Comments on: I’m in the Dark Here

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:29:36 +0000

Real 3D TVs shouldn’t make you wear glasses. If they can pull that off, I’m all for it, as long as the TV itself is suitably tricked out (can handle the resolution, etc.).

Pirk - I think you’re right. The artist for SF seems to not get the writer’s jokes a lot of the time, so maybe this was just a screwup.

By: Todd

Todd — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 04:32:18 +0000

I know this is about 3d movies, except for one comment. But as far as 3d TV goes, if I have to wear glasses to watch TV, I want the TV to be in the glasses.

By: The Bad Seed

The Bad Seed — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:45:38 +0000

Ian Osmond #20: Yes, I do know how polarization works, it’s not a new technology. My previous pair of prescription eyeglasses were polarized but clear and untinted, so nobody ever noticed anything different about them, although of course they did reduce the amount of life passing through. I’d only notice the polarization when looking through polarized glass like a car window, and, of course, that effect was different depending on which angle I tilted my head (how the 2 polarizations lined up). But they didn’t act or look like sunglasses, they looked like clear lenses to me and everyone else.

My commment above simply meant that the artist of this strip seems to think that current 3D glasses are tinted like sunglasses (or maybe he thinks they still have one red lens and one blue lens), but in reality the glasses don’t look much different than clear lenses when you look at them - they look maybe as tinted as 5%-tinted prescription lenses, not like sunglasses. When you look at them, they don’t look that extreme, so the drawing is not depicting what they really look like. Really.

By: Ian Osmond

Ian Osmond — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:16:09 +0000

The Bad Seed#9:

Yes, 3D glasses are polarized, and not otherwise tinted. But that means that each eye is getting only about half the photons that you’d be otherwise getting. The projector is showing two very similar movies, one with photons polarized to go more-or-less vertically, one with photons polarized to go more-or-less horizontally. So each eye gets only half the light. So, yeah, a 3D movie IS only about half as bright as a 2D movie — the glasses really DO make everything half as bright.

It doesn’t LOOK that extreme, because our eyes are really good at adjusting to various light levels. But it really is darker.

By: Igelino

Igelino — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:12:35 +0000

3d technology is a neat toy. But in a theater, it seems to me they’re selling snake oil. Many old black-and-white movies had nice content, and the 3d stuff would just detract from it. Maybe the studios got too many complaints about the lack of content, so they threw in “3d” as a distraction. : )

Steve K (11) interesting article. It didn’t occur to me that the different focal lengths in real life could be a cue for our depth perception. Our CS department in college showed that binocular vision isn’t a requirement - but that’s the only thing that current 3d tech provides us over normal viewing. They also showed that head movement was a very important cue - but to do that, the picture has to change dynamically based on the individual viewer’s head position.

Interesting stuff.

By: turquoise cow

turquoise cow — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:41:41 +0000

Well, the rest of the audience doesn’t look particularly pleased, either (although maybe that’s because the Forths are talking during the movie) so maybe whatever it is they’re watching, which I can only guarantee is NOT Iron Man, is not very good or not very well executed by the theater.

By: George

George — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:20:41 +0000

Wow. They made you turn in your glasses? You actually had an usher? I didn’t know they still had those. All that I ever see in the auditorium are the end-show cleaners.

Here you’re encouraged to turn in your glasses at the end of the show, but it’s not mandatory. My understanding is that they run the glasses through some “cleaning” process and use them again, but I wonder how many get through damaged or otherwise messed up.

I don’t like the idea of paying a premium price but getting “used” (and perhaps defective or germy) glasses.

Anyway, the other thing I don’t like is that 3D is being touted for TVs. Didn’t many just spend a lot of money to upgrade to HD and digital transmissions? I kind of remember TVs lasting for years, perhaps decades, before becoming “obsolete”. It also bothers me that the commercials pushing the technology show images that pop out BIGGER than the dimensions of the screen. Sure, they seem to come out of the screen, but the illusion can’t spill out over the bezel, can it?

Back to 3D hurting….and possible being a health hazard, especially to young kids:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health/

By: Mark in Boston

Mark in Boston — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:10:34 +0000

Some of today’s 3D movies are flat movies converted to 3D by computer technology that doesn’t always work. “Clash of the Titans” is one, and the reviewer in the newspaper noted that the computer sometimes put the wings on the wrong side of the flying horse.

I didn’t see “Clash of the Titans”; I saw the original, which was one of the worst movies ever made.

By: Judge Mental

Judge Mental — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:23:45 +0000

I saw Avatar relatively early when it came out (in 3D), and wasn’t impressed with the 3D. A couple of days later, against my better judgment, I agreed to go with a friend. We went to the same theater where I saw it the first time, and saw it in the same auditorium. This time the 3D effects were exponentially better. About half way through I had to use the restroom. I had to turn in my glasses to the usher, and get a new pair when I returned. At this point, the effects were on par with what I saw during my original viewing. I can only presume that some glasses are better than others.

I guess my point is that even everyone had identical vision and taste, it would be possible for two people sitting next to each other to come away with a totally different 3D experience.

By: retropink

retropink — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:07:20 +0000

I would like to think the joke is a hybrid of Whitney D and Winter Wallaby’s comments. After all, I can’t think of any other reason Helen Mirren would be in a 3D movie — only b/c it seems like EVERY movie is now in 3D.

Until the 3D movies look as good as IMAX credits, I think we should stay away from the technology. Nothing is as depressing as 30 seconds of “look what this film *could* look like!” & then the actual film failing miserably.