[SkinnyPupp]

Does anyone else think this is a stupid fucking trend, and we'll be laughing about it in 3 years? Even funnier is that they are trying to push it on home viewers too... This is sure to be on several "failures of the 2010 decade" lists...

I think it's cool for goofy theme rides and whacky Imax shows, but for movies it is just stupid. It's not even 3D, it's more like one of these

http://crabfisher.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/viewmaster_red_with_reel.jpg

Those were fun when I was 5, but it's just stupid in normal movies.

I just saw Alice in Wonderland, and thought pretty much the same as everyone else.. Cool visuals, stupid action at the end, etc. But the 3D really made it less enjoyable for me. Especially the fast-moving parts, which the 3D couldn't keep up with. This made all fast-moving object blurry. Also gave my wife a headache for the rest of the day.

3D Movies = FAIL

[alex.w *//]

:inout:

[Gnomes]

I watched my very first 3D movie - avatar a couple of months ago. It was amazing. Then I watched alice in wonderland in 3D. Effect for the latter was horrid. The blurs was very distracting.

[threezero]

i think you problem is not with 3d movie its with alice in wonderland.

Avatar til now is by far the best use of the 3d technology because the whole movie was built with 3d in mind. If only more movie maker take 3d seriously and treat it as a technology not a gimmick it would really take movie to a whole other level.

[El Bastardo]

I agree and want to add another trend that'll make people look stupid in three years:

3D Television.

Name one television network broadcasting in 3D. Name one movie that is coming that'll need a 3D TV to play?

None.

Samsung (the ones "ahead of the curve" and making 3D tvs right now) are making chumps out of a lot of trend followers.

[threezero]

^^ its not stupid because the porn industry havn't pick it up yet. wait till you can see jizz flying at yall in 3d right in you living room ;)

[Gnomes]

^^ And video game industry. Hopefully the 3D tv will be like blueray - slow start but picks up.

[PinoyDrifta]

^^ its not stupid because the porn industry havn't pick it up yet. wait till you can see jizz flying at yall in 3d right in you living room ;)

actually porn industry picked up on it already cuz buddy has a few in 3d and they are awesome hahaha:thumbsup::haha::haha::haha:

[TOPEC]

I agree and want to add another trend that'll make people look stupid in three years:

3D Television.

Name one television network broadcasting in 3D. Name one movie that is coming that'll need a 3D TV to play?

None.

Samsung (the ones "ahead of the curve" and making 3D tvs right now) are making chumps out of a lot of trend followers.

apparently the world cup is broadcast in 3D by TSN i think.

[tacobell]

i love the concept of 3d movies, it adds a whole new element that i much enjoy. They recently broadcasted a Man U vs Arsenal game in 3d, i wish i could of experienced that.

If you don't like 3d skinnypup, don't watch it, you can still watch it in the original form. You can think it's stupid all you want, no one is forcing it down your throat. For those that enjoy it, we'll pay extra, simple as that

[Hondaracer]

like ive said before, during the olympics i tried all three of panasonics setups at their pavailion

all 3 were completely underwhelming and looked less 3D than any new 240hz setup ive seen with non-3d BR's

[unit]

im kind of undecided on it.
when i saw avatar i didnt like the 3d part.
i found it distracting.
then i saw alice, and it was slightly easier as i was used to the 3d effect after seeing avatar.
i dont hate or love it... prob need to see a few more 3d movies first.

[The_AK]

you're married? LoL

I think it depends on the movie for 3d,
I agree that 3d in Alice in wonderland was unnecessary but I think it will be more than suitable in Tron 2. Again, depends on the type of movie. As for 3d tv's, I think its just a waste of money.

[Drow]

avatar started it all

[invader]

anyone going to shell out 3-4 grand on an LED 3D TV?

[way2quik]

I hope Toy Story 3 in 3D won't be disappointing.

[!YaoShi]

Whats the diff between these new 3d tv's and 3d blu-ray players than the ones now. I've seen blu-ray discs what come with glasses in the box. So whats the major diff besides the glasses being paper ones?

[PinoyDrifta]

3d is a very cool concept but some movies dont need it...they are just jumpng the bandwagon and try and make an extra few bucks...just watched Clash Of The Titans...and i could have watched it regular...no need IMO...

[StylinRed]

3D is just the movie industry trying to get people not to pirate movies and go back to the theatres

the Television industry is trying to well... sell TVs they need... well WANT to have people constantly buying the latest televisions etc they were/are hoping Blu-Ray would drive customers to buy more HDTVs and now 3D to buy 3D tvs


i think its retarded too
the Odd 3-D movie is somewhat of a treat.. especially if its a horror movie... but now... when EVERYTHING is 3D its just stupid

[jlo mein]

The current problem with 3D is the movie studios holding back on innovation due to limitations of cinemas. 35mm film reel movies in cinemas are shown at 24 frames per second. Digital projection theatres could provide faster frame rates, but movie studios still cling to 24fps because they believe the greater importance is higher resolution, not frame rates. They're afraid of HD resolution being adopted on TV's at home and want to make theatres even higher in resolution. James Cameron has said that faster frame rates are needed in 3D movies to reduce strobing effects of action sequences. Here's a part of an interview with James Cameron (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1043&cs=1):

I'm hearing that there are already calls to increase the frame rate to at least 30 fps for digital 3-D because certain camera moves, especially pans, look jumpy in 3-D. I saw that in the Imax 3-D "Beowulf." You've been an advocate for both 3-D and higher frame rates. Have you seen the problem and do you have any thoughts on it?


For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem.

The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed.

Increasing the data-handling capacity of the projectors and servers is not a big deal, if there is demand. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry?

Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.

If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself? Something you can't get at home. An aspect of the film that you can't pirate.

[MR_BIGGS]

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/03/ebert_3d_01.jpg

[Graeme S]

The biggest difference between Avatar and almost every other 3D live-action movie out there is that Avatar was filmed in 3D, but the others had 3D added in post production.

Films which are designed to work with 3D (and not just as a gimmick, having something jump out at you), may be the future. But only if people can follow Cameron's lead and realize that you need a better framerate for balance, and that 3D doesn't have to be a gimmick.

[Great68]

I wasn't blown away with Avatar's 3D... Especially with how everyone was raving about it... It gave me a freaking headache.

[Stevie P]

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5082/3dglasses404675044c.jpg

[AzNightmare]

I just don't want to pay the 3D price to watch it. LOL

[underscore]

I agree and want to add another trend that'll make people look stupid in three years:

3D Television.

Name one television network broadcasting in 3D. Name one movie that is coming that'll need a 3D TV to play?

None.

Samsung (the ones "ahead of the curve" and making 3D tvs right now) are making chumps out of a lot of trend followers.

Well it would have been pretty stupid to broadcast your TV station in 3D (not to mention expensive) or put out a movie in 3D if there aren't any TV's to support it yet. Plus, how would they know what technology to use so that they are compatible with the TV's once they are produced. And as someone said above, there are sporting events being covered/coming in 3D.

[Great68]

The dumbest thing is that you have to wear the glasses to watch it...

So if you ever want to have a party with your buddies, you're SOL to watch your fancy 3D TV in 3D unless you have enough glasses for everyone.

[SkinnyPupp]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of this, and willing to talk about it. I hate stupid trends like this, when stuff is just so obviously made to get people to spend more money for no reason. It goes beyond "well just don't go see 3D movies then" like some idiot wrote. This is actively offensive to us.

[Graeme S]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of this, and willing to talk about it. I hate stupid trends like this, when stuff is just so obviously made to get people to spend more money for no reason. It goes beyond "well just don't go see 3D movies then" like some idiot wrote. This is actively offensive to us.
Why? It's not like they've stopped making 2D movies.

[SkinnyPupp]

Because of what I said. I know they didn't stop making 2D, and that's great! But the fact that they are still making 3D, and you see its effect on the media who cover it like it really is something other than a stupid phony cash grab, it is just highly irritating. I am the furthest from a hippie, but even this bothers the shit out of me.

In addition to all that, movies have been mostly shitty for the last 5 years anyway, so it seems.

[StylinRed]

The current problem with 3D is the movie studios holding back on innovation due to limitations of cinemas. 35mm film reel movies in cinemas are shown at 24 frames per second. Digital projection theatres could provide faster frame rates, but movie studios still cling to 24fps because they believe the greater importance is higher resolution, not frame rates. They're afraid of HD resolution being adopted on TV's at home and want to make theatres even higher in resolution. James Cameron has said that faster frame rates are needed in 3D movies to reduce strobing effects of action sequences. Here's a part of an interview with James Cameron:


They need to use 70MM film... all 70mm movies look stunning, on the big screen and on blu-ray 70mm movies look way better.. but they still find 70mm expensive i guess... even though its been decades and decades -_-




Name one television network broadcasting in 3D. Name one movie that is coming that'll need a 3D TV to play?


