By any chance, is there anyone out there with steroblindness
who has seen a recent 3D movie, and can describe what that experience
was like?  Thanks!

PS. For what it's worth, Polaroid has been in use in conjunction with
films since the '30s. Red and cyan (anaglyph) glasses haven't been
used in any serious (emphasis on "serious") films for years.

"Neil Midkiff" <nmidk... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:-aednU2y4ofJRsfXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...

J. Theakston wrote:

PS. For what it's worth, Polaroid has been in use in conjunction with
films since the '30s.  Red and cyan (anaglyph) glasses haven't been
used in any serious (emphasis on "serious") films for years.

I'm guessing that she's seen 3-D still photos in printed books done this
way, with the red/cyan glasses in a little pocket inside the front cover,
and assumed that movies still used the same technology.

-Neil Midkiff

Heck, she might have seen those "antique" 3-D films that Robert Rodriguez
released
in anaglyph, "Spy Kids 3-D" and "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl"!
That was 2003 and 2005 respectively.  

J. Theakston wrote:

PS. For what it's worth, Polaroid has been in use in conjunction with
films since the '30s. Red and cyan (anaglyph) glasses haven't been
used in any serious (emphasis on "serious") films for years.

I'm guessing that she's seen 3-D still photos in printed books done this
way, with the red/cyan glasses in a little pocket inside the front cover,
and assumed that movies still used the same technology.

-Neil Midkiff

for one thing, my boy isn’t even aware yet that he has this
problem (I’m not 100% sure either, but it does seem highly likely at
this point.)

for one thing, my boy isn’t even aware yet that he has this
problem (I’m not 100% sure either, but it does seem highly likely at
this point.)

I didn't know until I was 30, it was at a boilerplate eye test at some
eyeglass chain like VisionWorld or whatever.  They put a pair of
polarized glasses on you, have you look at a card, & ask which pattern
is different.  Be aware that even if he can detect which pattern is
different, it won't be a gauge of successful stereo vision.  I passed
the 70s-era drivers license "look in the box and see which is closer"
stereopsis test just by comparing left and right images.

Don't think that it's best for him to not know if his stereo vision is
less than typical, thinking that he'll adapt, improve, or it will make
no difference.  He needs to know what he's working with, and know that
he can get along as well as everyone else and even better in most
situations with monocular depth cues.  But take it from someone who
knows, he's going to hear "Anyone can do it if they just keep trying"
from people aiming baseballs, tennis balls, footballs,  ping-pong
balls, etc. for years, and there's not a chance in hell that he will
without average stereopsis.

A little off the subject but FYI. My wife has astigmatism and she is
unable to get any 3D effect on the anaglyphic system. The glasses
eliminate the double image is all. The polaroid system works just
fine with full 3D effects.
Larry

for one thing, my boy isn’t even aware yet that he has this
problem (I’m not 100% sure either, but it does seem highly likely at
this point.)

I didn't know until I was 30, it was at a boilerplate eye test at some
eyeglass chain like VisionWorld or whatever.  They put a pair of
polarized glasses on you, have you look at a card, & ask which pattern
is different.  Be aware that even if he can detect which pattern is
different, it won't be a gauge of successful stereo vision.  I passed
the 70s-era drivers license "look in the box and see which is closer"
stereopsis test just by comparing left and right images.

Don't think that it's best for him to not know if his stereo vision is
less than typical, thinking that he'll adapt, improve, or it will make
no difference.  He needs to know what he's working with, and know that
he can get along as well as everyone else and even better in most
situations with monocular depth cues.  But take it from someone who
knows, he's going to hear "Anyone can do it if they just keep trying"
from people aiming baseballs, tennis balls, footballs,  ping-pong
balls, etc. for years, and there's not a chance in hell that he will
without average stereopsis.

"Neil Midkiff" <nmidk... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:-aednU2y4ofJRsfXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...

J. Theakston wrote:

PS. For what it's worth, Polaroid has been in use in conjunction with
films since the '30s. Red and cyan (anaglyph) glasses haven't been
used in any serious (emphasis on "serious") films for years.

I'm guessing that she's seen 3-D still photos in printed books done this
way, with the red/cyan glasses in a little pocket inside the front
cover,
and assumed that movies still used the same technology.

-Neil Midkiff

Heck, she might have seen those "antique" 3-D films that Robert Rodriguez
released
in anaglyph, "Spy Kids 3-D" and "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl"!
That was 2003 and 2005 respectively. ;)

Again, emphasis on "serious."

J. Theakston

What wasn't "serious" about Rodriguez's projects?

I also agree with Scott, that G-force doesn’t exactly look like the
greatest movie in the world.

That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and happens to be in stereoscopic 3D (as opposed to computer-animated in 3D e.g. with threedimensional data - I am a bit worried about this latest confusion)?

Hands down: Stereoscopic 3D will always be a gimmick, no matter what they try to tell us now (for at least the third time in a hundred years of cinema)...