|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Theater Bites - Web Show Series
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-28-2010 09:33 AM
Jen,
I don't think anyone was jumping on you for posting...we have a "random videos" thread for that sort of stuff.
The notation was that the statement(s) you made had factual errors. Generally, when one writes/makes something for the point of conveying knowledge, the author fact-checks and researches to ensure what they are presenting is indeed factual. It would be like saying..."back in the 1950s, 1+1 = 3 but now math is better and 1+1 = 2."
It is indeed a popular myth that anaglyph 3D was the norm in theatres or how it was done in the "old days." when in fact polarized 3D was the system of the 50s and beyond with anaglyph only used in specific situations since it relieved one the necessity of retaining the polarization of the image (silver screen) or, in the case of home, not being practical in a typical video release. One off movies like "Spy Kids" used anaglyph since it would have been way too big a burden to equip the industry for such a movie when there was no indication of more to justify the expense. They certainly could have forced the issued and used an Over/Under film system and required theatres who booked it to equip for 3D...like they did in the '80s...but again, there was a slew of 3D films in the 80s...to the point that many/most complexes built in that era had at least one screen in the complex that was silver, just to hedge ones bets. Towards the end of the decade, when it was clear that 3D had died, yet again, that practice stopped and once again, white screens were used most everywhere in conventional cinemas (there are always some that want that hot spotty picture or just want to use too small a lamp).
Regards,
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 06-28-2010 09:05 PM
Thanks Jen for the videos!
This seemed appropiate, marrying "old and new" 3D.
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-brief/50378-nintendo-3ds-will-have-same-kind-of-warning-as-virtual-boy
quote:
The warning messages on Nintendo's upcoming 3DS handheld will be similar to those used on the infamous migraine-inducing Virtual Boy system.
The company has reportedly been consulting with experts in the 3D field and evaluating its potential health issues. After those discussions, Nintendo is warning that the device is not safe to use for young children.
In an interview with Kotaku, Nintendo of America president Reginald Fils-Aime said, "We will recommend that very young children not look at 3D images. That's because, [in] young children, the muscles for the eyes are not fully formed."
Fils-Aime noted that warnings in 3DS material will be "the same type of messaging [that was used] for the Virtual Boy." The Virtual Boy was, of course, a large flop that was known for causing migraines in users exposed to the stark red-and-black 3D visual display.
The warning messaging, though, will also be similar to that used in today's theatrical and stereoscopic 3D movies. Fils-Aime called it "a standard protocol."
The 3DS has a toggle switch that enables gamers to tone down the 3D effect, down to the point where it looks the same as a standard 2D image. So that "young children" crowd, which is an extremely important demographic for Nintendo, will still be able to enjoy their favorite Pokemon and Mario games without the risk of eye damage.
And, of course, the "new 3D tech" in the nintendo 3DS is no less than 25 years old as well ...
As Joe said, most 3D technology is old. 3D has been researched for +100 years. If it hasn't "caught up" and become universal is not because the technology doesn't/didn't exist. It's been there all along. It's for other reasons. Technology now is just a TINY little bit better, of course, but nothing "new" or "revolutionary".
During the 50's, many (many) dozens of "A" films were generally presented in systems arguably better than today's. Dual 35mm="double light", "full resolution", "no flicker", etc. Even the dual (linear) polarizing filters allowed for about 10 times less ghosting than RealD today. Go figure.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic