Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6391 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
3d TV as currently constituted, with glasses, etc... is just annoying.
If they had real 3d holograms, that'd be awesome, but primitive stereoscopic seems to detract more in detail than it adds in realism.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never did get around to sending in that coupon..guessing by now it is too late and expired.
But as for the 3D part...well, that was just something to me that was pretty much incidental...I was going more for the specs on the tv, and ruling on t
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
I speak only with experience in the theater since I have no 3D TV.
For the record, I was torn between two options that both applied. I have no interest in a 3D TV and I cannot afford a 3D TV.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Informative)
Why not have it all in focus? In "real life" everything I look at is focused, if somehow the object remains blurry despite my eyes trying to focus on it, I get eyestrain.
And that's why I'd rather the entire movie frame to be perfectly focused where technically possible. Except for maybe a few scenes where the director wants to do some gimmick. Other than that, please leave out the artificial motion blurring and artificial defocussing of stuff. It hurts my eyes.
In order to have everything in a scene in focus with conventional equipment, you have to collimate light using a very small lens aperture. The drawback to doing this is that you get much less light into the lens, which makes filming anything other than brightly-lit scenes impractical unless high ISO speeds are used. An exception to this rule is CG and/or animated scenes, such as what was employed in TRON: Legacy. You could also use a plenoptic camera to capture the entire light field. In "real life" not everything you see is focused... for example, if you look at something two feet in front of you, the objects in front of and behind that object (in your peripheral vision) will be out of focus. This is more apparent in lower light, as your pupils (analogous to a lens aperture) are wider which cause your depth of field to be lower. Wikipedia talks more about this in their depth of field [wikipedia.org] article.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, when a CG or animated scene is intentionally defocused that is only because the director is forcing you to view something or to avoid distracting you with background detail. Or it's possible they just didn't do their job right. For example I've lost count of how many movies had very loud and shrill (but occasional) 14-20 kHz tones coming from defective microphones that nobody caught before the movie was released.
Re: (Score:3)
At least in 3D, I could go, oh the director wants me to only look at this spot and depth
Much of the art of cinematography (and still photography) is about directing the viewer's eye to particular parts of the image. This isn't just about directing viewers not to miss important story elements -- though that's important, too -- it's about creating sequences of ideas to convey specific messages or provoke specific emotions. Depth of field isn't the only tool the cameraman/photographer has to focus the viewer on the intended subject (others include lighting, composition and motion), but it's an
Re: (Score:3)
I know a lot more about still photography than about cinematography, but photography, at least, would be far, far poorer in impact and artistry without limited DoF. I think the same would be true of films. I think directors really need that ability to direct the viewer's attention.
But you're making the exact wrong assumption that is being complained about - you're treating 3D film as though it's pretty much just 2D film. It isn't.
When you don't focus something in 2D, my eyes don't get sore if I try to look at it. In 3D they do. Similarly, if you shift the focus point in 2D, it's a normal and well accepted technique - whereas in 3D, I have to struggle to track the 3D point of focus in the scene. Again - causing eyestrain.
There's another issue to: even if I'm tracking your focus point
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, for the games that don't cheat and actually do depth right at ALL times, the Nvidia 3D vision thing works pretty well. Like on Crysis 2 and Portal 2, the effect works well and is believable. I even get a bit of pop-out at times, although it usually looks like it's going inward. The problems come up in things like cross-hairs being wrong, or some other HUD type element is actually rendered as 2D and scaled to fit in place, which all just looks fine before you go 3D with it.
Most annoying thing about the old Nvidia glasses is that they are somewhat tinted even when that side is the "on" side, so you really do need a bright monitor. The lenses are active shutter type, so you get 60Hz 3D out of a 120Hz monitor (every other frame goes to the opposite eye). Also means you better have a NICE system to hit 60fps in the game because you actually have to be able to run the game at 120. Sometimes you can detect a little bit of cross talk (frame shift and lens activation being not entirely synced), and it does make my head feel funny to go any more than maybe an hour with it on.
It's not something so amazing I'd feel like I was missing something without it though. I might consider eventually getting the newer glasses kit which has bigger and lighter lenses as some point, maybe if there is a sale like I got all the other gear.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure why you say that...I found that Plasmas had better color than the LCD's...the black is much more of a true black.
I like to watch a lot of movies, and the Plasma has a much more cinematic look to it, than the LCDs. I don't have a lot of ambient light coming in, so the glass on the Plasma in my room, doesn't have problem with reflections, which some people complain about. I also have a darker room, so that isn't a problem.
My Plasma doesn't have the problem with motion artifacts...that while LCDs are improving...they still aren't quite up to par on quick motion on screen than the plasma.
And the new Samsungs...the plasma, is pretty much as thin as the LCDs being offered out there.
But hey, even with all this....it is kind of like speakers, it is what YOU like that matters. I did comparisons...researched things, and found the deal was MUCH better for me to get a 59" new TV, for the price of a much smaller LED LCD tv....
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You're a funny guy
What do you mean? I'm funny how? I'm funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason I chose LED/LCD over plasma is the power consumption on the LED was significantly less (this was several years ago.)
The plasma set my brother had used so much electricity it would heat the entire living room. When he left I noticed a drastic decrease in power usage.
Are plasmas now any better or are they still power pigs? To me, the picture quality wasn't worth using 3-4x more electricity.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly Plasmas are still power inefficient compared to LEDs last time I checked. :-/
As I said, it is about knowing the trade-offs, and how you prioritize the parameters ...
For example, using a simple 3 dimensional vector
Display PQ... Power Price
CRT.... Best. Worst Poor
Plasma. Great Poor. OK
LCD.... Worst Great Great
Obviously other parameters such Weight, Viewing Angle, Black Levels, Color Saturation, Ghosting, Screen Door Effect, may be more important for your needs.
I can't stand the washed out
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I totally agree. Too many movies are spending the entire budget on gratuitous special effects and the story line is merely an afterthought. This is made painfully obvious if you watch an old Alfred Hitchcock movie and then any of the recent blockbusters. Old black and white movie >> new 3D color movie.
Other ways to wreck a film:
comic-book colorizing (Casablanca)
"updating" (Star Wars)
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Most current film making could be improved by redirecting 5-10% of the special effects budget to script improvement.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Interesting)
"No dad, Chewbacca wasn't grey!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for 3D, especially gaming, but right now the technology is not there. Hell, I'm even looking in heads up display, but right now they are, obscenely expensive, got low resolution (1080p is minimum today ) and they weight too much.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Funny)
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think animal rights activists would stand for it either.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not an expert, but I think if 3D TV is causing a pain in your ass you're definitely not doing it right.
...though I can totally understand how making Transformers 3 in 3D caused a giant pain in Michael Bays ass.....
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't "3D gaming" also called "sports"?
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Funny)
No, they're just fun and games until someone actually loses an eye.
Right now we've just got people getting headaches.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yap, glasses and poor frame rate makes the 3D experience a pain in the ass.
That's not where the glasses go.
Re: (Score:2)
3d TV as currently constituted, with glasses, etc... is just annoying.
If they had real 3d holograms, that'd be awesome, but primitive stereoscopic seems to detract more in detail than it adds in realism.
It's definitely not perfect by any measure, but I find it an added value to traditional movies. I agree that the glasses are a distraction (and an additional cost.)
But no, I don't find it "distracting". If the movie is worth its price, you forget about the glasses and enjoy the show. If the movie is crap... well, 3D crap is still crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I usually forget I'm watching a 3D movie - the only place I really notice it is in sprawling outdoor scenes.
One place that I think it would work really well that I've yet to experience is in racing games. I'm tempted to get a 3D display for Gran Turismo 5 alone, and I noticed that the latest Assassin's Creed has a stereoscopic output option too. I'd prefer an autostereoscopic display for solo gaming, but they're still quite expensive.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Interesting)
But no, I don't find it "distracting". If the movie is worth its price, you forget about the glasses and enjoy the show. If the movie is crap... well, 3D crap is still crap.
They spend a small fortune to add 3D features to crappy movies while they could spend a small fraction of that money to significantly improve the manuscript. Forgetting about that 3D crap could result in otherwise-not-so-crappy titles.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. One other point: Movies shot in 3D are (usually) visually good, movies where 3D was added afterwards are a piece of shit.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you spend money improving a script?
Various answers, but no easy formula exists.
How do you spend money adding 3d ?
Duh, add in pointless things that jump out at audience and call it a day. Easy,not a difficutl thing to do
So given the choice between spending money adding 3d features to any movie vs spending money to improve the script, you can see how bean counters would decide to choose the method that's countable.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
3D causes worse quality in movies. The producers and directors add "wow" effects of things coming at the audience. I do not want that - it's a frontal attack on the fourth wall, and I want to be an inviolate observer, not a target for the director's special effects. It kills my suspense of disbelief as quickly as the dance scene in a Bollywood movie.
Add to that that the 3D effects they jam in steal time from the rest of the movie, leaving it with that much less plot.
This is why I refuse to see 3D movies even in a 2D. Give me movies that were made for 2D.
And, of course, the 3D quality is atrocious, with ghosting and visual issues giving headaches.
Yes, I believe 3D has a future. But it's nowhere near that yet - at present it IS a gimmick, and is exploited as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow.
Please don't disgrace Bollywood dance scenes to that of American 3D entertainment; at least one of them actually adds entertaining value to the film.
How have you not been swept off your feet by the elegantly inserted dance of Asoka?!
Re: (Score:3)
Sound causes worse quality in movies. The producers and directors add "wow" sound effects of things coming at the audience. I do not want that - it's a frontal attack on the fourth wall, and I want to be an inviolate observer, not a target for the director's special effects. It kills my suspense of disbelief as quickly as the dance scene in a Bollywood movie.
Add to that that the sound effects they jam in steal time from the rest of the movie, leaving it with that much less plot.
This is why I refuse to see audio-enabled movies even in mute. Give me movies that were made for no sound.
And, of course, the sound quality is atrocious, with low sampling rates and only five channels.
Yes, I believe sound has a future. But it's nowhere near that yet - at present it IS a gimmick, and is exploited as such.
yes, you sound that ridiculous.
You offend all geeks with your idiocy (Score:3)
Sound causes worse quality in movies.
In what way? Sound provides extra content there is no other way of getting, like action offscreen or nuances in voice.
(yes I know you were ATTEMPTING to be facetious).
What does 3D add? It's not like I can shift over and see something around a door I couldn't at some other angle. It's not like there is in fact one iota more visual information than there was in 2D.
It gives you nothing but visual candy on top of what is already there, at the expense of lowering image qua
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have never seen a new tech fail to sell itself to me so strongly.
I played around with one of the 3d TV demos at the store - showing Avatar, supposedly one of the better reasons to buy a 3d TV.
And it all looked like a cheap cardboard cutout diorama. It was distracting an unattractive.
Maybe when they integrate head tracking I'll be interested... but I just don't see the point for movies. For games... maybe.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe when they integrate head tracking I'll be interested... but I just don't see the point for movies.
Years ago, I went and saw the 3D IMAX movie, Wings of Courage [imdb.com]. Didn't have problems with the 3D--in fact, it arguably worked too well.
I remember there was a scene in the film. We start low with some fruit lying on the floor. We then pan out and up to see a letter and a woman's legs. We slowly pan out to see our hero's wife sitting in shock, fear, and sorrow over having learned that her beloved husband is feared lost after crashing his airplane in the Andes.
In 2D, this might have been a moving shot. In 3D, the tight shot transition just made me want to look up. I didn't want to move at the director's pace, I wanted to move at my own.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Not me. Some people get a "headache" or motion sickness just from watching 2D content.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Funny)
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Funny)
It's a female housemate that other guys come and visit occasionally.
Re: (Score:2)
I cant play any FPS game because of this. The only FPS game I finished was the original DOOM. I remember taking a break every 30 minutes to recover from the headache and dizziness.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you perchance drinking beer while playing? :p
Re: (Score:3)
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I don't see how else you could enjoy Halo.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:3D is awesome (Score:5, Funny)
All of the problems with 3D TV are solved by having two independent screens mounted on your face (one for each eye):
So what about the problem of having screens mounted on your face?
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Informative)
As a part-time stereographer (Transformers III), I have spent a bit of time on this.
I agree that stereo is best used in intimate settings, at the distances that we have evolved to use 3D in real life. 3D is there so that you can hit somebody with a club accurately, so that you can pick up a rock accurately -- it's for things within a few arm's length away at most. Rather than do some giant spectacle in 3D; it would be much better suited to "My Dinner with Andre" or something like that -- it could really put you into the scene.
As you say, much porn is shot exactly this way. The people I've talked to in that industry say that 3D is TMI, though -- that their customers do not find it appealing to be really "in the world" with the performers -- that the 2D abstraction is a useful distancing mechanism.
So -- there hasn't been a big push into 3D porn yet. And, yeah, there isn't much of an installed base of 3D TVs or BluRay players yet either.
HD is another thing that one would have thought would be great for porn, but again, the people in the industry say that it reveals more flaws than it gains in beauty...
3D movies (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem with the 3D movies (apart from the price) is that the glasses make the screen darker. I really can't be bothered to pay more to see it in 3D so I'm just going to go back to regular 2D.
That said, I recommend experiencing a movie in 3D. But only once.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I recommend experiencing a movie in 3D. But only once.
Seconded!
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't necessarily say once, but yeah, there's a time and a place for it. Avatar was worth seeing in 3D, and although my first attempt at 3D gaming - Crysis 2 didn't seem worth it, I started playing Assassins Creed Revelations in 3D the other week and it's pretty cool, you could definitely feel the height looking down from a tall building somewhat. It's the first game I actually intend to play through in 3D.
It's really about the quality of the content, the problem is 99% of 3D content thus far hasn't be
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't have a problem with the refocusing as such while watching Avatar in 3D, I did have a related issue: not being able to focus on certain parts because they are not in focus for the camera.
Normally when you focus your eyes on an object close by (like the computer screen you're looking at) the rest of the scene is blurred: the images of your eyes do not overlap, and the focus of the lens of your eyes is at the wrong distance. The same trick is used when making photos/movies to have say a person charact
Don't care because I don't care about the content (Score:5, Insightful)
3DTV adds almost no value (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from the fact that some people physically suffer pain from watching 3D-TV, it just does not have anything I'd consider essential. 3-D is a gimmick today just as it was 50 years ago when they did it with the red and blue glasses.
Companies are always trying to push the latest technology and the latest gimmick. Blu-Ray, HD-TV, 3D-TV... for the majority of people, standard def and DVDs were "good enough" for a very long time. I'm really not all that keen on re-buying all of my existing movies in 3-D, either.
I think we've hit a technological peak of sorts with electronics. The only people who need computers more powerful than your budget level machine are the usual group of graphic designers, video editors, hardcore gamers, etc. Most people can buy the cheapest PC in a store and it'll work just fine for them. Most people will buy a 32" or so HD-TV and be satisfied with that. Lots of people are perfectly content with waiting for a movie to be $5 on Amazon or to pick up a game in the Used bin at Gamestop.
That said, there is the concern of the willingness of corporations to leverage a combination of technology and laws (bought and paid for, of course) to try to force us to fit into their system that is paradoxically both archaic and yet changes (in the hardware sense) every 5 years. I'm sure they're not too happy that people didn't rush out to buy 3D-TVs like they did with HD -TVs or buy Blu-Rays like they bought DVDs. They're certainly not happy about people buying used/cheap movies and games.
