XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2025-10-23 16:08:37 +0000, Paul S Person said:   
   > On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 09:37:02 +1300, Your Name    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2025-10-22 15:40:03 +0000, Paul S Person said:   
   >   
   >    
   >    
   >   
   >>> That's right -- "3d" (stereoscopic) movies do /not/ require a special>>   
   >>> player and a special TV and glasses costing $125 a pair. The entire>>   
   >>> "3d" (stereoscopic) BD/HD thing was a cynical marketing ploy.   
   >>   
   >> 3D in every form has never really been popular, partly thanks to   
   >> needing silly glasses of one type or another. There are new computer   
   >> monitors that do 3D without needing glasses, which might move up to   
   >> bigger TV screens, but again it's really just a gimmick to part fools   
   >> from their money, and there will be hardly any actual content to watch   
   >> (other than perhaps a re-release of the few awful old 3D movies,   
   >> like>"Jaws 3D").   
   >   
   > I've never actually experienced it. I already have glasses, thank you   
   > very much.   
   >   
   > And the reports of people barfing are off-putting.   
   >   
   > That I have some experience with, in that I saw some of the early   
   > Cinerama films (including /How the West was Won/) and those had scenes   
   > known to produce barfing when actually seen in Cinerama in a Cinerama   
   > theater. Not in me, thank goodness.   
   >   
   > Basically, it's the bits that had the viewpoint swirling around and   
   > around that did it. Keep in mind that actual Cinerama completely   
   > filled the eyes with the projected image: the brain had no external   
   > reference in its visual field and so tended to accept what it was   
   > seeing as real. Without, BTW, "3d" (stereoscopic) images or special   
   > glasses of any kind.   
      
   I wear glasses all the time. I have only once watched any 3D movie, at   
   the one IMAX cinema here in New Zealand, and that was because someone   
   else wanted to go there. It was okay, but nothing I'd bother paying the   
   over-priced tickets for myself. I don't recall getting motion sick, but   
   then I kept taking the 3D glasses off because they were uncomfortbale   
   with my normal glasses.   
      
      
      
   > As to "awful old 3D movies", I should note that the /trailer/ to   
   > /Creature from the Black Lagoon/ boasts of its being the first film   
   > shot in 3D underwater. Also, /Dial M for Murder/ was apparently   
   > Hitchcock's one forey into 3D[1]. Hence the hand pointing straight at   
   > the audience in the scene on the poster. I don't know about you, but I   
   > don't think either of those was "awful". Not that I want to see them   
   > in 3D.   
   >   
   > OTOH, I have never had any particular desire to see /The Blob/ in any   
   > format.   
   >   
   > [1] I use "3d" (stereoscopic) to distinguish this from 3D animation.   
   > But for live-action films, "3D" is unambiguous.   
      
   Not 3D in terms of stereoscopic, but I do very quickly get motion sick   
   when playing '3D' graphics first-person or third-person games, but not   
   usually with '3D' graphics car racing games. I also get sick if I try   
   to read as a passenger in the car - so me being the map-reading   
   navigtor is out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)