Naff off 3D TV, Nobody Likes You

[Replies From View]

If you have a lazy eye[nb]can't remember the proper name[/nb] as a child, and it's not treated with an eye patch, you'll never learn depth perception. Which is why they treat it.

Yeah I remember lazy eyes[nb]Never mind the "proper name".[/nb]; it seemed really rare at school, such that the kid with the eye-patch was known forever as that even when it was long gone. 

I'm going to assume that undiagnosed lazy eyes must have been quite common as I refuse to believe I am hugely unusual with this.  There's no way you lot are all seeing in full 3D constantly.

[falafel]

If you have a lazy eye[nb]can't remember the proper name[/nb] as a child, and it's not treated with an eye patch, you'll never learn depth perception. Which is why they treat it.

This happened to me. Except I was diagnosed and opted out. I do still have depth perception though... Maybe not as much as most.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

The problem for me is this. Imagine a family sitting down to watch TV for the night, all wearing specially provided 3D glasses.

And then imagine them doing that every night. You just can't, can you? For reasons I can't articulate, I can't imagine it happening.

If it has a place at all[nb]And I'm not convinced it has, at all. Every 3D film I've ever seen has looked like cardboard cutouts moving around side to side.[/nb], it's in the cinema which is, at least, an event.

[The Masked Unit]

I can't tell you the amount of times of sat down to watch The Godfather or Dr Strangelove and thought to myself "God, this would be so much better in 3D."

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

I have corneal dystrophy of my left eye, meaning the lens of the eye is somewhat creases and unable to be fully corrected by glasses - although hard contacts help 'iron' out the fault to an extent - and very often find myself relying on the right eye. I still have depth perception and 3D specs work for me - hooray!

[Replies From View]

When I cover my right eye, not much happens.  When I cover my left eye, stuff noticeably jumps to the viewpoint of the right eye (observable if the objects are close enough, anyway).  So yes - a lazy eye I suspect.  I still see the cardboard cut-out effect of 3D films[nb]Well, 3D film, singular, as I have only seen one.  After it was over I thought "okay good; that's that chore done and dusted".[/nb], though.  I have wondered if that's how people with perfect depth-perception experience real life, but the fact the term "cardboard cutout" is used to describe 3D films suggests otherwise.

[Ignatius_S]

Hopefully, stuff like the Oculus Rift will reinvigorate the VR scene. I can never see passive, static view 3D working, humans don't work that way, but immersive 3D might.

Oh, the Oculus Rift does look rather exciting. Although MIT have been working on more traditional viewing, some of the stuff that my friend told me about was very interesting – e.g. similar to the concept in Wild Palms – and quite a bit related to her field (well, one of them), 'non-linear, time-based media'.

The problem for me is this. Imagine a family sitting down to watch TV for the night, all wearing specially provided 3D glasses...

But why imagine that? There's been a lot of development into 3D TV sets that don't require glasses –- there's meant to have been impressive work at MIT and HP, not to mention manufacturers showing work at trade fairs. 

[Beil]

The problem for me is this. Imagine a family sitting down to watch TV for the night, all wearing specially provided 3D glasses.

And then imagine them doing that every night. You just can't, can you? For reasons I can't articulate, I can't imagine it happening.

It's a faff.  Vegging out in front of the telly after a hard days' work loses its appeal if you've got all this other shit in the way.

Ah great, Aliens is on. Where's my glasses, can't find them, oh here they are, oh wait they're not charged. Oh look here's Tom, Lucy and Jagvinder. Do you want to watch it? Oh you haven't brought your glasses. Oh Tom has, but they're the wrong sort, etc.

The logistics, the extra cost and the overall fussy reimagining of a classic lazy pastime mean it'll never take off in its current format. Once you don't need the glasses, then we'll start to see interest rising.

[Alberon]

3D without glasses might have a chance and it is being worked on. But the problem of 3D films and telly not being how actual stereoscopic vision works remains.

I thought Avatar did 3D quite well (though the film itself is unremitting shite).

Get the pixel count and frame rate up and then do 3D properly so the screen ends up tricking the mind into thinking it's a window on to the action and then I'll be interested.

[MojoJojo]

This happened to me. Except I was diagnosed and opted out. I do still have depth perception though... Maybe not as much as most.

To be tedious, you only need two eyes for some of the ways we perceive depth. Wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception#Binocular_cues

[HappyTree]

When I cover my right eye, not much happens.  When I cover my left eye, stuff noticeably jumps to the viewpoint of the right eye (observable if the objects are close enough, anyway).

That happens with everyone to some extent. This test determines whether you are right- or left-eyed. Have a shuftie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance