3D Projectors

[Xiaou2]

 I just have to write a little blurb..  as my friend picked up a new Optoma 1080p native 3d projector, a large pull down screen (13' across?), and a bunch of active lcd shutter glasses.

 J A W D R O P P I N G !!!

 I really didnt expect what I was about to experience.   Ive seen LCD shutter glass stuff work with the days of the Sega Master system, as well as the arcade game  "Continental Circus 3D".. and I believe they use them for many of the digital theaters.

 The Sega Master system 3d effect was low frame rate.. so a bit dark and choppy.. but it was really cool.  But.. the images didnt seem to pop out of the screen that far.  Mostly Into the screen.   Missile Defense 3D was the rare example where a game made you feel like dodging your head.. if you missed shooting a missile down.  (This game is worth getting a system + 3d glasses + lightphaser for)

 On Continental Circus (arcade machine), the 3d was much more smooth, and greater brightness.  The 3d effects were dazzling.   The game constantly had computer cars wrecking in front of you... so parts were flying out of the screen.  If you cracked up... smoke would trail in the air in 3d.. out of the screen..   and if you blew up... tires, spoilers, and other parts would fly everywhere +out of the screen.   Its was incredible.    But also... the depth of the road going into the screen..  the hills, and all the scenery...etc..  was incredible.

 The graphics of the game are not that well shaded or great... but the 3d effect really remedied this, with the great depth and greater sense of motion and position.  I emptied my wallet into that game, and played nothing else the entire time, even with a full arcade of games to play.

 Still again.. the out-of screen effect was very limited.    Nearly 1ft of depth internally..  but only maybe 3" max externally.

 Then I went to an Imax 3d film projector... that used polorized glasses...

 Initially, there were really poor quality films. Cheesy, short, and not always really potent in depth.   Over time, these films had gotten a bit better.. and the effects were often beyond comprehension.   For example... in one example, this girl was talking to a group of people..   and she was literally about 6ft in front of you... even though I was about 40ft from the screen.   She was crystal clear.. and you could make out details as fine as the hairs in her nose.  In-sane.

 Eventually they ported some big name movies to the format..  like Superman.   But the conversion was really poor.. and only a few minutes of the film were in full 3d.   But with time, each 3D film got better and better..  and the effect was to the point where you felt like you were IN that environment.   

 The scene from Harry Potter... where they were trying to get the professor to teach again... (horous?)   and the room put itself back together...  was breathtaking and mind blowing.   Avatar was another insane leap.  Sadly, the depth was more into the screen than out... but still, the effect was so incredible, that after the movie, I had some strange emotional episode, where in which our ordinary "concrete jungle" was very depressing.. and I wanted to dive back into the movie... which lasted about 30min or so!   Id never felt or experienced anything like that..  nor the level of beauty and scale that was seen within that world.

 ...But when I saw the re-release of Avatar extended, in  "Real-D"  3d,  it was a  HUGE  let-down.   Turns out the the digital versions do not compare to the film versions... and the 3d depth was like 1/80th of the Imax depth.   Part of this is due to the seating... in that Imax seats you more vertically, to put you closer to the screen.  Part of it is that the screen is so much more massive.    The larger the screen.. the further things can pop out of it... especially when you are sitting in close proximity.

 
 So...  as my friend got his setup... I imagined it would feel more like the Real-D  experience.   Boy was I mistaken!

 He first showed me the typical Imax startup - which is a set of numbers flying out of the screen.  WOW!   I was blown away.  I felt the same impact as the Imax experience.  Insane clarity and depth... and images that extended like 9ft into the room... and far deeper past the screen.

 The most impressive thing he showed me.. which I NEVER expected..  was a 3d re-release of Predator.   I figured that the conversion would be as poor as the Top Gun 3d Id seen in the theater. .. which was fuzzy, and lacking in detail and depth.   WRONG!

 There you were in the middle of the Jungle...  trees and vines all around you, at various depths.  All with perfect clarity and detail.   It was like a whole new movie!  At times, I would not pay full attention to what was going on, merely to marvel at the scenery in its glorious detail and beauty.  You could sit there and literally count blades of grass..  thats how clear and real it is.

 Stuff that you would never have seen or noticed before, takes on a whole other level of experience.  It literally was like you were there, in the Jungle, walking with the actors.   Im still in awe, how there were able to get to this level of conversion. 

  I hope they do this with Aliens soon!   As well as many of my beloved favorites, such as Temple of Doom, Goonies, The Neverending Story, Willow, TRON, A Knights Tale, Tai Chi Master, Drunken Master II, Poltergeist, Nightmare on Elm St.? 1 & 3, True Lies, Total Recall, Terminator II, Bedazzled, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, 36th Chamber of Shaolin / Master Killer, The Italian Job, Oceans 11?,  The ORIGINAL unmolested Star Wars films, Chevy Chase Vacation films ..  and far more...

 
 The price?    Amazingly, the prices has came down considerably.   He paid something like $1500 for the Projector, Screen, and 6 pairs of wireless 3d glasses.

 Also, unlike the elder glasses... you didnt detect any flicker, at all.   And the picture didnt seem dark or dim, as was the case with glasses from the Sega Master System era.

 He fired the thing up for his 3 children, and they were "ALL ABOUT IT"!   Watching in awe, and one even being very critical when the 3d effect wasnt at its best.   heh   

 Turns out there are tons of 3d CGI kids films out there to grab and play.   As well as some other interesting 3d stuff, like that french circus (circ da something).. which is quite breathtaking in the way you are zoomed into all the action and detailed beauty  (rather than if you had some nose bleed seats & a pair of binoculars at best).

 Havent tried any 3D games on his PC yet, as his pc is in another room, and streaming content.  (ugg)

 Anyway, if you have seen a good Imax film based 3D, I Highly recommend getting a setup like this.

 
I believe he has this model projector:

 http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-HD25-LV-1080p-Theater-Projector/dp/B00BQWX1P2/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1399235084&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=optoma+acer+3d+projector+3000#productDetails

 But Ill get more info later, to verify.

[ark_ader]

The one glowing aspect of 3D (if this option is available) is the ability to have two displays when playing co-op and Player vs Player matches.  Both glasses pickup different broadcasts from the TV/Projector.  This is the only reason for buying a 3D display.  Yes the image looks cool, but it gets old pretty quick, and the glasses are uncomfortable if you already a four eyes.

I would want to see the cost of these projectors dipping to $500, coupled with the pain of installation, overheating, and bulb life.  Not to mention the cost of replacement bulbs...

I have two projectors set up with Eye-Infinity giving a 100' screen, and that is very difficult to maintain on a regular basis, due to the above.

[Xiaou2]

Dual player capability is interesting, but you dont need that to have multiplayer setups.  And even if you do have multiplayer on one screen... you are losing depth information... which is critical in things like driving games.   And helpful in many other game aspects, such as how much energy + speed + distance  to shoot a basketball or ..grenade.

 As for your comments..  Ive yet to find 3d to get old.  Thats like saying that they should turn all audio files to Mono, because Stereo gets old.    A very ignorant comment IMO.

 If you have poor depth perception, I get it.   But not everyone is in the same boat as you.  Similar to how not everyone can hear as well as others (thus never will understand the HD audio), nor have a tongue pallet & keen smell, to appreciate the differences in a really well cooked and seasoned meal... and some pile of chemicals and fat at the local fast food joint.
Heck... some cant even discern good color spectrum.. as proven with the color match test that was presented here.  Which again, shows that the experience that someone is having, may be completely different than your own.


 As for your comment about the glasses...  This depends on which glasses you buy.   The ones my friend has, were not uncomfortable at all, despite my glasses.

 Imax glasses, need some work...  but those are cheap throw away junk..  and even those I dont mind for a movie sitting.

