Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 01/20/2011 11:00:47 AM PST by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK – From Hollywood studios to Japanese TV makers, powerful business interests are betting 3-D will be the future of entertainment, despite a major drawback: It makes millions of people uncomfortable or sick.
Optometrists say as many as one in four viewers have problems watching 3-D movies and TV, either because 3-D causes tiresome eyestrain or because the viewer has problems perceiving depth in real life. In the worst cases, 3-D makes people queasy, leaves them dizzy or gives them headaches.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
just watch mslsdnbc or cnn to get that effect.
And epileptic seizures are set off in the vulnerable.
Geez I thought Like back in the 50's 60's 70's or when ever 3D was popular. it was for like low grade B-movies.
I was a big proponent of 3D at first. I have been for Decades, actually. That said, it was when watching Tron, when it went from 2D to 3D and back again, that I realize the 3D didn’t really add much to the film.
I’m not against 3D, I just don’t think it is the big leap over 2D that color was over B&W.
That said, if we can ever get a “no headgear” 3d system going it will be interesting. But you still have to deal with the focus distance/parallax disconnect that I think may cause the headaches.
I like my tech toys. But I have absolutely no desire or interest in running out and buying a 3D TV. For me, there is just no compelling reason. The technology just isn’t that compelling, but I suppose now that everyone just finished buying an LCD or Plasma that it’s off to the next “must have” thing.
I find it is the weight of the glasses that can give me headaches. However, I have also worn safety glass which give me headaches.
If you don't like it don't watch it. Unfortunately they will be some nanny out there who wants to make sure nobody enjoys something they do not enjoy.
“I realize the 3D didn’t really add much to the film.”
I find that my mind adjusts to it and screens it out after a few minutes - and I’m left watching a slightly less saturated movie.
It’s fake 3-D, where they take single camera footage and digitally manipulate it to get the second camera angle required for the 3-D effect. That’s why most 3-D films today are poor in terms of quality.
Good 3-D requires authentic, two-camera video capture, and a high (2X) frame-rate.
Frantzie claims he doesn’t like teevee, but I know he’s just holding out for three dee teevee. Am I right, buddy?
:-)
“And epileptic seizures are set off in the vulnerable.”
I recently watched “Tron:Legacy” at an IMAX theater in 3D. I never had any problems and thought the 3D effect was great! The movie was pretty decent, also.
That would be a little weird to be watching a movie in 3D and the guy next to you starts have a grand mal seizure.
Next thing you know Weird Al’s song, “Nature Trail To Hell (in 3D)” will come true.
So the only “reaL” 3D is the CG movies?
Authentic 3-D ones have to have native, 2-camera footage. CG can do nearly the same, but the realism is harder to achieve.
Even on CG movies, they do the same thing that’s done with single-camera footage - make one digital scene, and alter it through software to “get” the second perspective. So, it depends whether this technique has been adopted or not, to judge if the CG 3D is good or not.
Holograms, however...
I used to take distorted paralax 3d pictures back in the 1980s with slides. I had some great results, too. I would, from a commercial airliner, take two shots of the complicated clouds below me. Since the plane was going pretty fast, the two pictures were a bit more than 3” apart. :)
The results were often spectacular. I’ve done the same with terrestrial shots, but they need to be of things with nothing in motion. My first ever 3d shot of this type was accidental. I was in a small plane flying over Elliot bay and took two pictures of downtown Seattle. They were taken exactly 1 block apart. When I taped the slides together on the back of an old viewmaster viewer, I was fascinated at not just the 3d, but it looked like I was looking at a VERY tiny model of the city.
I also used to take pictures of a TV screen during movies where the camera was moving perpendicular to what it was shooting. I got some pretty cool 3D “stills” from movies that way.
Meanwhile, I noticed with the re-release of the first two Toy Story movies that it appears that they were able to “re-shoot” the entire movie from a slightly different virtual camera angle, attach to the original and, presto, REAL 3D.
I have noticed in some 3D that although items are in different 3D space relative to each other that the items themselves are “flat”.
BTW, I used to create 3d drawings using the shapes on the old plastic drawing templates and then crossing my eyes to view the two images. It was silly, but kinda fun.
And a cinematographer who understands the concept of hyperfocal distance.
Snake Plissen, (aka, Captain Ron)
Your sentence would have flowed much smoother if you had left out the word "like". Look at the improvement:
Geez I thought back in the 50's 60's 70's or when ever 3D was popular. it was for low grade B-movies.
I see my sentence wording being similar to the movies, its not about accuracy its about looking cool! Just ask George Lucas, Micheal Bay, or James Cameron with Avatar! The Visuals will be stunning but the story will be absolute BS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.