|
I've given them a couple of tries now, thinking I might get used to it eventually. That hasn't happened yet.
It takes a long time before my eyes "snap in" and stop seeing two superimposed images, and then occasionally with a scene change, they snap right out again. Subtitles are just totally lost, not that I really need them anyway.. and if they do "the 3D gimmick" with suddenly putting an object right in front of the viewer, well that really doesn't work for me.
How is that going for you people? Am I just doing it wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
No problems for me. Try not to think about it so much. Just look.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: Try not to think about it so much. Just look.
Works pretty much for all films IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds superficially reasonable, but when it looks like two superimposed images I can't not think about that. It's wrong and extremely distracting.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember these[^]? I never see anything in them. no matter how hard I try. It only works for me when I unintentionally look at it. The same for the direction of a rotating wireframe cube on a flat screen.
Don't try to tell the image processor between your ears how to do its work. 
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
...looks like two superimposed images...
Shut one eye. Sorted! 
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer to go to an authorized cinema, with better equipments to enjoy the movie and not just watch the movie. To enjoy the 3D, also select the movie that demonstrates the 3D. Regular drama is not the way to go.
I am going Lahore this week, to watch Justice League in 3D in IMAX 3D. I tried different cinemas and personally it is the quality and encoding of the presenter that might piss you off, I watched Thor: Ragnarok at a non-IMAX and it was a pain most of the times.
Also, I am not sponsoring IMAX.  Just making a point, that 3D can be really amazing if your cinema is good and the movie itself also has some 3D elements. If you try watching a normal movie in 3D, you will not enjoy it. But movies with extensive animations and composition can really make you feel the movie; Doctor Strange was one of such.
Avengers: Infinity Wars would be the next for me.
Edit:
Oh and I missed a point, you can also consider the VR Box, that has a good ability presenting you with the 3D movies entertainment. I have one of those at home and I love it. I use my own mobile to play the movie and the VR Box does the rest.
This one:
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
The way new movies have used 3D is much more organic than older films that used it as a gimmick. Now it is just a depth of field thing rather than "Woah! that Yo-yo came right at me!" or the spear from a spear gun flying at the viewer in Friday the 13th part 3D.
|
|
|
|
|
Mostly I get dizzy, so I avoid them -- I have a very strong optical prescription.
One I saw in IMAX 3D was ok, one I saw in a dedicated theatre was better.
But one in a normal theatre was awful.
|
|
|
|
|
Can't see them at all - I don't have stereoscopic vision - so I'm kind of glad that they're going out of fashion.
I love that scene in The Simpsons where Bart and Homer are sat in a cinema watching a 3D movie and Bart says something to the effect of "Wow! This is awesome! Why can't real life be in 3D, too?"
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
The people in the movies I watch are all in 3D, and I have no problem with it. Mind you, I had also no problem with 2D cartoons.
|
|
|
|
|
I am still waiting for movies to make the leap into a full 360° VR experience. I cannot wait to be able to watch the movie from inside the movie. That will be awesome.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
My problem is that they are dimmer, and my eyes don't handle low light levels as well as they used to. Then again, even my gf, 17 years younger, complains about 3D movies being hard to see because they're darker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can "watch them", but that doesn't mean I like what I'm seeing.
With very few exceptions with 3D movies, I've always felt like I was watching an image being projected on a flat pane of glass. Then further behind, there's another image being projected on another pane of glass, with nothing occupying the volume of empty space between them. Then add a few more layers like this to compose the entire scene. It all comes across to me as very artificial.
What I find to be exceptionally bad with 3D movies is when focus is set on a person in the middle of a scene, with another person closer to you from your perspective, as if you're watching over their shoulder, and the person that's the closest to you is blurred/out of focus. It's a great effect for 2D movies and directors use it to draw your eye to what you should be paying attention to, but this is completely unnatural for 3D ones.
These days--if I can buy a movie on Blu-ray, and the 3D version is also included in the same package for a few extra bucks (say, less than $10 in difference), I'll splurge for it - but if I have to choose between the two, I'll always pick the 2D version.
|
|
|
|
|
Works fine until they overdo it.
But I've actually had two different classmates in school that didn't have stereoscopic viewing.
One of them had some kind of bad connection in his brain. He could see either on his left side, OR his right side, unless he closed one eye. Then he could see both sides at the same time. He could switch mentally and instantly.
|
|
|
|
|
No, not a programming question, it's a question (observation) about programming.
Noticed so many newbies within hours of deciding to "learn c#" are out on the board asking "how do I do X in linq." Why is that?
Deciding to learn C# is useful, be it a first or second programming language and one can map a lot of that same skill onto other languages, even auto convert it. But they want to jump straight into linq which is too unique, doesn't convert well, doesn't map well, and if overused [at the expense of fully learning c#] can even limit application design choices.
Perhaps authors of c# books/tutorials should highlight the fact that although linq is useful:
it probably should be learned later, after one has some mastery of c#,
it should be used [as intended] to supplement c#, not replace it,
just because one line of linq can replace a few lines of c#, that doesn't always make it better, faster or smarter and can even reduce maintainability.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: "My friend told me I should use LINQ."
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
That's why beginners need to learn the basics of how to think like a computer on a simple teaching language first.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: a simple teaching language first.
So you recommend VB in other words? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
I think they should learn GWBasic or BasicA first, then spend the next 10 years learning assembler, c, c++, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol. Maybe then they can ask a proper question in Q&A rather than "CODZ PLZ".
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others.
Same thing when you are stupid.
modified 19-Nov-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
That's pretty close to how I did it... Except for the time frame which is more like 30 years 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, same here. 
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others.
Same thing when you are stupid.
modified 19-Nov-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
My first exposure to code was Basic on an Apple II.
10?"Hello
...
50 goto 10
Then when I found a C tutorial on a shareware CD, I couldn't figure out why GOTO was all the way in chapter 12! After all, I had no idea what a function was, and had it stuck in my mind that goto was needed for everything... Instead of reading from chapters 1-12, I just searched for Goto, and went from there.
(Small remote town, no internet at the time, as it wasn't much of a thing outside of universities yet)
|
|
|
|
|
"basics of how to think like a computer"
The language that most closely matches "how computers think" is Assembly language and even that is an abstraction to allow us mortals to approximate thinking like a computer without having to program in machine code.
Back when computers had console switches & lights on them (to read out registers, and various other things internal to the computer) you could arguably say you could think like a computer if you could use these things fluently. Yes, there were actually people who could stand at the front console and program the darn things.
All of the higher level languages are further abstractions of machine code to bring it into a form that we can more easily express our thoughts in.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
