I remember the first 3-D movie I tried to watch -- emphasis on "tried."
We went to the movies to see "Comin' At Ya," which looked really stupid but my late husband really wanted to see what all the hype was about.
So off we went.
We donned the dumb glasses and settled in to watch this fabulous flick.
My husband quickly was dodging and ducking -- while the next thing to a migrain enveloped my head.
Forget this, I told him; we have to leave. I see no 3-D and I have a splitting headache.
Reluctantly he agreed.
At my next eye doctor appointment I mentioned this experience. He started to laugh and asked why in the world I ever thought I could go to a 3-D movie, considering the "problem" I had with my one eye.
I won't bore you with the details on that problem, but suffice it to say it basically doesn't focus with any real clarity.
Oh, I see... pun intended. My two eyes don't work together, so forget 3-D productions.
Which brings me to a story just reported by the Associated Press. As the writer notes, "From Hollywood studios to Japanese TV makers, powerful business interests are betting 3-D will be the future of entertainment, despite a major drawback: It makes millions of people uncomfortable or sick."
Yea! I'm not alone in the world (I knew at least our former online editor Chris Stanley was a fellow sufferer).
But according to the AP story, as many as one in four of us have problems watching 3-D movies and TV. It might be because of eyestrain or problems perceiving depth in real life.
Regardless, it makes us queasy, dizzy or suffering from headaches.
Naturally there are researchers working on the problem, but true solutions may not come for decades.
Darn.
Guess there's no point in saving up the extra money for a 3-D TV. Or to pay more for a ticket to a 3-D movie.
And I don't get to wear those stupid glasses ... sigh.
Hey, wearing "real" glasses is pain enough, thank you.
Meanwhile, for real 3-D, I'll just head outside and enjoy nature. Ahh, much better.
No comments:
Post a Comment