Samsung (the ones "ahead of the curve" and making 3D tvs right now) are making chumps out of a lot of trend followers.

Dishnetwork or is it DirectTv is going to have 1 channel dedicated to 3D content this fall

again its stupid i agree -_-

[underscore]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of this, and willing to talk about it. I hate stupid trends like this, when stuff is just so obviously made to get people to spend more money for no reason. It goes beyond "well just don't go see 3D movies then" like some idiot wrote. This is actively offensive to us.

Welcome to the majority of electronics, and everything Apple makes.

[SkinnyPupp]

Yeah I know that most of it is frivilous bullshit. But aside from Apple products (and then that is mostly because it turns people into complete fucking idiots), it's not that offensive to me. But 3D movies... Fuck.

[twitchyzero]

3D movies should just stick to animation and horror films

3D MAY fly for playing video games and movies..but not for tv-shows.

3D tv's wont become successful unless they meet two requirements:

1. No need for glasses
2. Wide viewing angles

[chun]

Because of what I said. I know they didn't stop making 2D, and that's great! But the fact that they are still making 3D, and you see its effect on the media who cover it like it really is something other than a stupid phony cash grab, it is just highly irritating. I am the furthest from a hippie, but even this bothers the shit out of me.

In addition to all that, movies have been mostly shitty for the last 5 years anyway, so it seems.

This is a quote from your response in the Tofino Starbucks thread.

This is kind of stupid. If people want to go to Starbucks or whatever, they are creating a demand for it. And that demand should be allowed to be accommodated if the businesses want to do so. Fucken hippies.

There's a demand for 3D movies (since people are paying to watch it), so apparently, that demand should be allowed to be accommodated by the film makers if they wanted to do so. Amirite?

PS. I was wondering why noone failed you in the first post; pretty hurting that you set yourself as un-failable. For a second there, I ALMOST thought that everyone agreed with you. Lol.

[underscore]

edit: ^there's a difference though, 3D in a theatrically viewed movie is not the same as these 3D TV's, which people are buying on the concept of "future-proofing" their purchase, without the ability to actually use or sample it yet. You should also keep in mind that a good number of the people going and watching 3D movies in theatres are only doing so to try it out for the first time.

Yeah I know that most of it is frivilous bullshit. But aside from Apple products (and then that is mostly because it turns people into complete fucking idiots), it's not that offensive to me. But 3D movies... Fuck.

I'll support your cause if you support mine? :lol Cause I swear the next time one of my friends gets some useless Apple POS and tells me how great it is using all the made up marketing bullshit that got them to buy it, I might end up beating them with that same device.

[SkinnyPupp]

This is a quote from your response in the Tofino Starbucks thread.



There's a demand for 3D movies (since people are paying to watch it), so apparently, that demand should be allowed to be accommodated by the film makers if they wanted to do so. Amirite?

PS. I was wondering why noone failed you in the first post; pretty hurting that you set yourself as un-failable. For a second there, I ALMOST thought that everyone agreed with you. Lol.
Umm you just proved my point you idiot. There is a demand for starbucks and tim hortons in Tofino. There is no demand, there never was demand, and there never will be a demand for all movies to be in 3D. This is a perfect example of it, and you just owned yourself :lol

[chun]

Umm you just proved my point you idiot. There is a demand for starbucks and tim hortons in Tofino. There is no demand, there never was demand, and there never will be a demand for all movies to be in 3D. This is a perfect example of it, and you just owned yourself :lol

Regardless of whether or not there's demand for Starbucks in Tofino, you preach this supply/demand thing, but then when 3D movies get sold out, you bitch and moan about it regardless of the obvious demand of it. You just kinda have to make up your mind across the board.

And, no, didn't really own myself if you actually read what I wrote. Just because you say "there will never be a demand for movies in 3D" doesn't change the fact that a lot of 3D movie showings are often sold out.

