Also, I don't see why this argument doesn't equally prove that 2D films will never work.

When you look at an image that has different objects at different depth levels

image

the way that "in real life" you would know that they are at different depth levels is that your eyes would converge different amounts to see them (also, there's parallax between the two eyes, which is what causes binocular depth perception to begin with), but even if you were one-eyed, you would expect to change the focus of your eye as you look deep into a scene. But you don't when you look at a 2D image, because the 2D image is just one distance from your eye, regardless of how much depth the image is supposed to suggest.

It's almost the same situation as the 3D argument. Shouldn't your brain get confused that you're seeing things that, depending on how you look at them, seem like they both are and are not at different depths?

Yet we can see 2D films just fine.

I have heard that there are cultures that can't understand 2D images with only perspective (scaling) depth cues. I'm not sure if that goes for photographs / films as well as drawings. If so, it probably does indicate that looking at 2D images is unnatural, but that the brain can "learn" to understand them and adjust.




I guess it's also possible that people experience 3D films differently. We usually assume that things (movies, music, whatever) are perceived identically, and that differences of opinions are just that, opinions. But some people's brains just might not work for Avatar, and for others it might. The latter won't be convinced that 3D doesn't work (because they can plainly see that it can), while the others will be much more receptive to arguments that it doesn't



"Without a foothold in the past, we cannot walk towards the future."
-Vagrant Story