3D movie cures man with visual impairment
Fascinating and very cool...
SNIP: "67 Year old Bruce Bridgeman from Santa Cruz, California suffers from a visual condition called stereoblindness – the process in which the brain translates depth based on the combined images received by two eyes (or in stereo.) To Bruce, the details around him simply blended into their backgrounds. He learned to deal with seeing the world in 2D patterns as he has never experienced it any other way.
But after viewing Martin Scorsese’s 3D film Hugo this past February, his brain appears to have reprogrammed itself and he was suddenly experiencing the world in staggering 3D!..."
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2012/07/24/3d-film-cures-a-man-of-stereo-blindness/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I had surgery when I was two, but my left eye still turns in when I'm tired...or drinking...lol!
When I was in high school I worked in a picture framing place at the mall. At the time those 3D art posters, where it looks like dots but an image emerges for most people if they look at them in a certain way, were super popular and there were several hanging in the shop. People would walk by constantly and stare at them until they'd exclaim something like, "OOOOOH...I see...it's a boat!" and it drove me INSANE because I could never see anything in them.
I also have terrible depth perception and, yes, it does suck!
Kind of cool to meet someone that's had similar experiences. 
I can catch a ball or a Frisbee just fine when I'm moving. My world isn't flat at all. This may also be the reason for some of my fidgeting. When I'm rocking back and forth a bit I see the world in glorious 3D. When my head is still the world is flat.
My static "binocular" stereo vision is worthless. "3D" movies are simply irritating to me. Intellectually I know people see them in 3D and are willing to pay extra for the experiences, but to me they are simply distorted, inferior versions of the 2D movie. I notice the double image, the lower resolution, and it's wretchedly distracting.
I'm not entirely without binocular vision. I can stare at a stereo "ViewMaster" photo for a few seconds and sometimes it will pop into 3D. I've practiced and practiced but it only works for static images and not reliably. Evidently there's some flaw in my visual or neural circuitry that slows the process down so much that's it's useless in everyday life. As a child my developing brain learned to ignore this unreliable input. It might also be related to the migraine headaches I've suffered since adolescence. These are intensely visual. During the worst of them I'm essentially blind.
I can process Wiggle stereoscopy much better than anything requiring glasses
Sure, I'd like my brain to "reprogram itself" (especially if I could get rid of the headaches!) but I don't think it's going to happen.
I am not saying this story is not true. I am saying that, as with a lot of internet journalism, there is no information in the story with which one could even begin to form a sense of whether it is true or not.
A bunch of stuff stated as fact that is obviously the man's claim of what events transpired. That doesn't mean it is false. It means the entire article is some guy's unverified, unchecked, unexamined story about something that is then presented as third-person fact, in the way one would state that Albany is the capital of New York state.
Amusingly, one thing in the article is sourced, but sourced to "speculation." ("Speculation says..."
Seeing Hugo may well have cured this man. It is plausible. It is interesting.
But as a story, as presented, it is indistinguishable from faith-healing claims. And that's a problem with journalism.
