3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches

This thread remind of of an episode from SCTV with John Candy that was shown on TV. This segment was suppose to be in 3D (sarcasm) and in every few second they moved an object in their hand close to TV, back and forth. Hilarious :D

I found that segment on Youtube:

SCTV 3 Dr Tongues 3D House of Stewardesses - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Good grief, RGA, do you get paid by the word?

---

You're just now noticing his inability to craft words carefully? :)

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

You're just now noticing his inability to craft words carefully? :)

rw

---

...recalls the phrase "moldy wordsmithing"...

For me 3D seems to be like a fashion trend these days abd each second film ends with "3D"-tail. Personally I do not see any great difference between 2D and 3D, so the latter seems to be waste of time except for some really excellent examples of using this technique (like Avatar mentioned above).
If you want to become part of the action and perceive everything that a movie hero does then you should use 5D. That is the thing you will hardly be able to stand for more than 30 min):dita:

I like to think of 3D as a worthwhile feature on my plasma not unlike PIP was a few years ago. It's loads of fun but not for everyday viewing. I wouldn't pay much more for it but when the price of a non 3D set is the same it's a no brainer.