Ramius Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) I've got a friend of a friend story about that, I heard it second hand. My friends friend brought in booze, it was either beer or wine coolers, in glass bottles. Halfway through the movie the friend fell asleep/passed out, and dropped the bottle onto the floor, where it rolled all the way down to the front. He said you could see people looking around trying to figure out where it had come from by the noise. When I'm stopping at a convience store for a soda, I prefer to get a fountain drink, instead of just a bottle. Thats great. I've got a similar story. Back in HS a handful of us were at the movies, the old kind with the rows of seats on the slanted floor. We had cans of pop, and we heard one hit the ground and start rolling, and then about 10 rows in front of us, we heard the can thump something and start spraying everywhere. Our one friend insists it was an accident, but we all swear that he rolled it intentionally. Edited March 7, 2012 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Thats great. I've got a similar story. Back in HS a handful of us were at the movies, the old kind with the rows of seats on the slanted floor. We had cans of pop, and we heard one hit the ground and start rolling, and then about 10 rows in front of us, we heard the can thump something and start spraying everywhere. Our one friend insists it was an accident, but we all swear that he rolled it intentionally. Nowadays that's an evacuation of the theater, a bomb disposal and HAZMAT team, an arrest for terrorism (charges dropped after everyone realizes how ridiculous it is), and three days of ridiculous "Terror in The Theater" headlines interviewing all the people who were emotionally victimized by the thought that just maybe the unknown "Bump...hissssssss" was an al Qaeda chemical weapons plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 friends and I once each brought a full chinese take out dinner into the theatre...I was around 18 and stupid, it was hard to eat in the theatre, it smelled like crazy and people around us were not happy...but it was truly the ONLY thing that made Ali bearable that night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 No, I'm talking about actual glasses-free 3D television. No holograms, no fog. For example: http://www.neowin.net/news/ultra-d-seamlessly-converts-your-2d-to-glasses-free-3d Toshiba has an amazing looking TV that uses head tracking cameras to provide a 3D image as well. I don't know how it works, but it looked really good. That's the direction most of the TV manufacturers are going. But regardless, since most televisions built nowadays have 3D built, in, it's not going anywhere. Yeah, people aren't rushing out to BUY new TVs with 3D -- but if it comes in the package for free, the market will eventually have enough content where lots of people will want to watch it. We will just have to agree to disagree. There isn't a lot of great 3D content out there as well, again we are talking for TV and home use. And as much as this article(?) says there is 2D to 3D conversion happening, I'm sorry but I don't buy that. There isn't any program thats out there that will automatically know which parts of a show or movie to make 3D. You need someone to rotoscope for that frame by frame. And if there is a program that does, the 3D will be terrible. Hence why the complaints about the re release of star wars in 3D. The 3D parts were piss poor, because the movie in itself, didn't lend itself to many 3D shots. There are 2 types of ways of making something 3D, shooting it with a 3D camera and rotoscoping the 3D after shooting. 3D cameras, the good ones, are very expensive and I can't see TV stations switching to those ones after they all just made the change. Even then you still have to rotoscope out certain 3D parts. My friend I graduated school with works with the TOP and basically only 3D rotoscoping firm in Venice, CA and that takes times and money, something TV shows don't nearly have enough of. And as much as you say you have been to CES and you can see the new gizmos, I'll say to you I've been to a car show and have seen concept cars that have never ever been made. And they had just as many wild and crazy ideas. But I do agree that for me, 3D doesn't add anything to the experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 We will just have to agree to disagree. There isn't a lot of great 3D content out there as well, again we are talking for TV and home use. And as much as this article(?) says there is 2D to 3D conversion happening, I'm sorry but I don't buy that. There isn't any program thats out there that will automatically know which parts of a show or movie to make 3D. I wrote that article and saw it with my own two eyes. It looked good. The even more impressive part was the ability to increase or decrease the 3D effect in real-time. While nothing is flying out of the screen at your head like the "shock and awe" 3D movies, the 3D was still there and impressive looking. It's along the same lines at upscaling -- putting information on the screen that isn't in the original recording. Now I don't know if Ultra-D will actually take off; they're in negotiations with companies, and I'm skeptical that anyone will want to pay them royalties when TV margins are pretty thin to begin with. But the glasses-free technology IS getting better and I think that's the major hurdle for 3D right now - nobody wants to wear the glasses when they watch TV and nobody wants to have to sit in the sweet spot in order to get the 3D effect. Once the glasses-free is perfected (and they're close), we'll start to see more and more of them being sold. HDTV took over a decade to catch on - 3D has only been around for a f ew years. It's still very early and it shows no signs of going away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) People pay $16 for a movie ticket...? maybe they saw the 3D version ($$$). Per Joe Paletta CEO of Spotlight Theatres, in Screen Trade Magazine, he thinks 2-D movie prices will be rising and 3-D movie price declining next year. Among the bigger changes will probably see the 3D-upcharge disappear. 3D charges will help increase the overall ticket-price but, as an industry, I think we’ll see a blend begin to emerge in 2012, where patrons will have a single price for both 2D and 3D films. 2D prices will increase and 3D prices will decrease. Yea for trying to force 3-D down society's throats. As if ticket sales weren't already down. Looks like the studios are putting the screws to the people who are still going. Like the Laffer Curve in tax-economics, you've gotta ask yourself at what price point they have diminishing returns than if they just charged marginally less, but tons more people went. Edited March 23, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'm not a fan of 3D myself either -- not because I get headaches but because I don't think it adds anything to the movie and in fact is usually somewhat of a distraction. I'd much rather they focus on the 4K TVs. Toshiba had one of those and the picture looked *stunning*. I want 4K content far more than I want 3D content. (for those who aren't aware, 4K TVs have 4x the resolution of regular HDTV). It's debatable whether the human eye can detect the improved resolution of a 4k screen for typical screen sizes and viewing distances: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts