1 in 10 People Can't See in 3D, Says Eye Expert

[Mewick_Alex]

My fiancee can't see 3D films properly, but that's because she has one eye shaped like a rugby ball....

Pretty wierd for someone who's a trained optician.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Of course, no known human can really see in three dimensions, anyway (we have depth perception because our eyes are spaced apart from each other, but we still only see a 2D image, even with 3D glasses). I saw a mathematical model of what three dimensional sight might look like once, and it was really weird. Kind of like those diagrams of things like a cube squared, I guess (I don't really enjoy math very much, so I've never bothered to take it to a high enough level to really understand how all of that stuff works).

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

The trickery used for current 3D simulation is not good enough...... they really need to stop trying so hard to sell it.

 

[maxben]

3D shouldn't be just an extra just because some people can't see it.
I mean, blind people can't see movies at all and need them described.
That's called a handicap option, and there is no reason 3D movies can't have one for those who cannot see 3D.
However, a minority of the population cannot control technological/entertainment trends just because it does not work for them.
As such, this should not be a worry at all.

12% is a pretty big percentage, much more than the percentage of blind people. If a movie is released in 3d only, they've effectively cut their potential attendance by that amount, not an insignificant problem for movies with such large budgets. There aren't many movie studios seriously willing to take a near guaranteed 12% cut in revenue on any film, so market forces may very well prevent 3d only from being the rule.

Personally, I have amblyopia, lazy eye to most, and am effectively blind in one eye. I don't see 3d in real life, the whole world looks like a movie to me. So, even 2d movies look pretty real, 3d would just be hard to see.

But again, movies that come out in 3D also come out in 2D. In fact, 3D is more expansive so some who can see it will still choose 2D.
And, also again, 12% doesn't mean much if we are looking at every single effected handicapped people.
I have no issue with forcing 2D as an option for people, in movies it is also about price of the ticket and in games it can just be an option, but 3D can easily be the norm.
Many games, for example, have a colour-blind mode.

 

[Llaeli]

As someone with monocular vision *someone who can only focus out of one eye at a time* I can't see the "3D" pictures at the cinema or on video games -- seeing Avatar was really frustrating because not only were the 3D effect blurry and not in "3D", but the outlines of people and objects were triple and quadruple because my eyes couldn't put them together to form the "3D" picture. As long as this doesn't become a permanent thing, I'm okay with seeing movies in "2D" but if all movies are suddenly in 3D then I will have a major problem with it...

 

[Swifteye]

Gah! It's not 3D! It's stereoscopy!

Some people are so very, very ignorant.

Well it's not like people are calling it stereocopy glassess and stereocopy movies now are they? Can't expect people to know the correct term if it's never mentioned.

Yeah, that's what I mean. I'm annoyed that the people trying to sell this technology have labelled it incorrectly. I'm not saying that they should be using slogans like 'stereoscopic TVs!' since that's obviously bad marketing, but they're being more than a little pretentious in using a term which should be reserved for when we develop true 3D projectors, otherwise they'll have to sell them as '4D' or something which would be retarded.

Ahh I see your point. Good point.

 

[silasbufu]

Guess I'm one of them.

 

[Royas]

3D shouldn't be just an extra just because some people can't see it.
I mean, blind people can't see movies at all and need them described.
That's called a handicap option, and there is no reason 3D movies can't have one for those who cannot see 3D.
However, a minority of the population cannot control technological/entertainment trends just because it does not work for them.
As such, this should not be a worry at all.

12% is a pretty big percentage, much more than the percentage of blind people. If a movie is released in 3d only, they've effectively cut their potential attendance by that amount, not an insignificant problem for movies with such large budgets. There aren't many movie studios seriously willing to take a near guaranteed 12% cut in revenue on any film, so market forces may very well prevent 3d only from being the rule.

Personally, I have amblyopia, lazy eye to most, and am effectively blind in one eye. I don't see 3d in real life, the whole world looks like a movie to me. So, even 2d movies look pretty real, 3d would just be hard to see.

But again, movies that come out in 3D also come out in 2D. In fact, 3D is more expansive so some who can see it will still choose 2D.
And, also again, 12% doesn't mean much if we are looking at every single effected handicapped people.
I have no issue with forcing 2D as an option for people, in movies it is also about price of the ticket and in games it can just be an option, but 3D can easily be the norm.
Many games, for example, have a colour-blind mode.

