My dad decided to buy a 3D TV for unknown reasons a year back or so and it's kind of cool, though it's a huge hit and miss on what movie you decide to watch.
Movies like Imax which are filmed and done specifically for 3D are orgasmic, CGI-heavy movies will usually be average to fantastic since its easy to simulate 3D in computer-generated characters and environment, more realistic movies are just absolute garbage and the 3D usually starts and ends at just a more noticeable Depth of Field and nothing else.
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;39165844]Hopefully the next big advancement is burn-in prevention.[/QUOTE]
I thought that's been managed for the most part.
I just watched some 3D films on my new 3DTV and it works really quite well, but like anything you need someone who understands 3D and can use it properly. Convergence, parrallax and the depth in the image all need to be within reason.
Just like someone gets a new DSLR with like an F1.2 lens, if they don't know what they are doing they won't focus right or have anything in the right place making it look odd.
3D takes more flak for also playing with our minds, giving headaches. It doesn't just look odd, it hurts people.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39156525]Yeah I love it when my movies are blurry and my monitor starts tearing to fuck any time I hit 61FPS.
Movies I'm not too miffed about, I'd like to see 48FPS become the new standard but I don't care. 120hz monitors, on the other hand, need to hurry up and become commonplace.[/QUOTE]
i'm all for higher refresh rates for monitors, specifically for video games, but high framerate in film can get fucked. it looks horrible. it completely takes me out of and ruins the experience. no other film maker is going to adopt it, because they actually care about cinema. peter jackson is a hack and it's a fad that's going to die before it even starts.
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;39159538]fuck new things!!!! old ways 4ever #bw #fucktalkies[/QUOTE]
yeah i hate it because its new and change!!!!
3d was a new innovation that everyone was hopping onto - now look. everyone hates it and wants it gone.
high frame rate just does not work with films. films are illusions of movement, sucking you into the story - not a window panel onlooking the film set. which is what hfr looks like. if anything it looks a lot more unnatural than real life. its just an awful experience.
good areas of improvement would be higher resolutions and better cameras that capture more lifelike visuals - not doubling the amount of frames.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;39176162]no other film maker is going to adopt it, because they actually care about cinema. peter jackson is a hack and it's a fad that's going to die before it even starts.
[/QUOTE]
But what if your wrong. What if it starts snowballing and catches on (I honestly doubt it will).
What would you do then?
