Heh, too bad I can't watch it in 3D because for some reason REALD doesn't work for me.
FUCK JAMES CAMERON!!!
There's no way it'll be better than Aquaman.
If so, it's one grand conspiracy. I know someone who has seen (what I presume to be) the same 24 minute reel, and he said that it's like if the first Terminator movie in 1984 had the T-1000 in it. It's that big of a leap beyond what we're used to.
Damn I can't wait.My most anticipated film ever.
The huge "The Last Airbender" splash on that page left me deeply confused for a moment.
Ha, me too.
Soooooooo the real question is... will I be able to buy the glasses needed to watch this in 3d when they release it on Blu-Ray or DVD?
I'm guessing you'll need one of those fancy 3D TVs to even watch it in 3D.
I was so excited about seeing this until I heard him talk about it at E3. Now, I can't wait until whatever tech he invented makes it "The Abyss" and T2 style into mainstream movies and stories I want to see.
Are there some words missing here?
Unfortunately it won't work on TVs out now.
Actually a surprising number of televisions on shelves now, especially plasmas, can already do the frame-switching effect that makes 3D possible. I believe you still have to wear glasses, but the displays can do it. There just hasn't been a player or media.
Really? Do they advertise as such? I would think they would at least need a firmware upgrade.
As opposed to the frame-switching "effect" that is the fundamental basis of all video display technology?
What exactly is it you're thinking plasmas can do that makes them uniquely better-suited to the use of 3D shutter glasses than any other kind of TV? As long as there's a way to sync the glasses with the output device, the display technology shouldn't much matter.
Wouldn't it be moving every other frame slightly offset from a common point to effect 3d? Regular interlacing is just half of the image followed by the other half, every other line. Seems like a real progressive display with offset would be the trick.
Sure, a progressive display would be better. You can actually do 60FPS progressive on NTSC, at the cost of half your vertical resolution. That's how most game consoles worked up until about the Playstation generation.
I do know that the Avatar game will not be playable in 3D without a TV with a specific 3D viewing mode. I have to wonder if the movie will be the same.
There's nothing about plasma that makes it better, it's just that companies that were setting the stage for 3D stuff made plasma displays. But from what I know from talking to the people at the companies, there's nothing fundamentally different in any "3D Ready" television that makes it notably different than, say, a standard LCD flat-panel monitor hooked up to a computer, except that they were shipping TVs that had the firmware to handle future 3D formats that may or may not ever actually come out. Samsung went heavy into this in their DLP and plasmas last year, but the partnership with DDD for new content hasn't gone anywhere yet that I've seen.
Anyway, my point was simply that most televisions out there now could serve as 3D displays with the use of glasses, but that the interesting part was that many of the display manufacturers are trying to seed the market with TVs that have the interfaces and firmware for a unified standard. (There is no unified standard, though, and you know how well preemptive standards work.)