Originally Posted by tgm1024
- First we had gotesque black and white.
- Then, we had color, because it's closer to how we experience things in real life.
- Then we improved sound, because it's closer to how we experience things in real life.
- Then we improved resolution, because it's closer to how we experience things in real life.
- ....along with resolution came more improved sound and more tightly controlled color models, because it's closer to how we experience things in real life.
- Then we added 3D, and you hate it, because ..... it's a "gimmick" and isn't closer to how we experience things in real life?
Explain this one again please.
I think the mistake here is that we want to approximate real life. Again, I heard the Sony guy mention "looking out a window" about 5x in the demo on Monday. I have no interest in approximating that effect
. Apparently, the metaphor must mean different things to different people but I can hardly think of a more constrained view of the world, no matter how realistic looking it is
Here's the thing about 3D (and high frame rate, and soap-opera effect motion tech, et al.) they don't approximate real life at all. They introduce an entirely new artificial way of trying to overcome some perceived limitation of film/video that we are already used to
. Nothing about 3D cinema looks remotely real. High frame rate fixes certain motion issues, but has a tendency (for many) to make the image they are now seeing no longer look like a magical world, but rather like a movie set being filmed in high frame rate....
3D is also a bit nausea inducing or headache producing for many people. Color didn't suffer that, though horrid colors still
jar people in a way black and white never did. I'm not going to defend silents (what a mess with the interstitial captions and lord those soundtracks...) but, uh, Fran Drescher.
Originally Posted by tgm1024
LG would suffer a lot of egg on their face to abandon their passive technology that they spent untold amounts of resources touting.
LG couldn't care less. They promised multiple OLED TVs that never shipped, same for LCDs over the years. I doubt they will abandon passive (because it's better) but that has nothing to do with egg.
Originally Posted by homogenic
Glasses-free 3-D would be widely embraced.
I doubt it.
I can't wait for a high-dynamic range standard to get everyone excited about increasing the dimensionality of 2-D cinema without sacrificing the original photographic integrity. 3-D doesn't serve a universal purpose like sound, color, widescreen.
Right, although we could argue at length whether 2.35:1 (or wider) formats were actually necessary. They mostly weren't.
Originally Posted by andy sullivan
All I know is that at least a dozen couples have watched 3D movies on my Sony 70R550 and every one has expressed great enjoyment. This past weekend six of us watched Hugo and it was spectacular. By the way, Hugo 3D was on sale at Fry's for $9.99 along with a dozen others including Life of Pi. My passive 3D glasses weigh much less than my regular glasses. Barley notice that they are on. They easily fit right over my regular glasses.
It's worth noting that the aesthetic of Hugo and Life of Pi in no way at all approximates real life. Both are stunning visual achievements, but neither remotely resembles anything I've ever seen in the world, including any old time train station or large animals.