Is 3D a dead end?

User avatar
JOZeldenrust
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: Is 3D a dead end?

Post by JOZeldenrust » Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:32 am

Tom Wood wrote:Cameron (Avatar) has said many times that he thinks 3D is the way to keep the movie-going business viable. It's the one thing that will be very difficult to do in a home theater setup.
JOZeldenrust wrote: As 3D movies require you to wear a pair of special specs, I have to wear them over my regular glasses, which distorts the effect slightly, and is very uncomfortable.
If 3D really catches on, then prescription 3D glasses should follow along. Assuming that's also technically possible.
It is. Modern 3D specs use polarization filters. These can be applied to optical lenses without any problem.

User avatar
JOZeldenrust
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: Is 3D a dead end?

Post by JOZeldenrust » Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:35 am

Geoff wrote:
Tom Wood wrote:Cameron (Avatar) has said many times that he thinks 3D is the way to keep the movie-going business viable. It's the one thing that will be very difficult to do in a home theater setup.
JOZeldenrust wrote: As 3D movies require you to wear a pair of special specs, I have to wear them over my regular glasses, which distorts the effect slightly, and is very uncomfortable.
If 3D really catches on, then prescription 3D glasses should follow along. Assuming that's also technically possible.
Well, SKY are already showing 3D TV programmes (mostly sport at present), and 3D televisions without glasses will be available in a few years time.
3D TV's without glasses? How's that supposed to work? Projection dependant on perspective, like the 3D postcards with the vertical lines?

User avatar
Geoff
Pouncer
Posts: 9374
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:39 pm
Location: Wigan, UK
Contact:

Re: Is 3D a dead end?

Post by Geoff » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:44 am

JOZeldenrust wrote:
Geoff wrote:
Tom Wood wrote:Cameron (Avatar) has said many times that he thinks 3D is the way to keep the movie-going business viable. It's the one thing that will be very difficult to do in a home theater setup.
JOZeldenrust wrote: As 3D movies require you to wear a pair of special specs, I have to wear them over my regular glasses, which distorts the effect slightly, and is very uncomfortable.
If 3D really catches on, then prescription 3D glasses should follow along. Assuming that's also technically possible.
Well, SKY are already showing 3D TV programmes (mostly sport at present), and 3D televisions without glasses will be available in a few years time.
3D TV's without glasses? How's that supposed to work? Projection dependant on perspective, like the 3D postcards with the vertical lines?
Similar concept, yep.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... ut-glasses
Image
"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74085
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is 3D a dead end?

Post by JimC » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:51 am

I have never seen it, and never will.

Bah humbug...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32527
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Is 3D a dead end?

Post by charlou » Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:20 pm

JOZeldenrust wrote:Yet another thing that bothers me is that people are very good at constructing a threedimensional mental image from a twodimensional physical image. People have been doing this successfuly since the dawn of humanity, with most of the current depiction techniques developed about 500 years ago. 3D is filling a nonexistent void.
This for me. Although I think it's possible that some of us are more natural at it than others, while still others are just better at accommodating contrived 3D visuals effectively. :dono:
no fences

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests