Good, I hope this high-framerate thing goes the same way. Only sooner.
What drove me away from the 3D fad is that, when it was just kind of starting out, animated movies would have something that would fly into the camera on purpose, unnecessarily, every minute, as if to say "you see this? DO YOU SEE THIS? It's 3D look at it RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE".
Watched Avatar in 3D at work on a new 60" Sony LED LCD... it's great, but the glasses are annoying.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;39153433]Good, I hope this high-framerate thing goes the same way. Only sooner.[/QUOTE]
If anything we should be pushing higher framerates. 24 fps is the bare minimum framerate you can keep and still have realistic lip movement for speech. I'd say it's about damn time we move on from that. We've got 1080p, why not try to excel in other areas?
Just because soap operas did it first is no excuse not to push our tech. Our current movies almost look choppy with there low framerates.
3D was a fad before with those red & blue glasses. When it returned with this new shit, I knew it'd just be a fad again.
I was right, and glad for it.
Thank fuck for that. Does that mean 3D is gone for another 15 years?
To be fair 3D can be nice when it's convenient for the user. The 3ds for example makes seeing 3d really simple and it's a nice little effect to leave on when playing. It's nothing to base your entire product line off of though.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;39153383]I've never seen a 3d movie or used a 3d tv. How does it even look like? Like those blue/red 3d pictures?[/QUOTE]
No, 3d media nowadays works by having projectors project two images slightly offset from each other at different light polarizations (clockwise and counterclockwise, for example). Then one lens in the 3d glasses is polarized clockwise to filter out the counter-clockwise polarized light and the other, opposite, to produce the stereoscopic 3d image.
[editline]9th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SiPlus;39153399] Piece of shit. Well, if they brightened the movie a bit, it wouldn't be such shit.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, that's the nature of using polarized lens. They reduce the light amplitude by half.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;39153433]Good, I hope this high-framerate thing goes the same way. Only sooner.[/QUOTE]
seeing as TVs keep increasing their refresh rate (i saw a 200hz TV the other day...) probably not
I played black ops in 3D on an xbox and my eyes were really straining, and the glasses felt really clunky
the major major fucking problem about 3D was that you couldn't lie down and watch TV, that is torture
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;39153623]I played black ops in 3D on an xbox and my eyes were really straining, and the glasses felt really clunky
the major major fucking problem about 3D was that you couldn't lie down and watch TV, that is torture[/QUOTE]
Try looking into the ironsights when using 3d. Instant headache.
The new 3d technology never worked that well for me. Dont know why, but all movies that Ive seen
in 3d Cinemas only have a slight effect in some scenes, and whenever i had the chance to test a
3d-tv in a shop I barely noticed the 3d effect.
3D won't take off until they attach some sort of 3D scanner to the camera and have some sort of way of projecting the images in 3D.
I saw a 3D Tv at my cousins, we watched Shrek and I have to say I fairly impressed.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39153683]3D won't until they attach some sort of 3D scanner to the camera and have some sort of way of projecting the images in 3D.[/QUOTE]
3D won't what and what difference would it make from using two cameras?, they're already being projected in stereoscopic 3D.
You mean holograms, right?, anyways you don't need a "3D scanner" to make models useable in a holographic display and you don't need holograms to have good 3D effect, and i doubt most people have enough space for a holodeck.
[QUOTE=samuel2213;39153637]Try looking into the ironsights when using 3d. Instant headache.[/QUOTE]
that's what happened to me to, and it was zombie mode on Call of the Dead DLC and it looked all fucking weird
[QUOTE=Wormy;39153143]I am okay with this because I will never be able to experience 3D with my eyes anyway.[/QUOTE]
This.
They never care about those who actually don't have stereoscopic vision - the cinema near where i live stopped screening avatar in 2D just a few days after it's release because "not enough people wanted to watch it in 2D" :suicide:
Am i missing something here? I really like the 3D i have a 3D TV myself which i watched Prometheus on the other day and it was great in 3D.
