Re: Why 3-D?

[P3D Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gabriel wrote:
> 
> Hmmm, I don't know if I am missing something with all this 3D movies
> and such. Everyone seems to be talking about the insurmountable
> problems to overcome, such as technical camera problems, different
> interocular distances, depth of field, length of film,
> etc......Haven't you all seen Imax 3D!?!?!?!
> 

I've just recently seen "Across the Sea of Time" for the first time at
the Sony IMAX theater in NYC.  I thought that both the story and the
stereo imaging were good (remember you have to have both if this is to
be popular), but the weight of the headset was too much.  If the movie
had been any longer I would not have continued wearing the headset
(and therefore probably wolnd't have been able to continue watching
the movie).  As it was my wife (gee she was only my fiance then :)
thought that the headsets were too heavy to sit through even a short
feature like AtSoT.  I think that for IMAX 3D to become popular (as
popular as regular movies) the headsets will have to be much lighter,
and probably give aways.  If you give the headsets away they don't
have to be built to take hundreds of uses a week, or rough handling,
or cleaning, and you can tie the headsets into you marketing of the
feature.

Of course it wouldn't hurt if they lowered the price.  At the time the
local news media was reporting about complaints that the regular
screens in that Sony theater were going to become the most expensive
in the nation ($8.50 I think, I don't go to many movies in Manhattan).
The IMAX 3D theater was already $9.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Humans explore the Universe with five
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              |   senses and call the adventure science."
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | - Edwin P. Hubble


------------------------------