 
 And finally, due to the nature that peoples eyes may be further apart or closer together, may be the reason why certain people have limited depth issues, or exaggerated experiences... headaches and nausea.

 In such cases..  Ive wondered if an adjustable periscope style of device could be used to dial in the correct spacing for optimal effect and correct intended perspective viewing lines.  Use a dial to narrow or widen the one eye.   Or have two different styles of the mechanism, for either issue.

 Also, you may wish to consider getting smaller lens glasses.   Ive switched over, and Im much more happy with them.  They dont dig into my nose over time, like all the others Ive worn in the past.

[pbj]

The problem with projectors is the inherent sacrifice of space in your house.

[ark_ader]

Dual player capability is interesting, but you dont need that to have multiplayer setups.  And even if you do have multiplayer on one screen... you are losing depth information... which is critical in things like driving games.   And helpful in many other game aspects, such as how much energy + speed + distance  to shoot a basketball or ..grenade.

 As for your comments..  Ive yet to find 3d to get old.  Thats like saying that they should turn all audio files to Mono, because Stereo gets old.    A very ignorant comment IMO.

 If you have poor depth perception, I get it.   But not everyone is in the same boat as you.  Similar to how not everyone can hear as well as others (thus never will understand the HD audio), nor have a tongue pallet & keen smell, to appreciate the differences in a really well cooked and seasoned meal... and some pile of chemicals and fat at the local fast food joint.
Heck... some cant even discern good color spectrum.. as proven with the color match test that was presented here.  Which again, shows that the experience that someone is having, may be completely different than your own.


 As for your comment about the glasses...  This depends on which glasses you buy.   The ones my friend has, were not uncomfortable at all, despite my glasses.

 Imax glasses, need some work...  but those are cheap throw away junk..  and even those I dont mind for a movie sitting.

 
 And finally, due to the nature that peoples eyes may be further apart or closer together, may be the reason why certain people have limited depth issues, or exaggerated experiences... headaches and nausea.

 In such cases..  Ive wondered if an adjustable periscope style of device could be used to dial in the correct spacing for optimal effect and correct intended perspective viewing lines.  Use a dial to narrow or widen the one eye.   Or have two different styles of the mechanism, for either issue.

 Also, you may wish to consider getting smaller lens glasses.   Ive switched over, and Im much more happy with them.  They dont dig into my nose over time, like all the others Ive worn in the past.

Yeah well...I listen to my music in mono.  You go to a nightclub and the speakers are mono.  I have a 5.1 and I agree games and movies do sound better in surround. 3D and projectors are worth the hassle if they are cheap enough.  I just bought a motorized screen and it had to go back, as the wall looked better!     My fault for being ignorant. 

3d is a fad, but just in case these projectors do drop down to $500, I have plenty of Bluray 3D discs gathering dust.

[RandyT]

X is a little late to the game on  this one.  A few years ago, I participated in a long protracted discussion on the AV forums about 3D.  There were a lot of vehement supporters, but having worked for some years in the 3D display industry and watching how quickly the ROI disappears, I predicted that it would not be widely adopted nor supported.  There are many reasons for this, most transmission technology related, but just as important were the limits of the display technology itself.  Interestingly, those who had made the investment in 3D early and were the most vocal supporters, now have given in to reality.

For projection systems, the best approach is like the ones at the theaters using cheap, passive glasses.  The easiest way to get this kind of system is to use synchronized dual projectors with polarizing filters on each in opposing orientations.  This is still not great, as each eye only gets 50% of the light being generated, so high output (expensive) projectors are needed.  Even after spending all that cash, about 10% of the viewers will not get the 3D effect, due to eyesight issues, and another group will experience migraine-like headaches before getting through a feature length movie.

The technology being used today is really no different than that which was used in theaters in the early 80's (i.e. 30 year old tech).  It has all the drawbacks of that previously abandoned tech and imposes huge costs on media providers with little demand from consumers.  In other words, if you are pleased with the results, don't mind paying extra for limited content, and/or plan to use it exclusively with BD's and videogames, it might be worthwhile.  Otherwise, just get the nicest TV/projector you can for your money and be happy.

[Xiaou2]

Yeah well...I listen to my music in mono.  You go to a nightclub and the speakers are mono.  I have a 5.1 and I agree games and movies do sound better in surround. 3D and projectors are worth the hassle if they are cheap enough.  I just bought a motorized screen and it had to go back, as the wall looked better!     My fault for being ignorant. 

3d is a fad, but just in case these projectors do drop down to $500, I have plenty of Bluray 3D discs gathering dust.

 I do not even understand what you are trying to say.   Your contradictions are ridiculous.

 You say you listen to mono..  but prefer surround sound?!   And saying that a retractable screen looked worse than a blank wall...  thats idiotic to say the least...  unless your leaving out some critical detail, such as the screen was some scammy garbage.

X is a little late to the game on  this one.  A few years ago, I participated in a long protracted discussion on the AV forums about 3D.  There were a lot of vehement supporters, but having worked for some years in the 3D display industry and watching how quickly the ROI disappears, I predicted that it would not be widely adopted nor supported.  There are many reasons for this, most transmission technology related, but just as important were the limits of the display technology itself.  Interestingly, those who had made the investment in 3D early and were the most vocal supporters, now have given in to reality.

For projection systems, the best approach is like the ones at the theaters using cheap, passive glasses.  The easiest way to get this kind of system is to use synchronized dual projectors with polarizing filters on each in opposing orientations.  This is still not great, as each eye only gets 50% of the light being generated, so high output (expensive) projectors are needed.  Even after spending all that cash, about 10% of the viewers will not get the 3D effect, due to eyesight issues, and another group will experience migraine-like headaches before getting through a feature length movie.

The technology being used today is really no different than that which was used in theaters in the early 80's (i.e. 30 year old tech).  It has all the drawbacks of that previously abandoned tech and imposes huge costs on media providers with little demand from consumers.  In other words, if you are pleased with the results, don't mind paying extra for limited content, and/or plan to use it exclusively with BD's and videogames, it might be worthwhile.  Otherwise, just get the nicest TV/projector you can for your money and be happy.

 Uhh..  No.   Im not Late.   If you had read what Id posted, you would know that I stated 3d as early as the Sega Master System... the glasses released in 1987.

 And far before that, Id experienced 3d in the form of anaglyph pictures.

 Viewmaster 3D - Had one of those as a kid.

 Tomytronic 3D - A handheld released in 1983.  Didnt own it, but played it a few times.

 Various Half-Silvered Mirror 3d - from Arcade machines going back the EM days, such as Ninja Gun (Kasco).. extending into popular retro games like Asterioids Deluxe, Discs of Tron, and several others.

 Continental Circus 3D (arcade), was released in 1989.  The effect was incredibly awesome, and the 3d was capitalized to its full potentials... unlike some other 3d games / media.

 Ive had shutterglasses from the Dos heavy days, on PC, which was the only time I actually found an FPS to be interesting/ cool.  Using my old AMD 233mhz, with a Bigfoot 2gb hdd...

 A friend had more modern shutterglasses years later, that used the conversion process to make any 3d game into stereoscopic 3d.   The framerate and brightness were improved vastly..  but the conversion wasnt really the best, was buggy, and not updated well..  and the other media was extremely limited.  The software to do anything in 3d, was still very poor, and not very user friendly for the masses.

 Ive been seeing Imax films, using Polarized glasses, since the beginning of its inception...   all the way up to present.  Ive seen the 2d conversion process go from absolutely wretched, blurry, and buggy  ... to a level of shear disbelief, where you would think the entire film was shot 'today', in HD stereoscopic format.  Crystal clear, no blur, no focus or depth errors.   Simply amazing.

