What makes this more interesting is that our brains have always had to convert
an inverted image:
http://www.ehow.com/about_6588437_eye-sees-upside-down.html
I don't like 3D, either. Gives me headaches. I was at a Sony outlet store
yesterday and bought a 2D TV. They were pushing 3D and saying all the current
2D and 3D TVs would be replaced later this year with a new line of 3D TVs. I
hope they don't discontinue 2D if it means sets will all be more expensive. One
thing that surprised me was they had a 40" 3D set for $900 or so and it came
with the glasses. Often, it's the top of the line sets that have them bundled.
I let the salesperson know I had no problem with buying a 3D set if the price
was not over-inflated, but that there was no way I was kicking in extra money
for a set because it came bundled with the glasses.
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> Bhairitu, Slate.com has a series of columns on 3D by a
> guy named Daniel Engber, the most recent of which is a
> rebuttal to Ebert, including Ebert's post with the letter
> from Murch.
>
> Among other points, he says the more 3D movies he watches,
> the fewer problems he has watching them. He speculates
> that his brain is actually adapting to the new type of
> visual stimuli and is beginning to process them differently.
>
> I've never seen a 3D film, but that makes sense to me on
> a theoretical basis. The visual system can adapt to all
> kinds of weird distortions. (See note below.)
>
> Engber also points out that this new generation of 3D is
> still in its infancy and that there are no uniform
> standards or techniques yet. He thinks there's a lot of
> room for technological (and artistic) development that
> may be able to eliminate or reduce some of the current
> problems.
>
> He seems to be a pretty thoughtful guy. You might enjoy
> the columns. This is the latest one; it has lots of
> embedded links, many of which are to his earlier columns
> on the topic:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2282376/
>
> -----
>
> Note: There was one experiment I recall reading about in
> which subjects wore special glasses that turned what they
> were seeing upside-down. At first it was terribly
> disorienting, but after a few days wearing the glasses,
> their brains figured out--spontaneously, without any
> training--how to change the body's orientation to the
> visual image so they could function normally. Then when
> they took the glasses *off* they had to go through the
> same process in reverse.
>
> There's an interesting discussion of this experiment
> and others like it here, with links to the original paper
> and other material on the phenomena involved:
>
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127812
>
>
> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote:
> >
> > Roger Ebert has
> > commented before on his disdain for 3D but this article has
> > a letter from award winning editor Walter Murch on 3D pretty
> > much nailing the problem with 3D. I predict it will go away
> > just as it did in the 1950s and remain only for an occasion
> > "road show" feature. BTW, 3D TVs aren't selling either no
> > matter how hard they push them. People are saying "I just
> > bought a new TV a couple years ago and 3D gives me a headache."
> >
> > http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
>
