Instructables
So you want to go see the latest blockbuster with in-your-face 3D effects...but your significant other doesn't share your enthusiasm. In fact, many people find that 3D movies causes nausea and headaches.  What to do?  Leave them at home? See 2D instead? Nonsense!  Those aren't solutions.  Instead, build a pair of Anti-3D glasses for them!
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 1: Materials

Picture of Materials
2 pairs of Polarized 3D glasses. 
      (Mine were "Master Image"  by far the easiest ones to work with)

Small flathead screwdriver

Razor blade/Scissors

Step 2: How passive 3D works

Picture of How passive 3D works
Most of the theaters these day are using "Passive 3D" technology.  The glasses have radially polarized lens, one clockwise, one counter-clockwise.  The image on the screen is projected through two polarized lenses, again, one clockwise, one counter-clockwise.  The glasses allow the light from only one projector to reach each eye, therefore each eye sees a slightly different picture creating the 3D effect.

To see this in action, put a pair of 3D glasses on and hold another pair facing you. Close one eye and slowly turn the pair of glasses you are holding.  You'll see one lens turn almost completely dark.  Switch eyes and the other lens will be dark.  Our Anti-3D glasses will be modified so that each eye receives the same image.

Step 3: Disassemble the Glasses

Picture of Disassemble the Glasses
P1010793.JPG
P1010794.JPG
  1. Insert the screwdriver and carefully pop off the arms.
  2. Using the screwdriver carefully pop off the lens retainer piece.
  3. Be sure to leave the lenses where they are. You don't want to mix them up!
  4. Repeat on second pair.
Very clever. I wouldn't have thought of that.

However, if Hollywood knew how to budget time properly, the nausea wouldn't even be a factor. What causes the nausea is when the depth of field (at least, I think it's depth of field) gets screwed up momentarily, the left eye sees a completely different image than the right eye, and the brain goes "WTF?!" leaving the viewer with headaches and nausea.

The technology is still too new to get this right, though, so I guess I can't be too hard on Hollywood.
Quote: "The technology is still too new to get this right,"
Experiments with this 'technology' date back even 'till 1838.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy) just to put things into perspective :)

My guess is that '3d' viewing will never become a nausea- and headache-less experience because of a simple reason: The two separate images that are offered to your eyes are taken by two camera's, placed on a rig. The distance between the focal point tries to mimick the distance between the two eyes of the AVERAGE viewer.

In daily life your eyes percieve two different images too, but your brain knows the EXACT distance between your eyes, so it's programmed to combine the two images in a painless an nausia-free manner. However, when you look at a '3d' film, the images that are fed to your eyes aren't aligned as your brain expects them to be, so combining them will take a lot of effort from your brain (causing headache) and even your synchronisation between perception of balance (via your inner-ear) and visual reference can be disturbed by it (causing nausea).

So; force-feeding images like this to your eyes leaves your brain thinking your eyes are misplaced temporarily. It can cope with this, keeping the illusion of depth intact, but the brain compensating for this anomaly just isn't painless..
Thanks for explaining this, makes sense. I never liked 3D, having only had the blue/red plastic and cardboard back when I was a kid watching this forgettable movie 20 plus years ago. Bah, I don't bother with 3D, it's a waste of time.

All I want is good movies WITH ESHIs, (English Subtitles for the Hearing Impaireds), and I'm happy reading what the story is all about. No worries!

You must get really frustrated when there aren't any ESHI's for some production films while they are in the theater... . My cousin is deaf, and while he's probably the most awesome person I know, he won't come to the movie theater with me cuz its no fun sitting there trying to read the actors lips. For a while I have been trying to figure out how to solve that problem for him. I'll let you know if I come up with anything that actually works. (So far, 4 prototypes, all a bit bulky, and all unable to keep up with the movie itself. I might try to incorporate the SIRI software that they have on phones, but right now, I have been stuck dealing with "Dragon Naturally Speaking" and "Nuance". ) I am still waiting for the guys up in Hollywood to stop being lazy and fix the problem for me, but its a faint hope at best.
They really should have some way to provides subtitles. Maybe a handheld you get for free and turn back in when the movie is over? Any way, if this is going to be solved in movie theaters, it needs to go to someone in the movie making business, but I know that wont stop instructables from trying!
Great point. I hadn't thought of it quite like that. I've always had a different reason in mind for the headaches. "Eye strain".

