Do you lose your 3D eyesight , one eye closed ? I dont get difference!

[Old-N-Feeble]

It doesn't hurt you, Michael. We adapt quickly so little things like this don't matter.

 

[wiltw]

An easy depth perception test that was done early in the days of aviation was to sit at a device with strings connected to two pegs, and you were supposed to pull on one string or the other, to laterally line up the pegs so they are positioned side by side.

 

[summicron1]

depth perception is learned because your brain has to learn to take the slightly different angles of view your left and right eyes see and read that distance as depth.

If you had eye problems as a child, it is possible your brain just never developed that ability. If you blink left and right eyes while looking at stuff on the table in front of you, you will see the slight shift in relation to each other because of the eyes' different angles of view. If you don't see that different as depth, it means your brain missed a step because of your eye problems.

but, no biggie. Sounds as if you do just fine. I have never been able to smell much, and I do fine as well.

 

[AgX]

That is why I advised to do the test in the airspace as then there are no other items, like on my filled-up desk-top, to give the brain some hint at size at distance.
But as you said, if one actually should lack stereo-vision and did not realize it so far by daily experience, there hardly is reason to bother.

 

[fdonadio]

I've never watched a movie in 3D, but it would probably not work for me.

You didn't miss anything.


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[bvy]

3-d vision is something you learn when you are about 3 months old. If you truly don't see any difference, it is possible you had lazy eye as a child and didn't wear the eye patch over your good eye to force your bad eye to develop, in which case perhaps you never learned 3-d?

You just described my childhood. I had to look again to make sure I didn't know you. I had lazy eye (left) as a child. "Put on your patch, Brian!" "Where's your patch, Brian?" The "patch" was a big flesh-colored Band-Aid affair that used to stick to my eyebrow. Very bad for the social life of a second grader. There were eye drops too, and even glasses with a clear left lens and blurry right lens.

Now I have diplopia -- or double vision. If I relax my eyes, my left eye wanders and everything doubles up. Right eye is still very dominant, so the left eye image is a distraction more than anything. I squint when I drive. And I never could make sense of those damn stereogram images. I still think it's the world's great joke on me.

 

[Helinophoto]

This is very easy to test.

Just take a walk on a foot-path or a forest trail with a patch over one eye and see how easy it is to judge the distances of branches, threes and other things as you move around.

You can also try and have your dinner with a patch over one eye, you should start having to concentrate to judge the distance to stuff on the table pretty quickly (but you will overcome, even if you risk knocking something over).

Big difference..

 

[Helinophoto]

Now I have diplopia -- or double vision. If I relax my eyes, my left eye wanders and everything doubles up. Right eye is still very dominant, so the left eye image is a distraction more than anything. I squint when I drive. And I never could make sense of those damn stereogram images. I still think it's the world's great joke one me.

Stereograms isn't all that impressive anyway.

You simply squint and adjust distance, so that the two images (your eye form) of the one photo, float together.
When they lock, you end up with a stereoscopic image.

The same effect can be achieved with ie a chain-link fence, gives a funny feeling, feels like the eyes are "locked" on target somehow.

Better to just check out some good-old stereo-photo's instead, instead of some weird cartoon, covered with a funny pattern.

 

[silveror0]

Speaking of confusing the brain, it is true. Last week I was faced with a medical technician who had a very severe problem with her eyes. Her left eye was looking past MY right shoulder, and her other eye was looking toward HER right about as far as its azimuth would permit. My brain got confused because I didn't know where to make eye contact with her, so I had to focus on her nose between her eyes. It was like a car with front wheel alignment splayed outward severely; if I tried such a car I'd surely crash!

 

[cliveh]

I once knew a guy who was blind in one eye and he told me that when driving a car he was able to judge the speed of another car by moving his head quickly to perceive stereo vision with one eye.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Okay... that's just weird.

 

[summicron1]

^^^ Okay... that's just weird.

actually, if you go to the Smithsonian library and look at stereograms, one of the options they have for viewing them is to flicker them rapidly between the left and right image, alternating, and when they do that you do get a sense of 3-D-- your brain sees the difference between the two images and analyzes them as the same image and tells you that it is a stereo image.

Brains are amazing little processors of information.

my father in law had lazy eye and refused to wear the patch. He went through life blind in that eye as a result. To him my stereo pictures were no big deal.

 

[summicron1]

I've never watched a movie in 3D, but it would probably not work for me.
You didn't miss anything.


--- Actually, the digital 3-D movies they are making now are darn good. They use digital projectors so synchronization is not a problem like it used to be. I go see them every chance I get and the 3-D effect is very good if used wisely.

It is still too easy to use 3-D as a gimmick -- if they are shooting harpoons directly at the camera, that is a cheap trick -- and actually very difficult to use it wisely as part of the whole experience. but when done well, it's worth it. The film "Avatar" was one of the really good ones.

 

[fdonadio]

the 3-D effect is very good if used wisely

This seems to be very uncommon. Most of the time, it's just a gimmick. Maybe I could agree that it's better than the exaggerated use of explosions, violence and sex in movies, but... most of the times, it's used to make those very same explosions and violence more graphic!

Yes, "Avatar" was one of the very few examples of 3D used the right way.

I, for one, like to watch a good story that makes me think. Honestly, 3D won't help telling a good story in cinema, along with the heavy use of SFX and CGI nowadays.

But this is just my opinion, of course.

Cheers,
Flavio

 

[Alan Klein]

We recently bought a Sony 4K 3d TV because Samsung and most of the others have dropped 3D in their 2016 models. Actually 3D is nice. We watched Everest and the latest Mad Max. Pretty good. I agree it can be distracting to the story line. Also, YouTube has a lot of 3D clips. There was one that had a raft trip down the Colorado including the rapids in the Grand Canyon that was very nice. I watched a Richard Attenborough nature film that was very good in 3D, on flight of insects and birds. Some of the YouTube 3d's are amateurish and they flicker. Of course you are using active 3D glasses but they're actually pretty good. Of course my UHDTV comes with HDR, great color. Often you have a choice of buying and/or watching either 4K HDR or 2K 3D. The formers color and resolution is superb. But then the latter has 3D. So it's hard to decide which to watch. You could watch it twice, but who really want to do that?