Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:3D, What's it like? (Score 0) 197

by chrisguy13 (#32594622) Attached to: Microsoft's Glasses-Free 3D Display
I disagree with some of the responses. They probably watched remember the titans and judged it from that. A properly done movie (eg avatar) that uses two cameras to film or any PC game with IZ3D or Nvidia 3d vision is very impressive. Movies like remember the titans and Alice in Wonderland were shot standard and created the depth afterwards. This gives it a cardboard cut-out feel HopefulIntern is talking about. For some reason, this method is cheaper (less CG rendering?) and is used by studios to exploit the current popularity of 3D movies. I watched Alice in Wonderland and the whole thing made me feel sick until the credits (with growing mushrooms) which I believe was done properly as it was very pleasing and comfortable to watch

The easiest way to show why the conversions are crap is to put an object close to your face. Close one eye and then the other. Each eye sees more of its side of the object. This is lost when a 2d to 3d conversion is done.

Either way, you're unfortunately missing out, but the 3d tvs do also have 120hz (needed for the tech), so that can be an advantage to anyone, plus I would imagine if all tvs go 3d they will have an option to display the left image in 2d for situations with more people than glasses.

The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.