We're already going to see things like serial keys for console video games in the next generation. I can practically guarantee that at least one of the next-gen consoles is going to have it as a "feature" in an effort to kill the secondhand market. I wouldn't be surprised if data discs (such as movies and mundane software like MS Office) followed suit not long after. I'd be more worried if it weren't for the fact that (despite some asinine laws) we are fortunate to have a very creative and innovative community of people who derive a great deal of pleasure from breaking the latest DRM to make things way more like they should be. (Thanks, jailbreakers and friends!)
Re: (Score:3)
My wife and I bought a tv 16 years ago when we got married. It's worked fine for 16 years so I've never replaced it. I recently got a 42" plasma that someone gave me, the PSU blew out a resistor, so it's about a $200 fix to have a plasma. I'm going to take the leap and try it. I think it's worth $200 plus I like to tinker with stuff. I have another tv that my brother gave me that is larger than the 27" we first bought. It had grey horizo
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
So do I. For instance, I've been using the same computer keyboard for 12 years now. I clean it by popping up all the keys and individually washing them while they soak in a solution of dish detergent.
Key sticks all the time? File it down so it fits in the slot better.
Lost an important, non-conductive piece that kept two circuit boards from contacting and shorting out? I replaced that bitch with a piece of a bendy straw.
Keys occasionally stick (even though mechanically they're fine)? Skin oils, soda, grease
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Worst case scenario -- it's still effed up after you tried to fix it. Nothing is lost, and you more than likely learned something.
Re:3DTV adds almost no value (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll be honest, I'm a sucker for graphical fidelity. Call me shallow if you will, but I like seeing dazzling effects in games, movies, etc. I think they enhance the experience and that you can enjoy them on their own. A trash film with good special effects can be enjoyable and I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit that. The visual spectacle can be worth the admission price (think the first Transformers, Avatar, etc.).
Hence, I've welcomed the arrival of truly high definition video with open arms. Give me 1080p footage, give me greater depth and better compression algorithms so that the original footage is as pristine as possible. Give me cutting edge CGI, superb post-processing. I think people who can't see the difference between DVDs and Blu-Rays are either batshit insane or need new glasses, fast.
However, as a graphics junkie, I am left cold by 3D. The technology has barely evolved since the days of anaglyph images, with active shutter glasses being the mainstream method for home cinema while polarized glasses work in proper cinemas. Both have significant disadvantages. I feel sick watching them for extended periods of time, and that's when I see the effect at all. Honestly, the only time I've been convinced by the 3D effect was with images I'd generated myself from the STEREO satellites during my internship last summer, otherwise the effect always feels slightly weak or cheated (though as a disclaimer I haven't watched Avatar, which would appear to be both the pinnacle of 3D movies and the sole proper 3D movie). On top of that, 3D comes at the cost of weaker color reproduction and, in the case of games, severely downsized graphical fidelity.
I don't think the rather subpar effect is worth all of those compromises.
Re: (Score:3)
I can see the difference side-by-side. I cannot see the difference without a conscious effort. I'm not sure if I can see the difference from memory.
I have quite good vision (with glasses)... better than 20/20. I just don't particularly care about graphical fidelity.
Maybe a side-effect of growing up with 320x240 games and blocky images over the internet.
Missing Option (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously does too.
Re: (Score:3)
3d of any type gives me a headache you insensitive clod.
Seriously does too.
I have heard of one other case like this - a lady who had to walk around with an eyepatch all the time. While she could see fine with either eye, using both at the same time initiated migraine pain.
Does it affect driving?
Saw Avatar recently for the first time... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and it was very amazing. A buddy of mine has a big Panasonic TV and actually made the effort to get nine sets of glasses, so he can actually host a movie night for his friends.
But, as cool as it was (and no, I didn't see it when it came out in theatres) I did have a touch of headache developing by the end, and I also really didn't like it when 3d objects reached the edges of the screen and suddenly lost the effect. Cameron's production did a good job of not going zany with shoving 3d down our faces like that snake scene in one of the Harry Potter movies, but still, when the edge loses effect it's not as good.
I can't justify the cost. I have a nice 1080p video projector and almost 1600 titles that aren't 3d, I don't need to buy a 3d projector until that's the only thing available.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in a similar situation, I have a pretty decent 1080p projector and upgrading to a 3D-capable one is a pretty big investment that just isn't worth it right now.
3d projector? (Score:3)
Well, the good news is that it's going to take much, much longer for 3D to get into the home projector market any time soon. The problem is that you really have two styles of 3D active and passive.
The active technology uses expensive, powered glasses that will alternatively flip between letting light through the right or left lens ... meaning you only see 1/2 as much light, and you have to pay a lot for each person who's going to be sitting there ... but the projector is basically a normal projector, althou
I will care about 3DTV when.... (Score:2)
They come out with a HDMI splitter that will give me TWO hdmi outs.
1 is LEFT
2 is RIGHT.
I can then install TWO projectors with the Polarizer filters and use the $1.00 glasses in my theater.
That way, 3D video is crisp and awesome, and non 3D looks fantastic as it will only be 1 projector.
Until then, I dont care at ALL about 3D. active glasses suck now and will always suck.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy a TV that uses the passive glasses from your theater, but it looks much worse.
I think you are confused. Passive glasses like the theater look terrible and only work from certain angle. Active glasses on a 240hz screen look crisp and awesome and work from any angle.
As one of the few votes that has a 3d tv (Score:2)
One thing I have found that is quite annoying is how some good 3d blu-ray movies are hooked into a device as the only way to get them. Avatar and Shrek, for instance, can only be easily obt
Don't care... yet (Score:2)
Lack of choices, horrible poll. (Score:3)
I'm excited about 3D TV, and when it comes time for me to buy a new TV, I plan to thoroughly check all the different models available, and buy whichever 3D TV is best at the time.
All the options in the poll assume that either I have a 3D TV or that I hate 3D TV. Neither is the case! Where is Cowboy Neal?
Re: (Score:3)
If you're keeping your lousy old 2D TV, you must be pretty poor, right? Either that, or you're pretty lousy at consumerism.
I like the way you think! I want a 3D, but am unwilling to throw away my 2D yet, since I bought it just 2 years ago. Apparently I _AM_ pretty lousy at consumerism.
Meh. (Score:2)
I am still using my reliable 20" Sharp CRT TV from 1996. I can't see 3D so frak 3D.
"Lost an eye," indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Monocular vision does not lend itself to experiencing 3D on a 2D screen. We will never own a 3D TV. If the writing is ever on the wall and they're all that's left, we'll stop watching.
Had one for decades (Score:2)
After all this fuss about these newfangled flat TV sets, now they are trying to sell us ones that are box boxes again. I'm glad I didn't throw out my set with the round picture tube. It's bound to come back in style soon.
Now get off my lawn!
Missing option: Same price, don't use it for 3D (Score:5, Interesting)
How about have one "just in case" because I got it for the same price as 2D? Haven't used it for 3D yet and have little urge to use it 3D. It didn't cost anything what the heck.
Gaming (Score:5, Interesting)
Gaming has been the primary use of the 3D technology for us - Uncharted 3, Wipeout HD, Killzone 3, Resistance 3, The Sly Collection, Hustle Kings, and just last night I tried the remastered Jak & Daxter HD Collection. I think gaming is where 3D shows the most promise; you could almost say it adds another dimension to the experience
Re:Gaming (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't mind abusing the glasses, you can use a 3d tv to do full screen split screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It was the same with 1080p too. When we first got a full HD TV, there was virtually no OTA content in 1080 (720 at best) and the BD vs HD-DVD format war was still going on. Halo 2/3, on the other hand, looked absolutely beautiful.