[QUOTE=Valdread;39153752]Am i missing something here? I really like the 3D i have a 3D TV myself which i watched Prometheus on the other day and it was great in 3D.[/QUOTE]
to some people (like me) it strains your fucking eyes and its neato for like maybe 2 days until you get bored with it
on top of that, we had a few channels that supported these 3D modes in Australia but they disappeared in 3 months because of very low ratings
[QUOTE=.PSID;39153718]3D won't what and what difference would it make from using two cameras?, they're already being projected in stereoscopic 3D.
You mean holograms, right?, anyways you don't need a "3D scanner" to make models useable in a holographic display and you don't need holograms to have good 3D effect, and i doubt most people have enough space for a holodeck.[/QUOTE]Won't take off, but anyway, stereoscope 3D content looks much better when it's computer generated rather than shot with 2 cameras, so if you had a 3D scanner capturing depth, it would look much better. Like the Kinect for example, it looks "OK" but if they develop it a bit more, they could use it's technology for 3D video.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;39153767]to some people (like me) it strains your fucking eyes and its neato for like maybe 2 days until you get bored with it
on top of that, we had a few channels that supported these 3D modes in Australia but they disappeared in 3 months because of very low ratings[/QUOTE]
I pointed in the first page that strain is caused by whatever you're watching forcing convergence/focus and can possibly only be solved by having individual eye tracking that enables you to look wherever you want in the screen, there's also the fact there may be flickering from low refresh rates and jumpy motion from low framerate and resolution.
Also 3D on tv's makes it look you're looking at toys or something like that so, again, VR glasses or a holographic room, maybe a wall, are the only ways 3D would feel natural.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39153812]Won't take off, but anyway, stereoscope 3D content looks much better when it's computer generated rather than shot with 2 cameras, so if you had a 3D scanner capturing depth, it would look much better. Like the Kinect for example, it looks "OK" but if they develop it a bit more, they could use it's technology for 3D video.[/QUOTE]
But kinect is basically two cameras, the only difference is that it generates a 3D model calculating the differences from the two perspectives shot with them.
[QUOTE=.PSID]you don't need a "3D scanner" to make models useable in a holographic display[/QUOTE]
All that needs to be done is to track the eyes and let the viewer have control of his vision, also regarding games, add voxel based framebuffers to graphics cards and there won't be a single slowdown when using 3D and in fact if you use eye tracking as well you could for example mix it with LoDs/Tesselation to only use high quality on the parts of the screen you're looking at and bring performance improvements to both 3D and 2D screen modes.
[QUOTE=BCell;39152990]Wait till holographic television appear.[/QUOTE]
RIP holographic tv fad 2015-2018
[editline]9th January 2013[/editline]
flat screen HD image seems to be the ever-lasting future.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;39153433]Good, I hope this high-framerate thing goes the same way. Only sooner.[/QUOTE]
still upset about the hobbit, rusty?
I could care less. I could not see 3d images with glasses anyways.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;39153510]seeing as TVs keep increasing their refresh rate (i saw a 200hz TV the other day...) probably not[/QUOTE]
The latest bullshit on TVS is they are listing things as 240 hz when its interlaced refresh rates apparently.
In other words, it's half of what's advertised.
Because I'm practically blind in my left eye, 3D has never worked for me. I almost completely lack depth perception.
[QUOTE=DrogenViech;39153727]This.
They never care about those who actually don't have stereoscopic vision - the cinema near where i live stopped screening avatar in 2D just a few days after it's release because "not enough people wanted to watch it in 2D" :suicide:[/QUOTE]
Avatar was basically the start of 3D again so I can understand that. Nowadays however, more people go to prefer to watch it in 2D at least where I live.
I hate 3D and can't wait to see it disappear
[QUOTE=ThatSprite;39152965]Called it.[/QUOTE]
I wanted to say "called it," but I think anybody who had half a brain called it as well.
can the 3D movie fad end soon please
until we manage to get it without glasses at least
Why the hate? It's not like you HAVE to watch the movies in 3D.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