(just for the record, I've only watched Avatar and I thought it was alright; just not for me... then again, I won't find the need to feel "directly insulted" that people are creating 3D movies lol)

[SkinnyPupp]

I'll support your cause if you support mine? :lol Cause I swear the next time one of my friends gets some useless Apple POS and tells me how great it is using all the made up marketing bullshit that got them to buy it, I might end up beating them with that same device.
You don't have to ask me twice to hate Apple and what it does to people, turning formerly respectable people into complete fucking morons. :lol

[Graeme S]

Umm you just proved my point you idiot. There is a demand for starbucks and tim hortons in Tofino. There is no demand, there never was demand, and there never will be a demand for all movies to be in 3D. This is a perfect example of it, and you just owned yourself :lol
Nobody said all movies should be in 3D. There is and always will be a 2D market, whether it's because of cost (either on the production side or the purchaser side), artistic direction, usability/filmability...whatever.

Don't like 3D movies? Don't go.

[SkinnyPupp]

You still fail to see the point, and that is fine. Most people do :)

[Great68]

Why? It's not like they've stopped making 2D movies.

What's rediculous is that they're re-releasing old movies as 3D movies, and selling as "The ultimate experience in video and sound quality".

[nabs]

has anybody seen clash of the titans yet?

[LiquidTurbo]

Nobody said all movies should be in 3D. There is and always will be a 2D market, whether it's because of cost (either on the production side or the purchaser side), artistic direction, usability/filmability...whatever.

Don't like 3D movies? Don't go.

Wow. Simple. /endthread.

[GFunk]

Wow. Simple. /endthread.

It's okay. Skinnypupp still fails to see the point, and that is fine. He usually does

[SkinnyPupp]

You guys still don't get it... unbelievable. Well actually, not really :lol

[raygunpk]

they would get it if you told them in 3D
OBVIOUSLY

[fishing666]

3d movies..you need a 3d tv

get the samsung..better than crappy sony

or see it at the theatre

3d movies are awesome especially the dinosaur movie i saw a long time ago

[LiquidTurbo]

Please explain how this is "actively offensive". Considering we have choices of 2D and 3D, and that 3D shows are quite popular. As long as we have choices I am fine with 3D. I saw Avatar in 3D and rather enjoyed it. I also enjoy lots of 2D movies. You might have a point if suddenly everything was switching over to 3D forever.

No one is out to get you, or forcing you to pay more money. It's posts like these which is why you need a fail button.


You don't have to ask me twice to hate Apple and what it does to people, turning formerly respectable people into complete fucking morons. :lol

You guys still don't get it... unbelievable. Well actually, not really :lol

You still fail to see the point, and that is fine. Most people do :)

Fantastically insightful posts sir!

[chun]

I'm back. What did I miss?

Oh... nothing. lol.

Please explain how this is "actively offensive". Considering we have choices of 2D and 3D, and that 3D shows are quite popular. As long as we have choices I am fine with 3D. I saw Avatar in 3D and rather enjoyed it. I also enjoy lots of 2D movies. You might have a point if suddenly everything was switching over to 3D forever.

No one is out to get you, or forcing you to pay more money. It's posts like these which is why you need a fail button.

He won't explain it; we're too daft to understand :(

[SkinnyPupp]

Maybe you guys should go back and read the first few posts. Or just keep being idiotic consumer whores. OH IT'S IN 3D LET'S PAY AN EXTRA $5 TO SEE THE ULTIMATE MOVIE EXPERIENCE

Fucking sheep :lol

It's an offense that they have the gall to push this shit on people, and convince them that it's a better movie experience. It's not an offense to me in that I am being forced to watch it. But it is similar to the way Apple turns people into morons... The 3D agenda is clearly turning more people into morons, and to me, stupidity is offensive.

I hope you are starting to get it now.

[chun]

Maybe you guys should go back and read the first few posts. Or just keep being idiotic consumer whores. OH IT'S IN 3D LET'S PAY AN EXTRA $5 TO SEE THE ULTIMATE MOVIE EXPERIENCE

Fucking sheep :lol

It's an offense that they have the gall to push this shit on people, and convince them that it's a better movie experience. It's not an offense to me in that I am being forced to watch it. But it is similar to the way Apple turns people into morons... The 3D agenda is clearly turning more people into morons, and to me, stupidity is offensive.

I hope you are starting to get it now.

Different strokes for different folks.

