what happened
Feb. 17th, 2009 03:48 pmWell, that was interesting.
Yielding to the blandishments of several, I went to see Coraline in 3D today. The worst that could have happened was that my eyes would rebel, I'd have to leave the theater, and I'd be out $10. But it wasn't that bad, and was worth the experiment.
Let me review my eye problems again. My eyes are slightly misaligned and I never developed proper depth perception. The right eye is very nearsighted; but the left is much less so, and when I was a child it wasn't at all. (What I didn't know until a few years ago is that I use the right eye for close-up vision.)
The right eye's nearsightedness is what keeps me from having double vision, like Sir George Head in the Monty Python mountaineering sketch. ("We're going to climb the twin peaks of Kilimanjaro," remember?) As a child lying in bed, I'd sometimes stare at the clock on the otherwise bare opposite wall. For a moment I'd just see one clock; then a fuzzy (because nearsighted) second clock would detach itself and drift over to the right. When I blinked, it would jump back and repeat the process.
I haven't seen that peculiar effect in many years, because I haven't been in the conditions to get it, but it proved to explain what happened when I watched Coraline. If I blinked heavily, I could sometimes actually get the 3D effect to jump out at me for a few seconds. Then it would flatten out and I'd have to try again. Most of the time I was just seeing an ordinary 2D movie through a slightly darkened lens. (If you take the glasses off, the 3D effects look fuzzy, because you're seeing both images through both eyes.)
So that's interesting: I'm not totally lacking in depth perception; I just can't hold on to it. I should add that I've never had this effect while looking at the real world: it always looks exactly the same to me whether I've blinked or not, or whether I'm closing my weak eye or not, and I don't perceive the world as flattened, but maybe that's just because I'm used to it. This seems to be just a function of the 3D movie illusion.
It might be significant that the 3D images never themselves looked 3D. That is to say, when I saw them as jumping out, they looked like insubstantial sheets of film or paper hanging in space, not solid objects.
You might think: if I could get my eyes lined up, it'd fix itself. We tried that. An overeager optometrist once ordered me a pair of startlingly angled lenses to try to get my two eyes focused on the same spot. It took the lenscrafters three tries to get it made properly, and it still didn't work. The eyes refused to stay together, or to work together.
And the film itself? I liked it. Like a Tim Burton film without the mannerisms. The story had a more wayward form than the formal structure I want from fairy tales, but that was true of the book as well. The designs were clever (except why, when the Other Mother reveals herself as evil, does she have to start looking like Cruella de Vil?), Coraline was appropriately spunky, the cat talked like Morris from the TV commercials, and I saw more of myself in Coraline's dad than I felt at ease with. If I had a child her age, I hope I'd take this as a cautionary tale.
Yielding to the blandishments of several, I went to see Coraline in 3D today. The worst that could have happened was that my eyes would rebel, I'd have to leave the theater, and I'd be out $10. But it wasn't that bad, and was worth the experiment.
Let me review my eye problems again. My eyes are slightly misaligned and I never developed proper depth perception. The right eye is very nearsighted; but the left is much less so, and when I was a child it wasn't at all. (What I didn't know until a few years ago is that I use the right eye for close-up vision.)
The right eye's nearsightedness is what keeps me from having double vision, like Sir George Head in the Monty Python mountaineering sketch. ("We're going to climb the twin peaks of Kilimanjaro," remember?) As a child lying in bed, I'd sometimes stare at the clock on the otherwise bare opposite wall. For a moment I'd just see one clock; then a fuzzy (because nearsighted) second clock would detach itself and drift over to the right. When I blinked, it would jump back and repeat the process.
I haven't seen that peculiar effect in many years, because I haven't been in the conditions to get it, but it proved to explain what happened when I watched Coraline. If I blinked heavily, I could sometimes actually get the 3D effect to jump out at me for a few seconds. Then it would flatten out and I'd have to try again. Most of the time I was just seeing an ordinary 2D movie through a slightly darkened lens. (If you take the glasses off, the 3D effects look fuzzy, because you're seeing both images through both eyes.)
So that's interesting: I'm not totally lacking in depth perception; I just can't hold on to it. I should add that I've never had this effect while looking at the real world: it always looks exactly the same to me whether I've blinked or not, or whether I'm closing my weak eye or not, and I don't perceive the world as flattened, but maybe that's just because I'm used to it. This seems to be just a function of the 3D movie illusion.
It might be significant that the 3D images never themselves looked 3D. That is to say, when I saw them as jumping out, they looked like insubstantial sheets of film or paper hanging in space, not solid objects.
You might think: if I could get my eyes lined up, it'd fix itself. We tried that. An overeager optometrist once ordered me a pair of startlingly angled lenses to try to get my two eyes focused on the same spot. It took the lenscrafters three tries to get it made properly, and it still didn't work. The eyes refused to stay together, or to work together.
And the film itself? I liked it. Like a Tim Burton film without the mannerisms. The story had a more wayward form than the formal structure I want from fairy tales, but that was true of the book as well. The designs were clever (except why, when the Other Mother reveals herself as evil, does she have to start looking like Cruella de Vil?), Coraline was appropriately spunky, the cat talked like Morris from the TV commercials, and I saw more of myself in Coraline's dad than I felt at ease with. If I had a child her age, I hope I'd take this as a cautionary tale.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 12:50 am (UTC)I realize that this is no great joy to you; you'll be like a colorblind man watching Dorothy travel from Kansas to Oz. But it delights me.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 01:51 am (UTC)The worst 3D movie I've ever seen was a monstrosity called "Comin' At Ya," a truly godawful spaghetti western (although apparently produced in Spain, not Italy). Things were just thrust toward the viewer with no rhyme or reason. The worst: a baby's bare bottom.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 04:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 02:53 am (UTC)From what I can tell, although the 3D effects in Coraline are integrated and not gimmicky, they are also not essential for the telling of the tale. Otherwise they'd hardly dare to release it in 2D as well. That's not going to happen until 3D makes its way to whatever replaces home video. But that might not be too long.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 01:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 02:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 08:33 pm (UTC)I'm glad the 3D experiment was moderately successful.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 04:34 am (UTC)My favorite 3D effects in the movie were those that went from the audience into the screen. Very nice.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-18 06:01 am (UTC)