3D movies trick the eye into seeing a three dimensional image by taking advantage of our binocular vision. However, the binocular effect is only half of the equation. In a natural 3D environment (a.k.a the real world) our eyes are constantly adjusting their focal length in order to create as sharp of an image as possible. This adjustment is read by the brain, and combined with the binocular data, helps the mind to create fully 3D image. This is why people, like my uncle, who have lost an eye still have some depth of field, although severely limited by the loss of the binocular data.

Another interesting feature in this is the way our mind records data. From the first moment we learn to focus our eyes our brain starts recording the information it's given. Call it muscle memory, or just subconscious control, our mind knows that an object with a binocular coefficient of X requires a focal length of Y. This is why people in REM sleep still adjust both their binocular focus as well as the focal length of their eyes. The two bits of data are inherently interrelated.

In an artificial 3D environment however there is only one focal length available: the distance between you and the screen. While the image may fool your binocular vision, it can't fool your depth of field. The eye tries to adjust it's focal length to the appropriate setting only to realize that, "oops. That's wrong.." So it overrides the known program and tries to find a solution, by refocussing on the image. This is happening thousands (if not millions) of times a second. The result is an eye strain headache. Also the conflicting binocular and focal data may be what induces the nausea.

This, of course, is only my theory. Yours has merit too. Perhaps, it's even a combination of the two. There may be other theories that apply as well.

For me personally, the solution to all of this is to just stop going to 3D movies. It saves me a lot of unnecessary pain and discomfort, and also sends a message to Hollywood that I'm not going to spend money on something that I simply can't enjoy. Perhaps more people should adopt this approach.
Well, sure, there was 3D in the 1950's, but that was just for simple effects (the monster jumps out at the screen to scare you) whereas today, 3D is used to add the illusion of depth to a scene. 3D used in this manner is going to hurt, versus the small doses of it used in the 1950s and previous.

My prediction is that yes, we will not get it so that the nausea ends completely, but it will improve to the point that a trip to the theater is not a painful, dread-filled experience (meaning that you could sit through Avatar (as an example) and not get sick), but I wouldn't suggest watching the extended versions of The Lord of the Rings back to back in 3D.

I have done some research before on 3D (not to mention I'm a film/video major), and nothing that I have read said anything that was said in these comment responses. I have learned something!
ya know, reading these responses, maybe my previous post was wrong. I've not watched A FULL MOVIE, or even watched 3D demos for more than 10 15 minutes, but I could feel the difference in my eyes between the LCD screened glasses and the polarized ones, but maybe that's not the only problem (as suggested in this thread) so the question is, is it all 3D movies (with one type of glasses) that makes people sick? or just certain ones? do different movie production companies 'space' the cameras differently (what the 'perceive' as the proper distance between the eyes.) does it make any difference if you sit in the center of the viewing area versus off to the side, closer or further? do these glasses interfere with the focus of people who wear glasses/contacts?
kaptaink_cg (author)  AlternateLives3 years ago
In addition to what you mentioned, there are actually a few more things going on that cause the brain problems. The 3d scenes are filmed through two different lenses to represent the image each eye would see. But unless your eyes match the ratio exactly of lens/lens and distance to object, then it will never be a truly accurate representation. Factor in that everyone is psychically different, and then the many different seating locations in a theater, it's amazing 3D works at all. Also, when I'm at a movie, I like to look around on the screen, taking in the background and different details. But if you do this during a 3D movie it'll really mess you up because you are looking at an image at a different angle than what is being projected to each eye. I'm not sure if that explanation makes sense? Think of it this way.. the image is projected straight, you are supposed to be looking straight focusing on the main object on the screen, but instead you are looking off to an angle. (-headache!-) Personally, I don't think they will ever be able to truly fix these issues until they introduce 3D holographic images. Although, 3D TVs, with active 3d glasses, seem to produce a much cleaner effect than you get at the movie theater.
ah.. should have read on, before jumping the keys. My thoughts exactly!
If you take one set of lenses and put them back in the completely wrong way you get a pair of really psychelic glasses.
REA2 years ago
Thanks for this instructable. I have a hard time seeing 3D and sometimes get headaches, so this is perfect!
TheGreatS3 years ago
You could call them 2D glasses ;)
That's exactly what I thought they WERE called!
blodefood3 years ago
Suggest you label them so that they don't get mixed up with unmodified 3D glasses.
kaptaink_cg (author)  blodefood3 years ago
You can tell by the corner of the one eye being clipped out..... but I did wrap a little red electrical tape around one arm for quicker identification.
You Rock!!! I am going to give this a whirl...I can't go see 3D movies. I have monocular vision. Basically I see everything separately so when I go to a 3D movie (Avatar at the Cinemax was hell) I have to sit very very still and not move my eyes at all. It makes for a very uncomfortable movie. I have had to opt out of hanging out with friends on occasion due to so many movies showing in 3D.
So....anti 3D....what a concept!!!!
ps have you ever tried taking those 3D goggles off in the movie...its nasty. lol
Thank you sooo much.
Amberella
andysuth3 years ago
Love this concept, but does it leave all the faces mis-shaped from the so-called "Upscaling" on the poor quality films that try to make more money by selling as "3D"?

