Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the wp-youtube-lyte domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/robohara/public_html/www.robohara.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home4/robohara/public_html/www.robohara.com/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /home4/robohara/public_html/www.robohara.com/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: The Third Wave of 3D https://www.robohara.com/?p=1933 The Adventures of Rob, Susan, Mason and Morgan O'Hara Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:10:42 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1 By: lethargic https://www.robohara.com/?p=1933#comment-1935 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:10:42 +0000 http://www.robohara.com/?p=1933#comment-1935 t need a new TV to do the shutter glasses style of 3D. There are a few different companies making boxes that you can plug into your TV and watch 3D movies with shutter glasses. The one I have cost about 50 bucks. Why not just make some sort of set box like that? The thing to me is that if I buy a 3DTV why isn’t everything in 3D? That is the technology that makes sense. A 3DTV should just take any signal and make it into 3D. There shouldn’t have to be special channels. Anybody can make 3D videos. I found an easy tutorial on the internet, uploaded some home movies into my computer and made them 3D in less than an hour. Mine worked 10 times better than that Chuck episode or the Superbowl halftime did. So don’t tell me they couldn’t put a device in a 3DTV that would format normal images into 3D images if an idiot like me can do it. That just shows what a blatant cash grab it is. Spend $5,000 on a 3DTV, spend $500 on a 3D Bluray player, spend $24.95 per glasses, spend $9.95 a month for 3 3D channels and then rebuy your movie collection on 3D Bluray discs for $29.95 each. Oooh, I look forward to that! The sad thing is, they're not trying to hype up this 3D thing because it makes the movie going experience better. They're ONLY doing it because it makes movies harder to bootleg. That's it.]]> This whole 3D TV thing is really stupid. Special TV, special channels? Why? You don’t need a new TV to do the shutter glasses style of 3D. There are a few different companies making boxes that you can plug into your TV and watch 3D movies with shutter glasses. The one I have cost about 50 bucks. Why not just make some sort of set box like that?

The thing to me is that if I buy a 3DTV why isn’t everything in 3D? That is the technology that makes sense. A 3DTV should just take any signal and make it into 3D. There shouldn’t have to be special channels. Anybody can make 3D videos. I found an easy tutorial on the internet, uploaded some home movies into my computer and made them 3D in less than an hour. Mine worked 10 times better than that Chuck episode or the Superbowl halftime did. So don’t tell me they couldn’t put a device in a 3DTV that would format normal images into 3D images if an idiot like me can do it.

That just shows what a blatant cash grab it is. Spend $5,000 on a 3DTV, spend $500 on a 3D Bluray player, spend $24.95 per glasses, spend $9.95 a month for 3 3D channels and then rebuy your movie collection on 3D Bluray discs for $29.95 each. Oooh, I look forward to that!

The sad thing is, they’re not trying to hype up this 3D thing because it makes the movie going experience better. They’re ONLY doing it because it makes movies harder to bootleg. That’s it.

]]> By: Brent https://www.robohara.com/?p=1933#comment-1934 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:44:18 +0000 http://www.robohara.com/?p=1933#comment-1934 Put me down firmly in the I don’t care about 3D box. I don’t ever remember being impressed by it, but I’m not going to go to a theater just to see a movie that supposedly isn’t even that great just to see it in 3D.

]]> By: ubikuberalles https://www.robohara.com/?p=1933#comment-1933 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:03:09 +0000 http://www.robohara.com/?p=1933#comment-1933 I predict that 3D movies will be faddish until they come up with a 3D imaging system that does not require special glasses. These systems are called Volumetric Displays and they tend to be machines with rotating disks oir shutters. They also have a limited size (less than 6 inches in each dimension) and limited resolution (less than 800 pixels, however I saw a recent model that had 1024 X 763). They’re also expensive (more than $20K) and almost never leave the laboratory from which they were built. I know quite a bit about Volumetric displays as I came up with a design for one when I was in high school (although I never built it – it required more than $100K worth of equipment to build the prototype).

The thing is, even if they build volumetric displays big enough for large audiences, they wouldn’t play well in theaters. What you want is the display in the center of the room with the audience sitting around the display – like a boxing ring. Putting a Volumetric display at the end of the room like a movie screen would would squander the potential of the volumetric display.

Here’s more info on the subject of Volumetric Displays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_display

]]>