Gabriel1 said:
I think I would get dizzy watching all of that in 3-d...you will have to let is know how it looks.
Apple iPad Forum 🍎
Welcome to the Apple iPad Forum, your one stop source for all things iPad. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
3d tv
- Thread starter Gabriel1
- Start date
I think I would get dizzy watching all of that in 3-d...you will have to let is know how it looks.
Gabriel1 said:
Oh I forgot about those glasses...
Unfortunately, 3D comes and goes. This is undeniable; a simple historical fact in the annals of 3D history.
The latest crop of 3D movies are not that good. I can usually pick 'em to pieces from a purely technical POV. Avatar is OK, I suppose; it's no House of Wax, however.
Most of you can only judge is what is available now. Chances are, few here have never seen a properly photographed 3D movie, properly projected through a good system like a polarized system and photographed with a great 3D camera system. The best "modern" system is IMAX, but there are/were many other camera systems over the years.
I am glad to see some 3D activity, but I fear when the wave is over, 3D will once again die off and we will wait for something else to arrive to revive stereo movies. D TVs will end up in garages and on Craigs List for ten bucks. We KNOW how to make great 3D movies and we know how to project them properly. We have known this for many decades. It is ancient technology that does not require reinvention. Just like the absolute finest color process ever invented is Technicolor and no digital system can touch it. Neither can any modern color process, clearly.
OT: The technicolor process required a HUGE camera that shot three strips of film simultaneously. The black and white negatives were processed and each negative was contact printed to individual strips of Matrix film. The matrices were dyed and transferred in perfect register to yet another strip of film. You needed 6-8 strips of film to make one color release print.
Anyway, I digress.
Some will say that people hate to wear 3D glasses so they patiently wait for something new; holography is often mentioned and that is a pipe dream for now. Fact is, if the projectionist knows his beans and the glasses are well made--even cheap cardboard glasses are fine--a great 3D film is a wondrous sight indeed.
Bob knows his 3D!
The latest crop of 3D movies are not that good. I can usually pick 'em to pieces from a purely technical POV. Avatar is OK, I suppose; it's no House of Wax, however.
Most of you can only judge is what is available now. Chances are, few here have never seen a properly photographed 3D movie, properly projected through a good system like a polarized system and photographed with a great 3D camera system. The best "modern" system is IMAX, but there are/were many other camera systems over the years.
I am glad to see some 3D activity, but I fear when the wave is over, 3D will once again die off and we will wait for something else to arrive to revive stereo movies. D TVs will end up in garages and on Craigs List for ten bucks. We KNOW how to make great 3D movies and we know how to project them properly. We have known this for many decades. It is ancient technology that does not require reinvention. Just like the absolute finest color process ever invented is Technicolor and no digital system can touch it. Neither can any modern color process, clearly.
OT: The technicolor process required a HUGE camera that shot three strips of film simultaneously. The black and white negatives were processed and each negative was contact printed to individual strips of Matrix film. The matrices were dyed and transferred in perfect register to yet another strip of film. You needed 6-8 strips of film to make one color release print.
Anyway, I digress.
Some will say that people hate to wear 3D glasses so they patiently wait for something new; holography is often mentioned and that is a pipe dream for now. Fact is, if the projectionist knows his beans and the glasses are well made--even cheap cardboard glasses are fine--a great 3D film is a wondrous sight indeed.
Bob knows his 3D!
OP
Gabriel1
iPF Noob
- Thread Starter
- #20
Thanks Bob, interesting stuff. As for my POV, the 3D on my TV is purely secondary, the normal HD picture is the primary function so no danger at present of it ending up in a garage sale.
I will agree that there is not a lot of good 3D content at present however there are some gems, TT3D and Hugo IMHO being two such. I haven't seen Avatar in 3D yet and can't understand why there is no 3D release of this on Blu Ray in the UK.....I wonder if this is available in other countries?
As to the sports and my experiment with watching Wimbledon, well it was a mixed bag. The men's semifinals didn't look so good but the women's final was way better. My personal theory here is that the speed of the men's game is too much for the conversion to cope with well, all I know is the women's final was good......the biggest problem for me (and the reason that I didn't watch the men's final in 3D) was that they had a different commentary team as compared to the HD broadcast, a lot of the enjoyment for me is listening to the likes of McEnroe and Becker so to find that a second string team were commenting on the 3D was just disappointing although in hindsight, understandable.
My biggest concern now is the speed issue, if the reason that the 3D didn't come over as well in the men's game is due to the speed then the BBC's choice to only show one Olympic event in 3D seems mighty strange.......since its the men's 100m final!!
The Archangel
I will agree that there is not a lot of good 3D content at present however there are some gems, TT3D and Hugo IMHO being two such. I haven't seen Avatar in 3D yet and can't understand why there is no 3D release of this on Blu Ray in the UK.....I wonder if this is available in other countries?
As to the sports and my experiment with watching Wimbledon, well it was a mixed bag. The men's semifinals didn't look so good but the women's final was way better. My personal theory here is that the speed of the men's game is too much for the conversion to cope with well, all I know is the women's final was good......the biggest problem for me (and the reason that I didn't watch the men's final in 3D) was that they had a different commentary team as compared to the HD broadcast, a lot of the enjoyment for me is listening to the likes of McEnroe and Becker so to find that a second string team were commenting on the 3D was just disappointing although in hindsight, understandable.
My biggest concern now is the speed issue, if the reason that the 3D didn't come over as well in the men's game is due to the speed then the BBC's choice to only show one Olympic event in 3D seems mighty strange.......since its the men's 100m final!!
The Archangel
Most reactions
-
359 -
262 -
252 -
208 -
149 -
78 -
26 -
3 -
3
-
S
3
-
1
Similar threads
