If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the insane nausea they cause   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 57
    More: Obvious, Life of Pi, Baz Luhrmann, Ang Lee, Werner Herzog, good directions  
•       •       •

17731 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 6:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-25 04:33:54 PM  
9 votes:
People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the insane nausea they cause to their wallets

Fixed
2012-12-25 03:53:21 PM  
8 votes:
Ang Lee is adamant that used intelligently 3D has now earned its place in drama: "Maybe because the 3D experience is still new, it does confuse some audiences

3D movies have been around since the '50s. And they're annoying.
2012-12-25 04:33:03 PM  
6 votes:

Mugato: Ang Lee is adamant that used intelligently 3D has now earned its place in drama: "Maybe because the 3D experience is still new, it does confuse some audiences

3D movies have been around since the '50s. And they're annoying.


Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


You are both correct in a way.  3D in general is very annoying.  Mearly a gimmick to charge more.  However, when used to "bring the enviroment alive" so to speak, instead of just popping out at you, then it can really earn it's place and is well worth the extra money.  Good Examples: Avatar, Life of Pi  Bad Examples:  Just about anything else.
2012-12-25 05:28:52 PM  
4 votes:
It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.
2012-12-25 06:30:12 PM  
3 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more
2012-12-25 06:06:01 PM  
3 votes:
Good. its a wretched gimmick.
2012-12-25 11:11:51 PM  
2 votes:
I see all these "ZOMG my eyes bleed and I vomit terribly!1" posts on the internet, but have yet to see a single person in real life complain of nausea from a 3D movie. "Insane nausea" like people are laying in aisles vomiting all over each other. Grow up, submittard.

I enjoy 3D movies, the price difference is only $2 (can't afford that?), and the viewing experience is much more enjoyable. Up in 3D was spectacular, on top of an already decent movie it really shined. It wasnt gimmicky or special FX-y, it was stunning visual appeal that made me actually analyze each vivid backdrop in so many scenes. Some movies are just whatever, but some are amazing in 3D. If you can't ever realize this because you experience stomach discomfort and need to leave the theater instead, you are missing out on a damn good thing.

It sucks that you dont enjoy it, but for the rest of us it's freaking awesome when done correctly. It's been around enough years that I'm optimistic about it sticking around. I just hope more movies utilize the power of 3D correctly, instead of gimmicking it in like many have. A 3D TV is my next purchase actually, with so many good games out supporting 3D nowadays as well it's even more of a win.
2012-12-25 08:09:36 PM  
2 votes:
I have strabismus. This 3d movie crizznap is overrated.
2012-12-25 08:03:38 PM  
2 votes:

Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle

Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.


LAWL. The movie sucked hard. Just because it made a money doesn't mean it is good. It just means people are stupid.
2012-12-25 07:31:31 PM  
2 votes:
Just because some movie made the most money doesn't mean it's good. From what I take from everything I read about Avatar is that seeing the 3D effects is amazing but the story was nothing special, if not cliched. And the price of the 3D tickets is part of the reason it made big box office: I kept reading you would waste your time if you didn't see Avatar in 3D.

I finally saw Avatar on a flight and I thought it was just an okay film; it's not even one of the better sci-fi films ever made. I can't believe it's the top grossing film ever. And saying a movie must be good if it makes a ton of money proves to be stupid when you see the fifth biggest gross of all time belongs to "Transformers: Dark of the Moon". That movie was bad.
2012-12-25 07:19:29 PM  
2 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: Nemo's Brother: But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book.

Which is why it made 2.8 billion.


because people are sheep and must see the new big thing? it was a tired plot with cardboard characters. deal with it.
2012-12-25 06:44:40 PM  
2 votes:

Mad_Radhu: ...and you've finally made your way to my ignore list. Just shut up about the 3D printing already. I'm pretty skeptical of it myself, but you're to the point where you're shiatting totally unrelated threads.


Seriously. I've been as skeptical as anyone and I cringed when I read that post. Some people just don't know when to STFU.
2012-12-25 06:38:03 PM  
2 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?


...and you've finally made your way to my ignore list. Just shut up about the 3D printing already. I'm pretty skeptical of it myself, but you're to the point where you're shiatting totally unrelated threads.

www.threadbombing.com
2012-12-25 06:36:15 PM  
2 votes:

Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more


I dunno, we still quote Shakespeare, hell, we still quote Socrates and Cicero and while L. Frank Baum isn't exactly Shakespeare, he's still pretty big from an American lit standpoint. Just sayin.
2012-12-25 06:31:31 PM  
2 votes:
From TFA:

"The next big test may be Baz Luhrman's version of The Great Gatsby, due for release in May and starring Leonardo DiCaprio. It doesn't seem like a natural fit for 3D, but Luhrmann's a very stylistic director and he may make it work."

That sounds like that could be the biggest disaster in film history.
2012-12-25 06:30:03 PM  
2 votes:
I hope the "gimmick" of it dies, the way it's used to "throw" things at you is often ridiculous, and the cause of what bothers most(myself included).

I saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3d, and thought it was wonderful. It felt quite different from other 3d movies, and far less intrusive about it. It felt much more immersive without being overbearing. I think it's a good testament to the technology, as much as Avatar was for the gimmick of it...

/it has it's place
//still a gimmick
///I don't go to movies much these days, saw Skyfall and The Hobbit recently, no regrets...
2012-12-25 06:15:43 PM  
2 votes:
People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the jacked up prices of the tickets and the poor use of the technology.

I read Avatar had a weak story so the 3D wasn't going to lure me to pay top dollar on a gimmick. Hugo was a good story though and used 3D pretty well. And though I skipped Avatar for the reasons I gave, I was excited to see Promethius because it was supposed to be an Alien prequel, so I paid to see it in 3D. What I paid for was to see a movie with a weak story but great use of 3D. So because of Promethius I definitely won't see another 3D film.
2012-12-25 06:13:56 PM  
2 votes:
I go to watch movies.. 3d glasses and effects are as much of an unwanted and annoying distraction as the girl playing on her mobile in the next row.
2012-12-25 06:09:07 PM  
2 votes:
I saw The Hobbit in 3D, not because I wanted to but because the theater I wanted to go to has only one screen and they were playing it in 3D. I'm generally not a fan, doubly so of the increased ticket price, but it didn't really bother me this time around. Other than a few glaring things flying out of the screen, after a few minutes I completely forgot about the 3D at all.

I also wear glasses and yes, it is a royal pain in the ass to wear a second, poor fitting pair over the first.
2012-12-25 03:57:33 PM  
2 votes:
Avatar was awesome in 3D.
2012-12-26 02:15:37 AM  
1 votes:
buncha farking loser whiners! 3D is not a "gimmick" 3D is awesome and I am sorry you have defective brains that can't process it correctly.
2012-12-26 01:53:22 AM  
1 votes:

capt.hollister: Novelty in entertainment has its value and its place. I'm old enough to remember when the surround sound experience of "Earthquake" was enough to turn a mediocre made-for-tv movie into a cinematic experience. A couple of years later, surround-sound was a given and we movie-goers went back to expecting a good story in addition to great sound. The same happened with cgi, and again with 3D. As you say, the latter is in its infancy, but soon it won't be and we will take is as a given and expect a great story to go along with it.


Earthquake wasn't "surround sound" it's gimmick was huge sub woofers tuned to sub-sonic to make the pounding in your chest. It was called Sensurround.
3-D has been around since the 50's, we're only seeing brighter screens and more main stream movies and a shift to better polarized glasses. To me it it's not 3-D, but planes of images. So each plane is a cardboard cutout of that depth of field.
It's distracting to me and removes the focus from the movie to trying to focus your eyes. Sure, for action movies it's a good trick.

As far as surround sound goes. Disney's Fantasia in it's original release was multi track sound in the 40's. With speakers along the sides, front and back of the theater.
2012-12-26 01:09:03 AM  
1 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: multiplane animation in its earliest forms is another great example; when it was done well, it was amazing. there are some fine examples of it being done quite awfully. (see any Ralph Bakshi film)


Disney was really good at the multiplane stuff well before him. 101 Dalmations is a good example. I like Ralph too.

//they shot fritz!
2012-12-26 01:08:30 AM  
1 votes:
I personally believe that 3d is superior to 2d for all purposes whatsoever.
2012-12-26 01:01:05 AM  
1 votes:

skinink: What's worse than a bad 3D movie is someone making douchy comments in support of some topic. I can't understand why a Farker has to act like a jerk because someone doesn't like what you do. Myself, I can enjoy a movie without 3D because it seems like a gimmick to make you pay more for a movie. I'm glad you enjoy 3D movies, but you act like like it's the best thing ever. Why would you care if someone calls Avatar a shaitty gimmicky movie? I await your irrational response typed out with tiny fists of rage.


*raises hand*

I don't care if they call it a shiatty movie.
2012-12-26 12:03:28 AM  
1 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: d_evans45:...

i bet you liked White Knights in 3D too.

stop suckholing.



I dont even get that reference. Why is it "suckholing" to enjoy 3d movies? It sucks that you personally experience eye discomfort, but most people don't get headaches. Why should the vast majority have to suffer because a bunch of whiny pussies on the internet have shiatty eyesight?

3D is amazing when incorporated properly into a movie. If you cant appreciate that, it sucks to be you.

/Seriously, sucks to be you
2012-12-25 11:53:12 PM  
1 votes:
Reading is 3d.
2012-12-25 11:33:59 PM  
1 votes:

Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more



Wow did Avatar rape your mom and piss in your cereal? If the 3D visuals are solid enough to distract record-breaking numbers of people from such unbearable movies, they must be some damn good visuals.

For as much whiny bullshiat we heard from pussies on the internet "ZOMG its Pocahontas/Dances With Wolfs/Schindlers List recycled!1" you would expect that the movie was the biggest flop to grace the screen since Gigle.

Instead, it was an ordinary movie propelled to record breaking heights by the skillful use of 3D imagery.
2012-12-25 09:53:46 PM  
1 votes:
The first film I saw in 3D was Avatar, and it was the last. I got a near-migraine level headache and I swore never again would I endure that torture. It never really looked real to me, it was vaguely three dimensional in some scenes and totally off in others. It could have been the constantly varying scale/field of depth, I don't know. All I do know is that I found it to be incredibly distracting, and an annoyance worse than bad focus or pixellation.

By the end of the movie I was watching through one eye to try to minimize the headache I was experiencing. I went home, took a codeine pill and hoped I'd feel better in the morning.

If the Movie is showing in 3D, I will not go and see it. It's 2D or don't waste my time. I don't need to feel like I am developing a brain tumor while watching a movie all because some studio nitwit thinks that it's a "cool" special effect.
2012-12-25 09:50:44 PM  
1 votes:
I really hope not. I love 3D. There's certainly no way I'll ever own a 2D TV again after getting a 3D one. They just need to keep improving the technology and researching what makes it unpalatable for some people.

We see everything else in 3D, why blind half of our vision when we're watching movies and gaming?
2012-12-25 09:25:25 PM  
1 votes:

thornhill: neongoats: TuteTibiImperes: litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...

I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.

I mean, pretty much all the things you say about 4k or uHD were said nearly verbatim about 1080p 15 years ago. Yeah, getting a 4k set next week would probably be a waste, but it's the direction things will go. I think a tv sized retina display would be lovely to watch.

4k on a 50" TV is going to be a waste; on 80+" you'll notice a difference.

But there are several issues with 80+" TVs and 4k.

1) Price: the cheapest is $20k. It's going to be years until these things drop under $5k. Flat screen TV prices have fallen so low that consumers expect 40" to 50" to cost under $1k. So even when these 4k TVs drop to sub $2.5k, they're going to have to compete with dirt cheap 1080p.
2) Practically speaking, how many people really have space for an 80" TV?
3) Content: Cable TV and Satellite bandwidth can ...


Again, you are citing things that were the exact "problems" with 1080p when it was being conceived and first hitting the market. Then sports jumped in because football fans will pay anything to see grass stains on a 7 foot tall guys ass in higher detail, and porn saw that and thought it was cool and went full bore HD.

