hahaha! good post11 Bravo wrote:
fruit flies weigh nothing and they annoy mejord wrote:
Found it11 Bravo wrote:
trying to find your relevance
The glasses weigh nothing in reality.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Cornadoseal has karma'd me a nasty message in regards to this thread and I would like to bump this thread so he can speak his no doubt logical, realistic and sincere peace.
Last edited by jord (2010-08-21 16:17:39)
No. It is a gimmick, but I'm honestly not tired of it. There's good examples and bad examples. Beyond that, just about every time a 3D movie comes out, you have the option to see it WITHOUT the 3D, so the OP's point is pointless, and the hostility in this thread is all misdirected.
Finray wrote:
No.
E: Fuck your OP. You ask the question in the opposite manor as the title. No to title, yes to OP.
Reald 3d is kind of cool if done right. 3d movies that purposefully throw shit into your face for the 'wow' effect are a horrible example. Avatar, on the other hand, was astoundingly rendered in tasteful 3d. Complaints about the plot are irrelevant in the face of how awesome it was on the big screen.RTHKI wrote:
never seen any of the 3d movies. cant say im tired of em
never seen any of the 3d movies. cant say im tired of em
i can't see in 3D. i'm blind in my left eye. which makes it really interesting when i'm trying to compose a picture . . .
I'm curious, does that make the depth of field effect in games seem a bit odd?burnzz wrote:
i can't see in 3D. i'm blind in my left eye. which makes it really interesting when i'm trying to compose a picture . . .
what depth of field? i haz none . . .
Well, take Crysis for example. It will slightly blur objects at certain distances from where your crosshairs are aimed (focal point) to simulate a depth of field effect.burnzz wrote:
what depth of field? i haz none . . .
Call of Duty 4 and 5 do it too.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Well, take Crysis for example. It will slightly blur objects at certain distances from where your crosshairs are aimed (focal point) to simulate a depth of field effect.burnzz wrote:
what depth of field? i haz none . . .
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I still dont understand why 3D is so over hyped its been around for years
cuz its a new generationGR34 wrote:
I still dont understand why 3D is so over hyped its been around for years
no, ive only seen avatar, and something else about 10 years ago
3D is just a cheap replacement for Imax.
The 3D novelty wore off, do not care to see any more movies in 3D or buy them on disc.
i have only one visual input. so, when i played Crysis, i interpreted the same way as anyone else - from visual cues, i reacted.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Well, take Crysis for example. It will slightly blur objects at certain distances from where your crosshairs are aimed (focal point) to simulate a depth of field effect.burnzz wrote:
what depth of field? i haz none . . .
the difference between me and someone who lost their vision in one of their eyes after having it, is i never did - so, visual cues and interpretation have been consistent through out my life. when i play golf and tee up at a par 3, let's say it's 185 yards to the flag - i look at the flag, but experience has taught me it's a solid five iron to get there.
3D is available in iMaX quality too..Cybargs wrote:
3D is just a cheap replacement for Imax.
and it's astounding
Well, I brought it up because when I close one eye to focus on something, the blurring on anything at a distance rom the focal point is reduced somewhat. Since the DoF in games like Crysis is a little exaggerated, I wondered if you noticed.burnzz wrote:
i have only one visual input. so, when i played Crysis, i interpreted the same way as anyone else - from visual cues, i reacted.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Well, take Crysis for example. It will slightly blur objects at certain distances from where your crosshairs are aimed (focal point) to simulate a depth of field effect.burnzz wrote:
what depth of field? i haz none . . .
the difference between me and someone who lost their vision in one of their eyes after having it, is i never did - so, visual cues and interpretation have been consistent through out my life. when i play golf and tee up at a par 3, let's say it's 185 yards to the flag - i look at the flag, but experience has taught me it's a solid five iron to get there.
i think, that i don't know how to tell the difference.
ignorance is bliss, and i'm a happy guy!
ignorance is bliss, and i'm a happy guy!
Never seen a 3D movie, doesn't even sound interesting. I like movies the way they are..
Well, restating, the blur effect on the game is simulated to look like one in actuality. You can see it with one eye. Just wondered if there was much of a difference between something like that and what you're used to.burnzz wrote:
i think, that i don't know how to tell the difference.
ignorance is bliss, and i'm a happy guy!
whatever im watching the new resident evil in 3d and get some free glasses
SEREMAKER wrote:
Is 3-D dead in the water?
Winston_Churchill wrote:
I've found 3D can add a lot to a movie or be distracting in a movie, it all depends on how its used and when. Mostly I'm for it though, when it's used properly it adds amazing depth to a movie that 2D just cant show.
All theses "only shitty movies are in 3D" arguments are stupid. You do realize that 2 years ago the movie still would have been shitty if it was in 2D, right? And its still shitty in 2D or 3D. Thats a criticism of the movie itself, not 3D. When its used in that way (for shitty movies its pretty well always post production 3D) I dont like it either. 3D for me, at the bare minimum, needs to be filmed in 3D, not post production 3D.
the site is basing it off the profitability of a 3-D .... not an option of if its a shitty movie or notWinston_Churchill wrote:
SEREMAKER wrote:
Is 3-D dead in the water?Winston_Churchill wrote:
I've found 3D can add a lot to a movie or be distracting in a movie, it all depends on how its used and when. Mostly I'm for it though, when it's used properly it adds amazing depth to a movie that 2D just cant show.
All theses "only shitty movies are in 3D" arguments are stupid. You do realize that 2 years ago the movie still would have been shitty if it was in 2D, right? And its still shitty in 2D or 3D. Thats a criticism of the movie itself, not 3D. When its used in that way (for shitty movies its pretty well always post production 3D) I dont like it either. 3D for me, at the bare minimum, needs to be filmed in 3D, not post production 3D.
Theres really nothing in that article that leads me to believe 3D is dead... The only thing I really took out of it is
Their use of red lines and arrows is really unfairly done.
Wheres the downward slide anyway...What explains this downward slide in 3-D? According to one common theory, Hollywood has sabotaged the medium by upgrading flat movies to 3-D in postproduction—a process that yields an inferior product. Critics point to the murky, cardboard-looking Clash of the Titans as the standard-bearer for lousy stereo conversion.
Their use of red lines and arrows is really unfairly done.