Does anyone else here besides me feel that “3D movies” which require the use of special glasses aren’t true 3D movies? I will only consider true 3D movies to be those which don’t require the use of special glasses. Who else feels this way?
I don’t, and wonder why you feel this way.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere (and very recently), there have been Russian 'lenticular" movie screens showing “real” 3D movies (by your definition) since the 1940s. You don’t need glasses. They work, apparently, on the same basis as those 3D postcards and Cd covers that have the vertical ribbing on them. I’ve never seen or even heard of any effort to try and build one of these anywhere else.
All movies I see require special glasses. Without the special glasses, everything on screen is blurry. Am I not seeing “real movies”?
Those are called "stage shows’ or “theatre.” They are more labour intensive to display than the light-projection styles of entertainment.
I suppose it’s more of a critique of 3D movies in that although stereoscopic, they do not exhibit parallax or allow for a different viewing point. Get a VR helmet for that 
???
You can’t have stereoscopic 3D viewing without parallax*. You’re obviously using the term with a different meaning.
*
–The Oxford English Dictionary, by way of Wikipedia
I’ve never been to a modern 3-D movie. What does one look like when you’re sitting way off on one side? Weird?
It’s a perfectly cromulent usage of “parallax”. In the real world (or inside a VR helmet) moving your head to the side changes your view. That doesn’t happen in a 3-D movie.
Never heard that usage, myself.
Without some kind of mechanism to split the view to your eyes the only thing I can imagine is that the screen itself has some kind of depth to it. Possibly some visual effects may stretch the apparent depth but I suspect a viewing screen with the depth of a stage would be required. Considering the squeeze put on movie houses from home theater technology I doubt if there would be any enthusiasm for the film industry to develop something like that.
Note the entry for “motion parallax” in the monocular cues section.
Try this (from our earlier thread):
Here are some articles about the 1941 Russian films:
http://anttialanenfilmdiary.blogspot…cert-1940.html
Some of these seem to suggest that a special viewer is needed, but the things I’d read earlier about them (like Morgan and Symmes’ 1982 book Amazing 3D) stated that the theater was specially constructed and used a “lenticular” screen that worked in a way similar to those lenticular 3D strips. See here:
http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...e_Soviet_Union
Quote:
Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema 01/2014; 6(2):217-239. DOI: 10.1386/srsc.6.2.217_1
ABSTRACT
This article traces the development of Soviet 3D technology at the Scientific Research Film and Photo Institute (NIKFI) in Moscow. The first system developed by Semen Ivanov created stereo pairs with two frames next to each other on a 35mm film that could be projected onto a raster screen to be viewed without glasses.
Reply With Quote
Not the same thin g. That says that you can get the effect of two-eye parallax by moving your eye from one view to the other. The usage I was referring to talks about moving both your eyes to a differnt location. It’s a much broader application of the term.
Parallax refers to the difference in a scene when it is viewed from two different locations. A 3-D movie doesn’t exhibit parallax. It doesn’t matter where in the theater your left eye is located – it always sees the same thing. The only reason your left and right eyes see different things is because of the glasses, and if you flip the glasses upside down your left eye will see the scene intended for the right and vice versa.
In real life our binocular vision uses parallax. Your left eye is in a different location than your right eye, and so sees a different version of the scene in front of you. 3-D movies trick your eyes into thinking they’re seeing parallax when they’re really not. The extent of the trickery becomes apparent if you move your head (thereby actually shifting the location of your eyes) or if you sit far off to one side of the theater.
I don’t consider any 3D movie to be a “movie”. I never watch them, in any format.
Well that’s…quaint. I may hate Avatar, but I acknowledge that it is a movie. And it’s still the same movie if it is converted to 2D, just as any movie would be the same if you saw it on a B&W television.
How do you feel about stereo music?
Frankly, I think the 3-D movie experience MUST involve glasses with red and blue lenses.
And it has to have scenes like these.
I like it.
Though I have heard some people say non stereo music was better.
They gave some fancy explanation I can not remember what it was though.
Your explanation is bizarre. A 3D movie certainly does exhibit parallax – that’s the reason that you have different polarizations for each eye, so that the left eye sees the left view and the right eye the right view. They’re different, because you;'re seeing them from slightly different locfations. That’s the very definition of parallax.
Of course, you don’t see the same view from the right side of the theater that you see from the left side of the theater that you would if the scene were just beyond the screen. To call that “parallax” is to redefine the term from its classical meaning. It’s also something that most 3D viewing systems can do, due to the limitations of the technolkogy.
(But not all – there have been some systems that would, in fact, accommodate large shifts, and actually used more than two views.)