Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8479 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7370 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Re:3d is annoying (Score:1, Informative)
And it gives you a headache too.
Re:Exotropia (Score:5, Informative)
BTW lacking stereopsis is *not* the same as having no depth perception. The brain interprets many "monocular cues" subconsciously to create a sense of depth (near objects look bigger than distant objects, if you move your head, near things shift more than distant things in your field of vision, etc.) Because of this, most people without stereopsis aren't aware of lacking anything and you need to do fairly complicated tests to pick up the lack. (It's also not an all-or-nothing thing, people may have different degrees of stereopsis.) Stereopsis is really just the icing on the cake of depth perception in real life. That may be part of the reason why attempts at 3D in movies and TV aren't all that impressive, come to think of it, though I'm just guessing there.
[I'm an ophthalmologist.]
Obligatory - Why 3D doesn't work and never will... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:3d is annoying (Score:3, Informative)
I totally agree. Too many movies are spending the entire budget on gratuitous special effects and the story line is merely an afterthought. This is made painfully obvious if you watch an old Alfred Hitchcock movie and then any of the recent blockbusters. Old black and white movie >> new 3D color movie.
Other ways to wreck a film:
comic-book colorizing (Casablanca)
"updating" (Star Wars)
Re:Gaming (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't mind abusing the glasses, you can use a 3d tv to do full screen split screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo [youtube.com]
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Informative)
As a part-time stereographer (Transformers III), I have spent a bit of time on this.
I agree that stereo is best used in intimate settings, at the distances that we have evolved to use 3D in real life. 3D is there so that you can hit somebody with a club accurately, so that you can pick up a rock accurately -- it's for things within a few arm's length away at most. Rather than do some giant spectacle in 3D; it would be much better suited to "My Dinner with Andre" or something like that -- it could really put you into the scene.
As you say, much porn is shot exactly this way. The people I've talked to in that industry say that 3D is TMI, though -- that their customers do not find it appealing to be really "in the world" with the performers -- that the 2D abstraction is a useful distancing mechanism.
So -- there hasn't been a big push into 3D porn yet. And, yeah, there isn't much of an installed base of 3D TVs or BluRay players yet either.
HD is another thing that one would have thought would be great for porn, but again, the people in the industry say that it reveals more flaws than it gains in beauty...
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure why you say that...I found that Plasmas had better color than the LCD's...the black is much more of a true black.
I like to watch a lot of movies, and the Plasma has a much more cinematic look to it, than the LCDs. I don't have a lot of ambient light coming in, so the glass on the Plasma in my room, doesn't have problem with reflections, which some people complain about. I also have a darker room, so that isn't a problem.
My Plasma doesn't have the problem with motion artifacts...that while LCDs are improving...they still aren't quite up to par on quick motion on screen than the plasma.
And the new Samsungs...the plasma, is pretty much as thin as the LCDs being offered out there.
But hey, even with all this....it is kind of like speakers, it is what YOU like that matters. I did comparisons...researched things, and found the deal was MUCH better for me to get a 59" new TV, for the price of a much smaller LED LCD tv....
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, for the games that don't cheat and actually do depth right at ALL times, the Nvidia 3D vision thing works pretty well. Like on Crysis 2 and Portal 2, the effect works well and is believable. I even get a bit of pop-out at times, although it usually looks like it's going inward. The problems come up in things like cross-hairs being wrong, or some other HUD type element is actually rendered as 2D and scaled to fit in place, which all just looks fine before you go 3D with it.
Most annoying thing about the old Nvidia glasses is that they are somewhat tinted even when that side is the "on" side, so you really do need a bright monitor. The lenses are active shutter type, so you get 60Hz 3D out of a 120Hz monitor (every other frame goes to the opposite eye). Also means you better have a NICE system to hit 60fps in the game because you actually have to be able to run the game at 120. Sometimes you can detect a little bit of cross talk (frame shift and lens activation being not entirely synced), and it does make my head feel funny to go any more than maybe an hour with it on.
It's not something so amazing I'd feel like I was missing something without it though. I might consider eventually getting the newer glasses kit which has bigger and lighter lenses as some point, maybe if there is a sale like I got all the other gear.
Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Informative)
Why not have it all in focus? In "real life" everything I look at is focused, if somehow the object remains blurry despite my eyes trying to focus on it, I get eyestrain.
And that's why I'd rather the entire movie frame to be perfectly focused where technically possible. Except for maybe a few scenes where the director wants to do some gimmick. Other than that, please leave out the artificial motion blurring and artificial defocussing of stuff. It hurts my eyes.
In order to have everything in a scene in focus with conventional equipment, you have to collimate light using a very small lens aperture. The drawback to doing this is that you get much less light into the lens, which makes filming anything other than brightly-lit scenes impractical unless high ISO speeds are used. An exception to this rule is CG and/or animated scenes, such as what was employed in TRON: Legacy. You could also use a plenoptic camera to capture the entire light field. In "real life" not everything you see is focused... for example, if you look at something two feet in front of you, the objects in front of and behind that object (in your peripheral vision) will be out of focus. This is more apparent in lower light, as your pupils (analogous to a lens aperture) are wider which cause your depth of field to be lower. Wikipedia talks more about this in their depth of field [wikipedia.org] article.