I'm kind of 3D'd outFollow

Although the rest of the world doesn't seem to be.


Fuck you, electronics industry. I refuse to replace all of my TVs with 3D TVs just because you need additional revenue. Jr. should start lobbying his grandma, because I'm sure he's going to make a play for this one just like he did the DSi.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2010 6:21am by Atomicflea

My whole town is in 3D, and I'm sure most of the places I visit around Englandland are in 3D too.

Yuck, yuck, yuck....

I have no desire to see 3D TV, play 3D games, etc.

Kids, lawn, off... you know the drill

I still remember the Cheezie 3D movies of the late 60's and early 70's. Even with the improvments in the format its not worth investing in it. I'll wait till its free.

I haven't even bought an HD TV yet. May as well wait a few years for holograph projetctors at this rate.

I remember those 3D movies that would be broadcast on TV and people would have to go to a store like 7-11 to pick up the 3D glasses so you could watch them.

I do hear that the re-vamped 3D movie Captain EO at Disneyland is very good. I so want to see that.

So we'll be calculating hyperspace jumps using slide rules any day now? Or ever? Just sayin'. Science Fiction writers get it wrong a whole lot of the time...

When I went to see Avatar there was a hand-written note taped to the door of the theater reading "Avatar NOT in 3-D". At that point you have little choice about staying or going. The next nearest movie-house is a good hour away. I didn't see it in 3-d.

BUT, the 3-d in Alice In Wonderland was crap. I don't know if the theater controls it or what, but there were tons of blurry spots. At one point everything in my left eye turned into a black blob. I take off my 3-d specs to see if they're somehow responsible and notice that 3/4ths of the audience is doing the same. The best 3-D graphics were the advertisements for IMAX before even the previews.

Still, I wanna see Clash of the Titans in 3-D :D

I had thought this too until I remembered an interview I had heard with Tim Burton, well before the movies release.

Burton got all snippy and defensive with the interviewer when asked about 'jumping on the 3-D bandwagon', claiming the movie (and I had presumed, it's 3-Dness) was in production a long time and was well under way when the other movies (Avatar) came out.

A quick check on the internets only found me this...







Edited, Mar 23rd 2010 9:48pm by Elinda

What I mean is Avatar used a different filming technique for its 3D while Alice was shot like a conventional movie then converted to 3D. That doesn't mean Burton didn't plan for Alice in 3D from the start. It does make a difference visually.


From a quick google search:

Filing with the Avatar equipment is prohibitively expensive, that's why only someone with money to burn like Cameron attempts it.

Although now Lucas will probably feel the shrink on his peen and reissue the whole Star Wars saga in 3-D.

Don't forget the numerous shades of gray!

I'm in the mindset that all this 3D ******** is just that, ********* It's become popular time and time again, and each time it faded away. This product I'm genuinely interested in, although I don't plan on buying it. I'm curious to see in what way they managed to allow 3D without the use of glasses.

What I want to see get popular, is extending field of vision through multiple monitors. Anybody who has played proper games on an eyefinity setup will most likely agree with me. It's, imo, like comparing the spiderman ride I went on a while ago to some random 3D thingy. In the spiderman ride, I was completely surrounded by screens and at one point it tricked my mind into believing I was actually falling when I obviously wasn't. Really good 3D can come close, but that's comparing the high potential of 3D to the middle potential of extended FoV.