Seriously, do we really want all this 3D stuff? CES Rant.

[Red Squirrel]

Step 1: Instead of dropping bombs on countries, lets dropped big compressed hunks of junk.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

That's not a bad idea actually. Just use metal/plastic garbage as shrapnel in missiles and other big explosive devices. Great way to send old tech like CRTs to Iraq.

 

[Xonoahbin]

This 3D stuff seems rather worthless. How about real immersion instead of 3D glasses anyway? Lame.

 

[HappyPuppy]

I chortle, nay, I guffaw at the present day afficionados. 3D has been around since the 1890's, brought back many times and has never caught on.

I recall going to 3D movies in the 1950's and they sucked. Just because the resolution has changed doesn't mean they suck any less. You still have to wear those stupid glasses to get the effect.

Yeh, I can only wonder 'what the fuck' as each generation is fed the same old crap and thinks it is something new.

3-D films have existed in some form since 1890,

 

[Jadow]

I am at the point in my life where I no longer get excited about anything entertainment related, and information technology does not impress me if its "cool".
I am more impressed with shit that just fucking works properly. However, since cool sells much better than reliable, I think I know what will be popular this year.

never though about this before, but me too

 

[GTaudiophile]

I chortle, nay, I guffaw at the present day afficionados. 3D has been around since the 1890's, brought back many times and has never caught on.

I recall going to 3D movies in the 1950's and they sucked. Just because the resolution has changed doesn't mean they suck any less. You still have to wear those stupid glasses to get the effect.

Yeh, I can only wonder 'what the fuck' as each generation is fed the same old crap and thinks it is something new.

3-D films have existed in some form since 1890,

LOL my dad said the same thing in reference to the 1950s.

I saw both the 2D and (non-IMAX) Real3D versions of Avatar and actually preferred the former. The 2D version, without the sunglasses, is simply more brilliant and vibrant. Putting on the 3D glasses makes everything darker. And since I am left-eye dominant, my eyes had a hard time focusing on the 3D aspects at times. In the end, it was a step back for me.

 

[EricFartman]

The reason of E-rubbish come to China is cost, First world deal it cost $400-1000/ton, but China or other third world only cost $10-40/ton, and we divide e-rubbish into all kinds of metals then made it into jewelry, watch etc... so that's why EN-71, ROSH, SGS here...

 

[Greenman]

Gadgets are just that, gadgets. I have no interest in most of them. All my phone needs to do is make calls, and that's all it does. I don't need any sort of computer to drag around with me all day, and I only read books.
I do have one new gadget that I love, it's a laser measuring device that's a dream to use on the job.

 

[shiner]

Fuck 3d, bring back Smell-O-Vision!

 

[destrekor]

Do like I do: pick one area of technology that everyone is using & flat out refuse to use it. I can't send a text message. I actively refuse to learn how. I don't carry a cell phone. I don't have a home phone - if someone wants me, they have to leave a message with my wife. And it brings a great smile to my face knowing that unlike everyone else, I can't be reached every second of every minute of the day.

why you non-conformist you!
You're like... the polar opposite of yuppies.

You don't happen to visit Columbus from time to time driving an old pick-up that has "DIE YUPPIES DIE!" spray-painted on the tailgate, do you? Because that man makes me crack a wide grin every time I see him.

:hmm: BTW, you're conforming with all the other non-conformists. Take that Dr. Pizza's beliefs!

You're not going to welcome with open arms Google's SkyNet whenever they launch it? I'm pretty excited for it. Isn't technology just swell?

 

[LumbergTech]

I hate 3D. I have yet to see a movie where 3D changed the way the movie was meant to be seen. Avatar had only 2 shots in the whole movie that made me go wow. Other than that there's panning problems and uncomfortable 3D glasses and eye strain. 3D is what motion controls are to me, gimmicks just to sell to people so they have to buy new hardware.

yes, but in my opinion..it was the best use of 3d to date..its a maturing technology..avatar was one hell of an accomplishment, even if it has flaws

 

[MarkXIX]

I hate people I know who tell me about how they can't make ends meet financially, ask for more work to get extra pay, but then show up with a new damned touchscreen phone of the latest variety and trend.