 I have a used Virtuaboy.   And if I can scrape some dough up, Id like to get a 3DS, especially for the Sega re-releases.
I still own & use my Sega master 3d system & glasses.

 Ive owned and seen some other 3d pc glasses..   as well as the various early variants of LCD 3d TVs.  Some were 'ok', but most Id seen were quite horrible... with poor depth and a lot of noticeable flicker effect.


So, unless you have seen the latest, live in person... then I believe you are behind the times.


 The projector my buddy has, isnt like a 10th of the Polarized 3d imax experience.  It was about a 8.5 to 9.. out of 10... and thats saying something!  Considering your competing against much higher resolution, and a picture thats much larger than the standard livingroom.

 Unlike the past 3d, the glasses they put out now, are much more translucent... allowing for far more light to get through.   And unlike the earlier LCD tv shutter glasses Id tried before... these had no detectable flicker.   Which was a huge relief.

  Although you could notice things a little dimmer when donning glasses initially..  when the movie is playing, you dont notice anything but shear beauty.  The colors were vivid, clear, saturated, and bright.

 I didnt think it would be possible to replicate the Imax level of experience on a non polarized setup..  but I too was mistaken.  Things have changed dramatically, with the latest technology improvements.

 Part of this may also be due to his projector being a DLP projector..  rather than an LCD / LED  based projector.


  I do not "Impress" easily... as many may know from my highly critical opinion... so for me to gush like this,
trust me... its really something to check out / buy.
 

 As for the money made in 3d...  its nothing to sneeze about anymore.   Imax 3d versions of films are making money hand over fist.   Some of them are breaking all box office records.   Some actors are rolling in plies of cash as a result.
 

 "Box Office: 'Gravity' Soars, Sets October Record With $55 Million October Launch"

 "The overall three-day domestic gross for “Gravity,” boosted by a whopping 80% from 3D, "


 Finally, no nice TV or HD projector, can come anywhere close to matching the experience of the said reviewed projector setup.  I cant wait to try a game on a setup like that.   (though sadly, it may be a while, as him and his wife have recently separated..  )

 The only thing that might possibly rival, is a "far future" version of the Occulous Rift.  Probably its 2nd or 3rd generation 'production model'..  maybe  5 to 10 yrs down the road.

[Hoopz]

I just have to write a little blurb.. 

Shenanigans!

[ChadTower]

Even after spending all that cash, about 10% of the viewers will not get the 3D effect, due to eyesight issues, and another group will experience migraine-like headaches before getting through a feature length movie.

Even this varies from content to content seemingly with no regard to the tech being used.  I have sat in cheap old theaters and watched really good 3D.  I sat in an IMAX for the last Harry Potter movie and the 3D was a jumbled up cluster-F of blur.  The 3D in the previews before that same movie was good enough that I was swatting at objects floating in front of me.  I have yet to see one technology that consistently works for me.  It is worth noting that I am 20-15 in one eye and 20-50 in the other.

[Vigo]

But at the same time, some movies just have horrid, half-assed 3d.

[ChadTower]

But at the same time, some movies just have horrid, half-assed 3d.

That's true but in this particular case I am betting that Harry Potter movie isn't one of them.  My kids said they loved the 3D.  I couldn't even tell what was going on in that scene with all the glass orbs.  It was like watching a 50 foot tall movie through an aquarium with sand in my eye.

[PL1]

Shenanigans!

[/Super Troopers]


Scott

[RandyT]

Uhh..  No.   Im not Late.   If you had read what Id posted, you would know that I stated 3d as early as the Sega Master System... the glasses released in 1987.

That's the problem.  You are comparing it to a 30 year old kid's toy.  The latest stuff will obviously look better.  I get it, you are impressed and worldly, so you believe it's the "next big thing".  But in reality, it's not.  It's a technology which was rejected 30 years ago, but is now available in many incarnations for home consumers, who have not embraced it in numbers which would sway content providers to care.  Transmitting high quality 3D content costs more.  Most satellite and cable providers aren't even in full HD yet.  Producing quality 3D content costs a lot more.  These costs get passed onto consumers who don't want to pay for it, as the value is not there.  The novelty of the experience passes quickly, and once it does, folks choose to save their money (see Wii.)

3D was foisted upon the movie going public as a means getting more butts in seats at the local theaters, when high quality alternatives started finding their way into homes in massive numbers.  It was also forced onto the public as a technology included with new TVs, as a means of increasing sagging TV sales, when the market started becoming saturated.  The success of 3D in theaters is arguable.  Many venues show only the 3D versions of the films, which have ridiculously higher ticket prices, so usually the gross is reported, which makes it look more successful than it really is.  When people stopped going to 3D movies due to the high cost of a ticket, they started showing the films in standard 2D as well.  Now that so many theaters have made the investment, they have to use it, so even movies which are poorly suited to the technology get released in a shoddily constructed form just to be marketed as "3D" and maximize revenues from those theaters.

So, unless you have seen the latest, live in person... then I believe you are behind the times.

 The projector my buddy has, isnt like a 10th of the Polarized 3d imax experience.  It was about a 8.5 to 9.. out of 10... and thats saying something!  Considering your competing against much higher resolution, and a picture thats much larger than the standard livingroom.

 Unlike the past 3d, the glasses they put out now, are much more translucent... allowing for far more light to get through.   And unlike the earlier LCD tv shutter glasses Id tried before... these had no detectable flicker.   Which was a huge relief.

  Although you could notice things a little dimmer when donning glasses initially..  when the movie is playing, you dont notice anything but shear beauty.  The colors were vivid, clear, saturated, and bright.

 Part of this may also be due to his projector being a DLP projector..  rather than an LCD / LED  based projector.

Giant text notwithstanding, no, I am not.  You cannot fight physics.  When you view a natural image, both eyes get the full amount of light available, and your brain merges it.  Close one eye, and you get half the light.  Polarize the light, and you are still discarding half.  The tech your friend's setup is using, is at the lower end of the scale for brightness.  The dual projector setup is better, as images are not alternated from one source, so you get the "maximum" of 50% of the light being generated (lens absorption not considered).  Your brain will compensate, and in a very dark room it may be acceptable, but it can't have the "punch" in vibrancy that a standard 2D image has at the same lumen output. 

DLP has it's own issues, and having owned one and being susceptible to rainbow effects and flicker, I wasn't too impressed.  DLP doesn't necessarily make for a better projector, but a better and often smaller projector for the price.  There is only one picture producing element instead of three, and no complex optics or large optical paths.  But they do have a fast and constantly spinning motor, which produces more noise and leads to shorter MTBFs.

I didnt think it would be possible to replicate the Imax level of experience on a non polarized setup.. 

You didn't, you just don't have a proper frame of reference to be able to make such a comparison...unless your friend also owns an IMAX theater, and has his $1500 projector set up in the next room over.

[ark_ader]

Yeah well...I listen to my music in mono.  You go to a nightclub and the speakers are mono.  I have a 5.1 and I agree games and movies do sound better in surround. 3D and projectors are worth the hassle if they are cheap enough.  I just bought a motorized screen and it had to go back, as the wall looked better!     My fault for being ignorant. 

3d is a fad, but just in case these projectors do drop down to $500, I have plenty of Bluray 3D discs gathering dust.

 I do not even understand what you are trying to say.   Your contradictions are ridiculous.

 You say you listen to mono..  but prefer surround sound?!   And saying that a retractable screen looked worse than a blank wall...  thats idiotic to say the least...  unless your leaving out some critical detail, such as the screen was some scammy garbage.

My point is that I do not listen to my music in stereo.  I like to watch movies in surround due to the special effects.  The projector screen look as good as the wall, so off it went back to the store.  These are not contradictions, these are your feeble attempts to troll me to make your point which is totally wasted on me.  I get it that you are the world's leading expert on 3D TV after you saw at your friend's house.  I get it believe me.  Yet this technology was used in 1953 with the House of Wax, and that technology died a death too.

