I hate Tim Burton. He's made a few good movies, and a LOT of bad ones.
Huh? I've been wearing glasses most of my life, and 3D works just fine for me.
I have not been able to try one in store yet. I have not heard good things though.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
3D is dying, thank god!
- Thread starter Mac'nCheese
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hate Tim Burton. He's made a few good movies, and a LOT of bad ones.
Huh? I've been wearing glasses most of my life, and 3D works just fine for me.
I have not been able to try one in store yet. I have not heard good things though.
^ Current home 3D is quite timid compared to the cinema. It still works really well in games though.
My eyes are what opticians describe as "god awful". -8 in one, -6 in another. But even with regular glasses and 3D, my eyes have never been strained whilst watching a 3D film. Even the lengthy Avatar didn't hurt my eyes, nor my girlfriends (also wears glasses but a much lower prescription).
My eyes are what opticians describe as "god awful". -8 in one, -6 in another. But even with regular glasses and 3D, my eyes have never been strained whilst watching a 3D film. Even the lengthy Avatar didn't hurt my eyes, nor my girlfriends (also wears glasses but a much lower prescription).
3d that's only used for special scenes works best. The effect is more dramatic and is much less fatiguing. Wasn't 3d Superman done this way?
Just saw my first theatre movie in 3D. Didn't have a choice, as the 2D version was sold out.
I could have easily done without it, and I doubt I'll pay for another movie in 3D again. Same with TVs. I'll stick with what I have until the day I am no longer given a choice.
I could have easily done without it, and I doubt I'll pay for another movie in 3D again. Same with TVs. I'll stick with what I have until the day I am no longer given a choice.
Why you would subject yourself to something like Alice in Wonderland in the first place is beyond me.Tim Burton has ruined so many classic stories, it's disgusting. There should be a law.
I couldn't agree more. Sucks having friends and a wife who wanted to see it. Horrible movie even without the 3D!
I didn't see it but I remember friends telling me who did see it: basically, the rule was when Clark Kent took off his glasses, you put yours on because the superman scenes were in 3d, the rest weren't.
More bad news for 3D
http://blog.games.yahoo.com/blog/86...ice-gives-away-free-games-to-prevent-backlash
http://blog.games.yahoo.com/blog/86...ice-gives-away-free-games-to-prevent-backlash
I had the chance to try out a 3DS and I started crying, but for different reasons.
Avatar was the exception for a 3D movie, it simply wouldn't have been the same in 2D, however most films they have done in 3D, in my opinion, did nothing to make the movie better by being in the 3D. Sure, some of the action scenes definitely look cool in 3D, no question, but the ultimate test is, was the movie made better by 3D, I think in most cases, most people will agree, no, the movie was not made any better by being in 3D. Tintin, which is coming out soon was done entirely in 3D, so again, it will be a bit of an exception. Captain America was not bad, did 3D make it better, not in my opinion.
For me, good 3d is about depth perception, not cheap special effect... I've said it earlier in this thread, the best 3d I've seen so far is in games... Crysis 2, Motorstorm to name a few.
You get more into the game, you almost fell like you're there. When you are on top of a building and look down, you get a vertigo feeling you dont' get without 3d.
I'm not sure, but on cinema movies I think they call it "Real3d", movies with that are filmed with 2 cameras placed at the same distance as our eyes.
You get more into the game, you almost fell like you're there. When you are on top of a building and look down, you get a vertigo feeling you dont' get without 3d.
I'm not sure, but on cinema movies I think they call it "Real3d", movies with that are filmed with 2 cameras placed at the same distance as our eyes.
I agree, I don't think The consumer should have option in the technology they use. One format for all, take it or leave it
But unless they mold you to the new technologies, how can they ever tap you for more money??
I love some of the 3d stuff that's out there.
But since I wear glasses it is a PITA to wear a second pair.
3d is in it infancy stages. In a couple years it will be different. In 10 years when everything is superHD or ultrahd (can't remember the exact designation) and in 3d he rest of the world will look back and say, remember this old DVDs.
MR will still have posts stating superHD is a bag of hurt and these no visible difference in 720p and superHD.
I am holding out for 2012/2013 before any major tv upgrades.
1440p will start showing it's beauty and 1080p sets will be the 720p of today.
3d will follow.
It's crazy to think that we lived with plain old sd tv for decades and now we will get a major upgrade in tech every few years. Crazy but true!
Personally, I think the next leap up for home televisions is quad full high-definition (QFHD) using a 3840x2160 display.
Four times the resolution of the current 1920x1080 HD display, QFHD may offer extremely sharp video--so sharp it already "looks" 3-D even though it's a 2-D display. Because 3840x2160 is 4x multiple of 1920x1080, it maintains compatibility with current Blu-ray players and other HD video sources coming in through the HDMI interface. Also, QFHD will likely be designed so it takes minimal conversion to display video shot at full resolution with today's latest digital cameras used in the motion picture industry.
Four times the resolution of the current 1920x1080 HD display, QFHD may offer extremely sharp video--so sharp it already "looks" 3-D even though it's a 2-D display. Because 3840x2160 is 4x multiple of 1920x1080, it maintains compatibility with current Blu-ray players and other HD video sources coming in through the HDMI interface. Also, QFHD will likely be designed so it takes minimal conversion to display video shot at full resolution with today's latest digital cameras used in the motion picture industry.
It might just be Crazy!
We only have two eyes, and the ability of those eyes to see detail isn't going to change.
The further we sit from a TV, or the smaller the TV, the less able we are to see the detail on it.
Here's a graph (link to original article) showing how the resolution vs TV size vs distance works.
Essentially, for a domestic TV at 8 to 10 feet viewing distance (normal?), a 1080p TV is good up to 70 to 80 inch screen size.
Is that enough? Would a bigger TV be too big for the home? Would you want to sit further than 10 feet away from an 80 inch screen?
And how will that much data be delivered to you?
A phone line? Compressed over a cable? Glass?
OK for DVD's, but a pain for broadcasters/cable/etc.
That's true. Most HD broadcasts are hardly top notch now. Compressed, crappy versions of hd.
