I have to nag you about stereoscopic amnesia again

[Traggey]

Personally I can't watch 3D for more than about 20 minutes before my head implodes due to concentration.

[Prelauncher]

Avatar's framerate was also very low especially in the "impressive" scenes. Okay, it looked pretty kickass, I admit, but the runtime was like almost 3 hours. Apart from the movie being extremely boring you can't expect someone to sit through a movie in 3D for that long. You have to focus really hard just to see what's going on, which makes most people nauseous and at least gives them a minor headache. Is it really worth it?

Yeah, I think it is worth it. I'm not saying that Avatar was a great movie, but it looked pretty darn good in 3D. And concerning the problems with nausea and headache, these are problems I've never had, except for the one time I tried out the Nintendo 3Ds. So I don't think that one can say "Oh 3D is a lost cause, it will never be good." I think it is fully possible to make good 3D movies and games as long as the makers/developers made the product to be used with 3D and not as something added in post production.

[Bridge]

Avatar's framerate was also very low especially in the "impressive" scenes. Okay, it looked pretty kickass, I admit, but the runtime was like almost 3 hours. Apart from the movie being extremely boring you can't expect someone to sit through a movie in 3D for that long. You have to focus really hard just to see what's going on, which makes most people nauseous and at least gives them a minor headache. Is it really worth it?

Yeah, I think it is worth it. I'm not saying that Avatar was a great movie, but it looked pretty darn good in 3D. And concerning the problems with nausea and headache, these are problems I've never had, except for the one time I tried out the Nintendo 3Ds. So I don't think that one can say "Oh 3D is a lost cause, it will never be good." I think it is fully possible to make good 3D movies and games as long as the makers/developers made the product to be used with 3D and not as something added in post production.

But what is 3D apart from the first step towards VR?

[Prelauncher]

Avatar's framerate was also very low especially in the "impressive" scenes. Okay, it looked pretty kickass, I admit, but the runtime was like almost 3 hours. Apart from the movie being extremely boring you can't expect someone to sit through a movie in 3D for that long. You have to focus really hard just to see what's going on, which makes most people nauseous and at least gives them a minor headache. Is it really worth it?

Yeah, I think it is worth it. I'm not saying that Avatar was a great movie, but it looked pretty darn good in 3D. And concerning the problems with nausea and headache, these are problems I've never had, except for the one time I tried out the Nintendo 3Ds. So I don't think that one can say "Oh 3D is a lost cause, it will never be good." I think it is fully possible to make good 3D movies and games as long as the makers/developers made the product to be used with 3D and not as something added in post production.

But what is 3D apart from the first step towards VR?

3D is a very important step towards Virtual Reality. I'm not really seeing how that would be a bad thing...

[Bridge]

Avatar's framerate was also very low especially in the "impressive" scenes. Okay, it looked pretty kickass, I admit, but the runtime was like almost 3 hours. Apart from the movie being extremely boring you can't expect someone to sit through a movie in 3D for that long. You have to focus really hard just to see what's going on, which makes most people nauseous and at least gives them a minor headache. Is it really worth it?

Yeah, I think it is worth it. I'm not saying that Avatar was a great movie, but it looked pretty darn good in 3D. And concerning the problems with nausea and headache, these are problems I've never had, except for the one time I tried out the Nintendo 3Ds. So I don't think that one can say "Oh 3D is a lost cause, it will never be good." I think it is fully possible to make good 3D movies and games as long as the makers/developers made the product to be used with 3D and not as something added in post production.

But what is 3D apart from the first step towards VR?

3D is a very important step towards Virtual Reality. I'm not really seeing how that would be a bad thing...

Yes it is, but if you do nothing with it but charge twice the price of admission for the right to wear stupid glasses and see a negligible 3D effect (for most movies; some are really well designed, but ultimately negligible) then we will never get there.

[Prelauncher]

3D is a very important step towards Virtual Reality. I'm not really seeing how that would be a bad thing...

Yes it is, but if you do nothing with it but charge twice the price of admission for the right to wear stupid glasses and see a negligible 3D effect (for most movies; some are really well designed, but ultimately negligible) then we will never get there.