I was at CES this year and at the LG booth they had a wall of 3D displays all synced together.  Yes it was amazing, the colours, the speed of the 4K displays, etc.  Wow. 

Until consumer units get down to $500 (and it will as Frys has a sub $800 60") and it will be come mainstream.  I have a friend that bought a Ł1000 3D Samsung, and now after a few months it is now Ł600. It is a fad, and one day it will become an included feature on a future TV purchases.

[Xiaou2]

Heheh.   But for me, that is a 'little' blurb   

Even this varies from content to content seemingly with no regard to the tech being used.  I have sat in cheap old theaters and watched really good 3D.  I sat in an IMAX for the last Harry Potter movie and the 3D was a jumbled up cluster-F of blur.  The 3D in the previews before that same movie was good enough that I was swatting at objects floating in front of me.  I have yet to see one technology that consistently works for me.  It is worth noting that I am 20-15 in one eye and 20-50 in the other.

 First, I agree that the glass globe scene.. and pretty much everything in that film that was 3d, was very poor.

 HOWEVER..  in the final Potters..  they really upped the game.  The 3d was flawless, and quite stunning.   One of the most memorable scenes was when the messy house righted itself back into order.   It was magnitudes better over the previous releases.   There certainly was something they did differently.. and or the deciphering technology just got 1000x more advanced.

 That potter scene with the globes was like the first Superman with the 3d clips in it.   A little less glitchy, but still horrible and disappointing.   I have to wonder if certain studios were cutting corners to "test the waters" ... for a possible "larger" future investment, in processing-power, for the next films...

 Either way... the final films were incredibly good in 3d.    Dont get me wrong... I think there are techniques that could have made certain aspects better..  but as they were.. it was really great to see the depth and details that you normally do not get to see and experience.

 

It's a technology which was rejected 30 years ago

 It wasnt rejected.  3D stereoscopy has never ceased.  Has been in public interest since the days of the old handheld 'center-split'  side-by-side stereo photograph viewers..   which would later transform into the 'viewmaster' much later. 

  Plenty of people have always been interested in 3d.  Are still interested, and own many 3d games, comics, movies.. etc.   See Imax films,  have a  3DS...  and are woooing over the Occulus Rift  all over the place.


 The problem was that the older 3d, initially red/blue..  made a purple mess.   You lost the color and clarity of the image.     

 The latter LCD shutter glasses was a pretty good hit with the Sega Master System...  so much so, that they sold a full 3d packaged version.    However, the framerate flicker wasnt optimal...  and the LCDs were much slower and much more expensive...  (to make a decent profit on).

 Tvs were capable of 3d...  but that would mean all new 3d cameras..   as well many technical hurdles.   Even IF the content was backed... the LCDs and tv refresh rates would be clunky at best.   Lots of flicker, darker image, and any effect would have been minimal due to the small sizes of the tvs back then.   Projectors were only for the ultra rich... well out of consumer reach.   You couldnt even pick up a decent camcorder without trading in a kidney.

 The Virtua Boy... I was interested... but when I heard it was merely red and black.. I opted out.   Had it been full color 3d..  even in a more simplistic form...  Id had been all over it.   Heck, if they had made a few must-play/have games... I may have jumped on it anyways.   I think a lot of people felt the same way.    The titles were more centered like 'tests', rather than full blown, highly polished games.

 3DS - Id get one if I wasnt in debt.   Ill own it one day..  probably used... but still...

 PC 3d never could get off the ground..  because no tech group could get game devs to put in patches for their games initially..   and that no company who made specs,  would make them 'open'.   Their glasses only worked with their video cards & hardware.   That makes game devs less likely to support them... because a good deal of their possible sales may be with machines that do not have that said CPU / Video card.    It was a sad joke.

 Even the highly passionate people who Were putting out 3D glasses and material.. were not able to get it to the masses.. because of the lack of standards, large scale support, driver issues, windows issues / bugs / lack of native support...  and lack of large scale advertising / large game company design / and no titles worth playing... let alone playing in 3D.

 It "COULD"  have been big back then..  had someone like Microsoft built in 3d support right into the OS.. and someone, maybe them..  made glasses available with no need of specialty drivers/cards..etc.

 
 These days, 3d is finally able to get to the masses...  due in large part to the efforts of Imax, and the mere Technological advancements over the last 20+ yrs.   High density data, processing power, specialized converters, high level of storage capability on digital media,  affordable cheap HD 3d displays and glasses.

 The costs have gone so far down, that the big companies now have little problem investing in the tech.   Especially when it proved it could get masses back into the theaters... at a premium profit.

Giant text notwithstanding, no, I am not.  You cannot fight physics.  When you view a natural image, both eyes get the full amount of light available, and your brain merges it.  Close one eye, and you get half the light.  Polarize the light, and you are discarding half again.  The tech your friend's setup is using, is at the lower end of the scale for brightness.  The dual projector setup is better, as images are not alternated from one source, so you get the "maximum" of 50% of the light being generated.  Your brain will compensate, and in a very dark room it may be acceptable, but it can't have the "punch" in vibrancy that a standard 2D image has at the same lumen output.

DLP has it's own issues, and having owned one and being susceptible to rainbow effects and flicker, I wasn't too impressed.  DLP doesn't necessarily make for a better projector, but a better and often smaller projector for the price.  There is only one picture producing element instead of three, and no complex optics or large optical paths.  But they do have a fast and constantly spinning motor, which produces more noise and leads to shorter MTBFs.

 Umm, I dont think you have to Polarize a DLP projection.  Polarization takes place in dual projector setups.

 But I can tell you that the colors were saturated, details were crystal, contrast was deep and picture was very vidid and bright.    Im an artist, with a very high level of awareness and ability to differentiate very subtle changes in color, hue, shade, contrast..etc.   I scored a 100% on the 1st try of the color match test that was posted here... without altering my monitors settings... nor taking more than a few minutes.

 What you have to realize...  is that it doesnt matter if your display gets a little dimmer with glasses... because just like an old monitor thats ages a little.. you just crank up the settings a little.. and its all good.   His settings were not even near max.. and they were beautiful.   As clear, bright, and vividly colorful, as anything Ive seen on any display or projection.

 Ive seen him run the same projector mid-day with the blinds drawn.. but there was still a lot of ambient light in the room.  The picture was still very vivid and bright.

 Maybe the lesser luminance models would be an issue..  But this isnt the case here.  Also, being that the glasses flicker at a higher rate.. it reduces the level of the light reduction.  At least, it certainly is a noticable difference between these and my elder master system glasses.

 Then again, if you have any elder HD projector with lower luminance levels..  your pictures probably gona suck worse anyways.  AND it wont be in 3d.   AND the color and contrast is probably far lower.  And the refresh is probably slower...

 Just because you use two projectors doesnt mean squat..  if both projectors are crappier in their output.
Its double the cost, and sub par on the return.     Im not saying that you couldnt get a better picture using Two of those same DLP models in 2d mode, using a polorizing solution.   However.. from what Ive JUST seen, that just isnt needed anymore, to get a Jaw dropping Imax experience in your living room.

 A lot can happen on the space of a mere year, let alone a few.   LCDs used to be the worst..  but now they are acceptable, and even surpassing CRTs...   Refresh and lag nearly put to rest..  and color depth and contrast has shot through the roof compared to only a few years ago.   So, until you can say that you have seen the new projector Ive just listed, in person, with a nice +10' screen..   (I think his was 12'.. and we sat maybe 14' back from it)       then your just mumbling of OLD data that is no longer relevant.

 As for the Rainbow effect Ive heard about... I saw none of that.  Nothing even in heavy and fast action.
I had not watched any 2d movies..  only 3d... so not sure if that counts.  However, it was impressive to say the least.  Never expected what came out of that thing.  I was floored...   and thats no easy feat.

You didn't, you just don't have a proper frame of reference to be able to make such a comparison...unless your friend also owns an IMAX theater, and has his $1500 projector set up in the next room over.

 The only real tangible thing the Imax "FILM" has over his setup, is size and resolution.   But the feeling, look, depth, all was relative to the Imax experience.    Especially when you put it to scale of how far I sit away from an Imax screen relative to its size.   I was actually closer to the images than in a typical imax, due to closer seating ability... which equates to better visibility and greater 3d pop-out + depth.

 It put the "Real-D" crap Id seen in other theaters to shame.. by Miles.   I shouldnt even mention that.. because its not even on the radar really.   Im just saying... that the experience was spot on.   In many times far better... as theres no travel, no punks making noise, no hats in the way..etc.

My point is that I do not listen to my music in stereo.  I like to watch movies in surround due to the special effects.

 That makes so little sense... unless you are deaf in one ear.   In that case, theres no need to even bring it up, because in that case... you would have to have one eye to make the relevant argument.

 Music is encoded in stereo for depth effect.   Some have recordings that represent where the actual members would be playing.   Some bands play live, using Stereo mixing equipment and pan sounds around.  Not to mention... if your hearing a band live... you ARE hearing audio from multiple sources IN STEREO!  Due to you having two ears.

 Now, if your deaf in one ear... I get it..   But if your hearing is fine in both ears, you are missing out on a far greater auditory experience.   Especially with certain bands and certain recordings.

 In my opinion, all audio music should be in full surround sound, on DVD media... with the ability to play it back in various methods.  Such as either in the normal surround mode -or-  selecting individual speakers to represent individual instruments... for the ultimate in non-distorting audio representation.

The projector screen look as good as the wall, so off it went back to the store.

 Then heres my take on it... either you have an amazingly flat and perfect wall...  OR, your projector setup sucks.. or your eyes suck... or you had a very crappy screen.   A good screen made properly, with the proper materials... will create a highly reflective surface..  and will provide a FAR superior picture with a typical projector.

 They do sell customized movie theater wall paint.  However, its probably quite expensive.. and not easy to put down without any imperfections.

 

Yet this technology was used in 1953 with the House of Wax, and that technology died a death too.

 Uhh, did you hear?   3D never died.  Your using it right now to see things with your TWO EYES.   Oh, and the fact that 3d in entertainment hasnt died either... in fact, its expanding daily..  as pretty much all of the films are presented in Imax 3d.    The tech has been around well before 1953..   but the tech to pull it off flawlessly, is only now present, due to technological advances, and far reduced costs.

 Seeing in 3d isnt a FAD.  If you have limited depth perception, much like your possibly limited auditory perception... then thats why you feel that way.   But the reality is that many people have far greater depth perception, and they experience something that you cant understand / grasp.   So to you, the value isnt there.   And why would you expect a steak to not be a 'fad'... when everthing you eat tastes like hot dogs?   You obviously do not have a very robust pallet.. and or have a cranial issue that is interfering in processing.  Regardless... the tech will continue to advance, because far more people Do have a decent palette... and the joy in the output, is far worth the extra money spent.

 As for 4k..  it doesnt mean much to me.  Its nice to have the extra... but unless your running a Massive display, and or are mere feet away from it..  its kind of a waste of data.    The only thing that might be nice, is higher PPI for better analog arcade monitor simulation.

 Also, does 4k even support 16+10 ?   Or did they stay at 1080p x 4?    The aspect ration should have been 16.10  or wider, from the start.    Then again, we have been scrooged from the start.. .with composite, svideo, and many other limited degraded outputs on consumer devices.. for so many years.


 Stereoscopy is the future.   Whether it be in glasses format, lenticular format,  HMD format..  or Matrix  "Jacked-In"...

[lilshawn]

i have a rift... i don't need no 3d tv. 

*crickets*

anywho, My SIL has a Samsung 3D TV and she hasn't used the "3D" part of it in forever. even she said it was a gimmick and it's worn off. even the "smart" tv part doesn't get used. it's slow as all hell and much easier to just turn around an log onto facebook or twitter or whatever from the computer.

[ark_ader]

I'm really excited for X2 and his love for 3D projectors.  He makes a fair argument, for the use of 3D in the home, and who knows if this technology is augmented with Kinect for enhanced gameplay.  Seeing something so cool like pop out  cinema should have some revenue generation.  Perhaps porn will be its new outlet.

I do hope X2 calms down now, as his comments are of merit. It is the delivery method and unfortunate comments or slights in his responses, that need to be held in check.

[RandyT]

The problem was that the older 3d, initially red/blue..  made a purple mess.   You lost the color and clarity of the image.     

I guess you didn't see Adventures in the Forbidden Zone back in the 80's.  It was one of the first to start using the polarized technology you see today, not red and blue lenses.

The Virtua Boy... I was interested... but when I heard it was merely red and black.. I opted out.   Had it been full color 3d..  even in a more simplistic form...  Id had been all over it.   Heck, if they had made a few must-play/have games... I may have jumped on it anyways.   I think a lot of people felt the same way.    The titles were more centered like 'tests', rather than full blown, highly polished games.

This was essentially a "Viewmaster" with a couple of back lit Gameboys inside.  Red was likely selected due to the fact that inexpensive, high output LED's in other colors were not yet widely available.

*edit*  Turns out these were actually two oscillated LED line displays, so that explains the color.  Same principle for the 3D effect, however.

3DS - Id get one if I wasnt in debt.   Ill own it one day..  probably used... but still...

Most people I know who own one, turn the 3D off.  Even my 11 year old nephew doesn't care about the 3D.  It's not that it isn't a cool effect, just that there are too many drawbacks to actually using it.

Even the highly passionate people who Were putting out 3D glasses and material.. were not able to get it to the masses.. because of the lack of standards, large scale support, driver issues, windows issues / bugs / lack of native support...  and lack of large scale advertising / large game company design / and no titles worth playing... let alone playing in 3D.

 It "COULD"  have been big back then..  had someone like Microsoft built in 3d support right into the OS.. and someone, maybe them..  made glasses available with no need of specialty drivers/cards..etc.

Every technology is market driven.  If there was interest in the technology, it would have blossomed and grew.  History has shown that the demand was not there, so there was no need to further pursue any of the things which were required to improve it.  This is a marketplace rejection, in it's purest form.
 

These days, 3d is finally able to get to the masses...  due in large part to the efforts of Imax, and the mere Technological advancements over the last 20+ yrs.   High density data, processing power, specialized converters, high level of storage capability on digital media,  affordable cheap HD 3d displays and glasses.

 The costs have gone so far down, that the big companies now have little problem investing in the tech.   Especially when it proved it could get masses back into the theaters... at a premium profit.

When the latest films were only offered in 3D, the viewing public had no choice.  Avatar is held up as an example of the profits it could bring.  The problem is, Avatar is an impressive film without 3D, and if folks wanted to see it, they were forced to the 3D technology.  Few 3D titles have come close to what Avatar was able to do.  Curiosity also played a part and added to the initial success.  The novelty has waned, and so has the demand for 3D in the theaters.  The high ticket prices was also a factor, which it would not be if the viewing public found value in the tech.

Umm, I dont think you have to Polarize a DLP projection.  Polarization takes place in dual projector setups.

You are correct.  The last post had the two technologies conflated.  There's no need to polarize with shutter glasses.  However, there are losses in the liquid crystal medium which do not allow 100% of the light to reach the active eye.  They also introduce a color shift, as the medium is not a neutral filter.  Losses are estimated at 10-20%.  So at a 15% loss, you end up with 85% / 2, which means that you get only 42% of the light you would normally get in 2D, for the same lumen output.  The polarizers should be better, but still can't go over 50% in total.

