This is topic 2D Glasses in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000790

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-19-2011, 06:55 AM:
 
While this can apply to film...by and large, most 3D movies are today seen in DCinema theatres so I figured this was the best forum for it... 2-D Glasses are now available.

They have only considered Circular Polarization but again, that is the majority of the 3D out there now.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-19-2011, 10:58 AM:
 
While in the graphic they didn't use red and green lenses, they still use red and green arrows. Will we ever get past this myth that 3D is anglyphic? Besides, I thought the reason the old people whine about 3D is because the don't like wearing 3D glasses. This doesn't solve that vexing problem, although the ad does claim that 10% of the population get everything from headaches to nausea from watching 3D, which means that after every 3D show in a 300 seat theatre, 30 of them come out holding their heads in pain or vomiting in the restrooms.

Wonder if you walk in with these glasses you can refuse to pay the 3D surcharge. After all, you'll only be watching half the images in 2D....should be some compensation there. Yah, like that will fly...heh heh.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-19-2011, 11:59 AM:
 
While he did use the RED/Green arrow...I don't think there was ever a mention or intent to portray that as anaglyphic. The colors were merely being used to differentiate the different images...better than say a dashed and dotted lines.

This guy is just the layperson that kludged together a set of glasses for his wife and found that there was a market for it. Wait until someone tries using them in a Dolby 3D theatre!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-19-2011, 02:14 PM:
 
Oh my...

Just go see it in 2D -- eliminate the surcharge and get a brighter image.

Has there ever been a study to determine whether 3D eye-strain is caused by the 3D or the dimness of the image? I'm sure the dimness doesn't help.

The surcharge gives me "bank-strain."
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-19-2011, 02:58 PM:
 
Manny...the issue arises when, in the case of the "inventor", his wife gets eye strain but he does not...how can both enjoy the movie in the same theatre...the solution, let her see it in 2D while he sees it in 3D.

The eye strain comes from the very un-natural way the 3D is perceived...your eyes point to a virtual point in space yet are told to continue to focus at a different point (on the screen).
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-19-2011, 03:33 PM:
 
Sure -- I understand all of that -- I've made 3D shorts -- but I'm wondering why I didn't experience eye-strain with AVATAR, for example -- and that movie is LOOOOOoooooonggg -- so there is something more than just the convergence/focus issue.

Worst case for me so far was PIRANHA 3D -- presentation was dim and the planning/execution of the stereography was poor.

I still think the "inventor's wife" is in for a bad experience.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-19-2011, 04:25 PM:
 
The inventor's wife will still get a crappy, dim picture with ghosting and have to pay more for her ticket. Why does the inventor hate his wife so much?
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 04-19-2011, 04:40 PM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

While in the graphic they didn't use red and green lenses, they still use red and green arrows. Will we ever get past this myth that 3D is anglyphic?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

While he did use the RED/Green arrow...I don't think there was ever a mention or intent to portray that as anaglyphic.

---

Steve, I did realized this was all he was doing with the use of the colored arrows, it's just the whole red/green glasses thing has practically grown into a cultural icon by this point and it really makes my skin crawl because it's just so wrong, like calling a projector a "camera."

I just went to Richard's Franklin Design link in the thread about silver screen paint and here's how this cutting edge cinema design company on their home page represents 3D:
I mean really -- see what I mean?! It's just so weird because even if people were too young to recall ALL the 3D movies in the 50s, certainly they are old enough to remember the over/under stuff from the 80s and NONE of them, not a single one ever used anaglyphic. Now unless the ONLY 3D films these people saw were the two Black & White titles CREATURE and OUTER SPACE that Universal released almost as a joke in VERY limited specialty runs in anglyphic, it's a mystery to me how this could ever have morphed into what EVERYONE now claims was how the "old" 3D movies were shown. It just makes no sense to me how we got to this persistant global error.

As for eye strain, yes in nature you focus at the same point you converge....we get that, but as Manny says, that doesn't seem to be a major issue for most people when all other parameters are where they should be. I contend that well-planned/well executed stereo cinematograph with CORRECT, smooth convergence transitions from shot to shot is the BIGGEST factor in not abusing the viewers' eyeballs, much moreso I think than focus/convergence point discrepencies.

I was a pre-teen when I saw almost all of those 50s films and never, EVER got even the slightest discomfort, headaches, eye-strain, etc. I did see them in a flagship theatre on Long Island which had flawless presentation all the time. I saw them all again a few years ago at Jeff Joseph's 3D World Expo at the Egyptian and again, presentation was flawless -- dual projector, so that eliminated the temporal staggering which some people seem to be very sensitive to, again, moreso than the focus/convergence issue. At the Egyptian we all watched 3 feature 3D films plus 3D shorts every day for a week. I never heard anyone complain of the so-called eye-strain.

I think the eye/brain focusing and convergence at different points is really only a mental coordination that can be easily learned. It doesn't strain eye muscles because those muscles are capable of moving the eyes and the lenses to those positions all the time. It's only the coordination of the two that is different, the muscles are not being strained. And like all coordination of muscles, it's a learned thing. If all those people who watched AVATAR are any indication, the brain seems, at least in the majority of people, capable of learning how to coordinate and synchronize those different moves and does so without too much effort or side effects.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-20-2011, 02:11 AM:
 
If the statistics show that only 10% of the 3D audience experience eye strain...it stands to reason that you and Manny may not and be in the majority. However, 10% of a movie crowd is huge.

Claiming that mussels can be easily trained to deal with flawed depth perception is, at best, a theory of yours. After all, you wear glasses and I don't (yet, but boy is that day coming sooner rather than later)...does that mean you merely didn't train your eye mussels to focus better?

Despite Manny's claims, I've never experienced eye strain with darker images either. My eyes have always adapted pretty well to the dark and the light...never used sunglasses either.

Trying to equate what should be or normal just using oneself is not a valid control for making a general statement.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-20-2011, 03:37 AM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

I contend that well-planned/well executed stereo cinematograph with CORRECT, smooth convergence transitions from shot to shot is the BIGGEST factor in not abusing the viewers' eyeballs, much moreso I think than focus/convergence point discrepencies.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

At the Egyptian we all watched 3 feature 3D films plus 3D shorts every day for a week.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

temporal staggering which some people seem to be very sensitive to

---

quote: Dick Vaughan

---

We in the IMAX film community use red marked leaders on the right eye print and green on the left eye. The rollers on the QTRU matrix are similarly coloured to assist when lacing up.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

IMAX is definitely reversed as the red covers the left eye in almost all anaglyph situations.

---

but since the red lens allows that eye to see the green image, this is consistent.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-20-2011, 08:52 PM:
 
I'm still stuck at training mussels to see 3D. Do mussels have eyes? I thought they had valves.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-20-2011, 09:10 PM:
 

quote: Carl Martin

---

but since the red lens allows that eye to see the green image, this is consistent.

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

So you can sit with your date/friend.

---