• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: I didn't like The Queen in 3D

Bob Ferguson wrote:
> "martin" <usenet@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4b026bad$0$2522$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> MM wrote:
>>>> I'm not used to watching TV with the 3D glasses and it felt spooky,
>>>> creepy. Not very enjoyable. As if the brain is constantly trying to
>>>> tell you that what you're watching is a trick. I gave up after about
>>>> 20 minutes. The new 3D developments in Sony technology will have to be
>>>> far better to attract me. Not convinced. Also, much 3D just seems to
>>>> go out of its way to exaggerate the 3D effect, whereas I think a much
>>>> more subtle, low-key effect might be more enjoyable. I didn't watch
>>>> Derren Brown because I can't stand Derren Brown, with or without 3D
>>>> specs.
>>> Took my grandson to see 'Up' in 3D recently. I was quite impressed
>>> because unlike earlier 3D efforts, this film did *not* go out of its way
>>> to exaggerate the 3D effect. Also, with the polarised specs, I found it
>>> quite comfortable to watch the entire movie in 3D without any eye-strain
>>> or headache afterward.
>> Do you wear glasses normally for watching films? I've not met anyone who's
>> been to one of these things, I was wondering how they would fit if you had
>> specs on already. Any views <cough> on the subject?
>
> The glasses will usually fit over ordinary spectacles.  They are either
> cardboard (for home movies) or grossly oversize plastic frames for
> theatrical presentations.

Ok, the ones from sainsbury I can't wear.

> IMAX theatres use a large 3D viewer that looks
> somewhat high tech with a flashing light on the front.  It is in fact just a
> pair of cross polarised filters and contains no electronics whatsoever.

Ah, I thought they plugged in and flipped the polarizer electronically
in synchronization with the screen
>
>

Antworten