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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So anyone else who can see 3d never going to jump on ship with it because the concept itself annoys them?

My virtual world and my real world must remain two separate entities (unless we get a .hack style of gaming)

well since I'm legally blind in one eye(It's just extremely blurry) and near sighted in the other, 3D to is just a total waste of time.

FallenTraveler:

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.

Do you know what it's like not being able to see in 3d? Yeah, they have handicapped versions of movies for blind people, but when there are older people who can't see, and a portion of otherwise normal people who can't see in 3d, it becomes a bigger deal.

OT: I cannot see the stereoscopic 3d, I had a lazy eye, and as such, my eye is drifting back into the laze... I can sit there and try and watch a 3d movie, but then I dont really see the movie cause I'm trying to get the 3d to work.

I really hope games don't go completely 3d, or else I wont even be able to enjoy my hobby anymore... :(

I don't think it does. We have people who cannot see (including those who are colour blind), people who cannot hear, and people who cannot use a controller/keyboard+mouse because of a variety of physical handicaps.
Those who cannot see in 3D do not make a wave in the pool of handicaps, and it is by far the easiest group to create a handicap mode for (just take out the 3D).
You will be able to enjoy your hobby in 2D, but, frankly, you won't be able to enjoy it as much as those who can see in 3D.
Because, no offense, I don't want MY enjoyment to be affected by YOUR handicap.
So let's use the colour blind example, should all games be in black and white just because some people can't differentiate between certain colours?
Those who cannot see in 3D have a handicap that has not been too important to entertainment as colour has, but now things are changing and your handicap is coming to the surface.
You have every right to DEMAND a 2D version of everything, but not to argue that 3D gaming is bad or should not be created or even should not be found in the majority of games.

Just another reason to save the money instead of diddling with this.

Rakkana:
The old 3D messed with my eyes. The one with colored filters. And I couldn't see the 3D in that.

I don't have a problem with the new version though.

Like-wise

OT: i dont think this will effect people trying to sell it but it sure is going to put a dent in the sales. If the number is really that high then 3D TV and games will suffer greatly.

I get migraines from 3D.
It sucks.

Hmm. I have had no problem when playing the Virtual Boy when I was 3-4... And yes, I had no headache at all when playing it for hours.

But I doubt that the numbers are actually 1 in 10 people... Would be pretty sucky to be that 1...

EDIT:: Trust me to misread the thread...

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.

Sebenko:
So, 3D.

Things leap out of the screen. What a great innovation.

And what do we get for this massive "leap" forward? 12 in 100 can't see it, you have to wear stupid glasses AND the hardware is fucking expensive.

I really hope 3D fucks off soon.

I strongly agree.

I have not botherd even trying to see 3D
But that is only because I still have a bunch of popup books at home.
I will certainly fall in line once they show me true 3D at a cost that makes anyone who buys it a sucker and a tool.

i have an eye stigmatism where basically i can only see blurs out of my left eye so its my right eye that does all the seeing anyway so 3d wont work for me

Count me in that small percentage.

I seriously hate 3D. It gives me headches, hurts my eyes, and just makes watching a video uncomfortable.

hawkeye52:
i have an eye stigmatism where basically i can only see blurs out of my left eye so its my right eye that does all the seeing anyway so 3d wont work for me

This is exactly what I have. Word for word.

So yeah, I know how you feel. It sucks...

I am sorely tempted to do a well-known racist joke on the title subject, but I don't think I need to anyway. We all probably know what it is already and too much risk of actually being taken seriously on it.

Bah...double post

I am not affected by the 3D that much but it sure as hell is not comfortable to use it. I keep hoping Nintendo releases some 3DS-cinema like 3D. Without using glasses and still seeing 3D in it's natural state.

So far, the only 3D movie totally worth it is Avatar. The rest are scams if you ask me.

I'm blind in my right eye. Needless to see, 3d things don't work for me.

I'm legally blind in my left eye and can't see in 3d (my depth perception is crap as well), and every time I've tried I've gotten a blistering headache within fifteen minutes.

I can see 3D fine enough, but I do get massive headaches after looking at it for a while. Thank god for the 3DS's slider.

And this is why '3D' tech will not take off until holographic TV becomes the norm - 12% of people can't see it, and everyone else gets a chronic headache from it. Very "New wave" Sony. Next: TV that jams needles into your eyes.

Meh it works fine for me. And I'm still under impressed by this whole 3D phase. Dammit when will they wake up and realise the future is 4D. :@

I find it funny that something like 3D is being pushed. 12% of their market wont be able to see it, and even then, it seems a decent other percent get headaches after watching it. If someone made a non-3D game and it had statistics like that, it would get reworked so it didn't do that anymore, or it would get straight up canned.

Tharwen:
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.

Swifteye:

Tharwen:
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.

Glad to see that there are enough people like me that 3D doesn't work for to keep it from becoming too mainstream, I'd hate to give up my hobbies because I can't see what I'm doing.

That 12% get to miss out on a fad. Boo hoo?

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.

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).

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

Royas:

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.

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...

Tharwen:

Swifteye:

Tharwen:
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.

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?

Guess I'm one of them.

maxben:

Royas:

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 :)

ukstriker:

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!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here