Along lines of previous comments about changing from Stereo into Mono Sound, perhaps you could add a slow moving fan in front too so you could watch the film at a slower frame rate as well as mono (from finger in ear) and black and white?

-AS
5Volt andysuth3 years ago
The fan would be a great addiction. How about turning volume off and hiring a piano player?
maovi3 years ago
very cool
swoodward3 years ago
OMG Thank you so much for this! The article showed up just before I was invited to see a 3D movie and I'm one of those people who get a headache from 3D. I don't know what brand the glasses were - possibly the same ones you used, but it was really easy to pop the lenses out and I brought some painter's tape to do a quick ghetto version of the anti-3D glasses before the movie started. I didn't care about having ghetto glasses. At least I didn't get a headache! Wonderful!
Just made a pair of Real D brand into 2D. Now I'm just waiting for the Three Musketeers to come out so I can test them out. Thanks for a great 'ible!
I love this as I would get car sick if it is over done but it makes me wonder what's next,

glorious mono music

hey folks get rid of all those extra speakers and play it louder!

New Improved Louder MONO SOUND!!!!

serioously I like this one
Flippant comments are no substitute for real solutions to real problems.

The anti-3D glasses are a good solution for the few people who can't see 3D films 'correctly'. I'm one of these people - no great problems in real life but cinema or TV 3D glasses just don't work well. My particular solution for 3D is to use the standard glasses but with a pirate's patch over my bad eye, these anti-3D glasses would be better (and they provide a solution for a wider range of problems).

I said I thought this was great idea, have a cup of coffee and relax.

I went to see some movie in 3 d and almost lost my cookies. Some 3 d is ok for me the other kind makes me barf.

And I am not a Luddite but sometimes I think we over do technology and make it harder for people to be in a real world. I love my Ipod I really do, but some enhancements are really bad for society. This is a minor one.

My kids were amazed that, SCI FI Dad, would not go see Avatar (the blue peopled one, I did see the one with the kid with the blue arrow on his head and loved it), simply because it WAS 3D.

relax, levity is good, our times are tough and a good belly laugh is hard to come by so small chuckles are sometimes all we get. Better a small bottle of water, than a bucket of wee wee to a man in the desert.
Things like phones that just ring and are just phones.
Heh, loved the mono comment, after all there is the Stereo Vinyl movement.

I'm one of those unfortunates that has "fast vision". Just love the new fluorescent electronic ballasts, the old mags always leave me with a flicker in my peripheral vision. 3D leaves me with a spewfest as do certain video games. It isn't the frame rate, if the motion jerks in a certain way, I'm quickly looking for a waste basket.

So anything that makes it go away is fine by me.

Thanks for the dry humor, even though it goes over most peoples heads, I like it.
Well it made me laugh anyway :-D
Apologies, I misunderstood your post, my mistake.

Or you could just stick a finger in one ear.
We could go a step further and get rid of color as well. :P
One of the best 3D films has got to be Avatar. Anyway, that said, reading the comments makes me feel like I have gone back 180 years and am hearing people describe the dangers of train travel and the fact that the human body just wasn't capable of going at such speeds and either the passengers wouldn't be able to breath or (get this) that the passengers' eyes would be damaged due to the motion!).