Hey! Asshole! No one values you differently because you have a cool phone!

 

[spidey07]

I hate people I know who tell me about how they can't make ends meet financially, ask for more work to get extra pay, but then show up with a new damned touchscreen phone of the latest variety and trend.

Hey! Asshole! No one values you differently because you have a cool phone!

You'll fit in well here. Agreed.

 

[HappyPuppy]

yes, but in my opinion..it was the best use of 3d to date..its a maturing technology..avatar was one hell of an accomplishment, even if it has flaws

Bullshit! Tell me how much the 3D technology has matured in 120 years. Besides the number of pixels and quality of color what is new? You still sit there with stupid looking uncomfortable glasses on making believe you are 'immersed' in the film.

It's just another recycled gimmick that has been advertised to death and the ignorant masses have bought it.

Again.


Bullshit.

 

[spidey07]

Bullshit! Tell me how much the 3D technology has matured in 120 years. Besides the number of pixels and quality of color what is new? You still sit there with stupid looking uncomfortable glasses on making believe you are 'immersed' in the film.

It's just another recycled gimmick that has been advertised to death and the ignorant masses have bought it.

Again.


Bullshit.

I thought the "new" stuff used technology similar to the 3d gaming glasses that came out about 10 years ago. The glasses use LCD blanking to block one eye while the displays one frame, then switches, etc. That's why 120hz TVs had the 3d capability?

I don't really know what they're using these days.

 

[LumbergTech]

Bullshit! Tell me how much the 3D technology has matured in 120 years. Besides the number of pixels and quality of color what is new? You still sit there with stupid looking uncomfortable glasses on making believe you are 'immersed' in the film.

It's just another recycled gimmick that has been advertised to death and the ignorant masses have bought it.

Again.


Bullshit.

Its not just the image, its the art of using it...and using it in coordination with sound

 

[destrekor]

LOL my dad said the same thing in reference to the 1950s.

I saw both the 2D and (non-IMAX) Real3D versions of Avatar and actually preferred the former. The 2D version, without the sunglasses, is simply more brilliant and vibrant. Putting on the 3D glasses makes everything darker. And since I am left-eye dominant, my eyes had a hard time focusing on the 3D aspects at times. In the end, it was a step back for me.

most people have a dominant eye. It's fairly natural to have a more dominant eye. Just like most people have a more dominant hand.

Yes, the RealD 3D version uses polarization so you lose some the vibrancy. Not once did I have an issue with the light level while watching it in RealD 3D. You have to actively compare the two to notice what you are missing. Yes, I knew it was darker than it would be when I watched it in 3D, however.. you aren't losing any detail. And in fact, it felt far more natural when combined with the added depth and dimensionality the whole picture had.

But yes, would I like the whole 3D experience without losing any of the projector's light? You bet. I just cannot complain about it.

Oh, and anaglyph 3D is absolute shit. It sucked in the 50s, and still sucks today. It does nothing for dimensionality and only offers the things flying at you gimmick.
There was in fact very little of that in Avatar, and it more focused on the incredible sense of depth to the picture, everything appeared to extend in front of, and beyond, the screen. Was quite impressive for 3D tech imho. That's exactly the kind of 3D that has the chance to catch on. And that's the only kind of 3D tech I want at home. That gimmick shit is boring. The style in Avatar's presentation is exactly what I'd find myself enjoying every time I would want to watch a movie at home. The glasses, as long as they aren't unnecessarily uncomfortable, wouldn't detract from the experience one bit.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

I thought the "new" stuff used technology similar to the 3d gaming glasses that came out about 10 years ago. The glasses use LCD blanking to block one eye while the displays one frame, then switches, etc. That's why 120hz TVs had the 3d capability?

I don't really know what they're using these days.

I am guessing that for things like Avatar its just polarized glasses being used to send a different image to each eye which gives the 3D effect.

 

[El Guaraguao]

ahh fugettaboutit

 

[destrekor]

I thought the "new" stuff used technology similar to the 3d gaming glasses that came out about 10 years ago. The glasses use LCD blanking to block one eye while the displays one frame, then switches, etc. That's why 120hz TVs had the 3d capability?

I don't really know what they're using these days.

That's basically what some of the new TVs will be using.

RealD 3D uses circular polarization, opposite direction for each eye. The projector displays both images.

I think Imax 3D can use three different methods. Two of them are polarization based, either a vertical/horizontal polarization for each eye, or again, circular polarization. That's why almost every RealD 3D movie is also released in Imax3D, since it's basically the exact same projection method. I don't know how common it is, but I've also heard of Imax using active-shutter glasses.
I don't know if Imax uses a dual-head projector or not though, but I am pretty confident RealD 3D uses a single projector with a polarization unit that switches direction every other frame. If you look at the screen without the glasses, you can see both images overlap without stutter, looks like a smooth movie, just incredibly irritating to look at since it's all mashed up.

 

[Indolent]

I think it was one of the guys on PTI that said it best. Something along the lines of, "I got lasik to get rid of my glasses! Why would I want a tv that makes me wear glasses again?"

 

[zerocool84]

I think it was one of the guys on PTI that said it best. Something along the lines of, "I got lasik to get rid of my glasses! Why would I want a tv that makes me wear glasses again?"

Ha PTI is the best.

 

[destrekor]

Bullshit! Tell me how much the 3D technology has matured in 120 years. Besides the number of pixels and quality of color what is new? You still sit there with stupid looking uncomfortable glasses on making believe you are 'immersed' in the film.

It's just another recycled gimmick that has been advertised to death and the ignorant masses have bought it.

Again.


Bullshit.

So you don't care about visual presentation. That's your cup o' tea.

Previous attempts at 3D, both from a technology standpoint and the art direction to showcase it, have been pathetic and boring, hardly worth the view.

Avatar did it the way it should be done. Sure, they took advantage of the tech to showcase things flying or floating out of the screen, but in general, it was about depth and dimensionality... something we see in real life that is entirely missed when looking at a 2D screen.
Some people like to be drawn into a movie. That's why some movies, forgetting about the topic of 3D, are better enjoyed by different types of people. Some just like a movie to simply be entertaining, not looking for anything more, while other people like it to be an art showcase of human behavior in a grounded-in-reality fictional world.
I like both types of movies. The ones that are trying to go for more than simply mindless entertainment, are the types I'd enjoy complete dimensionality and a sense of real depth to the picture. If the audio, picture quality, on-screen performances, the characters themselves and specifically the plot, all line up, together with a well-crafted 3D experience, it just further completes the movie experience.

Is it necessary? No.
Are movies that aren't pure mindless entertainment necessary? No.

 

[spidey07]

<snip>

Is it necessary? No.
Are movies that aren't pure mindless entertainment necessary? No.

I think the real advantage is going to be sports (no surprise ESPN is first to the game). HD and the 16x9 aspect ratio totally changed what we see in sports - you see all the players, position, field, etc.

Now take that extra vision with the aspect ratio and HD and take it to 3D. It could be REALLY promising. The new dallas stadium gave it a try this season as I recall, wasn't well received though because folks were already watching the game in real life.

 

[AmdEmAll]

Compared to phones and most other electronics computers have been moving slowly in comparison. PCI Express has been around since 2004 and was basically necessary because of the throughput needed for future video cards.

I don't see 3D in itself being the problem but yes, there is too much new stuff, and too fast, and everyone always wants the latest and greatest. Something new comes out and 3 months later it's obsolete. I find in the past years computer hardware has been very bad for this. Was PCI express really needed? Why not just improve the existing PCI? And why have 3 types of DDR ram? Just improve the existing. Video cards, I wont even go there.

 

[AmdEmAll]

But I got my Verizon HTC Droid Eris for free with 2 year contract... Cost me not one penny.

I hate people I know who tell me about how they can't make ends meet financially, ask for more work to get extra pay, but then show up with a new damned touchscreen phone of the latest variety and trend.

Hey! Asshole! No one values you differently because you have a cool phone!