I guess the real questions are: Does 3d actually add much to a game, and is it worth the extra costs (for the hardware and for the actual game creation). You know that some of the publishers are looking at this as an opportunity to increase the cost of their games even more. Ubisoft is already raising the price of their PC titles to $60, I'm sure they'd love to be able to raise it even more. I'd hate to see 3d become the norm, only to have the average price of games jump by $10 or more. I'd especially hate that given that I'd have to play the game in 2d mode, so I'd be paying more for exactly the same thing I get now. That's a selfish reason, I'll grant you, but I'm a selfish person I guess

 

[maxben]

3D shouldn't be just an extra just because some people can't see it.
I mean, blind people can't see movies at all and need them described.
That's called a handicap option, and there is no reason 3D movies can't have one for those who cannot see 3D.
However, a minority of the population cannot control technological/entertainment trends just because it does not work for them.
As such, this should not be a worry at all.

Well I think that 3D shouldn't just not be optional, it shouldn't exist at all because all it does is make things pop out of the screen. Whoopy I enjoy this 3D because real life just wasnt good enough. Weeeeee!

no thats not why we watch movies, we watch movies to get away from real life and perhaps get closer to a girl who doesn't feel "that way" about us yet. If i wanted 3D i'd, i dont know walk outside maybe?

Personally its those damn talkies that I dislike!
Whatever happened to the good ol' days where I could sit comfortably and read the screen while a wonderful pianist played a soundtrack?
I loved that pianist!

 

[maxben]

3D shouldn't be just an extra just because some people can't see it.
I mean, blind people can't see movies at all and need them described.
That's called a handicap option, and there is no reason 3D movies can't have one for those who cannot see 3D.
However, a minority of the population cannot control technological/entertainment trends just because it does not work for them.
As such, this should not be a worry at all.

12% is a pretty big percentage, much more than the percentage of blind people. If a movie is released in 3d only, they've effectively cut their potential attendance by that amount, not an insignificant problem for movies with such large budgets. There aren't many movie studios seriously willing to take a near guaranteed 12% cut in revenue on any film, so market forces may very well prevent 3d only from being the rule.

Personally, I have amblyopia, lazy eye to most, and am effectively blind in one eye. I don't see 3d in real life, the whole world looks like a movie to me. So, even 2d movies look pretty real, 3d would just be hard to see.

But again, movies that come out in 3D also come out in 2D. In fact, 3D is more expansive so some who can see it will still choose 2D.
And, also again, 12% doesn't mean much if we are looking at every single effected handicapped people.
I have no issue with forcing 2D as an option for people, in movies it is also about price of the ticket and in games it can just be an option, but 3D can easily be the norm.
Many games, for example, have a colour-blind mode.

I guess the real questions are: Does 3d actually add much to a game, and is it worth the extra costs (for the hardware and for the actual game creation). You know that some of the publishers are looking at this as an opportunity to increase the cost of their games even more. Ubisoft is already raising the price of their PC titles to $60, I'm sure they'd love to be able to raise it even more. I'd hate to see 3d become the norm, only to have the average price of games jump by $10 or more. I'd especially hate that given that I'd have to play the game in 2d mode, so I'd be paying more for exactly the same thing I get now. That's a selfish reason, I'll grant you, but I'm a selfish person I guess

Unfortunately, the price has to rise.
We all know this, gaming companies are not making enough money due to pirating and inflation (in fact, the pricing of games has changed so little that we are actually paying less though it looks like more).
3D would probably solve a tonne of problems for publishers while giving the consumer something new to play with.
Otherwise, they would need to increase the price without us getting anything.

 

[purf]

[sub]Sorry for the bump, but[/sub]

Huh. Now look at this! I was researching around for stereoblindness which I'm somewhat affected by, trying to figure out whether the Oculus Rift will ever do something for me and I'm opening pages at random, suddenly wondering how there's an 'Escapist' at the very right of my tabs. Nice

might as well leave this here:

http://kotaku.com/i-am-stereoblind-but-the-3ds-lets-me-see-the-world-as-484508038
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCCtphdXhq8