Vote of the week: How do you see 3D?
Theme parks seem to love 3D - Transformers, Toy Story, Spider-Man, Mickey's PhilharMagic. Parks have been rolling out more and more rides and shows with 3D movie elements, and fans have been lining up to experience them.
But not everyone loves 3D. For some theme park fans, 3D's a headache, literally. When the projection's just a little bit off, or your eyes can't quite synch the images correctly, 3D leaves fans seeing "ghost" images, blurry action and even feeling headaches from the visual confusion.
It's worse for some visitors, whose eyes can't process 3D at all. Last month in Orlando, I spent a few moments with someone in the industry who had loved riding Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey, but she was expressing her fear that Universal would put 3D into the new Gringotts ride. She couldn't see 3D at all, but didn't want to miss out on that new ride the way she would have to skip Transformers, the 3D motion-base ride Universal Studios Florida is opening this summer.
That conversation got me thinking about another aspect of this problem - accommodation. Theme parks, like all public places, are required by U.S. federal law to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities, including visual disabilities. Could this mean that parks might one day be required to provide a 2D version of a 3D attraction to accommodate visitors who can't handle those effects?
Perhaps this is interesting: When Universal invited me to walk through the new Transformers ride at Universal Studios Hollywood before it opened to the public, we walked through wearing the 3D glasses. But in one scene, the Universal Creative rep displayed the projection in 2D so that we could take still photos. I wonder if Universal or Disney could run 2D shows of its 3D attractions on certain times during the day, to accommodate people who can't see 3D? Obviously, that could become an operational challenge, so I totally understand why parks might want to avoid that if they could. But if parks saw that not offering a 2D option was costing them visitors (or someone sued), might they change their minds?
Let's make this a vote of the week. How do you see 3D?
Please tell us your thoughts about 3D, both in the theme park attractions and in movies in general. And thank you, as always, for reading and being a part of Theme Park Insider!
People who can't see 3D are typically blind in one or both eyes or have a vision problem that usually can be corrected by seeing a doctor. If both of your eyes work and you want to watch a 2D version you can just close one eye.
I can't see 3D. I have severe lazy eye that keeps my eyes from focusing in the same place--even with a prism in my glasses, it doesn't work very well, because my brain didn't learn to properly combine the images into one (what my doctor called
I get headaches from 3D over long periods of time -- like a 2-hour movie. Over short periods of time, like a ten-minute ride, I'm fine.
They make me sick.. Not just a headache but actually nauseous. I cannot ride Star Tours or most of the rides at Universal Studios. Harry Potter Journey is miserable and I have ridden it the one and only time I have visited. I do not have any eye problems and the 3D effects are usually lost on me because of closing one eye to keep from being ill. I think the technology is fantastic and the effects are outstanding but they are not designed for me to enjoy. I do not get sick on roller coasters but cannot handle the spinning rides. I am told that I have a sensitive inner ear. I am also getting to where I am unable to enjoy Soarin' as the film is deteriorating to the point where it, too, is making me ill.
I'm 99% sure (although some 3D projection systems are different) that there is a really simple solution to this.
Those of us who suffer from birth defects do not have 3D as an option. I will go on 3D rides and enjoy them even though I loose the 3D effect. There are those of us who can never experience 3D and there are no corrections available to fix this. You learn to live with the cards you have been dealt but this does not have to stop you from enjoying rides at the theme parks. They are just different for you.
i have no issue with 3d rides/movies/games, and frequently play games for hours on end for 3 days, much to the annoyance of most people i know i genuinely have 20/20 vision. but i would rather a 2d ride than a 3d anyday. the harry potter ride is a great example that you don't need gimicky 3d to make a ride great.
I love the 3D experience and can't get enough but I have a 7 year old boy who gets frightened by things coming out of the screen to him. I keep trying to talk him around but so far its not happened. The only one thing I managed to get him on was the Polar Express Experience at Seaworld in 2010 and even then he clung to me.
Great article. The solutions is easy. Some cinema's already give you the option to wear non 3D glasses but you also can buy them yourself.
I can see 3D fine, but I think Universal needs to lay back on screens and 3D after Gringotts.
I'm a huge roller coaster fan but I don't like 3-D rides. I'm not sure what it is but I always get extremely nauseous and strong headaches on 3-D rides. Since roller coasters never bother me I know my problem isn't motion sickness. Perhaps there is something with the "false" imagery that I can't process? Regardless, rides like Harry Potter and The Forbidden Journey are just not options for me which is why I usually stick to the Hulk or Dueling Dragons at IOA. The ever growing preponderance of 3-D rides at theme parks causes me great concern for it seems that my theme park "future world" may only have a microscopic list of rides I can actually enjoy. Only time will tell what happens to our theme parks and subsequently what ultimately happens to my willingness to attended them.
I like 3D attractions at theme parks, but I try to avoid the 3D at the movies because one is paying more to see the same movie. If a movie is good, it doesn't need the 3D. There are even movie theaters with seats that move with the onscreen action (like in Shrek). All those gimmicks belong to theme parks.
