Who pays for the 3D glasses at the cinema. You do !

[budda]

Hi,

There is an interesting article at Wired about the economics of 3D glasses at the 3D cinema.

See it here - http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/ ... d-glasses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Thanks.

[cybereality]

There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money’s worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we’re seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard in my life.

[UndeadD3vi1]

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard in my life.

If you think thats retarded you should read some of the comments, I got a good laugh from some of the idiotic comments.

Invest In Real 3D by Flameproof

Why don't they just invest the entire budget of the next BIG MOVIE (what, $35 million or so?) and R&D actual 3D? Hmmm???

[Welder]

Interesting...although, I must say, I prefer 3D in movies to be slight, and just enhance the image. I'm not a big fan of super high popout stuff. Especially gimmicky

An example of how I think 3D was used perfectly: Bolt

[UndeadD3vi1]

And to give a example of a Bad Movie (Excessive Pop-out, No Depth) is Fly Me to the Moon.