All the little formulas and charts about room size and viewing distance, seriously? The tech will progress until displays are photorealistic at any viewing distance. I think the angst about this is silly, like people thought 1080p is some kind of plateau that can never be surmounted, so now you can stop buying TVs forever.
2012-12-25 08:52:15 PM  
1 votes:
Madbassist1: I am one of the people who tend to take the viewpoint that its a good movie because it made a billion dollars, billion dollars, because biatch all you want, that was the movie's purpose

Something that completes it's purpose is known as "successful", it's a successful movie, doesn't mean it's a "good" movie.

// I don't even know what movie is being discussed, I just don't like the connotations of linguistics getting perverted to suit someone's agenda.

// "Good" is too generic of an adjective to stand by itself without giving it a context.
2012-12-25 07:48:50 PM  
1 votes:
www.5yaks.com
Because 4D is the future, duh...
2012-12-25 07:43:34 PM  
1 votes:

Jon iz teh kewl: what about 4D MOOVIES!!


I'm still waiting for Smell-o-Vision to make a comeback.
2012-12-25 07:42:02 PM  
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: Nemo's Brother: But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book.

Which is why it made 2.8 billion.


P.T. Barnum was correct: there's once born every minute and you can never go wrong underestimating the poor taste of the American public.

/Pro-tip: Not every object's actual worth can be reduced to monetary value.
//Or do you contend Look Who's Talking 2 (Gross: $47,789,074) was a substantially better, more culturally-impactful movie than Resevoir Dogs (Gross: $2,832,029)?
2012-12-25 07:37:37 PM  
1 votes:
I am just sick of paying an extra $5 for "the experience."
2012-12-25 07:37:34 PM  
1 votes:
I saw The Hobbit in 3D IMAX and regret that, to some extent. The movie was terrific, but the 3D aspect was a big distraction. It's especially odd during a dramatic sequence, when Gandalf or Bilbo is protruding like something out of a pop-up book.

IMAX is great (saw TDKR in that format as well), but I'm avoiding 3D in the future.
2012-12-25 07:26:41 PM  
1 votes:
Dredd 3D was the best use of 3D ive seen so far, foreground background seperation, and mostly slow-mos.

Looked fkin brilliant.

Avatar might have made alot of money, but it is complete crap.

If you like Avatar, you are pathetic. shiat story, way too long, and all round bad.
I get it you like crap predictable stories that explain every plot device to come in the first 30 mins.

Just one big CGI 3D ad.


Unobtanium. Please.
2012-12-25 07:11:12 PM  
1 votes:
The Hobbit in HFR (48fps) 3D was pretty incredible. Seen it twice in that format. I did have issues with the characters looking like they were walking a little quickly, a problem with the new tech. It was better on the 2nd viewing though.

I was also on LSD for my second HFR 3D screening, so that increased the awe factor by about ten.
2012-12-25 07:06:44 PM  
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


I'm having trouble computing Avatar and awesome in the same sentence.


/Seriously
//that movie was literally garbage
///yes i was drunk when i watched, shouldn't that reinforce my point?
2012-12-25 07:01:53 PM  
1 votes:

skinink: People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the jacked up prices of the tickets and the poor use of the technology.


I wholeheartedly agree. If the movie's in 3D I want to feel like I'm part of the action. My fave of the "new" 3D movies was (surprisingly) Piranha 3D. It had a funny plot (I think it was made to sort of make fun of the original), and the 3D made it feel more realistic, despite the fantastic setting. The worst 3D movie? Avatar. Sure the movie was pretty, but the 3D was kinda wasted.
2012-12-25 06:59:07 PM  
1 votes:

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


Nearly every new is 3d capable. It's not something special you buy.

/TMYK
2012-12-25 06:55:00 PM  
1 votes:

neongoats: TuteTibiImperes: litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...

I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.

I mean, pretty much all the things you say about 4k or uHD were said nearly verbatim about 1080p 15 years ago. Yeah, getting a 4k set next week would probably be a waste, but it's the direction things will go. I think a tv sized retina display would be lovely to watch.


There are diminishing returns from higher resolution depending on screen size and viewing distance.  I recently bought an iPad with the retina display, and I love it, I picked it over the MS Surface mainly because of the better screen, but I hold the tablet relatively close to my face while using it, the same can't be said for a TV.  Here's a chart that shows the ability to discern resolution depending on screen size and viewing distance.  It won't hold absolutely true for everyone, as some people have better eyesight than others, but it's a good baseline:

www.blogcdn.com

Most homes seem to top off on screen size between 50"-60" and viewing distances of around 10' or so, which makes any additional resolution above 1080p essentially wasted.  Instead of packing in more pixels I'd like to see TV makers concentrate on improving black levels, reducing motion blur and SOE, improving color accuracy, and reducing input lag.
2012-12-25 06:52:12 PM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.


... you do know they make clip-ons now don't you?

Link
2012-12-25 06:40:43 PM  
1 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?


The people who are heralding them as some kind of Star Trek-like replicators are misinformed, sensationalist, or both.  For modeling, rapid prototyping, or just playing around to make some cool stuff though they're pretty nifty.
2012-12-25 06:36:26 PM  
1 votes:
The only movie I've ever seen that didn't abuse the hell out of 3D and actually used it to subtly enhance the experience was Coraline. Using 3D with stop-motion or skillful CGI can help you feel like you're in the movie, but if they can't spare an extra million or so for decent dialogue, a logical, engaging story or likable, interesting characters its just a waste of time.
2012-12-25 06:34:52 PM  
1 votes:
I love 3D including Avatar and the new Hobbit. The "naysayers" can go along with the people biatching about "color" being a "gimmick" and how sound really "ruins" and picture and is annoying. The more immersive they can make the movies the better. The rest of you can go rot with your 2D and mono sound and other crappola from the past.
2012-12-25 06:32:53 PM  
1 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?


WOULD you please just for one day stop pissing on the dreams of the future. Just.. you know.. for maybe on holiday?
2012-12-25 06:32:53 PM  
1 votes:

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.
2012-12-25 06:25:36 PM  
1 votes:

gaspode: I go to watch movies.. 3d glasses and effects are as much of an unwanted and annoying distraction as the girl playing on her mobile in the next row.


Even though movie theaters here in the US have multiple and aggravating reminders to not use those things, I ALWAYS see people fiddling with them during the film. I can barely tolerate it 'cause it drags my attention from the big screen....
2012-12-25 06:23:26 PM  
1 votes:
I get a terrible migraine from 3D movies so I try to watch movies in 2D. It's also a pain to wear 3d glasses over my own pair. I really wanted to watch Life Of Pi but all the local theaters had 3D only.
2012-12-25 06:22:45 PM  
1 votes:
If they'd stop giving out child sized glasses to everyone, 3D films might be bearable.

I am an adult. A huge adult. It's not fun having to snap the glasses into pieces and just hold them on my face for 2 hours because the things are so tight they cause migraines.
2012-12-25 06:20:30 PM  
1 votes:
Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...
2012-12-25 06:18:32 PM  
1 votes:
I just saw The Life of Pi in 3D. The 3D did absolutely NOTHING for the movie at all.

Now Avatar in 3D? That was actually worth it especially since some of the stuff in the movie was supposed to be holographic. Minority Report might actually be good in 3D but if you took something like "You've Got Mail" and converted it into 3D it'd be a wholesale waste of money.
2012-12-25 06:15:08 PM  
1 votes:
The glassese give me a headache.
2012-12-25 06:12:56 PM  
1 votes:
I have yet to see a movie in theaters.. but only cause I don't see any movies in the theaters. I am also to poor to own a 3d tv.
...but I want one.. I want a good passive 3d tv. I have an HTC Evo 3d and I love using the Phereo app to sift through thousands of 3d images other people have taken. Despite losing toughly half the resolution of the screen for the 3d effect, I see more detail from 3d pictures and movies just because they are in 3d vs high res 2d.

What annoys me and is why I have not bothered with downloading and viewing 3d hollywood movies on it is aside from avatar, MOST live action hollywood movies are 2d and turned into 3d in post production which is crap.
3d May not be the hotness for hollywood movies and 3d.. but making your own is easy and the results can be stunning. Also IMO it is best to start taking 3d photos as soon as possible.. 3d display tech will only get better.
2012-12-25 04:31:57 PM  
1 votes:
I have yet to see one.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report