Honestly...?!* The same ridiculous comments were made about sound in films. Less than 100 years ago, HM Warner (Warner bros) is famous for having said, "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"

Sure 3D might not be absolutely perfect yet and some films have got it totally wrong, but come on, it's early days and you're an inventive community, surely anyone can see that 3D is progress towards a greater and more immersive entertainment reality and if you didn't think that that is a good idea then you wouldn't be going to see a movie in the first place? Because the stories are all made up and filled to the brim with so many special FX that you can't be sure that even the picture you are watching are real or not anyway.

follow this link and learn: http://www.rinkworks.com/said/predictions.shtml

Having said that, nice, ironic instructable!
So, those of us who get violently ill are... what? Just silly whiners?

Really. You need to understand that some people really do have legitimate reasons for 'complaining.'

(And as to the easy solution of "only go to 2D movies..." That's all well and good until your movie theatre ONLY shows particular films in 3D.)
I've missed three movies so far because they were only offered in 3D and I'd rather not pay the premium for it.

And, honestly, I've become OK with it. I rarely went to the movies anyway, but now we've just stopped going entirely. I can wait 6 months to a year for almost everything and just watch it at home on DVD when it comes out.

I can pop my own popcorn for 1/100 the cost of what the theater makes, and it doesn't have to be saturated with nasty fakey butter. And I can buy a bottle of half-decent wine with what I'm saving and really enjoy the movie.

Bye-bye expensive movie theater! Thanks for the incentive to stop!
Well Done!! ! I agree with you!
I thought "Instructables" was a site where freedom of speech was one of the ingredients. You are pro 3D (as I am. Go 3D!), but calling the comments "ridiculous" is a bit too much. People with 3D sickness exist. If there's a solution for them, good! I won't be using these glasses, I love 3D. But, will I make a pair for my mom who nauseates when he goes to 3D movies with us? Yes, of course. So, thanks instructables. If I don't like the instructable presented, I go to another page. Period.
I so agree with you! I'm so sick of the negative "Know it alls" who have to criticize every instructable. Like you said , if you don't like it or don't agree, move on. negative is Not cool.
Hey, hey hey... I like the instructable, good job and clearly needed for some.

I love its ironic edge, and yes, I agree, there is work to do on the 3D technology and YES there are some shocking excuses for films that aim to pimp themselves up with the use of badly done 3D which makes some punters puke.

But then I'm sure the first trains made some people sick and put smuts in their eyes, but to write off the whole idea of mass transport because of a few technical teething troubles would have been, in short... ridiculous. I suppose I was just having a little chortle at the tone of the naysayers and their apparently luddite-esk comments which sounded almost hysterical.

Deeply sorry if I offended.
lamerc3 years ago
Actually, don't forget those of us with unusual vision issues. A quick Google suggests current reports seem to linger at somewhere about 10% of the population (depending on who's been surveyed and where in the world) either physically cannot see the 3D effect at all, or suffer from dizziness, nausea, etc., caused by the non-standard way their eyes/vision works.

Sadly, no polishing of the tech you're talking about is going to help that. :(

Until then, people like me [and Johnny Depp, apparently? :] are going to wince at the new passion for everything 3D and either sit through with one eye closed (leaving everything slightly out-of-focus and usually giving some eyestrain headache by the end of a full-length movie), feel guilty for trying to drag out 3D-enabled friends to 2D showings (where even available), or make do with glasses like this.

It's not a luddite rejection or fear of tech, nor is it (entirely) a technical issue. Some people's eyes are different. We just tend to not see (hah :) what the big deal is about, and worry that we'll have fewer and fewer 2D options in the future.

So of course we hope it's just a trend *shrug*: What everyone else keeps crowing about is just one big useless PITA for us:

---*cool looking movie trailer plays*
---...ooooh!... ;)
---"...In Amazing 3D!!!!"
---...oh, d*mn! That means I can't go see it.. :(

Naturally it's annoying: But tricks like these glasses (the minute I saw the equivalent ones on Thinkgeek I ordered them!) mean we can at least go along with the group of friends that (naturally) want to see the fancy version--without putting ourselves through h*ll.

(For those who have no problem with seeing 3D, think of this the equivalent of little wheelchair access ramps for our eyes. Most people don't need them, but when you do, it can make all the difference in being able to hang out with your friends and do simple things.)

tl;dr:  Which is all a long way of saying "Thank you!" to kaptaink_cg for your instructable--it's a much appreciated acknowledgement of a very real problem some of us have and a nice, helpful step towards making 3D-blind folk like myself are able to enjoy going out to see a lot of the newer films.

Laurpud lamerc3 years ago
Thank you for explaining for me. I don't see in 3D either & hate going to see the 3D movies with my kids (but can't say no to a free movie) I DO feel fortunate in that they don't make me nauseous!)
dmccumber3 years ago
3D will remain little more than a gimmick until such time as it becomes seamless. When a film like "My Dinner With Andre" can be released in 3D and the 3D will longer distract from the viewing experience...THAT is when we will know that 3D is here to stay. Until then, it's stuff like Piranha 3D, Avatar and Michael Bay flicks alone that will gain anything from it.
tpapaleo3 years ago
I am blind in one eye. I have avoided 3D movies because there was no way to see them with my friends. Same with 3d TV. Looking forward to "seeing" how this works, and by the way, these type of glasses should be readily available -- probably woudl capture some lost business.
If you're blind in one eye, you should naturally see the movie the way these modified glasses make fully sighted people see it.

Normally the double image projected onto the screen is split, one for each eye by the glasses.
This modification filters one image out completely and allows the other image through to both eyes thus making it 2D.
If you're blind in one eye, the regular 3D glasses will filter out one of the two images, your good eye will receive one and the other will fall on your blind eye and be lost (if you're not totally blind in that eye, duck tape over that lens or an eye patch would have the same effect).

Personally I'm in the "3D is a huge con which detracts from films and needs to go away" camp. The thought that these glasses could get people who don't want 3D to buy the 3D TV sets because now they have a way of making it 2D when you can just buy a 2D TV for much less... is kinda crazy though. :o)
kaptaink_cg (author)  BigShotUK3 years ago
Just to clarify a bit: These will not work on 3DTVs, only the theater. 3DTVs employ "active 3D glasses" They don't work using polarization, but instead have electronic glasses with LCD shutter lenses. The TV displays the left eye image, and the glasses completely black out the right eye. Then the right image is displayed as the left lens is blacked out. Due to "persistence of vision" our brain doesn't register the blackened out lenses. (same concept as how normal movie film projection works) If you view the TV without glasses on, the images appear superimposed, although technically they are not. As far as I know, all 3D TVs have an option to turn it off at any time. Sony just came out with a 3D TV that has an interesting capability. If you are using it to play a 2 player PS3 game, it will split the image so that each player gets to see a full screen of their action alone. It's the same concept as my Anti-3D glasses. Player 1 only gets to see the "right" image and player 2 only sees the "left" image. Genius!
Just to clarify a bit: These will not work on 3DTVs, only the theater. 3DTVs employ "active 3D glasses" They don't work using polarization, but instead have electronic glasses with LCD shutter lenses.


Just to clarify a bit more: These will work on some 3DTVs, not only the theater. Some 3DTVs employ the polarization method. They do not use expensive "active 3D glasses". I have seen a demo at a trade show. The infamous "Walmart" also has a demo on display in some stores. Go see it dudez!!!! :)
I've seen the 3D tv's that DO NOT use the expensive glasses, they use these polarized lenses, actually, I watched them at one of the big box stores (other than Walmart, so it's not just a Walmart thing.) and in my opinion they're BETTER, they don't give you the headaches or nausea, because your eyes aren't constantly refocusing/dilating (which is what they're trying to do, even though your brain doesn't register the change, when the lens goes black, your iris starts to open to adjust for the light, the eye starts to refocus on the much closer image, then when it flips back to clear, the eye has to reverse...)
I need to make a pair of these for my husband. He was born cross-eyed and didn't get them fixed till he was 2 years old so he literally cannot see stereo even though both his eyes work fine independently. My previous boyfriend was blind in one eye so that's a slight upgrade...but I still have to find other dates for 3D movies!!! Until now. Thanks a lot, this is a brilliant idea.

(Look up the famous kitten experiments if you want to know more about why not being able to see properly as an infant affects people later even if they get their eyes fixed.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Hubel#Research)
wobbler3 years ago
My auntie will love these. Do they work on the real world as well?
bbartók3 years ago
Well, if this is true, then you should reach the same result by flipping the original lens.
nope, if you do that is the same 'cause you flip both lenses, you get the same efect but inverted, and its looks kinda weird.
kaptaink_cg (author)  bbartók3 years ago
That was my original thought as well but it doesn't work. Even though they are radially polarized, it's not in an exact circle. It follows more of an oval pattern. So flipping the lens just messes it up. You can test this by flipping the lens, putting the pair on, then looking at another pair of glasses. Close one eye, then the other, and you will see it's not filtering the light the same.
bpark10003 years ago
Does not work because flipping over circular polarizer does not make a circular polarizer of the opposite hand. A circular polarizer is done indirectly; by first retarding the light (plastic film not dyed is stretched at 45 degrees). This causes light polarized at 45 degrees one diagonal to go a little faster through the lens than light polarized on the other diagonal. This converts circular polarized light into linear polarized light (horizontal or vertical, depending on the hand of the incident light). Behind the "retarder" is an "ordinary" linear polarizer (stretched plastic, dyed). So the light goes in circular, comes out linear. To figure out which side is the "circular side", do this test. Lay quarter (or other shiny metal object) on table, and put lens material on top, in contact. If the circular side is down, the quarter will look black. Otherwise, it will look silver.

So flipping over the lens essentially turns it into a linear polarizer, which passes 50% of circular polarized light of either hand, because the retarder is now on the wrong side.

I imagine there is more on this on Wiki, if you want more details.
Mr. DD3 years ago
Isn't it far easier to just close one eye? That's what I do when I have to watch 3D movies. Anyways nice guide, but can't be done in my country, you HAVE to give back the 3D glasses when you go out of the movie.
levitts Mr. DD3 years ago
That sucks, most cinemas where I am in Australia will give a $1 or $2 discount if you bring in your own 3D glasses
account3r23 years ago
So... what you are doing is making one pair both left filters and one pair right filters?
shootfilm3 years ago
You are a hero for posting this. 3D movies are a blight, and I hope they die out again very soon. In the meantime, here's a letter to Roger Ebert from the great film editor Walter Murch, detailing the perceptual reasons that 3D movies don't work with our brains: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
LesB shootfilm3 years ago
I read Mr. Murch's article, and I'm not buying.
The man says, "Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with."

The same can be said about the use of color, wide screen, sound, about the use of film for story telling. If one is totally absorbed by the story, the presentation technology makes no difference. But story telling began with oral traditions, and as mankind would have it, the technology progressed from there and continues to evolve. The human brain is very adaptable, and the technology used for story telling will continue to evolve if history is any lesson.

Still, I think the glasses are a brilliant idea for individuals who don't like the effect. I take ear plugs to the movies for when they crank the volume too high.
shootfilm LesB3 years ago
I agree with your basic point, that with a well-told story the medium will become "transparent," so to speak.  (I've yet to hear anyone argue that the "Clash of the Titans" remake was a well-told story.)

However, the main message I took away from Murch's article was that 3D movies simply overtax our brains, because watching a 3D movie is not like watching 3D reality, such as a play.  

3D movies make the lenses of each individual eye focus on the screen itself, while the two eyes together have to focus at a point maybe fifteen feet in front of or behind the screen.  As Murch points out, no eyes in the history of the world have ever had to do this before; our brains can do it, sort of but it's distracting and mentally exhausting, like trying to single out one particular person in a roomful of speakers.  Hence the headaches reported by so many people, myself included.

I will admit that I've seen one movie that I was glad to see in 3D:  Werner Herzog's "Cave of Forgotten Dreams."  It gave me a roaring headache, as they all do, but in that one case it was thoroughly worth it.  I don't expect to see another like that.

Sorry to ramble on so.
Then you contradict yourself. The BASIC point is that a better story outshines a lesser story. Don't COMBINE premises.
2 stories, equally riveting, gives the one with better production, the edge.

I prefer color to black and white unless of course a black and white statement is being made. I prefer 3D to 2D since that is how I perceive reality, unless of course a 2D statement is being made.

