So when an academy awarded influential film editor like Walter Murch makes very detrimental comments about 3D stereo some people should take a long hard look at it. What does 3D really add to the whole film experience except expense and a headache? You can find his comments here - all of which are very observant and true.
My own experiences tell me that, yes I can converge the image but I do suffer a headache after a long period of time. I'm sure that I could adapt and learn to deal with it. i suppose it could be like flexing a brain muscle, and with a bit of practice it would improve. But the real question is: should I need to?
My major gripe is the blurry focus in parts of the image where I want to look but am forced not too - especially in the converged camera pipeline. Yes the director wants you to focus on the part he wants, but often i want to look around the scene especially in a film like Avatar as it is so rich in content. The darkness issue I am sure can be resolved, but the strobing and slowing of the edit so the brain can compute the effect is something that will be hard to fix.
The 3D effect is not a natural one with the glasses cutting out your peripheral vision considerably. Your brain is receiving conflicting inputs which not natural. I think we definitely need to lose the glasses, but lets hope we can come up with a better solution than this.