Why 3D Will Fail Again

[theredcommando]

3D is here to stay. 3D is definitely a good value addition. Not all forms are suitable for 3D, however it makes the watching experience more enjoyable(animation, fantasy, sports, infotainment channels).

At optimum distance and with proper gear, 3D watching is much more enjoyable. Theater screen is not the ideal 3D environment(skewed goggles, blurr images, vibrating motions ) hence its irritating.
IMO, even in current form its good for casual watch. But in case of extended viewing it would surely give eye problems.

Two eyes see two different images(and angle made by the object with eye is large) and hence it provides 3D info. If the object is far away, angle made by that object with eye has little to no difference(and image seen by left is not much different from image seen by right eye) and hence we dont get much 3D info from it. This is the reason that for normal viewing 3D has little value addition.

 

[sanjay0864]

Yes, you can still judge distances and speed with one eye...that'z the reason why Pataudi was able to play cricket with one eye!

Even the blind can play cricket. But that does not mean that Pataudi was not at a disadvantage due to having to play with just one functional eye.

 

[anm]

how about carrying your own glasses to a 3D movie, if glasses at cinema are such a big issue?

 

[HTuser]

how about carrying your own glasses to a 3D movie, if glasses at cinema are such a big issue?

As per my knowledge most 3D theaters uses low-cost Polarized glasses, were most of the 3D home systems uses active shutter glasses which is costly. They are not interchangeable.

 

[just4kix]

As per my knowledge most 3D theaters uses low-cost Polarized glasses, were most of the 3D home systems uses active shutter glasses which is costly. They are not interchangeable.

Active 3D glasses will definitely not work. Any one tried the passive 3D glasses in the movie hall?

Sent from my GT-I9100G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Santy]

OTdeleted!