PDA

View Full Version : Can't watch 3D movies because of lazy right eye



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2011-Jan-10, 02:37 PM
I've known that I have a "lazy" right eye for years. My optometrist told me that my eye is actually truned in a little bit (which came as a surprise). For the above reasons I can't watch a 3D movie. This really annoys me due the the fact that 3D seems to be the current fad of movie making. I just hope that the next Trek movie is in 2D as well. Really a small problem compaired to others (I know). Happy New Year everyone.

Jens
2011-Jan-11, 05:47 AM
I just hope that the next Trek movie is in 2D as well. Really a small problem compaired to others (I know). Happy New Year everyone.

For the foreseeable future, won't 3D movies generally have 2D versions, just because so many people watch movies on DVD and don't have 3D TVs?

Bobunf
2011-Jan-11, 07:25 AM
You can't see 3-D because you don't have binocular vision or are not using your binocular vision with the glasses. If your eyes don't point in the same direction, two widely divergent images are presented to your image processing centers, and the images can't be melded into a single view of the world with depth. The solution is to select one image and suppress the other. Peripheral vision continues to be used in both eyes. Sometimes the image from one eye is permanently suppressed.

You probably see out of your right eye if you cover your good eye, but some people with your condition don't.

This is not a small problem. It's something that needs to be treated. It's called strabismus. Look it up. Sometimes people with strabismus develop another condition called nystagmus. The normal pursuit mechanism of human eyes involves a dampened sine wave search pattern. The sine wave doesn't dampen with people with nystagmus and their vision is blurred. You don't want that.

Binocular vision is learned generally by about four months, after which the cells responsible for this incredible feat of image processing very gradually fade, getting co-opted for something else or dying. People in their sixties have learned binocular vision, but it becomes increasingly difficult with age - just as learning a first second language becomes more difficult. Hopefully, you're very young.

Treatment for strabimus can be as simple and inexpensive as eye exercises, patching and using prisms. It could require surgery. It is a very routine operation, but it's your eyesight; get a very experienced surgeon at a teaching hospital or a place like the Mayo Clinic. I can make some recommendations. You could also look up the American Nystagmus Network.

Do something about this; don't go through life with hobbled eyesight and lacking the sense of depth perception. 3-D movies are one thing; driving is another far more important use of all the capabilities of your vision.

mfumbesi
2011-Jan-11, 09:21 AM
The concept of a "lazy" eye always makes me chuckle a little.(no offense intended I'm just goofing off)
Its like one eye is doing all the work and the other is a bit of a slob, it doesn't clean after itself and it lives like a hilly-billy.

parallaxicality
2011-Jan-11, 09:27 AM
I have that problem. And I had patches for years as a kid. Still have it.

Bearded One
2011-Jan-11, 11:51 PM
The advent of 3D TV is helping bring this problem to light for a lot of people. Some people never realized there was anything wrong, or at least different, with their eyesight until they try watching a 3D movie and it doesn't "work" for them.

Bobunf
2011-Jan-12, 12:46 AM
People without depth perception are missing out on a piece of the world. It's like not having color perception, except that many people with this problem can resolve it fairly inexpensively. Imagine if you were color blind, if there were a cure, and you didn't bother, what you would miss in life.

People with this problem should take it very seriously and get treatment, if only because they shouldn't just give up on a wonderful ability to perceive. But also because it can lead to other problems, like car wrecks and worsening vision. The sooner the better, because it gets harder to learn with age.

Imagine the feeling of having the whole world just pop out one day. All of a sudden, it's a whole new world. Go for it.

WaxRubiks
2011-Jan-12, 04:34 AM
anyway; why can't you watch them BBP?

Surely you can still wear the 3D glasses, and that will get rid of the image meant for your other eye, leaving you a clear image for your good eye.

--
For DVDs, I think it would be possible to turn the movies into red-green pictures so that people could wear the red-green glasses. Sure you would lose the colour but it might be worth it for some people....I wonder if there is enough room on a DVD for the films in both formats.

Tobin Dax
2011-Jan-12, 05:07 AM
People without depth perception are missing out on a piece of the world. It's like not having color perception, except that many people with this problem can resolve it fairly inexpensively. Imagine if you were color blind, if there were a cure, and you didn't bother, what you would miss in life.

People with this problem should take it very seriously and get treatment, if only because they shouldn't just give up on a wonderful ability to perceive. But also because it can lead to other problems, like car wrecks and worsening vision. The sooner the better, because it gets harder to learn with age.

Imagine the feeling of having the whole world just pop out one day. All of a sudden, it's a whole new world. Go for it.

Sometimes it cannot be treated. But thank you for telling me that I'm wrong for not wasting time and money on further attempts. Thank you for telling me that my experiences in the world will always be lacking. And finally, thank you for telling me what a danger to the public I am.

Jens
2011-Jan-12, 05:22 AM
Imagine the feeling of having the whole world just pop out one day. All of a sudden, it's a whole new world. Go for it.

Just to add a tiny bit to what Tobin Dax wrote, but the way you wrote that sounded a little bit patronizing, though I'm sure you didn't intend it. I think it would have been enough just to say something like, "I used to have that problem myself, and found treatment really helpful, so I'd recommend it."

WaxRubiks
2011-Jan-12, 05:22 AM
my old art teacher only had one eye, after a motorbike accident....It's better than being blind though.
I have diabetes and worry about losing my sight.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-12, 09:18 AM
Also, if stereoptic vision has never been achieved before, then even if the physical condition that caused one eye to be misaligned is cured, there's no guarantee it's possible to learn to combine the two images to a whole.

SeanF
2011-Jan-12, 12:31 PM
anyway; why can't you watch them BBP?

