Twitter is such a great thing. It provides another digital distraction so that Americans can at all costs avoid the pain of actually thinking about anything. It's also the perfect platform for deep, meaningful and nuanced conversations on important topics. You want proof? Roger Ebert weighs in on 3D with the following tweet:
3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.
How does this square with Ebert's December 2009 review of Avatar where he wrote:
Cameron promised he'd unveil the next generation of 3-D in "Avatar." I'm a notorious skeptic about this process, a needless distraction from the perfect realism of movies in 2-D. Cameron's iteration is the best I've seen — and more importantly, one of the most carefully-employed. The film never uses 3-D simply because it has it, and doesn't promiscuously violate the fourth wall. He also seems quite aware of 3-D's weakness for dimming the picture, and even with a film set largely in interiors and a rain forest, there's sufficient light. I saw the film in 3-D on a good screen at the AMC River East and was impressed. It might be awesome in True IMAX.
So which is it, Roger? Abomination or awesome, if done well?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Reuters reports that researchers have developed a proof-of-concept 3D book:
At South Korea's Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, researchers used 3D technology to animate two children's books of Korean folk tales, complete with writhing dragons and heroes bounding over mountains.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Nintendo will release a portable game console in 2011, the Nintendo 3DS that will allow gamers to experience 3D effects without the need for special glasses.
An autosteroscopic screen like the one on the Fuji W1 would make a nice gaming platform. Wait, why not a iPad with an autostereoscopic screen? Then you've really got immersion.