What you have to realize...  is that it doesnt matter if your display gets a little dimmer with glasses... because just like an old monitor thats ages a little.. you just crank up the settings a little.. and its all good.   His settings were not even near max.. and they were beautiful.   As clear, bright, and vividly colorful, as anything Ive seen on any display or projection.

Projectors don't really work this way.  You have a light source, and once you are at the maximum, there's no going higher.  When you start talking about LCD technology, the issue becomes worse.  Changing brightness and contrast settings lead to poor blacks, washed out colors, etc...  If the image size isn't too large, and the projector not too far from the screen, there may be a range for adjustment.  But most will be looking for the largest and brightest screen the room will allow.

Maybe the lesser luminance models would be an issue..  But this isnt the case here.  Also, being that the glasses flicker at a higher rate.. it reduces the level of the light reduction.  At least, it certainly is a noticable difference between these and my elder master system glasses.

 Then again, if you have any elder HD projector with lower luminance levels..  your pictures probably gona suck worse anyways.  AND it wont be in 3d.   AND the color and contrast is probably far lower.  And the refresh is probably slower...

There's a lot more to the equation.  Image size, optics quality, size of the imaging element, etc...  The folks really into home theater will not give up picture quality for brightness, or gimmickery.  I've had a number of projectors, different technologies and different price levels.  The one I use now is a PT-AE4000U, and at 1600 lumens, the image quality is better than any I have seen.  I also have a newish 2000 lumen "classroom" projector which has a brighter image, but the image quality doesn't come close to that of the PT-AE4000U.  What it always boils down to is, how much one can spend, and what quality is expected.  Projectors with 3D cost more, so buyers are faced with the choice of getting a better 2D projector which is within their budget, or sacrificing quality and brightness for 3D viewing.  Most won't choose the latter.

A faster flicker doesn't allow more light to pass.  It's a duty cycle, pure and simple.  Once there is no perceivable flicker, then the duty cycle is optimal.  You still only get a theoretical maximum of 50% of the light.

Just because you use two projectors doesnt mean squat..  if both projectors are crappier in their output.
Its double the cost, and sub par on the return.     Im not saying that you couldnt get a better picture using Two of those same DLP models in 2d mode, using a polorizing solution.   However.. from what Ive JUST seen, that just isnt needed anymore, to get a Jaw dropping Imax experience in your living room.

If you have a lot of family members or friends viewing, it negates the need for costly, sometimes bulky, battery powered glasses.  You can even get 3D glasses in a prescription lens.  Passive 3D also offers much better color reproduction as the glasses are more neutral, as well as having no possible flicker or cross talk between the images, making for a better 3D effect.  Whether or not you need those things is a matter of choice, but there are distinct advantages.

As for the Rainbow effect Ive heard about... I saw none of that.  Nothing even in heavy and fast action.

The rainbowing effect will affect different individuals differently.  It has something to do with how fast your brain will process what you see.  Just like some people will be affected by 60hz lighting, some will see the rainbow effect, even at high speeds.  It's most noticeable when looking at something which is white (all three colors being shown in succession) and quickly looking away at something else on the screen.

The only real tangible thing the Imax "FILM" has over his setup, is size and resolution.

Two things which home theater buffs find very important, among other things. 

In the end, if you like it, then buy it.  But the plain fact is, the market has not indicated that it currently has any willingness to embrace the technology, and without the demand, along with the public's willingness to pay for it, content providers will not step up.  Without a steady stream of affordable content, the 3D capability on the display is useless.  And just as important, a lot of people just don't want to wear glasses while watching TV.

[Vigo]

But the plain fact is, the market has not indicated that it currently has any willingness to embrace the technology, and without the demand, along with the public's willingness to pay for it, content providers will not step up.  Without a steady stream of affordable content, the 3D capability on the display is useless.  And just as important, a lot of people just don't want to wear glasses while watching TV.

Whether or not it is being embraced is one issue, but I don't think home 3d is going anywhere. 3D processing can be farted out in hours and many big brand tvs as of last year come packaged with 3D support as a standard feature. Glasses are turning completely generic as well. It is too damn cheap to not implement 3D. I think 3D won't be jammed down our throats so much anymore, but more be used as a gimmick to get people to buy the more expensive release of the latest pixar film or summer blockbuster.

[ChadTower]

3D is content driven.  Not many typical consumers are going to care about 3D until 3D has content they want.  I guarantee you the first time NFL games are shown in good 3D on a broadcast channel 3D adoption will start en masse.  The problem with the first wave of 3DTVs wasn't the technology as much as it was the fact that it came way too soon after the last shift in $1500 TVs.  The further we get from large size HDTVs being common the more likely we are that people are going to be more willing to buy the next thing.

[RandyT]

Both points are good ones.  However, there is a caveat: Until inclusion of 3D is "free", it must compete in the marketplace. 3D sets (and projectors) cost more, sometimes substantially more, than units of the same quality which don't have it.  3D was responsible for stalling the incremental price drop as manufacturing technology improved to the point of being able to offer larger sets at a lower cost.  Instead of seeing prices on the sets go down, they actually went up, and included the 3D technology.  As almost all manufacturers of new, higher end displays dropped the 2D counterparts, the consumer was forced to pay for the 3D technology if they wished to get a larger set from the manufacturer.  I'm talking from experience, as I was able to buy a previous years model of the Panasonic 65" Plasma at a cost savings of $500 over the current year.  Same display, but no 3D.  They discontinued the 2D only model, leaving no choice for the consumer.  The same can be said of the "smart" TV's.  I believe this course has been reversed, as you now see larger sets at a lower price point, and those are simple 2D only.  This is the marketplace speaking.

And I'm not convinced that football will be the "killer app" for 3D.  ESPN was one of the first to offer sports in a dedicated 3D format.  Lasted about two years before they pulled the plug on it.  Big, bright and clear presentations will, IMHO, win out.

[lilshawn]

3D is content driven.  Not many typical consumers are going to care about 3D until 3D has content they want.  I guarantee you the first time NFL games are shown in good 3D on a broadcast channel 3D adoption will start en masse.  The problem with the first wave of 3DTVs wasn't the technology as much as it was the fact that it came way too soon after the last shift in $1500 TVs.  The further we get from large size HDTVs being common the more likely we are that people are going to be more willing to buy the next thing.

the problem with having an NFL game in 3D would be...well take a look at a current NFL game... it's recorded from 300 feet away. you aren't going to get much 3D effect at that kind of distance. short of making it look like you are staring out at the field through a window... and then switching scenes to closeups...no thanks. THAT will be hard on your brain.

the main issue with 3D movies is that it's blatantly obvious they made a particular scene for 3D. They try WAY too hard.... the character reaches out towards the camera...a paddleball ball is hit towards the viewer... an item is tossed at you... it's so obvious it enrages me. WOOOOOO LOOOOK THREEEEE DEEEE LIK REAL LYFE MY HAND IS GOING TO TOUCH YOU BLAH!  /sarcasm

[RandyT]

the main issue with 3D movies is that it's blatantly obvious they made a particular scene for 3D. They try WAY too hard.... the character reaches out towards the camera...a paddleball ball is hit towards the viewer... an item is tossed at you... it's so obvious it enrages me. WOOOOOO LOOOOK THREEEEE DEEEE LIK REAL LYFE MY HAND IS GOING TO TOUCH YOU BLAH!  /sarcasm

You said it.  We were watching one of the latest releases the other day and that started happening.  Completely forced shots, and looked totally out of place with the context of the scene. Bleah...

[pbj]

Yeah, so, like, everything about cinematography in movies is contrived.  You guys sound old.