Reading this thread in 30 years would make one laugh.
Part of the equation here is that the auteur of the film designs the production for the specific medium and its technology. The very laughable "colorization" scheme of the 70's/80's to add color after the fact to old 34's/40's movies was disastrous. Not because of the very poor quality of the color but because adding color destroyed what the film makers were trying to do. Fortunately the colorizers never got their hands on masterpieces like Casablanca or Dr. Strangelove.

More advanced technology does not make for better production. There are so many parameters that go into producing a film, and the technology is not one of the most important. And I'm afraid that many times that H'wood relies on technology to the point that more important values are downplayed.

The 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet was an OK movie, but it was pure junior league compared to Zeferelli's 1968 version.

The Get Smart movie of a few years ago was funny, but not hilarious as was the B&W TV series.

You are comparing apples to oranges.  Colourizing vs original production.

My statement:
"2 stories, equally riveting, gives the one with better production, the edge."
remains unchallenged.
I also made specific mention to the producer's "statement", twice.

You do realize that the market has moved on from black and white produced movies.  According to your logic, the producers, and the end-users (the market) are all mistaken with the choice to use colour.

I do not agree with you on the same grounds that I prefer the piano to the harpsichord and that I see it as an improvement and a wider canvas for expression.
LesB shootfilm3 years ago
It's my thinking that any new technology would overtax ones brains in one way or another. But realizing how incredibly adaptable and programmable the human brain is, I'm thinking that 3D might be just one more technology that we will adapt to.

I'm gonna check out that "Cave of Forgotten Dreams".
The first 3D I remember seeing was called, I think, "The Thing from Outer Space", back when I was a preteen in the 50's. Scared the pisotomey. It was good for a few years of nightmares.
Silence LesB3 years ago
I would have thought it was the eye strain of both eyes focusing at different angles causing headaches. I went to see Avatar in 3D, the only time it really bothered me was when I followed objects off the screen area. I could feel my eyes crossing weird. Humans aint' iguanas.
omikun Silence3 years ago
that's the way we normally see in the real world anyway. The only difference is we also focus at the distance our eyes converge to. No so with 3D movies where the focus always on the screen.
omikun LesB3 years ago
The problem with 3D as it is right now is it is imperfect in its implementation. The main difference between 3D movies and 3D reality is focus distance. In movies your eyes always focus on the screen even if they converge closer or farther. This is unnatural and retrains the way we see. None of that applies to film or color (at least not to the extent that it causes headaches). And then you have the dimness of 3D movies as each eye only gets half the light and the fact that in theaters they give you crappy 50 cent glasses to watch a movie with.

IMO, 3D as it exists right now is a gimmic and when given the choice I would pick watching a 2D film over 3D as there is less of a distraction to the act of watching.
If you want 3D movies to die out, then I'd suggest just not going to them at all... If they are making money, they are going to stay.

The glasses are a good idea, but I'd put your energy to talking them out of the 3D. :)
kaptaink_cg (author)  shootfilm3 years ago
Great link! I've actually read that article before. I'm on the fence with 3D.. sometimes it can be fun and entertaining.. I get upset when it's put in for NO REASON. I also hate how much it dims the screen. A few good examples of 3D: Tron Legacy, Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs, Pirannah 3D. BAD examples: Conan, Dolphin Tale, Thor.
rcdude13 years ago
nice, did you get the idea from hank green? dftba
kaptaink_cg (author)  rcdude13 years ago
Actually, nope.. I just had to google him...
My inspiration was two-fold. A combination of seeing one of ThinkGeek's recent catalogs and a conversation with my GF on whether we were going to see "A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas" in 2D or 3D. lol
YoHurricane3 years ago
Couldn't you just wear a pair of regular old polarized sunglasses and achieve the same effect (that is, blocking one of the two images)? Isn't this hack really just making a pair of standard polarized sunglasses from a pair of 3D polarized sunglasses?
kaptaink_cg (author)  YoHurricane3 years ago
Nope, not at all. The polarization has to match the projector filters exactly or it wont work. You'd still see both images overlapped. One may be a bit dimmer than the other, but you'd still see them both. (plus sunglasses would make the film even DARKER than the 3D glasses do.)
Interesting. I'm curious to know more about the polarization they use on the projector filters. I went back and re-read your descriptions. You mentioned that they use circular polarization - is that what makes the plane polarization used in sunglasses insufficient to filter one of the images?
kaptaink_cg (author)  YoHurricane3 years ago
That's correct. It filters the light differently, so it wouldn't black out the image entirely.
REA3 years ago
Thank you very much! For some reason whenever I see parallax 3D, I always see it as if it were a shoe box diorama rather than the image "popping out."
kaptaink_cg (author)  REA3 years ago
Could depend on the movie you see. Different movies/studios have different philosophies when it comes to 3D. Some want to throw it in your face, while others just want to provide depth to the scene. Specifically I know that Toy Story 3 and Tron Legacy are both examples of the "Shoe box diorama" style.
REA kaptaink_cg3 years ago
It's like that with every 3D I've seen. Even the sample TV's at Sears and other places.
mtreadway3 years ago
Since the RealD brand has lenses with no concavity, will it work if I just flip over one lens? It seems that it would switch that eye from clockwise to counterclockwise, but I'm not sure whether I'm fully understanding.
Sorry, just finished reading the comments. Seems it doesn't work after all.
sfurst3 years ago
I actually can't do 3D movies much because of how dim it causes the screen to become. Also, when movies are done in 3D just to bring in an extra couple of bucks, that's just irritating.

