|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|2010-11-05 03:40 PM|
Yup. Read it as well.
|2010-11-05 03:10 PM|
|reidw||There was a story in the media a couple of days ago that may make us all want to hold off on getting a 3D TV. It seems scientists feel that they are close to creating a holographic style 3D image a bit like Princess Leia's (sp?) desperation hologram to Obi-Wan Kenobi in the first Star Wars film. That was a true 3D image, one you could walk around and see all sides of the Princess. That's why I've referred to the 3D that's out today as cardboard cutout/viewmaster technology. It's very artificial. Holographic 3D by the way would NOT require special glasses.|
|2010-11-05 02:23 PM|
|dm_4u||I think we should go bqack to the red and blue cardboard glasses where everything was 3D...even if it wasn't|
|2010-11-02 08:50 PM|
Originally Posted by DancesWithLysol View Post
There is a novelty in today's 3D especially for kids but it fails for live action with adults. Rather than bringing you INTO the scene in a live action film, all it does heighten the sense of artificiality. Hence the failures of most live action 3D films so far.
|2010-11-02 04:37 PM|
Originally Posted by jimbo42 View Post
My family love to watch movies so it is actually cheaper in the long run to have a dedicated theatre with THX-ratio viewing distance.
( http://acebydavidsusilo.webs.com if anybody want to look see what a low-budget can do)
|2010-11-02 04:35 PM|
^^^ that always the tell-tale sign of faked-3D (movies converted to 3D after the fact) such as Piranha 3D and My Bloody Valentine 3D.
Movies shots in 3D in its entirety will not have that layered effect.
|2010-11-02 03:54 PM|
|audacity||I don't know about you guys, but when I'm watching a 3D movie it just seems so... layered. As in you see a 2D background where select items are in different "foreground layers'. It doesn't look good at all, especially when I'm looking at it thinking "background layer, foreground layer..."|
|2010-11-02 03:07 PM|
|jimbo42||I think it is more so people just can't pay that extra cash for a 3D movie and it's showing in box office receipts ? You would never think the economy is so bad in the US with people out of work, losing there homes etc.. and corporations continuing to raise rates on everything, putting up ticket prices and charging extra for 3D movies is just a kick in the teeth to most consumers. I think its economics coming into play here.|
|2010-11-01 10:38 PM|
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post
|2010-11-01 09:55 PM|
|David Susilo||allow me to rephrase... "no more CRAPPY 3D" (I actually like 3D, just not the frame sequential system, and also not liking the "hmm the movie is bad, let's make it 3D to make it --better--" approach)|
|2010-11-01 09:49 PM|
|reidw||David! That's not very nice!|
|2010-11-01 09:46 PM|
|David Susilo||no more 3D.... yeah!!!!!!|
|2010-11-01 09:02 PM|
Not sure if its a turning point yet but I think AFF may have it right. 3D is great for animations including mixed situations such as Avatar but it is not for all film genres. I think most of directors and producers know this instinctively except perhaps for one well known Canadian who has gone overboard in his predictions about 3D.
Where this leaves the TV set manufacturers is the next question. I have been concerned from the start that they've been too quick to get on the 3D bandwagon and that this could mean one of the big Asian electronics giants is going to suffer a big crash.
In any case I'll make the prediction now that 2011 is going to be the crucial year for 3D. Let's check back on Nov. 1, 2011 to see where things stand.
|2010-11-01 03:13 PM|
|Khorn||3D is great for those who want it. I really don't care as long as they continue to offer the movies in 2D as well and the quality doesn't suffer.|
|2010-11-01 12:11 PM|
|AFF||For me I think 3D is only for animated movies(Pixar type). I don't really care for the rest done in 3D|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|