It is. Modern 3D specs use polarization filters. These can be applied to optical lenses without any problem.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.
If 3D really catches on, then prescription 3D glasses should follow along. Assuming that's also technically possible.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.
Is 3D a dead end?
- JOZeldenrust
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:49 am
- Contact:
Re: Is 3D a dead end?
- JOZeldenrust
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:49 am
- Contact:
Re: Is 3D a dead end?
3D TV's without glasses? How's that supposed to work? Projection dependant on perspective, like the 3D postcards with the vertical lines?Geoff wrote: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.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.
If 3D really catches on, then prescription 3D glasses should follow along. Assuming that's also technically possible.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.
Re: Is 3D a dead end?
Similar concept, yep.JOZeldenrust wrote:3D TV's without glasses? How's that supposed to work? Projection dependant on perspective, like the 3D postcards with the vertical lines?Geoff wrote: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.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.
If 3D really catches on, then prescription 3D glasses should follow along. Assuming that's also technically possible.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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... ut-glasses

"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can. And then when they come back, they can
again." - Tigger
- 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?
I have never seen it, and never will.
Bah humbug...
Bah humbug...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
Re: Is 3D a dead end?
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.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.

no fences
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests