and I’m wondering if that’s what’s affecting the polarisation, given that astigmatism is basically having an off-axis eyeball.
I hope 3D isn’t going anywhere, I like it.
Oh, sure. By “significant” I meant specifically in the sense of being a trigger for headaches.