Unbeknown to me, there is actually a name for the inability I have to see in 3D, even with the fancy glasses. I’ve never been able to see those “hidden drawings,” and I wear glasses to somewhat ameliorate my lack of depth perception so that I can drive. But I didn’t know there was a name for it. I’m a “flat-viewer,” and I am not alone. As much as 10% of the population gets nothing from the 3D experience but a headache and memories of a blurry movie. Even with the glasses on, I can see the picture clearly but do not get the effects of the 3D, and worse yet, I get a limited view of the rich colors that may be in the movie as these are very muted with the glasses on a flat-viewer.
So, I’ve avoided anything 3D, because I don’t like the headaches, and I don’t get what the big deal is. All this talk of 3D televisions and full-time 3D channels in the home don’t impress me. Not that I think that manufacturers and media providers should consider this rather limited disability as anything they need to accommodate for, I just wonder what it means to others like me who just don’t give a hoot about the whole thing. And really, aren’t there some things that are best left in 2D to begin with?
My impression is that this will be a fad that passes. Fun to think about, perhaps, but in the long-term, still only a once-in-a-while bit of fun to enjoy (for those that can see it, that is).
Pete, I’m glad you could see all the fabulous effects. Unfortunately, I never did “get” 3-D until I was an adult and an ophthalmologist explained that I could not see depth and would never see depth. Watching 3D, even with the glasses that are supposed to make everything look so fun, I can’t see anything but blurring and very muted colors, and usually end up with a headache. It’s 2D for me!
Well I recently went to see Avatar in 3D with my daughter, it’s the first time I’d been to the movies for ages and I thought the effects were stunning! we didn’t get a headache either…it was just like being in the action.