Not only can't I see them, they give me a migraine. Seriously, anything longer than a few minutes is torture for me. And closing one eye does not work, neither does taking off my glassed. My eyes are too weak to be able to focus correctly, which damn near kills me.
Being inclusive to everyone is not only unpractical it's very dangerous. It's like the mentality that everyone should play and everyone should win kind of a thing. I'll give a perfect example, myself. I walk with a limp, my right hand does not work, and my equilibrium is shoot (that means I cannot drive a bike as well as other things. I don't use a cane and can operate like anyone else like work a decent job, drive a car with some minor modifications, and have and raise a family. I know for a fact I cannot ride some rides. The carousel like the classic Cedar Downs at Cedar Point I can't ride without heavy assistance or log flumes are getting difficult for me. Getting into coasters is fine but getting out of some I need minor assistance. Now am I going to sue Cedar Point, Disney, or Universal cause I can't ride a certain ride hell no because there is other things that I like to do and that's why I go to these parks. People are too big or tall to ride certain rides so your saying that maybe the park needs to change their ride cars to fit them. I say hogwash to that.
They are fine. If you like them. Just let the people that love them, enjoy them! There would be an outrage if they were done away with. It's like taking all the rides away that aren't in all languages, because people that don't speak english can't understand it. De nada.
I don't want to sound mean, but the fact of the matter is that no one is forcing those who can't see 3-D to go to theme parks. If you can't see 3-D, and don't think the few 3-D attractions that a park has make the admission not worth the price, then don't go.
Trying to be all things for all people would result in a pretty bland product.
I would also like to say that, even though I don't get much notable benefit from 3D rides, I still enjoy them. I just can't do movies. In small doses, 3D is ok (even though I rarely 'get' the effect), it's the large doses that kill me. But, as long as they have the option to see movies in 2D, I am fine. :)
A LOT of people can't ride roller coasters. Theme parks can't/don't make special accommodations for them.
At Universal Orlando, all of the 3D attractions offer a no-glasses card for riders who don't want/can't process 3D imagery.
I am fine with 3D, but I wear glasses and find that often the provided 3D glasses do not fit that well over my prescription glasses.
3D glasses over regular glasses never worked correctly for me. Since my eye surgery I haven't tried to watch a 3D movie or ride so I don't know if I could see the effects.
As far as movies go, I rarely pay the extra money to see a 3D version. I wear glasses and wearing ANOTHER pair of glasses on top of my glasses to see a movie in 3D which I am usually not THAT impressed by for the effects of 3D is not worth it to me.... especially when I have to pay like $4 extra dollars for the movie.
Even though I don't normally pay extra for the 3D feature at movie theaters though, I do see it fine for the most part at amusement parks.
I am a huge movie fan as I watch several a week, sometime three in a row on movie nights. I am also big into technology, but 3DTV / Blu Ray gives me a major headache about 20 minutes in.
I would think it would be tough with 3D attractions and blind people. Then again, wouldn't it be a problem on nearly every attraction.
I have no problem seeing 3D images, but to me it honestly doesn't matter whether it is in 2D or 3D. In fact, unless the 3D is required for interaction to make sense, I'd rather have a 2D attraction so I don't have to wear the glasses. For something like Transformers, 3D is needed for the attraction to feel right, but if something like Star Tours no longer had the 3D it would be almost as good (a couple small changes would probably be necessary, but for most of the attraction there is no interaction with the audience). If Soarin' was refilmed in 3D, I personally would dislike it because it wouldn't do anything for me.
I wish people would STOP posting YouTube videos in the comments section. It's lame. If you must post a link, but don't post the video! If Robert is failing to do his job and missing relevant videos then email him and maybe he can hire you, but those of you who resort to videos in the comments just kill the discussion. My two cents!
N D: Sadly deep blacks are more realistic. The clever processing in your retina allows a far broader range of exposures than current cameras can deliver. It is familiarity and nostalgia that keep people consuming media through older delivery systems. I agree, however on your point about saturation.
188.8.131.52, I know all about color gamuts, image processing etc.... I just prefer the look of the movie theater when watching movies. You can never have a great black level when projecting an image on a white or silver screen, just like your local theater.
My problem is rather unique. I was born without irises, so my vision was compromised from day one. My left eye is considerably stronger than my right eye, so 3D was always a bit dicey. On top of that, I had a detached retina a few years ago, and the surgery to repair it weakened the muscles in my right eye so that the eye no longer lines up properly. It can be fixed, but only by weakening the muscles in my good eye. Because of all this, 3D simply does not work for me. I wish it did, because 3D in real life is just as elusive. I run into things a LOT... Still, I managed to score the highest among my wife, daughter, and myself when we went on TSMM. Go figure!
I have a friend who lost one eye. As soon as she sees that something is 3-D she simply ignores it and gives it a pass. If there is a way to compensate, great. Otherwise, for people like her it appears to be of little use.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.