Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Morpheus 02, Nov 10, 2020.
That was actually Charlton Heston in Armageddon.
You can see why I’d get the two mixed up
They even came out around the same time if I remember rightly.
There were at least 2 other tries at 3D in the theaters (1950's and 1980's). Both of those failed to gain any traction.
Remember that guy on Back to the Future that wore the 50s style 3D specs all the time? I wonder what the long effect of that would be.
Maybe that technology will be ready by the time he actually finishes an Avatar sequel.
One eye will see things tinted red, and one eye will see things cyan. I know from experience.
You lost the ability to see other colours? Is it permanent? That really sucks.
No, it only lasts for a very short while. Basically, it's auto white balance for your eyes. The eye with the cyan lens gives your brain a slightly red-tinted image to compensate.
They're rotting in Silicon Hell, alongside the betamax cassettes, 8-track tapes, laserdiscs, minidisc players, HD DVDs and Google Glass headsets.
There are hardly any 3D releases on Blu-ray any longer, even for movies that were shown in 3D in the cinema. 3D 4K Blu-ray just isn't a thing -- I don't know if the standard supports it (I can't see why it couldn't). Often being in 3D was the only thing that made some movies at all watchable so 3D dying out might hopefully make some directors and studios try harder at creating better films.
Hm. I didn't have that issue (that I noticed), but I have noticed that occasionally after seeing a 3D movie my eyes will unfocus when looking at other screens, as though they're trying to focus on a 3D image that, naturally, isn't there. It's a little disconcerting though not a serious concern.
It was only a thing with the old anaglyph glasses. Polarized lenses don’t cause me any issues.
I think the biggest issue with 3D these days is that no one actually shoots in 3D anymore. 3D can be a useful tool just like any other aspect of cinematography, but when it’s all just converted, the directors never make any use of it and so it never feels special.
3D has been around since the birth of cinema. I think the 3D of the past 12 years was never a trend but something pushed on us by movie studios in order to make them more money.
The only good thing is a story I remember reading of a man with depth perception problems who went to see a 3D movie and it basically restored his vision even after he left the cinema.
You forgot CED videodiscs.
Morgan Freeman's final speech in Deep Impact sort of had a similar, more drawn out references.
My two eyes see different colors anyway. Two different brands of lenses after cataract surgery!
Looks like tv's are moving towards see-through or "invisible" tech.
^ Oh, good, we can finally simulate the Discovery bridge in our living rooms!
Great, now I'll have to dust behind my tv too.
I don't really see those making much of a big splash. Not only are they horribly expensive, but they present an issue of form over function and introduce issues that regular TVs don't have. I mean, it'd work reasonably OK if you were to have a solid wall sitting behind it to add contrast, but it'd be great if it could have the option of auto-adjusting contrast for setups where the background isn't great, otherwise It'd be very distracting.
Separate names with a comma.