[lilshawn]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

[yotsuya]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.

[lilshawn]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.

i'm 30- something. i draw the line at black and white. i have a color TV, it only makes sense to use them all.

plus, i get my fill of 1940's and 50's movies when i visit my grandma and watch on her 20" tube TV.

[yotsuya]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.

i'm 30- something. i draw the line at black and white. i have a color TV, it only makes sense to use them all.

plus, i get my fill of 1940's and 50's movies when i visit my grandma and watch on her 20" tube TV.

Blasphemer!

[ark_ader]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.8

i'm 30- something. i draw the line at black and white. i have a color TV, it only makes sense to use them all.


Black and white is more enjoyable than colour.  Like the old twilight zone episodes.


plus, i get my fill of 1940's and 50's movies when i visit my grandma and watch on her 20" tube TV.

[ChadTower]

the problem with having an NFL game in 3D would be...well take a look at a current NFL game... it's recorded from 300 feet away. you aren't going to get much 3D effect at that kind of distance. short of making it look like you are staring out at the field through a window... and then switching scenes to closeups...no thanks. THAT will be hard on your brain.

They do have the ability to change that.  The XFL Camera... erm I mean the NFL Patented Camera On A Trolley Suspended Above The Field... is a whole lot closer to that.  Add a few more and you would have all the angles you need.


The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake in 3D was pretty damn freaky.  They made really good use of the 3D.  It was a lot more than just floaty blood droplets.

[Vigo]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.

  That is a classic. I didn't see it until later in my life, but I loved B&W's and silents since I was a kid. I was a tiny little spud when I first saw it, but Le voyage dans la lune is still pure magic to me.

[lilshawn]

i feel like i'm in that weird part of the internet again.

back to cat videos. 

[Xiaou2]

I guess you didn't see Adventures in the Forbidden Zone back in the 80's.  It was one of the first to start using the polarized technology you see today, not red and blue lenses.

 I do not remember the 1st polorized 3d thing Id seen.   However,  few theaters back then would have been set up and equipped to utilize stereocopy with polorization.   No big name movies were made with it.  Has something more popular..  that could have changed the demand and market for 3d overnight.

 It was the same problem back in the elder anaglyph days.   Most of the films were low budget crap that was pushed out as fast as possible.   Adding purplish 3d depth to that, did nothing to pack the house.

 And in fact, Imax really didnt take off until decent content started to pour in.   Some of their mini films were really horrible..  and some were "ok"  at best..  but some of them left you wishing for a blockbuster movie that had good actors, a good story..etc.

 Snippits of conversions got people in, in far greater numbers..  but it probably wasnt until  Avatar, that it really kicked up the traffic.

This was essentially a "Viewmaster" with a couple of back lit Gameboys inside.  Red was likely selected due to the fact that inexpensive, high output LED's in other colors were not yet widely available.

 Surprisingly, Ive never looked inside it.  The point was that the lack of full color and good game content ruined it.   The same could have been said for the NES... if Super Mario Bros. hadnt been released.   The   Sega Master System had far more capability, however... it didnt have the game that everybody wanted to play...    And many of Sega's own games were not very high in quality & playability.   You cant expect a version of Outrun, on master system hardware, to sell the system.   Still... games like Zillion, Wonderboy in Monster Land, Shooting Gallery, Global Defense 3D, and a few others..  are still some of my favorites to this day.   And nobody can deny,  the original Phantasy Star, was quite epic, especially for its day.

 Sadly, Alex kid BMX...  and that fire-rescue game.. both using a custom spinner.. were never released.  Those looked fun too.  Ohh, and it was also sad that they didnt add the Stereo sound chip / add-on, found in the Mark III version.

Most people I know who own one, turn the 3D off.  Even my 11 year old nephew doesn't care about the 3D.  It's not that it isn't a cool effect, just that there are too many drawbacks to actually using it.

 Thats because a lenticular display isnt that great of an idea.   You have to be at very exact positions, and not move from them.  For kids, that an especially difficult task      It also can put strain on your body, depending on how you hold it, and are sitting.   And finally, it also depends on if the games depth really adds to the experience.   Not all 3d is done well...  Or adds to the value of the experience.    A game that has a certain kind of perspective, may not have a lot of depth information..  and or the artwork, might be too limited in detail and or missing depth elements.

Every technology is market driven.  If there was interest in the technology, it would have blossomed and grew.  History has shown that the demand was not there, so there was no need to further pursue any of the things which were required to improve it.  This is a marketplace rejection, in it's purest form.

 This is a load of Bull.

 As said, you could have the greatest console hardware out there.. and have it flop.  Not because the hardware... but because of a lack of good media.

 Even good movies are sometimes flops, because there was poor advertising, bad timing, other competing films, and other similar reasons.

When the latest films were only offered in 3D, the viewing public had no choice.  Avatar is held up as an example of the profits it could bring.  The problem is, Avatar is an impressive film without 3D, and if folks wanted to see it, they were forced to the 3D technology.  Few 3D titles have come close to what Avatar was able to do.  Curiosity also played a part and added to the initial success.  The novelty has waned, and so has the demand for 3D in the theaters.  The high ticket prices was also a factor, which it would not be if the viewing public found value in the tech.

 WTH?   AFAIK, no modern film was shown without a 2d version available.

 As for Avatar... its Not that good of a movie  'on its own'.   I wasnt going to see it initially, but when Id heard Imax 3d, I decided to go.  Blew my mind.   Saw it twice.. maybe 3 times.    Sadly, when it came back around as an extended cut.. it was only shown on the Read-D theaters.   It was a HUGE let-down.   The depth was almost all gone.. and you didnt feel like you were in the enviornment.   You didnt get that same intricate level of detail either.   And as such,  the lackings in the film were even more apparent and bothersome.

 Still, its far more entertaining than any of those old Imax short films.  And even in 2d, beats some serious stinkers out there.  But, Avatar isnt in my collection.  And only will, if I have a good 3d display to watch it on.
 

You are correct.  The last post had the two technologies conflated.  There's no need to polarize with shutter glasses.  However, there are losses in the liquid crystal medium which do not allow 100% of the light to reach the active eye.  They also introduce a color shift, as the medium is not a neutral filter.  Losses are estimated at 10-20%.  So at a 15% loss, you end up with 85% / 2, which means that you get only 42% of the light you would normally get in 2D, for the same lumen output.  The polarizers should be better, but still can't go over 50% in total.

 Sorry, but this is more garbage.   If someone spliced a frame of porn into one of your 60fps on a new digital display.. you would never know it.   You couldnt detect it.

 This is what you are talking about.  Something that cant really be detected.  As I donned the glasses.. there was a little dimming.  However, nothing like half.  And once the picture was in sync, and lights were dimmed..  things were vivid and bright as any movie in 2d Ive ever watched.

 As Ive stated, Im an artists.  I have excellent tonal awareness and abilities.  If I cant detect it, then 98% of the world whos optical abilities and far worse awareness..  will never see the difference.   

Projectors don't really work this way.  You have a light source, and once you are at the maximum, there's no going higher.  When you start talking about LCD technology, the issue becomes worse.  Changing brightness and contrast settings lead to poor blacks, washed out colors, etc...  If the image size isn't too large, and the projector not too far from the screen, there may be a range for adjustment.  But most will be looking for the largest and brightest screen the room will allow.

  Your again talking non-sense.   You can change the tonal properties of an input signal to produce a different scale of output.  They even do this sort of thing on elder CRT tvs.

 Also, as far as light goes... the lamp itself, in this.. and many other models.. has dual power modes.   Heck, I just picked up an old 2d projector for cheap at a thrift shop.. and it has a lamp brightness control on it.  The thing is pretty ancient.

