posted 04-19-2011 04:40 PM                       

quote: Frank Angel

---

While in the graphic they didn't use red and green lenses, they still use red and green arrows. Will we ever get past this myth that 3D is anglyphic?

---

posted 04-19-2011 10:54 PM                       

quote: Steve Guttag

---

While he did use the RED/Green arrow...I don't think there was ever a mention or intent to portray that as anaglyphic.

---

Steve, I did realized this was all he was doing with the use of the colored arrows, it's just the whole red/green glasses thing has practically grown into a cultural icon by this point and it really makes my skin crawl because it's just so wrong, like calling a projector a "camera."

I just went to Richard's Franklin Design link in the thread about silver screen paint and here's how this cutting edge cinema design company on their home page represents 3D:
I mean really -- see what I mean?! It's just so weird because even if people were too young to recall ALL the 3D movies in the 50s, certainly they are old enough to remember the over/under stuff from the 80s and NONE of them, not a single one ever used anaglyphic. Now unless the ONLY 3D films these people saw were the two Black & White titles CREATURE and OUTER SPACE that Universal released almost as a joke in VERY limited specialty runs in anglyphic, it's a mystery to me how this could ever have morphed into what EVERYONE now claims was how the "old" 3D movies were shown. It just makes no sense to me how we got to this persistant global error.

As for eye strain, yes in nature you focus at the same point you converge....we get that, but as Manny says, that doesn't seem to be a major issue for most people when all other parameters are where they should be. I contend that well-planned/well executed stereo cinematograph with CORRECT, smooth convergence transitions from shot to shot is the BIGGEST factor in not abusing the viewers' eyeballs, much moreso I think than focus/convergence point discrepencies.

I was a pre-teen when I saw almost all of those 50s films and never, EVER got even the slightest discomfort, headaches, eye-strain, etc. I did see them in a flagship theatre on Long Island which had flawless presentation all the time. I saw them all again a few years ago at Jeff Joseph's 3D World Expo at the Egyptian and again, presentation was flawless -- dual projector, so that eliminated the temporal staggering which some people seem to be very sensitive to, again, moreso than the focus/convergence issue. At the Egyptian we all watched 3 feature 3D films plus 3D shorts every day for a week. I never heard anyone complain of the so-called eye-strain.

I think the eye/brain focusing and convergence at different points is really only a mental coordination that can be easily learned. It doesn't strain eye muscles because those muscles are capable of moving the eyes and the lenses to those positions all the time. It's only the coordination of the two that is different, the muscles are not being strained. And like all coordination of muscles, it's a learned thing. If all those people who watched AVATAR are any indication, the brain seems, at least in the majority of people, capable of learning how to coordinate and synchronize those different moves and does so without too much effort or side effects.

posted 04-20-2011 03:37 AM                    

quote: Frank Angel

---

I contend that well-planned/well executed stereo cinematograph with CORRECT, smooth convergence transitions from shot to shot is the BIGGEST factor in not abusing the viewers' eyeballs, much moreso I think than focus/convergence point discrepencies.

---

posted 04-20-2011 10:13 AM                   

quote: Frank Angel

---

At the Egyptian we all watched 3 feature 3D films plus 3D shorts every day for a week.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

temporal staggering which some people seem to be very sensitive to

---