Is 3D a dead end?

[Feck]

It's just needed .. like "talking" movies and colour film I'm not too keen on all that moving the camera around either .. distracting .

If you mean "unneeded" . . .

Ypo's today are killing me ! funny new keyboard

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's just needed .. like "talking" movies and colour film I'm not too keen on all that moving the camera around either .. distracting .

If you mean "unneeded" . . .

Ypo's today are killing me ! funny new keyboard

"666 Error: Loose Nut Behind the Keyboard."

[AshtonBlack]

I can't see the 3D (lazy eye), so it's useless to me. Seems like just an annoying gimmick, though.

Doesn't work for me either. Well I can tell it's "different" but I don't see the effect.

[Clinton Huxley]

Just another marketing ploy.

[Rum]

Just another marketing ploy.

Well it is all driven by the desire for profit I guess. Hopefully a little creativity gets through too.

In terms of being impressed I don't think one can beat IMAX. Its a pity it isn't more widely available. It can be gobsmacking.

[Clinton Huxley]

Just another marketing ploy.

Well it is all driven by the desire for profit I guess. Hopefully a little creativity gets through too.

In terms of being impressed I don't think one can beat IMAX. Its a pity it isn't more widely available. It can be gobsmacking.

I saw Cameron's Titanic documentary in 3D Imax. The effect of the air bubbles floating in front of one's face was interesting but the 3D added nothing, IMO.

[Rum]

I was thinking of 2D IMAX really. I agree - it doesn't need that third dimension.

[Arse]

It seems popular with studios because they can charge you more to get in to see it. A bit of a rip off IMO.

[Clinton Huxley]

3D movies have been around for decades. Unless they solve the glasses thing it will never take off.

They have; it's called live theatre.

I've not been to the theatre for ages, not since I nearly got beaten up watching Othello.

[CJ]

I've never been to a live theatre performance.

Heathen!

You act surprised

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'm with Kermode. 3D is a pointless gimmick. It adds nothing that is worth the effort.

[JOZeldenrust]

Not a fan of 3D either, for a couple of reasons. First, I have very bad eyesight, and have worn glasses since I was about 10. During puberty, my eyes deteriorated to about -10 dpt, then stayed there. It's perfectly possible to correct this with glasses or contact lenses, so it's not really much of a handicap, but since I can only see clearly within three inches of my eyes without my glasses, and everytime I've seen my own face in the mirror for the last seventeen years I've been wearing my specs, I just don't recongnise myself without glasses. So I don't want to switch to contact lenses. As 3D movies require you to wear a pair of special specs, I have to wear them over my regular glasses, which distorts the effect slightly, and is very uncomfortable.

Another reason why I don't like 3D is that paralax between left and right eyes isn't the only way humans perceive depth. A very important mechanism is also paralax between various positions of the head. People with only one functioning eye almost exclusively rely on this mechanism to gauge distances, and they're pretty effective at it. This means that whenever you move your head in a 3D theater, the illusion is broken, causing a discontinuity in the immersion.

Yet another thing that bothers me is that people are very good at constructing a threedimensional mental image from a twodimensional physical image. People have been doing this successfuly since the dawn of humanity, with most of the current depiction techniques developed about 500 years ago. 3D is filling a nonexistent void.

I also hate the fact that the artificial paralax created with 3D messes up normal accomodation of the eye lense, which with me at least causes slight disorientation and nausea.

[amused]

Cameron (Avatar) has said many times that he thinks 3D is the way to keep the movie-going business viable. It's the one thing that will be very difficult to do in a home theater setup.

As 3D movies require you to wear a pair of special specs, I have to wear them over my regular glasses, which distorts the effect slightly, and is very uncomfortable.

If 3D really catches on, then prescription 3D glasses should follow along. Assuming that's also technically possible.

[Geoff]

Cameron (Avatar) has said many times that he thinks 3D is the way to keep the movie-going business viable. It's the one thing that will be very difficult to do in a home theater setup.

As 3D movies require you to wear a pair of special specs, I have to wear them over my regular glasses, which distorts the effect slightly, and is very uncomfortable.

If 3D really catches on, then prescription 3D glasses should follow along. Assuming that's also technically possible.

Well, SKY are already showing 3D TV programmes (mostly sport at present), and 3D televisions without glasses will be available in a few years time.

[RuleBritannia]

I'm perfectly happy with my 2-D, rear-projection television, thank you.