http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/ Engadget Comments for James Cameron thinks he can get viewers asking to wear 3D glasses http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/
Or instead of theaters spending $$ on 3D, how about clean the f'ing place?]]>Nov 24th 2009 12:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/Nov 24th 2009 1:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/Nov 26th 2009 12:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/
I agree last time I went to the movies ( AMC ) the place looked like it has not be clean or taken care of since it was built.

This is why I rather wait for the Blu-Ray and watch at home. ]]>Nov 27th 2009 10:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/
All that 3D is going to do is raise ticket prices, as if they aren't high enough already. Theaters are the ones who have the spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace projectors or equip them with 3D capable hardware. This equates to higher ticket prices.

Say a family of 4 wants to go out to see a movie. With ticket prices already at 10 dollars or more, they can't afford to. Jack up the price just to sit there wearing some stupid glasses and they really can't afford it.

3D is a waste of time and money. There are many better things these resources could be going towards, such as cleaning like you suggested, than towards 3D. It's a gimmick and a joke.

Take this movie for instance. Cameron says he has spent the last few years working on it to ensure the 3D in it is a success. That's fine, maybe it will be a success. But look at how much longer it to him to complete it to make sure that 3D worked. Other movies won't be up to par, and 3D will take a nose dive. ]]>Dec 2nd 2009 8:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/Anyway, they will have to keep on making more movies in 3D for the home tech to catch on. Eventually there will have to eventually be at least half the movies/TV shows made in 3D to make this a new standard, otherwise it's remains a niche item.
From this article, it's sounds like James Cameron is still treating 3D as a niche item rather than a standard.
How many people will spend the extra bucks for the home setup for just viewing the occasional new release in 3D? I guess time will tell.
I suppose that eventually all TVs (of a minimum size) would be 3D ready.
The movie industry will have to keep supporting 3D for years to come if it's going to become something that people will use and continue to use. Personally I think it'll just end another gimmick that 10-15 years from now will be a feature on mid- and upper-range equipment that most people won't even use. ]]>Nov 24th 2009 1:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/I have now seen Pixar's Up both in 3D in the theater and just now on 2D on Blu-ray and by far I prefer the 2D experience. It was much sharper and brighter. I was surprised how much dimmer 3D made the movie.]]>Nov 26th 2009 12:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/
""Do I get to wear the glasses?" "

Who likes glasses of any kind? Who would rather just be able to see?

The first thing I do when the 3D movies is over is take the glasses off. Why? Because I don't think they look good on me? No. They give me a freaking headache. I've stopped going to 3D movies because of it.]]>Nov 24th 2009 3:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/
3D is interesting, but the fatigue of whatever the glasses do really needs to be addressed. I think part of it is the technology that alternates shutters with one digital projector rather than two projections is what gets me. It makes 3D more available, but it's kind of annoying, the image is more flickery. I hope good 3D displays can be made such that the glasses aren't necessary.]]>Nov 25th 2009 12:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/
Pixar does get people to watch movies in 3D. The fact is that 3D movies have been very successful at the theater even though the cost of admission is higher than the same movie in 2D.]]>Nov 25th 2009 10:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/Nov 25th 2009 1:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/
The way movie 3D glasses work is that the projected image is polarized, and the lenses of the glasses are polarized. There are actually 2 projected images, with the polarization angles 90 degrees off from each other, and the polarization of one of the lenses is also turned 90 degrees. There really shouldn't be a shutter on the projector either (although there might be), for flicker free viewing it is better to have 2 projectors with 2 different polarization filters (but maybe then difficult to line them up perfectly?)

Every LCD screen in the world is also polarized. Try looking at the screen with a pair of polarized sunglasses. Rotate the glasses and you will see the screen turn black depending on the angle. Because of this fact, it isn't that much more costly to make a standard LCD screen 3D! It requires double the 2D resolution to have the images for both eyes there without losing any clarity in 3D, and just rotate the polarization on every other pixel. You can buy a 24" 3D monitor for the computer which does this already and works with the same glasses as IMAX for around $1200.

For regular polarized sunglasses to be used as the 3D glasses, all you need to do is rotate the polarization angle of one of the lenses 90 degrees. Normally for maximum reduction of glare from light reflecting off water or pavement, the lenses are supposed to be polarized horizontally. But I have seen some in rite-aid for $12 because the manufacturer screwed up and polarized them vertically. You can take a lense from one of these and swap it with a lense from a normal pair of polarized sunglasses and voila, you have stylish 3D glasses.]]>Dec 1st 2009 3:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/
I think the most recent design for theatrical projection now uses circular polarized light, left hand and right hand. If you notice, you can rotate the glasses with respect to the normal of the screen, the intensity doesn't shift like it used to with older polarized 3D projection. I think circular polarization works better for blocking light intended for the other eye.]]>Dec 1st 2009 3:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/Nov 27th 2009 8:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/24/james-cameron-thinks-he-can-get-viewers-asking-to-wear-3d-glasse/Dec 2nd 2009 6:11PM