Page 2 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,232
Location: Adelaide, Australia

19 May 2014, 9:06 am

stardraigh wrote:
Also yes on the Magic Eye pictures. I couldn't remember the name of them either.

Bear in mind those are nearly impossible even for people with perfect vision.
stardraigh wrote:
I can watch 3-D movies and sometimes the 3-D effect works, but sometimes it's just like an older 2-D movie.

Some 3D movies look flatter than other ones. Even the ones filmed with real 3D cameras can some times look pretty flat. I blame the director and the editor. I think maybe they reduce the depth on purpose because if the depth was one to one with the life because some people can't handle the conflicting difference of binocular depth and focal depth. Your eyes adapt to this conflict the more time you spend watching 3D movies so after a while you get used to converging on the screen as though it was miles away yet focusing on it as though it's a few tens of feet away. 3D movies have been making their comeback for a number of years now so it's about time they bumped up to 100% depth. /rant
stardraigh wrote:
I did know there is a difference in general between genetic males and females as to how many colors can be processed

Well. I learned something new today.
stardraigh wrote:
I was also wrong about the UV -- Aphakia. It can be caused congenitally, so it is possible to see into UV by some humans and they wouldn't be mind-blind to it.

I'm not sure how much it counts if they can see ultraviolet light but not distinguish it from blue light. I guess it might help a bit. After all, we can see millions of colours from three types of cones so maybe it would be enough.