4 ms·
I will try to convey what only disabled people can convey to the best of my abilities. First, with one image you lose a lot of luminosity with the glasses on. W
by crocal 8y ago
I will try to convey what only disabled people can convey to the best of my abilities. First, with one image you lose a lot of luminosity with the glasses on. Without the glasses, off course, it is unwatchable. Furthermore, and more subtle, many people like my partner have /partial/ paralysis, so they have trained their brain in a certain way to compensate for the fact that they have partial binocular vision. The 3D effect don’t tolerate that since they rely on two images precisely engineered to trick your binocular vision « brain algorithm ». All this put together make 3D movies a «no-go » for people with monocular or partial binocular vision.
Edit: Typo and better explanation of the « trick »
- Majestic121 8y agoI don't really get your point, a lot of existing things are "no-go" for people with disabilities. Skiing is impossible if you can't use your legs. Going to the movie is pretty much a no-go if you're blind (I know audiodescription exists for some movies) There should be options for people with disabilities of course, and AFAIK 2D movies still exists and are not going to die anytime soon. But what are you debating for ? Do you want a global ban on 3D because it can not be enjoyed by everyone ?
- crocal 8y agoI believe this technology should be put under control because it is not only a tool of mass control, but also a discriminatory tool. I gave example of this trend taking a personal example. Having to choose to go to a different theater because there is no 2D at the chosen time is discriminatory. I must also kindly reject your example. You can ski without legs. Ski slopes are actually a very good counter example: everybody who can pay a lift can go. It’s a different question that I do not addressed, but I do not believe a ban will work. It’s better to regulate and put checks and balances in place. At least IMHO.