I've never said that I like the current business model when it comes to watching 3D movies at the cinema. You're right, its like I said before:

The proplem with 3D comes when the producers suddenly in after-production goes, "Do you know what would make this movie much better? If we made it 3D."

Often they just add the 3D effect so that they can bump up the price for tickets.
What I'm saying is that I don't think we should dismiss it and never use it, because that seems to be the general atitude nowadays amongst consumers.

[Bridge]

3D is a very important step towards Virtual Reality. I'm not really seeing how that would be a bad thing...

Yes it is, but if you do nothing with it but charge twice the price of admission for the right to wear stupid glasses and see a negligible 3D effect (for most movies; some are really well designed, but ultimately negligible) then we will never get there.

I've never said that I like the current business model when it comes to watching 3D movies at the cinema. You're right, its like I said before:

The proplem with 3D comes when the producers suddenly in after-production goes, "Do you know what would make this movie much better? If we made it 3D."

Often they just add the 3D effect so that they can bump up the price for tickets.
What I'm saying is that I don't think we should dismiss it and never use it, because that seems to be the general atitude nowadays amongst consumers.

You are right, but just realize the negativity is not unwarranted when 3D is being shoved down everybody's throat like it's this revolutionary new technology when it's been played out already (unsuccessfully) and it is so laughably undeveloped it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned yet. It's like a game company pushing out an unfinished and bug-infested game and, for some mysterious reason, it then being praised as the best thing ever. I'll begin considering 3D as a legitimate method of viewing when it's completely portable. I hate to sound spoiled but, to abuse a quote, wearing glasses is like a baby's toy.

It just irritates me that it is so popular and billions of dollars are being put into shooting movies in this format when the technology just isn't there at this point in time. It actually is a bit like a massive beta test (the beta testers being the part of the population unlucky enough to be able to experience it) where the constructive criticism is completely ignored.

[cantremember]

I don't consider 3D to be a step towards virtual reality. It's a gimmick that's been around for decades and still only consists of an image for the left and an image for the right eye. It's very straining on the eyes because regardless of the term '3D', it is actually made up of two 2D images. The background is going to be blurry compared to what the camera was focused on regardless of what your eye tries to focus on. The end result looks more like a background with cardboard characters up front.

Besides, it's not just a niche of moaners, but the general public as a whole can't stand 3D for long, as theatres here have started to incorporate breaks during 3D viewings (while the 2D viewings don't contain any breaks).

[Bridge]

I don't consider 3D to be a step towards virtual reality. It's a gimmick that's been around for decades and still only consists of an image for the left and an image for the right eye. It's very straining on the eyes because regardless of the term '3D', it is actually made up of two 2D images. The background is going to be blurry compared to what the camera was focused on regardless of what your eye tries to focus on. The end result looks more like a background with cardboard characters up front.

Besides, it's not just a niche of moaners, but the general public as a whole can't stand 3D for long, as theatres here have started to incorporate breaks during 3D viewings (while the 2D viewings don't contain any breaks).

In Iceland where I live every movie has an intermission, even 90 minute movies. It's been like this for decades; it's obviously a ploy to get you to buy more stuff but really, all countries should adopt this system. Being able to stand up and walk around for 5-10 minutes and empty your bladder is really convenient. Even with these intermissions 3D movies are almost unbearable.

[Ahmed Quast]

You must be retarded to not want the option of s3d in amnesia.
But as I like to help underprivileged people I am going to elaborate why being against it is useless:

1. This thread is aimed at the developers
2. I wrote it here for them to see that there are people out there who want this. And I was proved right.
3. It is easy to implement once you have the source code. If you can code something like Amnesia, you are able to code this patch easily.
4. It is about creating an optional feature so you can use Amnesia with your 3DTV but also can avoid using it.
5. Nothing is lost by having that feature. You can only win. No sane person would refrain from that.
6. People who don't like 3D are meaningless because they are free to not use it any time.

Glad I could help you out guys.