I noticed the other night that Parasite was on UHD. It looked surprising good too!

I was curious if any studio has thought of going the 3-D route on an HD release yet. I don't think i'd buy Parasite as a normal HD DVD, but if it was in 3-D i'd eat it up. Just wondering what others thought on the subject.

I personally think the idea of in-home 3D movies and videogames is cool - however, I don't think we'll ever see this even done much (if at all) and we certainly won't see it popularized.

The idea has been floating around for years but in surveys done by potential producers - it has always been shown to them that the general public really does not want it nor are they even interested in the idea much at all. People either are fine with/prefer non-3D, complain of head-aches from the effect, or just hate having to wear the 3D glasses/goggles. People who don't wear regular eye-glasses hate the idea of having to wear any glasses at all when trying to watch movies comfortably - and those who do wear eye-glasses regularly don't like the idea of having to put goggles "over" the glasses they have on.

So it's all screwed. In-home 3D visuals like what you see at the amusment park won't be the next fad - if it ever even exists. Something different or better will likely come first. Probably holographic stuff. But, even so, I wouldn't think about any of this kind of stuff becoming a mainstream reality for over 10 years...

I personally think the idea of in-home 3D movies and videogames is cool - however, I don't think we'll ever see this even done much (if at all) and we certainly won't see it popularized.

The idea has been floating around for years but in surveys done by potential producers - it has always been shown to them that the general public really does not want it nor are they even interested in the idea much at all. People either are fine with/prefer non-3D, complain of head-aches from the effect, or just hate having to wear the 3D glasses/goggles. People who don't wear regular eye-glasses hate the idea of having to wear any glasses at all when trying to watch movies comfortably - and those who do wear eye-glasses regularly don't like the idea of having to put goggles "over" the glasses they have on.

So it's all screwed. In-home 3D visuals like what you see at the amusment park won't be the next fad - if it ever even exists. Something different or better will likely come first. Probably holographic stuff. But, even so, I wouldn't think about any of this kind of stuff becoming a mainstream reality for over 10 years...

Strange reply. You seem to keep switching between the glasses which obviously exist, and something else that doesn't exist, but it's not holographic either. You should realise that there are already 3D movies for the home. 3D Shark Boy And Lava Girl is pretty new.

Anyway, I would deffinately want a 3D HD title.

Strange reply. You seem to keep switching between the glasses which obviously exist, and something else that doesn't exist, but it's not holographic either. You should realise that there are already 3D movies for the home. 3D Shark Boy And Lava Girl is pretty new.

Anyway, I would deffinately want a 3D HD title.

Just because one can watch 3D movies at home, it doesn't make red/blue glasses "3D for the home". Many of the effects that are fine in the theatre just got lost in the home version.

There's really no good way to get 3D on an HDTV. The red/blue anaglyph glasses method makes the image dim and murky and has a very poor 3D effect. Field-sequential systems produce a better 3D effect but won't work on a progressive scan HDTV.

My experience with 3D has been very forgettable. Superman Returns in IMAX was the most recent. The use of the effects just wasn't that impressive and the polarized glasses made the image dim enough to not allow fine details to be visible or at least obscured them. Personally I could do without it.

Art

My experience with 3D has been very forgettable. Superman Returns in IMAX was the most recent. The use of the effects just wasn't that impressive and the polarized glasses made the image dim enough to not allow fine details to be visible or at least obscured them. Personally I could do without it.

Chicken Little was fairly impressive in DLP 3D, but that's a very bright and colorful movie by nature.

I agree that 3D is mostly just a gimmick and I can live without it. Apparently, James Cameron doesn't agree. He's shooting his next two movies in 3D.

Chicken Little was fairly impressive in DLP 3D, but that's a very bright and colorful movie by nature.

I agree that 3D is mostly just a gimmick and I can live without it. Apparently, James Cameron doesn't agree. He's shooting his next two movies in 3D.
Josh,
It isn't inconceivable that some great films with effects which are great in it could sway me from my opinion but, certainly to this point ,it doesn't excite me.

Art

I saw Chicken Little in 3D and Polar Express in 3D. I didn't care for the 3D in Chicken Little, but it was quite impressive in Polar Express. When that train stopped right in front of your nose along with the booming sound system...well, you had to be there to be as impressed as we were. People were literally putting their hands on front of their faces...it was that real.