Surely you can still wear the 3D glasses, and that will get rid of the image meant for your other eye, leaving you a clear image for your good eye.
This would work for someone who is actually blind in one eye. They could just put the glasses on and watch a 2-D movie.

However, for someone who has a lazy eye, they would still be seeing two images, but the images would not "line up" the way the normal world does for that person.

Although I suppose a person with a lazy eye could compensate by wearing a patch over their lazy eye under the glasses...

Bobunf
2011-Jan-12, 04:26 PM
Humans don't see separate images from each eye for long. It's called "double vision" and it is a pathological condition--disorienting and distressing. Such people are probably not watching 3-D movies.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-12, 06:02 PM
Humans don't see separate images from each eye for long. It's called "double vision" and it is a pathological condition--disorienting and distressing. Such people are probably not watching 3-D movies.
Depends on the person, some never learn to combine the two images because they didn't have two good eyes at the same time when learning to see at all was happening, so the neurological pathways for combined vision were never formed and/or got pruned.

My sister was one of those, had one eye dominant to the point of effective blindness on the other, did the patch thing to make the weak eye stronger which flipped which eye was dominant, this happened several times when she was a young child, but she never learned to use both eyes at once.
As an adult she tried training the weak eye with the result that instead of one 2-D image of the world she had two, but they never integrated so the end result was disorientingly worse than before she tried, it basically ruined her ability to read long texts until she went back to wearing a patch on one eye.

SeanF
2011-Jan-12, 07:13 PM
Humans don't see separate images from each eye for long. It's called "double vision" and it is a pathological condition--disorienting and distressing. Such people are probably not watching 3-D movies.
That's not the point. People with lazy eyes have "learned" to integrate the two distinct visual images into a single perception, just like everybody with two eyes.

But the two visual images they're getting are not the same images that a person with normal binocular vision would get. Since the two images in a 3-D movie are designed to reproduce "standard" binocular vision, they are different than what the brain of the person with a lazy eye is used to. That's why that person can't watch a 3-D movie, even with the glasses.

Bobunf
2011-Jan-13, 07:21 PM
My experience is that they don't learn to integrate the two images. Instead one of the images is suppressed. That's why they don't have depth perception.

Some will develop adequate or even superior vision in each eye and choose which eye to use. They describe it as choosing which eye "to look out of."

SeanF
2011-Jan-13, 08:03 PM
My experience is that they don't learn to integrate the two images. Instead one of the images is suppressed. That's why they don't have depth perception.
Huh, I was unaware of that. In that case, wearing the glasses should work to give them a regular old 2-D movie.

Tobin Dax
2011-Jan-15, 03:50 AM
Just to add a tiny bit to what Tobin Dax wrote, but the way you wrote that sounded a little bit patronizing, though I'm sure you didn't intend it. I think it would have been enough just to say something like, "I used to have that problem myself, and found treatment really helpful, so I'd recommend it."

And that's pretty much all I was saying. Pardon me for the way I presented myself.



My experience is that they don't learn to integrate the two images. Instead one of the images is suppressed. That's why they don't have depth perception.

That's what I do. My case is likely on the extreme end, but looking at the bookcase and the TV at the same time is rather annoying, if not disorienting. (Each with a different eye, that is.) My brain wants to make the images from each eye overlap when both eyes are "active" (if you will), and that overlap is rather confusing. This rarely happens to me, and only at times when I'm tired and/or thinking about it.


Huh, I was unaware of that. In that case, wearing the glasses should work to give them a regular old 2-D movie.

Paying extra money and wearing (extra) glasses to see a movie in 2-D makes sense how? :eh: I can get the same effect by going to a regular showing. So maybe I'm being a bit :boohoo:-worthy, but it will be nice when this 3-D fad is over.

kleindoofy
2011-Jan-15, 03:59 AM
... the current fad of movie making ...
Keeping pace with current fads is very important.

I think about that every time I listen to Bach.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-15, 11:44 AM
Keeping pace with current fads is very important.

I think about that every time I listen to Bach.
Remember that Bach got somewhat neglected in the years after his death when taste changed, it's was only later the fad was taken up again though by now he's unlikely to disappear totally:D

SeanF
2011-Jan-17, 02:28 PM
Paying extra money and wearing (extra) glasses to see a movie in 2-D makes sense how? :eh: I can get the same effect by going to a regular showing. So maybe I'm being a bit :boohoo:-worthy, but it will be nice when this 3-D fad is over.
I didn't say it made sense.

I had originally made the assertion that paying the extra money and wearing the extra glasses would only serve to give you an incomprehensible visual mess. If the image from one eye is actually suppressed, however, then that assertion is not true - wearing the glasses would give you a 2-D movie, albeit dimmer and more expensive.

Whether or not it's worth it is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. :)

Tobin Dax
2011-Jan-18, 12:20 AM
I didn't say it made sense.

I had originally made the assertion that paying the extra money and wearing the extra glasses would only serve to give you an incomprehensible visual mess. If the image from one eye is actually suppressed, however, then that assertion is not true - wearing the glasses would give you a 2-D movie, albeit dimmer and more expensive.
Oops, I missed that somehow.


Whether or not it's worth it is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. :)
My wallet seems to have more influence on the decision that my eye. :)

rambof07
2012-Jul-10, 05:40 PM
But i have it's good experience and i like to watch again or next time all movies in 3d format.

rambof07
2012-Aug-28, 03:03 PM
For the foreseeable future, won't 3D movies generally have 2D versions, just because so many people watch movies on DVD and don't have 3D TVs?

Ya, exactly you have said every one has not the 3d tv. So how they will see in 3d so i also would like to recommend 2d which is common in use.