People are buying it, so let them buy it. I'm befuddled that you find it offensive that other people have a service available to them that you do not prefer. Noone's even coming up to you to sell it.

Us "fucking sheep" aren't even supporting 3D movies if you read our posts. We're saying that there's a demand for it, why bitch and moan on an internet website about it (since you're also the one who make the big brew-haha about the "demand for Starbucks in Tofino").

PS. Could you stop deleting our thanks for other peoples posts just because it doesn't coincide with your argument? Thanks!

[SkinnyPupp]

http://carlrules.com/images/serious-cat.jpg

:facepalm: you guys, give your head a shake.... This thread was just a rant about 3D movie, and how they are stupid. I am not saying there shouldn't be 3D movies, and I am not saying that I "have to go see them". I just think it's stupid and offensive consumerism that turns people into idiots.

To all the people who were going "derrrr just don't go see them then", you don't even need to bother posting here. That's not what I am arguing about. All you are doing is trolling. The thing that really set me off was the fucking idiot who posted a quote from me about there being a demand for starbucks and comparing to the demand for 3D movies. Really? Are you really that stupid? Or again, are you just being a troll?

If you're not "supporting 3D movies" and just saying "don't see them" then stay out of this conversation, because it's not even what it is about.

There, I explained it. Now either stay out of the thread if you can't agree or disagree with the point I am making, or try to put together a cohesive point about how 3D movies are The Next Big Thing, and how everyone will be owning 3D TV's in 3 years. I'd love to see that :)

[underscore]

Just wait until the iphone 3d. then people can walk around with the fancy glasses on and look even fucking stupider.

[chun]

And you need to give your head a shake, if you're giving people an ultimatum to leave the thread.

Some of us are saying, "3D movies aren't as bad as you say they are" (aka offensive to produce and release). Do we think they're the next big thing? Probably not. Are we offended when a new one is released? No. Understand?

PS. For the last time, can you stop deleting our thanks to other peoples posts that don't coincide with your argument? It's bad enough that we can't fail you and that you gave me a "deconstructive flaming" infraction (to a post that you deleted, so people can't even see that I didn't deconstructively flame you). Thanks in advance!

[CP.AR]

I agree to a certain level.. some movies simply sucks the ballz0rs in 3D..

I watched Up in 3d - Amazing stuff
I watched Avatar in 3D -Amazing Stuff
I watched Alice in Wonderland - WTF IS THIS PILE OF DOGSHIT ON THE SCREEN?

but yeah, please keep the 3d to animated films. 3D on live action films will be wtfsauce (minus the CGI style films like avatar)

[The_AK]

As long as we have people like these fuckers...

YouTube- iPad on Modern Family

...buying into the latest destructive technology, then i'm happy. At least someone is spending money on it.

[SkinnyPupp]

Like I said, just ranting to start a conversation going here. Too many people just post a quote from a stupid news article, and leave it at that. IMO that is worthy of points. If something is that intriguing to you, why not comment on it? Something other than "."

If you agree or disagree with me, that is fine. If you want to be a complete moron and own yourself, that is fine too. I'm not going to let you waste your "thanks" on moronic posts though ;)

[Mercy]

3D can suck it, its not enjoyable even more so when i goto the movie theater without my reading glasses because the 3D fucks with my stigmatism.

[Amuse]

3D Movies = FAIL
Well, I recommend watching The Polar Express in 3D Imax. It's pretty awesome especially in Christmas time. 3D makes this movie much more enjoyable.

[SkinnyPupp]

I actually did watch that movie in 3D. Like I said, for whacky Imax movies and theme rides for kids, it's fine. But to take old movies and sell them as "the ultimate experience" or whatever they are calling it, or to release 3D versions of non-3D movies just to artificially create a market for it, and charge extra for tickets is what is bullshit about it.

I think 3D works 100X better in Imax than it does on a normal theatre screen, that's for sure. But you still have the issue with fast-moving objects being blurry or almost invisible.

[punkwax]

I'm going to invent 3D contact lenses and be RICH BEEYATCH!

Ah shit.

http://www.televisions.com/tv-news/No-joke-3D-contact-lenses.php

[Gnomes]

has anybody seen clash of the titans yet?

Yup, the 3D version is fail

[Graeme S]

Ladies, please try and keep from getting your panties in a twist in this thread; that's what FC was made for.

This is a thread about 3D movies, not about Skinnypup.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Rich Sandor]

Saw Avatar in 3d, thought it was awesome. Then I saw Alice in 3d, and honestly thought the 3d was shit.

I would watch Avatar again, but only in 3d. I would watch Alice again, but NOT in 3d.

I want to see that Dragon Training movie in 3d, as my friends say it's the best implementation of 3d they have seen, yet.

I think there IS a solid demand for 3d movies AS LONG AS THEY ARE DONE RIGHT. NOT the post-processed crap.

I would LOVE to see Iron Man 2 in 3d - but ONLY if it's up to par with Avatar. NOT if it was post processed like Alice.

/my opinion.

[LiquidTurbo]

Saw Avatar in 3d, thought it was awesome. Then I saw Alice in 3d, and honestly thought the 3d was shit.

I would watch Avatar again, but only in 3d. I would watch Alice again, but NOT in 3d.

I want to see that Dragon Training movie in 3d, as my friends say it's the best implementation of 3d they have seen, yet.

I think there IS a solid demand for 3d movies AS LONG AS THEY ARE DONE RIGHT. NOT the post-processed crap.

I would LOVE to see Iron Man 2 in 3d - but ONLY if it's up to par with Avatar. NOT if it was post processed like Alice.

/my opinion.

Something like Avatar was really meant for 3D. If more movies came out like that I would definitely go see them. I didn't get a headache I was pretty immersed for the duration of the movie. When he rolled out of the Aircraft on his wheelchair and everything looked like a 3D shooter from the future I was pretty impressed.

The people who didn't enjoy Avatar were mostly the ones who complained about headaches.

This was probably due to the interpupillary distance (distance between the centres of the pupil) isn't really accounted for since there's only one set of glasses.. a one size fits all. The movie engineers could designed a few difference sizes of glasses so that the stereo separation of the images could be more refined, more people could enjoy the movie.

A 2D movie made into a 3D movie like Up I don't really fancy, although it was neat. I would have preferred the 2D version just fine. Iron Man 2 would never be on par with Avatar since it wasn't shot with 3D effects in mind. The post-processed 3D effects is sorta lame.

[Kaito1412]

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5082/3dglasses404675044c.jpg

FTW !

[jlo mein]

They need to use 70MM film... all 70mm movies look stunning, on the big screen and on blu-ray 70mm movies look way better.. but they still find 70mm expensive i guess... even though its been decades and decades -_-

You missed the point of the James Cameron interview. Increased resolution doesn't give you more fidelity in fast action sequences and only makes strobbing/jittering more apparent (especially in 3D movies). Higher frame rates are really needed in cinemas. 24fps is the standard movie frame rate, and 30fps is used on North American TV broadcasts. When you play fast action video games you're ideally playing at 60fps or higher. James Cameron's proposing of raising movie frame rates to 48fps would do wonders for 3D movies.

If you've ever felt lost or unable to fully comprehend what's going on in action sequences in 3D movies, you're most likely feeling the affects of the slow 24fps film speed.

[skyxx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHX5ip68p4

3D is gimmicky and pointless. Well, I can't really say it's pointless but I'm really underwhelmed by it. I still haven't seen a 3d film that wows me in theatres. Okay, fine there is one film but that was at the Science world and I wasn't wearing any stupid glasses. I really hate wearing those uncomfortable glasses when I watch a damn movie. Even after I wear it, it looks like a normal 2D film with maybe a slight noticeable pop in the image. When I mean slight I mean it's basically 0.0000001 percent of noticing it. I must repeat myself and say that I'm still very underwhelmed by the whole 3D trend right now. Until they come up with a damn tech that doesn't require me to watch a 3D movie with glasses and it actually makes things look like it's gonna stab me in the eye. I will firmly believe it's all gimmick and a marketing tool for the everyday consumer.

[underscore]

You missed the point of the James Cameron interview. Increased resolution doesn't give you more fidelity in fast action sequences and only makes strobbing/jittering more apparent (especially in 3D movies). Higher frame rates are really needed in cinemas. 24fps is the standard movie frame rate, and 30fps is used on North American TV broadcasts. When you play fast action video games you're ideally playing at 60fps or higher. James Cameron's proposing of raising movie frame rates to 48fps would do wonders for 3D movies.

If you've ever felt lost or unable to fully comprehend what's going on in action sequences in 3D movies, you're most likely feeling the affects of the slow 24fps film speed.

The last 3D movie I watched was in IMAX, I think it was something about F1 back in the day or something. Either way, there was massive amounts of motion blur. If they want to do this 3D thing they need to do it right. There's a way to create a 3D effect without any glasses or fancy screens (though it makes things appear sunk back instead of popping out) but it would require framerates way higher than what movies run at right now.

[Ferra]

don't care much about 3D movies...but I am definitely hoping it will bring 3D display to the gaming market..
3D FPS game with shit jumping right at you = win

[SkinnyPupp]

I had the very first 3D gaming glasses when they came out with the original GeForce, and they were pretty bad. Unlike the normal polarized glasses you get in movies, these had actual shutters that sync with the game. It didn't take long before one lens broke either. Like it literally stopped working while I was wearing them.

New 3D tech is more like the movies, but even the newest GPUs can't run 3D in high resolutions yet.

[tool001]

saw 3d movies about 10 years ago, 3d movie festival at a cheapo cinema hall, those movies were made for 3d. ie. they would do things that would make the audience jump thinking that something would come out of the screen.

avatar was crap imo. in that respect.

[Graeme S]

saw 3d movies about 10 years ago, 3d movie festival at a cheapo cinema hall, those movies were made for 3d. ie. they would do things that would make the audience jump thinking that something would come out of the screen.

avatar was crap imo. in that respect.
That's because that style of 3D is designed to be a gimmick. In every 3D movie I had been in before Avatar, there was always at least one moment like that--but it doesn't do anything for the immersion into the movie--it just makes you realize even more that it's not the real thing.

As soon as that moment is gone, there's always a pause in the action as they let the movie-goers realize "oh, wait, I'm actually sitting in a movietheatre." That does nothing but kill the immersion and realism. And I don't know about you, but I go to a movie to be sucked in.

[LiquidTurbo]

DIY 3D Camera..

3D lovers will appreciate this. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxa65FaboI&playnext_from=TL&videos=wvglOdHzCmc&feature=sub

[twitchyzero]

i didn't realize they shot Wall-E in hong kong

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5082/3dglasses404675044c.jpg

geek squad

lol

[c3m]

"3D is SO great!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbXG7GvYun8

[slammer111]

As most people know already, pr0n and sports will be the driving force. As with anything, the bottom line is COST. 3D HD cameras don't come cheap.

The glasses thing is something people will have to live with as there's no way to feed the data into each eye separately. What would be cool in the future though is if they had these embedded into your contact lenses or some other less obvious way.

Checked out BR players at Future shop today. The 3D models are $400!? Anyone who's not a retard is just going to pick up a PS3 and wait for that firmware upgrade instead. :rolleyes:

With that said, wow, 2D TVs have really dropped in price. This $2300 model I was looking at in Decemberish (Panasonic 54" plasma) is now only $1700! :D

Here's a good article. In the tech world, porn quietly leads the way

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/23/porn.technology/index.html

(CNN) -- It was just days after the release of the iPad -- Apple's slate computer heralded as a tool for gaming, book and magazine reading and Web consumption -- when the announcement arrived.

One of the world's biggest porn companies claimed it had created a way to stream its videos onto the device, skipping the Apple store and its restrictions on salacious content.

The announcement illustrates a widely acknowledged but seldom-spoken truth of the technology world: Whenever there's a new content platform, the adult-entertainment industry is one of the first to adopt it -- if they didn't help create it in the first place.

"It's not necessarily that the porn industry comes up with the ideas, but there's a huge difference in any technology between the idea and the successful application," said Jonathan Coopersmith, a professor at Texas A&M University who teaches the history of technology.

"They're kind of the shock troops, and one of the nice things for them is that they can claim, 'Hey, I'm advancing technology.' "

While the shadowy nature of the adult-entertainment industry makes exact figures hard to nail down, it's generally acknowledged that porn was the first product to make money on the Internet and still rakes in upward of $1 billion annually online.

[Although porn, like many industries, has felt the pinch of the last couple year's recession, leading Hustler's Larry Flynt and others to jokingly ask for a federal bailout].

From the printing press to instant cameras, from pay-per-view to VCRs, pornographers -- both professional and private -- have been among the quickest to jump on board with newly developed gadgets.

The first public screening of a movie was in 1895. Less than two years later, Coopersmith notes, the first "adult" film was released.

"The classic example is the VCR," said Oliver Marc Hartwich, an economist and senior fellow with Centre for Independent Studies, a conservative Australian think tank. "When it was introduced, Hollywood was nervous because the big studios feared piracy. They were even considering suing the VCR producers.

"Not so the adult industry. They saw it as a big new market and seized the opportunity."

On the internet, streaming video, credit-card verification sites, Web referral rings and video technology like Flash all can be traced back to innovations designed to share, and sell, adult content.

iReport: Porn and the economy

Experts attribute much of the success of AOL, the social networking forbearer of sites like Facebook and Twitter, to its private chat rooms -- and anyone who remembers scanning the user-created chats remembers the adults-only nature of many of them.

Websites that require memberships, encryption coding, speedier file-sharing technology -- all can trace their roots back to the adult industry.

These days, in addition to the race for the iPad screen, at least a couple of porn flicks are in production using burgeoning 3-D technology. While Hollywood has scored with a few blockbusters, 3-D tech for the television is still in its infancy -- and porn, as always, is right there to capitalize.

"Just imagine that you'll be watching it as if you were sitting beside the bed," Hong Kong-based producer Stephen Shiu Jr. said of his movie, "3D Zen and Sex," which is set to begin filming this month with a budget of nearly $4 million. "There will be many close-ups. It will look as if the actresses are only a few centimeters from the audience."

For adult-entertainment companies, staying on the cutting edge of technology can be necessary to survive.

Ilan Bunimovitz is the CEO of Private Media Group, the company that announced the iPad porn offering, which uses cloud computing to store a customer's videos.

In effect, he's saying it's like an iTunes for porn -- an online service that lets users buy and access a personal collection of adult videos via their iPads. Of course, the slate computer's browser can already be used to surf the internet for adult content.

He said his company, with its 25-member technology department, began working on ways to take advantage of theiPad the day it was announced in January. By the time Apple released the device in early April, the system was ready, he said.

"Every step of the way, when there's a new technology, we explore it," said Bunimovitz. "In the adult business, many times the traditional venues are not available to us, so we have to be innovative to get our content to the consumer.

"With adult content, you need to create your own solutions."

Porn companies can capitalize on the latest technological advances because of their deep pockets and the relative certainty that their investments will be returned by customers willing to pony up for their product, experts say.

"People are willing to pay a premium for pornography," said Coopersmith, the Texas A&M professor. "You see this with movies, with VCRs -- which is when it first really became noticeable. DVDs, computer games, cable TV -- if you look at the price of those [adult] products, they're higher profit margins for the vendors."

That fact creates a conundrum for product developers. Often, any new product's pornographic potential remains a dirty little secret -- privately discussed by the manufacturer but left unspoken in public.

One of Coopersmith's favorite examples is the early days of instant cameras. Manufacturers were fully aware how many customers would use a camera that didn't require you to go to the local pharmacist to have your film developed, he said.

One of the earliest was Polaroid's provocatively named camera, "The Swinger" -- ostensibly so-called because of a strap that let it dangle from the user's wrist.

In a television ad, a young man uses it to photograph a bevy of gyrating, bikini-clad models before eventually picking one to walk off into the sunset -- with only the camera between them.

"One of the silent slogans of the porn-tech world is 'Don't ask. Don't tell. Do sell," Coopersmith said. "You don't want to be public, but you've got your own private corporate plans."

"As for the future, Bunimovitz says he doesn't expect his industry to back away from the cutting edge of technology. He's currently intrigued with the potential of artificial intelligence, which he said one day might simulate a live porn star who could "interact" with the user.

"There's always something new," he said. "At any point in time, we'll be working on new initiatives. Some of them will flop and some of them will be big -- but there's always something in the works."

[twitchyzero]

what, there's something called a 3D BD player?? Although it's pricey, i don't think it's that unreasonable knowing BD players were $600+ just 3 years back.
the processing is all in the TV if i'm not mistaken
the reason why PS3 needs new firmware is to process 3d gaming..not movies. BTW the 3d firmware is already out :)

[Hondaracer]

anyone who thinks they like 3D go try the setup at futureshop and tell me you'd drop the 4G's on it

hmm.. 42" XBR10 for 2700 for the 3D panasonic TV for 3600, not a hard choice for me