San Francisco, 1:25 PM
Mon Dec 7
16 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
| posts about #3dglasses more → |
Proof That 3-D Craze Has Gone Too Far |
Finally, Chuck Gives Us A Reason To Love The Superbowl |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
io9 
11/02/09
11/01/09
whatever they come up with, it'll never be better than HD sunglasses. #3dglasses
11/01/09
11/01/09
I wear prescription glasses and am 53 and so I am no stranger to this format.I saw Vincent Price in 3D when I was a child so now I will say what I wanted to:
BIG SHIT !!!!
When this industry truly comes up with 3D I will be impresssed that is to say if I am even alive then.Until that day I do not care at all about any of this 3D stuff and may just see Avatar as 2D instead of being forced to put glasses over my glasses.
And don't you just hate the 2 colored lens BS as well.Makes a film color look truly stunning and Oscar quality !!! #3dglasses
11/01/09
Currently they offer by far the best quality 3d.
Glass's-free methods have either reduced resolution or reduced viewing angle...normally both.
oh, and coloured Anaglyphic glass's are BS. But then, no one uses them anymore. #3dglasses
11/01/09
But the cinema is all polarized lenses now. Since they finally got smart enough to make them giant enough to cover my prescription glasses, I've quite enjoyed these recent movies. They're in focus and everything!
It's much better than the old days (which Evil Tortie's Dad and I both remember as well). #3dglasses
11/01/09
Watched my first 3D movie this week and I wondered why no one had thought of this before. Typical that the first time I have a good idea, somebody steals my thoughts and puts it into production. #3dglasses
11/01/09
Well, if you have glasses like mine, it wouldn't be that hard. They have a magnetic sunglasses "clip" that grabs onto the frame just in front of the hinges, and the fact that I have purple lenses in mine sorta suggests that it's possible to get properly tailored custom 3D lenses. Incidentally, this would work for _any_ type of 3D. They originally came with polarized lenses, so all you'd need for RealD is to replace one of those lenses with one that has the polarization rotated 90 degrees. For anaglyph (ugh) or InTru3D, you'd just need custom-colored lenses for each eye. It's a fairly expensive option, as each clip runs about $100, but even if you have to swap lenses out it's certainly _possible_. The trick is that for most people, you'd need to have untinted non-prescription lenses and figure out a way to attach the film from a pair of cardboard glasses to them. #3dglasses
11/01/09
It seems a lot of people are forgetting that while this may seem like a fad, a lot of companies have been putting weight behind the tech for home use, TV and game makers alike, so what may seem like a fad is probably here to stay and if it ends up furthering holgraphic tech in some way then I see o problems with it. #3dglasses
11/01/09
Avatar is stupid.
James Cameron is full of himself, the concepts he claims that he's pioneering are things that animation did decades ago.
He claims that his "new filmmaking techniques" will change the way we make films, but it's just mo-cap combined with animation, that's all. It's nothing revolutionary whatsoever, they just got more powerful computer processors so they can do it in real-time.
We are reaching the point where the boundaries between animation and live-action filmmaking are being blurred, something the animation community has realized for years but the live-action filmmaking community refuses to realize. This is the same community that calls computer-generated animation "special effects" and thinks animation is a genre instead of an artistic medium.
And now, one of their most overrated directors are claiming to be pioneering into territory that animation had done decades ago, and the worst part is that people believe him. What a freakin' shame. #3dglasses
11/01/09
not mo-cap.
not 'real time' animation in camera.
then what?
he did design and build a new camera...
I'd be interesteed in what informatioin you are railing against. #3dglasses
11/01/09
But like you said, all that crap has been done before.
It's not the technology I am angry about. The technology is balls-off-the-wall cool. It's the ego behind it.
11/01/09
Avatars tech is evolutionary, not revoluitionary. But Cameron is still one of the best 3D film makers on the planet for different reasons.
Using dual 70mm film cameras in a deep sea environment isnt easy. #3dglasses
11/01/09
And do you think Cameron is the one wielding those cameras underwater? Go thank his DoP for that.
What he is chiefly responsible for is story and artistic direction, both of which, despite all the hullabaloo, aren't very innovative.
I wouldn't make such a fuss if such large claims weren't being made. He didn't do such things when he made Titanic, nor when he did the Terminator and Terminator 2 (although he did brag a lot about T2's visual techs). #3dglasses
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/02/09
11/01/09
We're half a decade or so away from glasses-less tech anyway. Until we lose the glasses, 3D will continue to be thought of as a gimmick.
Also, looking forward to seeing Avatar btw. #3dglasses
11/01/09
In a few decades we will all be wearing glass's anyway and living in a augmented-reality overlaid world half the time.
The advantages will be too big to care about minor things like "looking silly". #3dglasses
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
Won't ever happen. I once asked if I could bring an old pair in so I didn't have to pay the $2 for a new pair, and was told that the $2 is an automatic surcharge on the ticket price, while the glasses are treated as being essentially "free". #3dglasses
11/01/09
11/02/09
Any RealD 3D viewing in the area is supplied with semi-disposable polarized glasses. They're individually sealed in a bag that's generally sporting a generic label (but not always), and they _do_ have a recycle bin outside if you don't feel like taking the glasses with you, but the RealD glasses don't have any sort of RFID built in.
Now, that's what you get at a normal movie theater. IMAX theaters have their own special 3D glasses, and they _do_ require you turn them over at the end of the show, but I don't recall them hitting you with a surcharge for 3D showings (ticket prices are already high enough as it is, I'd guess). And they also only have one screen, and take your ticket as you enter the actual theater, so buying a ticket to a different movie won't work.
Anyways, one thing to remember is that if you're using a different style of glasses than the ones provided at that theater, unless there's a fixed standard for which lens is polarized vertically and which is polarized horizontally, you might find that you get an inside-out 3D view, where a ball would look like the inside of a bowl and vice versa. #3dglasses
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/02/09
Best home experience I've had was watching Chuck Vs. The 3rd Dimension the day after the Superbowl earlier this year. They used InTru3D technology, which is similar to anaglyph (and therefore would work with _every_ color TV), but I didn't get the familiar anaglyph headache after about twenty minutes (good thing, since the show lasted an hour), and my eyes didn't feel all screwed up after I took the glasses off again. I could also view non-3D stuff without it looking all screwy.
Polarized lenses work great in theaters because outfitting a single screen/theater to accomodate 3D viewing is a one-time deal. Everyone shows up in the same room, everyone can watch 3D (assuming they aren't blind or half-blind). At-home technology falls into three basic categories:
1. Stuff that will work with any color TV (anaglyph, InTrue3D).
2. Stuff that will require expensive glasses (shutter-based technology).
3. Stuff that will require prohibitively expensive TV sets (glasses-less 3D).
The real problem here is that 3D-enthusiasts want the third option to become standard, even though it will effectively kill the industry's ability to profit from 3D DVD releases for several decades (many people already made unnecessary upgrades to HDTV in the erroneous belief that only HDTVs would be able to receive digital TV OTA signals, and having to buy yet another new TV is out of the question in the near future). The other problem with it is that by all reports, any glasses-less technology will require you to keep your head perfectly still during the viewing, or your eyes will shift out of alignment with the dual-image banding. In other words, all the people who are cheering the onset of glasses-less technology may soon regret it if they get their wish.
You've also got problems from the production side, where it's costly to make a 3D DVD release in the first place, but if you have to then produce more than one 3D version of the same film, you are now compounding your cost to satisfy a splintered market, which will reduce the profitability level, but also encourage further splintering of the industry.
For my money, I really hope InTru3D wins out. It's cheap enough that you can pack several pairs of glasses in each DVD (i.e. free to the consumer, as compared to the other two hardware-based options), the glasses themselves only require color filters so there's no reason someone can't cobble up a solution that they can attach to regular glasses, and it's much easier on the eyes than any of the three basic anaglyph variations. The more affordable it is for the DVD producers, the less likely they will be to steer clear of producing 3D DVDs. #3dglasses
11/01/09