Thoughts on 3D movies, tv, and gaming

2»

Comments

  • edited June 2010
    LuigiHann wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm not interested in 3D glasses unless I'm at a theme park (love Terminator 2 3D and MuppetVision 3D) but I'm really looking forward to the 3DS because it is a freaking hologram
    It's not "a freaking hologram", because "hologram" is actually a WORD with a MEANING. You can't go around calling an Irish Setter a poodle, no matter what similarities they may have. Holography is a recording science invented in 1947. It has little to nothing to do with the current boom of 3D technology today, but is rather a photography technology that hasn't been advanced much in the 60 years hence.

    The 3DS, on the other hand, uses the same eact trick that has been used for decades, but now applied to a smaller screen and(obviously) tweaked in such a way that it works screen-side. This gives an approximation of Stereopsis, but not of the focus of the eyeball, producing a still imperfect illusion. And since the technology still only works from a certain angle(or small allowable set of angles), it is still less effective in terms of actual image capture and playback than any form of modern holography.
  • edited June 2010
    I don;t like the poll, not enough options.

    I'm indifferent to 3D. The 3DS intruiges me only because it doesn't require glasses, which don't work with me because I only have proper sight in one eye, my other eye can't focus well enough to make it work for me.
  • edited June 2010
    It's not "a freaking hologram", because "hologram" is actually a WORD with a MEANING. You can't go around calling an Irish Setter a poodle, no matter what similarities they may have. Holography is a recording science invented in 1947. It has little to nothing to do with the current boom of 3D technology today, but is rather a photography technology that hasn't been advanced much in the 60 years hence.

    The 3DS, on the other hand, uses the same eact trick that has been used for decades, but now applied to a smaller screen and(obviously) tweaked in such a way that it works screen-side. This gives an approximation of Stereopsis, but not of the focus of the eyeball, producing a still imperfect illusion. And since the technology still only works from a certain angle(or small allowable set of angles), it is still less effective in terms of actual image capture and playback than any form of modern holography.

    Did the word "freaking" not convey the intended degree of levity and not-entirely-serious-ness? If not, I apologize. Perhaps I should have used "gosh-darn hologram." I was intending to draw an amusing comparison between the 3DS screen and those novelty hologram stickers, even though I know it's not the same technology.
  • edited June 2010
    Zonino wrote: »
    I don;t like the poll, not enough options.

    I'm indifferent to 3D. The 3DS intruiges me only because it doesn't require glasses, which don't work with me because I only have proper sight in one eye, my other eye can't focus well enough to make it work for me.

    From my very limited knowledge of the 3DS, I don't think it will work for you either :(

    As for 3D. I think it's cool. I wouldn't go out of my way for it, but yeah, wouldn't say no. Just like with "good graphics" though, I hate it when they take it as priority over the other aspects of a product.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.