

Debunking the pseudoscience behind the "3D can't work" myth - kldavis4
http://www.slate.com/id/2282376/

======
michael_dorfman
Setting aside the ocular arguments, I think the Slate post overstates things
here:

 _Take Toy Story 3: I've gone on record with my admiration for the scene at
Daisy's window, where Lotso finds he's been replaced by another toy. There's
no sight gag there, no objects hurtling off the screen; instead, the image
contorts visual space into a crisscrossing, emotional depth. If the scene were
flat, Lotso and Daisy would be right next to each other on the screen; in 3-D,
they're spread across a lonely chasm, separated by rain-streaked glass._

I've seen Toy Story 3 in both 3D (IMAX) and 2D (home DVD), and the scene
retains its poignancy (and potency) even on the small screen without the 3D
apparatus. He's wrong when he says _"If the scene were flat, Lotso and Daisy
would be right next to each other on the screen"_ \-- when the scene is flat,
our brain stills views the scene as a two-dimensional representation of a
three-dimensional situation, and inserts the gap between Lotso and Daisy.

