Next Up On Movie Theaters' List To Remain Relevant: 3D Movies

from the well,-it's-a-start dept

It is beginning to look like movie theater owners are finally (finally!) coming to terms with the fact that they can't just sit back and whine about home theaters. Instead, they need to actually compete and offer a better experience, not easily replicated at home. In the last month, we've seen a few different stories suggesting that theater owners at least understand part of this. As we've noted, they're investing in IMAX screens and building luxury theaters. The latest is that they're trying to do a lot more 3D movies where the overall experience is enhanced by seeing it in a big theater. These are all steps in the right direction, and things that need to be done, but it would be nice if they fixed the core problems first: making the theaters comfortable, clean and mostly free from distraction. Also, it appears that all of these stories focus on how the theater owners are looking to increase prices for these "new" types of movie experiences. Considering how overpriced some folks already think movies are, theater owners might want to be careful about how much extra they're charging, or no one will come check out these innovations in the first place.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Christopher Robert Mohr Sr., 24 Jan 2009 @ 6:48am

    3D

    I am an 80 year old retired photographer who has been shooting stereo slides since 1952 with the same Stereo Realist camera. I would like to make a few comments on the current 3D controversy. When will people reporting items concerning the renewed interest in 3D going to get their facts straight. If someone feels that a subject is worth writing about they should at least do some basic research. An article called, "NVIDIA Takes Video Games Into 3D" states: "This approach is called stereoscopic because the computer sends separate images to each eye. Objects in the two images are slightly offset from each other—a gap the brain interprets as depth, resulting in a compelling 3D illusion." The 3D image is NOT an illusion. An illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. A misleading visual image. When you observe something, the parallax difference between the left eye image and the right eye image enables the brain to construct the stereoscopic image. When you observe a 3D image through some kind of visual aid you are experiencing that same difference in parallax, which means it is a real image and not an illusion. The same question applies to most reporter's erroneous belief that the 3D movies of the fifties were anaglyphic and presented through red and blue pieces of cellophane. I cannot think of one first run 3D feature film of the fifties that was presented that way. They were all presented with a two projector system through polarizing filters shown on a silverized screen so as not to depolarize the images. The glasses were also polarizing filters that separated the left and right image. And, when the projectionist did his job properly (which seldom was the case) the 3D image was superb. Cardboard red and blue cellophane filters were usually reserved for cheap 3D ads and comic books. And, it saddens my heart that there are greedy fools around now, ready to present that anaglyphic garbage to young people today who are not familiar with 3D, and suggest that this is what 3D on television is all about. This kind of greedy stupidity will set 3D back several years in the minds of those who are unfamiliar with sterescopic principles. This is what happened in the fifties. Email me and I'll tell you that story. Lastly I would like to correct the following quote: "In recent years several companies have developed 3D computer displays, with results ranging from disappointing to, literally, nauseating. Graphics specialist Nvidia (NVDA) has a new approach that promises to take computing into the third dimension." This is certainly NOT a new approach. The field-sequential system that utilizes shutter glasses has been around for years. It is probably true that NVIDIA has a quality system that I am sure is state of the art. But then, so is the price. Not only for the system, but the cost of a brand new extra expensive TV set. I have a system I spent less that $100.00 on and the only drawback is that it can only be used on a CRT (cathode ray tube) TV set. But right now, that's what most poor people have anyway. Speaking of people. In today's world most people wear glasses. If for nothing else, to shut out the sun's glare. Is it so inconceivable that they would wear glasses to view a film in the way most of them actually see the world. If one is fortunate enough to have binocular vision, isn't viewing still and moving pictures on a flat surface that mushes everything together rather antiquated? When we view a regular image, the only way we can get any feeling of depth is through perspective and relative size. Can this truly be enough? Christopher R. Mohr Sr.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.