Consoles are usually the first to take advantage of the new display tech because it only takes a small patch to the software to increase the number of triangles/resolution or to copy some of the 3D info used in rendering to the new output. Video, on the other hand, needs to be re-e
holosuite (Score:2)
3D Photography (Score:2)
PS3 two players full screen (Score:4, Interesting)
Obligatory - Why 3D doesn't work and never will... (Score:5, Informative)
[snicker] (Score:5, Funny)
No 3D for me (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought a new LCD TV in the last few weeks. I went out of my way to specifically purchase one WITHOUT 3D capability, because I don't want to send the message this ridiculous marketing scam sells TV's.
I don't like the tight control of focus (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was watching Avatar in 3D, it occurred to me that part of the effect of it was to push me to focus on one and only one point on the screen, giving the director much more control of what the viewer sees.
I hated it. I hated the feeling that someone was trying to control my every movement and my whole attention. I suspect that's why many people complained about the manipulativeness of the plot of Avatar -- because they were being manipulated physically.
Current tech is weak (Score:4, Funny)
Until R2-D2 can project a 10" hologram of my sister saying "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're our only hope!" IDNGAF about 3D TV.
Its all about perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
For me, I will not accept the (currently false) claim that a TV or Movie is '3D' until I can view the content from different perspectives. If I can walk around the 3D displayed content and check out all the details from different angles, then it will be satisfying. Until then, this current marketing gimmick claiming 'stereo vision' to be '3D' is just that; a gimmick.
Re:whingers (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully they'll either figure out a way to make 3D at least equal to the 2D experience for those of us who can't experience 3D, or they'll continue to make standard 2D content available.
Re: (Score:2)
Leela, you don't have to be ashamed of your cyclopesian megaoculus.
Re:whingers (Score:5, Funny)
I can't view 3D because I only have one eye and they don't make 3D monocles.
Here you go [toshiba.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I can't view 3D because I only have one eye and they don't make 3D monocles.
Here you go [toshiba.com].
That's awesome. I wasn't sure if it was a joke or not until I read this part:
Clearly a real product if they have done such in-depth research.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly you didn't click on the "Get pricing and specifications" link.
Especially since ocular separation (implies two eyeballs) is required for depth perception....
Re:I'd prefer REAL 3D (Score:5, Funny)
Until I can reach out and touch it, I'm really not interested.
and when porn embraces that technology it will be the end of civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
This. It amazes me how many people have made their judgment from passive glasses or movies with terrible post-production 3D an then given up. If you have active (shutter) glasses and you're watching content that was shot in 3D, it is simply amazing.
Watching college football on ESPN 3D was simply amazing. And subtle 3D like in Tron Legacy works really well to give depth.
Re: (Score:2)
I think 3D is a good idea it just needs more development, easier interface, no glasses, and more good quality content to be really successful.
FTFY.
Re:Exotropia (Score:5, Informative)
BTW lacking stereopsis is *not* the same as having no depth perception. The brain interprets many "monocular cues" subconsciously to create a sense of depth (near objects look bigger than distant objects, if you move your head, near things shift more than distant things in your field of vision, etc.) Because of this, most people without stereopsis aren't aware of lacking anything and you need to do fairly complicated tests to pick up the lack. (It's also not an all-or-nothing thing, people may have different degrees of stereopsis.) Stereopsis is really just the icing on the cake of depth perception in real life. That may be part of the reason why attempts at 3D in movies and TV aren't all that impressive, come to think of it, though I'm just guessing there.
[I'm an ophthalmologist.]
Re: (Score:3)
I lack stereopsis because my left eye is significantly weaker than my right eye. When I was a child the vision in my eyes was so unbalanced that my brain ignored the signals from my left eye and now the neural pathways have degraded. At least, that's how it has been explained to me. This is the condition that patching is supposed to solve (a patch is worn over the good eye so that the weak eye gets used instead and the neural pathways don't degrade). My daughter has the same confition a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)