Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

I'm getting sick of technology for the sake of itself

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by ibast, Feb 24, 2010.

  1. I've always had a bit of a gadget filter. I can define the difference between true technology and a gadget and this saves me lots.

    For example I'm not at all interested in an I-phone. I just don't get that it will add anything meaningful to my life.



    Now there is this:
    http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...et-to-transform-television-20100224-p1rr.html

    Now I might partake once for a bit of a laugh, but does anybody really believe this is the future of television?
     
     Top
  2. maybe not tv but gaming yes
     
     Top
  3. Hey cool, a new wipeout game!

    I hope you can choose to turn the 3D of though, I can never get it to work properly (maybe because I'm R/G colour blind?)
     
     Top
  4. It'll give me headaches, but I'll probably endure them for Gianna Michaels in 3d.
     
     Top
  5. There'd be a lot of ducking and weaving going on there.
     
     Top
  6. I really don't see people wearing those goofy glasses as a requirement to use their tv, for games or to watch tv. They can pay for the privileged of looking like a dumbass, I'll stick with a normal tv which does exactly what I want it to do, without having to have a chunk of plastic on my face to do it thanks.
     
     Top
  7. They're going to have to 'film' shows/movies in 3D for that tele to be of any use. No idea if there are even commercially available cameras that capture depth information for this purpose.

    As a 3d modeller though, I approve of this technology for the obvious benefits it'll have to my industry ;)
     
     Top
  8. Useful in industry, yes. Future of *some* games, perhaps. Future of movies? No chance.

    And I'll tell you for why. One of the biggest pieces of technique involved in shooting a film is camera focus. It allows the shot to be controlled, draws the eye to and from the details... 3D, by its nature adds depth, which in turn will shift the control of the focus from the director to the viewer. Unless they blur the parts of the shot that the director does not want you looking at, leaving you with a 2d image that is hovering in front of your television - in which case, what would be the point.
     
     Top
  9. It was enough watching Fern Gully... oop.. I mean Avatar in 3D. I had to take the stupid glasses off every 10 minutes and that meant the screen was all ghosty. :?
     
     Top
  10. 3D p0rn.... Can't wait.
     
     Top
  11. I'm glad there's another fan here :grin:
     
     Top
  12.  Top
  13. I've... er... seen her about a bit, but I only learned her name recently! Very timely.

    What were we talking about? Oh yeah, 3D television! Waste of time & money.

    I would go & see a 3D movie at the pictures for the experience, but it would piss me off at home.

    The latest issue of Sound + Image has a big feature on 3D, I was not really impressed.
    (I have to read it for work, give me a break!)
     
     Top
  14. I should start a thread about Gianna Michaels then.

    Jasmine black is also worth checking out. (I -think- that's her name) Anyway...
     
     Top
  15. I feel that this thread is starting to move slightly off-topic... and I hope it continues to do so. :D
     
     Top
  16. I don't know the name. I might know her, umm, face.

    :worthlesspics:
     
     Top
  17. Are you guys serious? I just googled those two names. Gianna..........yeah um no thanks. Average at best. Jasmine.....not toooo bad but far from good. But whatever floats your boat i guess........
     
     Top
  18. 3D doesn't work like that. It doesn't stop the effect you are talking about. In fact it makes the director's choice even more powerful. Take the 3D at the start of Harry Potter and in Avatar. There are certain distance levels, and they can preferentially make one in focus while the others are not, or make all in focus. (Simply using normal depth of field in the cameras with which they shoot, or I imagine they would also have the ability to do it in post-production).

    They use two cameras...those cameras have to be focussed on something. When you combine the images, the director's chosen focus is obvious. Have a look next time you watch 3D.

    Depth of focus and depth of image are two different things. You can have something just out of focus and seemingly close or just out of focus and seemingly far away. Or in focus and close or far away etc etc
     
     Top
  19. I see you have the false understanding that a pron stars chief asset is their looks.

    Prettiness is a long way down the list behind:
    Can you do this?
    Can you do this when in that position?
    Can you do this, in that position, to him and him?
    Can you do this, in that position, to him, him and her?
    etc, etc.
     
     Top
  20. Variety is the spice of life, horse for courses, etc etc.

    You see our Gianna & you raise us...? :-k
     
     Top