But the flat-viewer’s experience with 3D imagery can vary. While I find viewing 3D imagery uncomfortable, Daniel Terdiman, another person at CNET who can’t see 3D, saw the 3D version of Avatar and wore the 3D glasses. It looked fine to him, just not 3D.
[The article continues into the realm of 3D for TV, and give the authors experiences to questions partially answered, and even sometimes answered wrongly. Not only is there a problem with getting the data to the people on the convention floor, and their need tospin or hedge what they do or don’t know, but the reality is that the studies they need to make any emperical statement just haven’t really been done.
So, there is anecdotal data and a lot of opinion. The comments to his article are painful to read. And the same type of comments show up in professional as well as consumer journals.
There was a recent headline that claimed a million TV sets are now in the field which are 3D capable. The essential meaning is that they can put pictures up at a rate exceeding 100Hz, meaning a left and right image at the same 50 or 60Hz rate that last year’s technology allowed. If they are able to turn one of those images off, allowing just the right or left eye image to stream at 50/60Hz, then the movie will be ultimately the same as what we are used to.
Mark Shubin’s Cafe article of August 2, 2009 (3D for the One-Eyed) makes a point about several of the natural clues we get about depth. Read it before reading the balance of:
TV industry turns a blind eye to non-3D viewers
January 15, 2010 4:00 AM PST
PS–Mark closes his article with the best advice:
Meanwhile, keep an open mind and remember that things aren’t always what they seem.
Links from the article: