Here Comes the 3-D Camera: Revolutionary Prototype Films World in Three Dimensions
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pentax makes DSLR profit
Next: Nice lens for Powershots
From: Robert Coe on 12 May 2010 19:25 On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:55:11 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: : 3D is the same cheezy gimmick it was in the 1950's. Viewing movies in : 3D is a terrible experience. Dull, dim and low resolution, all to get : a phony extra dimension that NEVER looks real anyway. "House of Wax" (just to name one movie) looked real enough to scare the bejeezus out of kids my age who saw it. But I do agree with Rich that 3D is a gimmick that probably has little staying power, despite the money being thrown at it by the film and TV industries. I might not be quite so quick to say that if we hadn't been there before in my lifetime. I got sneered at a few months ago for allowing as how the digital revolution effectively spells the end for film photography. I still believe that, but the 3D revolution, such as it is, will have nothing like that effect. For one thing, 3D replaces a simple, relatively inexpensive technology with something much more complicated and costly. The digital revolution did exactly the opposite. Bob
From: Michael on 12 May 2010 22:03 On 2010-05-12 19:25:03 -0400, Robert Coe said: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:55:11 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : 3D is the same cheezy gimmick it was in the 1950's. Viewing movies in > : 3D is a terrible experience. Dull, dim and low resolution, all to get > : a phony extra dimension that NEVER looks real anyway. > > "House of Wax" (just to name one movie) looked real enough to scare the > bejeezus out of kids my age who saw it. > > But I do agree with Rich that 3D is a gimmick that probably has little staying > power, despite the money being thrown at it by the film and TV industries. I > might not be quite so quick to say that if we hadn't been there before in my > lifetime. > > I got sneered at a few months ago for allowing as how the digital revolution > effectively spells the end for film photography. I still believe that, but the > 3D revolution, such as it is, will have nothing like that effect. For one > thing, 3D replaces a simple, relatively inexpensive technology with something > much more complicated and costly. The digital revolution did exactly the > opposite. > > Bob I am old enough to remember when color TV came out in the mid 1950s. It cost $495 1954 dollars, and there was, at the beginning, perhaps ONE color broadcast a week, only on NBC, and in primetime. NBC broadcast color patterns during the day so that "those with color sets could adjust their TVs." We have come some way. But I watched the Panasonic 3D TV at Best Buy. You can buy a good 50 inch 1080p HDTV for well under $1K. This thing was $2600 and the extra glasses cost a lot. And there are very few shows in 3D. Color was a big deal. 3D (stereo realist type) is very realistic and very good, and perhaps 3D television of that quality could also be a big deal, but the TV I saw was awful. 25 years ago I watched a very realistic 3D movie at the Kodak pavilion at Disney World, with lightweight polarizing glasses. Far better than the cardboard cutout 3D on the Panasonic TV. -- Michael
From: Bruce on 13 May 2010 07:18 On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:55:11 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >3D is the same cheezy gimmick it was in the 1950's. Viewing movies in >3D is a terrible experience. Dull, dim and low resolution, all to get >a phony extra dimension that NEVER looks real anyway. That over-emotive description doesn't remotely resemble the experience of watching 3D at an IMAX cinema. The IMAX system is spectacularly good - so good that 3D films produced for the IMAX system milk its abilities, and then some. But it is technically competent. Unfortunately, the high cost of building and operating IMAX cinemas means that a cheaper form of 3D needed to be found. Perhaps that is what you were referring to?
From: Robert Coe on 13 May 2010 22:03 On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:37:35 -0500, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote: : Michael wrote: : <snip> : > I am old enough to remember when color TV came out in the mid 1950s. It : > cost $495 1954 dollars, and there was, at the beginning, perhaps ONE : > color broadcast a week, only on NBC, and in primetime. NBC broadcast : > color patterns during the day so that "those with color sets could : > adjust their TVs." We have come some way. : > : > But I watched the Panasonic 3D TV at Best Buy. You can buy a good 50 : > inch 1080p HDTV for well under $1K. This thing was $2600 and the extra : > glasses cost a lot. And there are very few shows in 3D. Color was a big : > deal. 3D (stereo realist type) is very realistic and very good, and : > perhaps 3D television of that quality could also be a big deal, but the : > TV I saw was awful. : > : > 25 years ago I watched a very realistic 3D movie at the Kodak pavilion : > at Disney World, with lightweight polarizing glasses. Far better than : > the cardboard cutout 3D on the Panasonic TV. : : The RCA system was adopted by the FCC over the opposing CBS proposed : system--in a total no-brainer vote. The CBS system used a rotating color : wheel in front of the screen, which had to be perfectly synchronized : with the signal. The radius of this wheel had to be at least the : diagonal of the screen, so that a 50" set would have required a wheel : with a diameter of more than 100", or 8 feet 4 inches. Pretty hard trick : in the average house with the usual 8 foot ceiling. I don't remember the rotating wheel, but I do remember that the NBC system was chosen primarily because it was compatible with existing B&W TV sets, whilst its principal competitor wasn't. Bob
From: Peter on 13 May 2010 22:09
"Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:nmbpu5p3k0r7ceullp94kuab278lbse0lo(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:37:35 -0500, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote: > : Michael wrote: > : <snip> > : > I am old enough to remember when color TV came out in the mid 1950s. > It > : > cost $495 1954 dollars, and there was, at the beginning, perhaps ONE > : > color broadcast a week, only on NBC, and in primetime. NBC broadcast > : > color patterns during the day so that "those with color sets could > : > adjust their TVs." We have come some way. > : > > : > But I watched the Panasonic 3D TV at Best Buy. You can buy a good 50 > : > inch 1080p HDTV for well under $1K. This thing was $2600 and the extra > : > glasses cost a lot. And there are very few shows in 3D. Color was a > big > : > deal. 3D (stereo realist type) is very realistic and very good, and > : > perhaps 3D television of that quality could also be a big deal, but > the > : > TV I saw was awful. > : > > : > 25 years ago I watched a very realistic 3D movie at the Kodak pavilion > : > at Disney World, with lightweight polarizing glasses. Far better than > : > the cardboard cutout 3D on the Panasonic TV. > : > : The RCA system was adopted by the FCC over the opposing CBS proposed > : system--in a total no-brainer vote. The CBS system used a rotating color > : wheel in front of the screen, which had to be perfectly synchronized > : with the signal. The radius of this wheel had to be at least the > : diagonal of the screen, so that a 50" set would have required a wheel > : with a diameter of more than 100", or 8 feet 4 inches. Pretty hard trick > : in the average house with the usual 8 foot ceiling. > > I don't remember the rotating wheel, but I do remember that the NBC system > was > chosen primarily because it was compatible with existing B&W TV sets, > whilst > its principal competitor wasn't. You were lucky to have an 18" set. 50" ???? Not in those days. At least not in your home. -- Peter |