HOWEVER, my husband has a lazy eye and it is nearly PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him to actually see anything in 3D. He gets nothing out of it whatsoever. If I want to go to see something in 3D, I'm just out of luck. This could help remedy that. THANKS!
jflynn1 sfurst3 years ago
I also have a lazy eye/diplopia and something like really gets me excited. I can sometimes see some of the more "in your face" 3d images like explosions or the little flying things they put in just for the sake of 3d(see seeds from AVATAR), but for the most part it's just paying more money to get a headache.
monkyDJ3 years ago
cool
Platinu3 years ago
Great idea. They also sell these at ThinkGeek.com for those of us who lack either the time or inclination to make our own. 8.99 isn't bad:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/miscellaneous/e9b4/?srp=1
overblast3 years ago
THANK YOU!

Do have a question, I'm missing something here that everyone else has understood. Are you just switching lenses from one frame to the other so each frames has a single lense, or are you putting two lenses in one frame?

Thanks!

I hate 3D.

Have to focus on the images. For me it's unnecessary, but others like to pay a bit more to have a more POW! experience. For me, they're neat effects, but too much time working on focus instead of enjoying the movie plot.

I just wait until it comes out on Laser Disk. :D
kaptaink_cg (author)  overblast3 years ago
I'm switching the lens from one to the other. You end up with two pairs of Anti-3D glasses. One shows only the right, the other only the left.
rbeck13 years ago
Some people, like my daughter, have naturally monocular vision. One eye is completely dominant for distance and the other for near. 3d movies and glasses don't work for her and cause some discomfort. It is not a matter as someone earlier said of people fearing the future, as in the speed of a train would kill you (well I guess they were right, if you got hit). This is a real issue that is not overcome by continuing to go to 3d movies until they don't bother you anymore. So these anti 3d glasses might actually help someone like her.

dpy3 years ago
Cool. I had the same idea the other day. As with many ideas though, they never materialize. Nice to see that someone has proven the concept, it saves me the hassle of building one myself (until the time comes when I really feel that I need one).
capterik3 years ago
I went to the doctor, he asked what was wrong, I said it hurts when I do this. He said, don't do that. I have a 3d tv and it doesn't cause me discomfort. So many non 3d movies, I would think that you all could find something else to see.
harari3 years ago
i cant believe it ! i made this exact instructable a few weeks ago but didn't get a chance to test my prototype so i didn't publish it yet.

i made it because my friend complains about headaches during 3D movies and i just love 3D, this way we can go together and both enjoy!

great work!
builderkidj3 years ago
If you dont want to see 3d then...why did you buy the tickets?
kaptaink_cg (author)  builderkidj3 years ago
Cause sometimes my son, or the group I'm with does. There's actually a FEW movies I do enjoy in 3D. Or sometimes I go and start to get a headache, or the 3d isn't lined up properly, so I can throw these on instead.
Also I go to a lot of free advanced screenings and I don't get the choice of 2D on 3D movies.
Oh makes sense.
DrWilson3 years ago
WOW! I amazed because I had this same idea just the other day, whilst waiting for the film to start, toying with my RealD 3d glasses.

Great Instructable!