OT: Novel 3D system - no glasses needed

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2011.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Davoud Guest

    Novel? Perhaps. Bizarre? For sure. He seems to have calibrated his
    brain through cybernetic attachments to his head, and he is required
    blink his eyes in a way and at a rate I'm not certain I could do. I
    wonder if he could sustain that for the duration of a two-hour motion
    picture?

    "Color" me old fashioned. Cinema is about the story and the credibility
    of the acting. It doesn't always need color, it definitely doesn't need
    3D, and often it doesn't even need sound. I expect 3D to be used to
    sensationalize kiddy stuff that otherwise could not be sold.

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Jan 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    dorayme Guest

    Is it now! The moment one starts to think how good the acting is,
    at least during a film, that is when the spell is broken and it
    is likely not the best film.

    It is no good trying to model films on just one or two simple
    things.

    There is as much of the painting or photograph (in time) as
    story. Sometimes the story is not important, sometimes the story
    alone, with good acting, is not enough. If it looks like shit and
    the idiot who made it allows absurd noise to infest the whole
    thing.
     
    dorayme, Jan 21, 2011
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Davoud Guest

    Davoud:
    Exactly so. I didn't set out to write a 300-page exposition on quality
    cinema. It's sometime /after/ seeing a great movie that one realizes
    that those were actors.
    I'm not qualified to compile a definitive list of what makes a good
    film. Are you? Is anyone? I can, however, make a brief sketch of what
    makes a film work for me.
    I share your opinion that many factors can make or break a movie,
    though I find your rude language in "...looks like s**t" to be
    gratuitous because I think there are more polite and eloquent ways of
    expressing oneself in public. The same is true as I watch a film. I am
    a skilled and experienced user of obscene language--learned it at my
    mother's knee--and I appreciate rough language in film and literature
    so long as it serves a purpose and is skillfully employed. That is too
    often not the case, I think.

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Jan 21, 2011
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    dorayme Guest

    Yes, I agree that afterwards one can reflect on how good some of
    the actors were, how difficult it must have been to pull it off
    etc. without the film being the least bad.

    There is no definitive list so your questions lapse. One cannot
    *always* say in words what makes all films that are good good.
    One can say, and reviewers often do say all sorts of things about
    good films which can be said of very bad films now and then.
    There is a thing called a sense of taste, the best of which is
    mostly educated with some natural propensities needed.

    What has rough language in films got to do with the price of fish?

    Your prissy sensitivity to the *odd* *rude* word in usenet is an
    uglier quality than you realise. I would hate to be you!
     
    dorayme, Jan 21, 2011
    #5
  6. Well the acting in that video was superb. It managed to convince people
    that this was a serious proposal for 3D viewing.

    Cheers,

    -j
     
    Jeffrey Goldberg, Jan 21, 2011
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Get thy humour checked.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2011
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I think Abraham Lincoln spoke on the matter about 150 years ago...
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2011
    #8
  9. Alan Browne

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    On 2011-01-20 18:56:07 -0600, Alan Browne posted the following URL:

    <

    which showed how a 3D motion picture could be seen by having one's eyes
    rapidly blink alternating the blinking of the left and right eyes in
    sync with the left and right images.

    I'm assuming that the devices on the wearer's head stimulated the
    blinking of the eyes. I'm curious as to what the long term affect would
    be, even what the effect would be after just a couple hours of such
    rapic blinking.

    As for myself, given that I'm effectively blind in my left eye 3D
    images have never had shown any real difference to me.
     
    TaliesinSoft, Jan 21, 2011
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Look up "dry humor".
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2011
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    On 2011-01-21 11:20:10 -0600, Alan Browne said:

    [in response to my querying in regards to a video of a 3D system that
    produced the effect by rapid alternate blinking of eyes]
    Methinks that perhaps with all that blinking it should be dubbed "wet
    humor"! :)
     
    TaliesinSoft, Jan 21, 2011
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Maybe - OTOH, if you blinked that much I think your eyes would end up
    pretty dry...
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2011
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Davoud Guest

    Jeffrey Goldberg:
    The manner in which the man blinked his eyes while watching the 3D
    image convinced you that this was a serious (read: viable and
    acceptable) way to view a 3D presentation for longer than a minute or
    so? What were those things he placed on his temples?

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Jan 21, 2011
    #13
  14. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Implied to be a muscle stimulus devices that opened the eyes in sync
    with the frame for the open eye.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2011
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    dorayme Guest

    You can use an eye moisterer. The over-the-counter ones have a
    slight preservative which my eye doc said is best to avoid, she
    made a prescription for one shot phials that have no
    preservative, just sterile. They would put up the cost of these
    3-D movies but not by very much.
     
    dorayme, Jan 21, 2011
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    dorayme Guest

    Eye-moisterer vials.
     
    dorayme, Jan 21, 2011
    #16
  17. Alan Browne

    Davoud Guest

    Jeffrey Goldberg:
    Alan Browne:
    I wonder if he considered a single electric motor mounted in the center
    of the forehead and driving two reciprocating arms, one attached to
    each eyelid. If necessary a hand-held control could make fine
    adjustments to the speed of the blinking of the eyes.

    I'm really having trouble envisioning people lined up to buy this
    thing. Or the FDA allowing it to be sold....

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Jan 22, 2011
    #17
  18. Alan Browne

    Davoud Guest

    dorayme:
    It gets better. Now we have a windshield-washer-like device mounted on
    the nose that sprays sterile moistener into the eyes periodically. The
    manufacture of this "sterile" solution would be farmed out to China, of
    course; their dog-food factories have plenty of unused capacity.

    Davoud
     
    Davoud, Jan 22, 2011
    #18
  19. Oh, I agree that this was "real" in that sense. It was a proof of
    concept for a hilarious concept.

    What I doubt is that they think that this is something that people would
    ever want.

    Cheers,

    -j
     
    Jeffrey Goldberg, Jan 22, 2011
    #19
  20. Alan Browne

    Lewis Guest

    In general I agree, but the Toy Story movies (all three of them) were
    better with 3D, and 3D was immersive in Avatar. Necessary? No, but
    effective and worthwhile? Yes, on those 4 films it was.

    Oh, and Coraline was quite a nice use of 3D.
     
    Lewis, Jan 22, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.