What is Digg?66 Comments
- Bhatch514, on 10/12/2007, -1/+55i live in 3D it's not that exciting...
- Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Yay.. a technology that JUST WONT FRIGGIN DIE!
- damndj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Not really looking forward to this. I saw Superman in 3D and found it more distracting than fun.
Hopefully this will be some new advance 3-d technology. Otherwise, no thanks. - LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I went to a "4d" movie recently at Niagra Falls and I must say that I hope this isn't the way movies are trying to go. Being blasted with old air and skanky water isn't what I like to call an imersive experience.
- Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I hate 3D movies... They add the most pointless ***** just to make the audience go "Ooooo! Wow!"
- MikeFromAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Great... Another excuse to jack up prices some more.
- yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+114d gave rise to late payments.. 4d sucks
- Hurdy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11You and your third dimension.
- AdmiralFreezbee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Who says it will be with glasses? There are other technologies being developed as we speak that don't require such glasses.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7" Lucas plans to re-release all Star Wars in 3D, Peter Jackson wants to redo all LOTR and..."
Get ready to shell out for another round of 'special edition' dvds.... - Attrition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Saw Superman in 3D Imax. You sit even slightly to the side and things can get distorted. Watching a 3D movie in the front row must be impossible.
Also with Superman in particular, the 3D scenes looked wierd, as though everything viewed through the 3D looked 'tiny'. Out of scale, say. Instead of a huge boat sinking, it looked like a little toy boat.
3D is not ftw. - FuZ3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I hope they use polarized glasses as opposed to the standard red & blue ones.
- floejoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Popular Science and several other magazines ran a story on the forthcoming 3D technology and magazine editors and movie directors were apparently quite impressed. Lucas plans to re-release all Star Wars in 3D, Peter Jackson wants to redo all LOTR and James Cameroon vowed to never go back to standard 2D film when he saw what the new 3D technology is capable of.
The new technology is allegedly very different and far more advanced than previous 3d technology. I have not seen it myself so I am just parroting opinions of those people above, however, I do think they are credible enough if they claim that its the best thing in entertainment since audio and color was introduced and if they are fully committing to it. - okaroleo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Ooooo! Wow!
- yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5like "Supernova36 3d".. hey, you're right!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't see the problem with 3D, its more immersive etc...
The stuff I hate is those movies that are designed to be 3D, they just suck since there entire point is to be 3D and show off their 3dness and have no plot or acting (much like a majority of todays regular movies are anyway). But taking normal computer generated movies and making them in 3D would be good, or even filming (or converting after filming) in 3D.
I'm sure the switch to color from B&W was much the same.
The only problem is now we will need a new format, new player, new 3d television and probably new everything else because the new stuff only works with the compatible (ie raped in the ass by DRM) components. But thats happening already anyway.
I can see the future people talking about upgrading from 3D to true 3D, currently you can only see the 3D from one perspective and moving your head doesn't move the image around. - Supernova36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4All they need to do is stop naming movies with a '3-D' tacked on the end of the title, it instantly makes it sound cheesey and lame.
- maddla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Next Generation 3D which uses a whole different shutter configuration, due to recent technological discoveries by a company called RealD, 3D can now be run on a single projector using a translucent LCD shutter which sits in front of the lens on the 3D projector.
The problem with 3D, is that because the light out put on the screen (about 12 F.L) you need a HR silver screen so your gain is up to 14 or 15 F.L for 3D which more than likely be produced in a Flat Format.
Dreamworks *may* have 3D films available but the theater industry is already going to have a tough time switching into Digital that 3D will once again be a technology that will only see larger markets and more specialized venues such as LA and NY. - Jarasmen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Offtopic: Anybody seen 300 in IMAX? Should I watch it in pseudo-3d or go for the normal showing?
- Bahimiron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I look forward to a feature length Captain Eo cinema masterpiece.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like IMAX, to me things just seem more impressive. At least for movies with impressive things. I wouldn't want to watch a romantic comedy on IMAX, but anything with special effects I would prefer IMAX.
- Bahimiron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does this mean we'll finally get that Criterion three disc DVD release of Jaws 3-D that we've always known we wanted, but were always afraid to ask for?
- maddla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know I already commented below, but, eventually glasses will no longer be necessary for 3D.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can only see out of one eye, which I think will prevent me from experiencing this? Sucks.
- seansshack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If they pump money in and perfect it, it could possibly help the cinema experience to be something like it use to be. i.e. a family night out event that is worth shelling out for.
But they need something new and something than can't easily be emulated at home. If the quality is similar to the terminator ride in universal studios (with out the added effects) it could add to a big blockbuster experience. But if it is a similar migraine inducing ***** image 3d of yesterday, forget it. I remember going to see jaws 3d and sitting near the front row. My god what a fecking headache (and what a ***** movie to boot).
With the right people, time and investment; it could work. - KingBabi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If I want 3D, I'll use magic eye.
- Gunsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ive played with some high end HP visualization stuff and this could be interesting if done right.
- savingstrangers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Guys don't worry. Chances are EXTREMELY slim they're talking about the same 3d as the old crappy ones. (Michael Jackson music video anyone?) The technology will be much more advanced, probably have more comfortable glasses (glasses are pretty much necessary).
- DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, Dreamworks 3D!"
- Df@ce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1***** 3D! go hologram !!
- inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's a good question Jarasmen. I have often wondered if the IMAX releases of Hollywood movies really do add anything to the viewing experience. Is anyone an IMAXaholic here?
- VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We're spoiled in L.A., our "normal" screens have been bigger than Imax screens since before there even was such as thing as Imax.
- Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yippie, more pointless sequels to the "Treasure of the Four Crowns".
How's *that* for a flashback? - npsg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey I'm looking foward to 3D.
- cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Who says it will be with glasses? There are other technologies being developed as we speak that don't require such glasses. "
Can you people read? Go google the technology. - shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Movies have dumbed down so much I hardly go anymore. Maybe if they can work out something nice this time I'd go :(
- darkever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've seen the technology to do 3d without glasses at NYU. Very impressive.
- betobeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Truth be told the Simpsons movie is just about the only new animated film I'm looking forward to watch. The vast majority of 3D films so far are mostly sizzle without steak IMHO.
- funkydude101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was going to say....what about those that can only see out of one eye or just do not have the ability of depth perception? The movie would look terrible. For that reason I don't think 3-D movies will catch on entirely....
- lifeat24fps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If they want to bring people back to the theater, how about this:
--Reserved and assigned seating
--A return to professional projection and sound management so the movie isn't crooked, dim, and all the speakers in the theater are working.
--Better security so the animals shouting, placing phone calls, and texting during the feature are kicked out. Quickly. Speaking of which...
--Enforcing the films ratings so the animals that are shouting, making calls, and texting aren't in my theater to begin with.
--Cleaning - VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Original article, which is infinitely more detailed and informative: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961023.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Any 3D technology that uses glasses, period, is doomed to fail.
I've seen some great 3D stuff, but it gets old pretty fast. And I always feel that my eyes are never quite focused. A lot of people get headaches wearing the glasses for extended periods of time. - bobv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"i don't want 3d. i want compelling storylines and quality characters."
You mean compelling 3D characters right? 2D characters can be soooooo lame. - NoSalt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can you imagine a porn in 4-D???
EWWWWWWW!!!! - pujolsthebeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1did it say that Dreamworks won't release anymore in 2D at all?
- 3dom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn, I read this thinking it was a massive advancement in current technology, and that the videos were actually projected in 3 dimensional space as opposed to some ***** rebranded illusory 3D red/blue specs marketing. I read an article on digg a while ago saying basic 3D shapes etc could be projected via a recent device using ionised air or something like that, so I kinda knew it was too good to be true. Flat screen = 2D
- Cuja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i saw MONSTER HOUSE in Disney Digital 3D. And it had trailers for MEET THE ROBINSONS and THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. All of them looked stunning. I have tried to watch Monster House on DVD now and it is not the same. This is the same stuff that all of the "BIG names" are moving towards. It does not cause the headaches that the red/blue glasses did, but the polarized lenses are a little awkward to wear.
- MasterQ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the 3d effect is achieved by filming with two cameras that are eye-width apart.... if u don't want to watch it in 3d, i don't think it would be too hard to just output one of the two video feeds... assuming that they do the smart thing and keep them seperated :)
- Jarasmen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks guys, I'll watch it in imax then :D
- kd5ftn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with 3D right now is that it's really just being used for spectacle - and after a while, spectacles just get lame. 3D won't be good for films until someone can make it cinema - and really utilize it for artistic expression. However, this won't stop it from being exploited by crappy CG films and of course the porn industry, especially when the technology becomes cheaper.
/cynical film student -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is