There's a lot more to the equation.  Image size, optics quality, size of the imaging element, etc...  The folks really into home theater will not give up picture quality for brightness, or gimmickery.  I've had a number of projectors, different technologies and different price levels.  The one I use now is a PT-AE4000U, and at 1600 lumens, the image quality is better than any I have seen.  I also have a newish 2000 lumen "classroom" projector which has a brighter image, but the image quality doesn't come close to that of the PT-AE4000U.  What it always boils down to is, how much one can spend, and what quality is expected.  Projectors with 3D cost more, so buyers are faced with the choice of getting a better 2D projector which is within their budget, or sacrificing quality and brightness for 3D viewing.  Most won't choose the latter.

 Well, that explains it.  If you think either of those is comparable to whats out now... your off your rocker.

 Its like your trying to compare the sega master system to the NES..   but the reality is that the projector Im reviewing.. is more in the realm of PS3 compared to your NES.

 The visual quality of the output in magnitudes over either of your projectors.

If you have a lot of family members or friends viewing, it negates the need for costly, sometimes bulky, battery powered glasses.  You can even get 3D glasses in a prescription lens.  Passive 3D also offers much better color reproduction as the glasses are more neutral, as well as having no possible flicker or cross talk between the images, making for a better 3D effect.  Whether or not you need those things is a matter of choice, but there are distinct advantages.

 In the past, Id have agreed.  But then again.. I dont have the money for two HD projectors either.  The glasses are now very cheap, the color shift isnt noticible - and could easily be adjusted,  they were comfy, and there was no sign of flicker... let alone cross talk.      That what happens as tech advances.   Remarkable ehh?

Quote

    The only real tangible thing the Imax "FILM" has over his setup, is size and resolution.


Two things which home theater buffs find very important, among other things.

 Which is my point.  If your going to make a theater at home... it should be larger than 6ft wide.   No, its not going to be a 50ft tall screen..  like Imax...  but with a 12 to 15' screen... and you sitting much closer than typical at an Imax... the scale of the effect is pretty much the same.

 And as for greater resolution... there are NO current affordable imax level resolution projectors for consumers.. let alone any media with that level of resolution.   You do know that Imax isnt 1080p right?  heh    And that Digital Imax is also different than Film based Imax ...

 I dont even think that 4k displays have full imax capability.   Id have to do some fact checking.   But even if they did... most people couldnt get a screen big enough to see the differences as clearly and intended.

And just as important, a lot of people just don't want to wear glasses while watching TV.


 Thats such a ---smurf-poo--- and Tired excuse.

 If I get the Imax level experience out of whatever Im viewing.. I could care less what Im wearing.  I already wear glasses as it is.   Didnt start till late in life.   And Im happy to do so, because I can see the details in life much better.
Same with 3d content.  I can see and experience movie content in ways that 2d cant portray.  Its well worth the possible discomfort... though, if you get a decent set of glasses, you wont feel a thing.

[RandyT]

No point in continuing if you believe that 100% divided by 2 can somehow be greater than 50%, and can't be bothered to research the subject.  If you like it, and you obviously do, all the facts in the world won't be acceptable to you. 

By all means, enjoy it, but try not to be too upset that a majority of the public isn't as enamored by it as you seem to be.  Or, continue to proselytize for it, albeit a few years late, with the hope of changing an already well-established popular opinion.  Really makes no difference to me 

[EightBySix]

I'm not really interested in 3D until it can convey more information than 2D. When it works like the scene in Bladerunner where Harrison ford is examining the photo, I'll get one....

[ark_ader]

I'm not really interested in 3D until it can convey more information than 2D. When it works like the scene in Bladerunner where Harrison ford is examining the photo, I'll get one....

Those were holographic photos, which will be the replacement of 3D.  I also read about a theory that the reverse image that was taken by a SLR either chemical or digital back, of the eye of the original photographer is embedded in the photograph.  Perhaps that is where the Blade Runner image processor system came to edit in the movie, as the theory was generated in the late 1970s.

[Xiaou2]

No point in continuing

I agree.  No point in wasting time on an old guy who makes pathetic junk comparatively, to the controllers of the 80s.
It pretty much speaks volumes about what that kind of person is and stands for, IMO.

I'm not really interested in 3D until it can convey more information than 2D

 Uhh, it already Does.  You see with two eyes.  Each eye has a different perspective line, so when viewing the same object, you get different views of it.  When combined, you get a far more detailed image, as well as the Depth that comes alone with that.

which will be the replacement of 3D.

 Holography is NOT the replacement of 3d.

 Plain and simple, Holography, if done volumetrically.. "IS"  3d... because it takes up 3d space.   The problem is, if you Could make it happen technically in that format...  that it does not work for typical media such as movies.   For example, if you are seated in a certain spot.. you may see the actors fine.  However, if your seated a little to the right..  a holographic image may hamper your ability to see them.   Not to mention, if you look at the actor from the left, you might see their facial expressions and hand movements.. but from the right..  you miss almost all of that.

 AND...

 If its non-volumetric holography...  then its merely a FLAT image that hovers in space.  Whoop Tee Doo.   Thats pretty much like a floating TV screen.  It does nothing to represent actual 3d depth.


 From what Ive heard..  there was a company that made a volumetric holographic projector.   Said the image was so real, you wouldnt know the difference between reality and the projection.  HOWEVER... if your hand went in the path of the projection, you would get an instant 3rd degree burn.  Being that it superheated the air ... probably using some sort of plasma effect.

 
 The only thing that will replace good stereoscopic displays and projectors, is Stereoscoic head mounted displays... such as the Occulous Rift.   Problem is that miniaturization on that scale, will take many more years before its cost effective.  They are having trouble getting 1080p naitive on the thing..  let alone 4k and beyond...  and Im not sure how far away you are from that virtual screen either.. which again, impacts the experience.   I think they are also warp-distorting the image too.   Which may be ok for games.. but not great for typical movie content.


 As for holographic photography... thats a whole other discussion.   Its more like where the camera not only picks up the light.. but also does a laser-like scan of all the data.  The amount of information would be reliant of how many sensors, the resolution, and the level of sonic / laser scanning abilities.  Probably also combining inferred spectrum into the mix.  Its stuff that could be done today...  but due to a lack of infrastructure, and thus demand..  you wont see it on the consumer equipment.

 3D displays taking a firm hold, would make such a capture device far more likely to be released to the consumers.

[Xiaou2]

the eye of the original photographer is embedded in the photograph. 

 That might only be, if the camera was using a lens system similar to the elder film cameras use.. where as the your line of sight is put into the path of the image via mirrors.

 If its all digital, you are getting a tv picture fed to you on a display.  Theres no longer a need or desire to look down into a physical viewfinder.   In that case, the only way to see whom took the image, would be from reflections of them on the various images in the room..  and noting the color changes based upon VERY complex raytracing sessions.

 Raytracing, is the system of lighting 3d objects using individual light rays (beams).   As the light hits various objects and surfaces.. it changes and or bounces off into and onto other surfaces.   The more rays you calculate.. the more complex and longer it will take to produce the final frame.   However, it will also look more true to life.   Which is why many 3d games and objects do not look as good as some movie and tv commercial images and animations.

 Some games, especially ones from the past..  have pre-rendered many of the graphics using raytracing.  One such game was Marble Madness.

 To deconstruct an image, trying to figure out the light rays in reverse, seems monumentally incomprehensible... even with a large amount of 3d data from a stereoscopic+sonic camera.   Probably need 7000 linked pcs working for a few months to get anything relevant.

[RandyT]

I agree.  No point in wasting time on an old guy who makes pathetic junk comparatively, to the controllers of the 80s.

I suppose 3 patents related to glasses-free 3D displays, many years of research and watching lukewarm acceptance doesn't count for much.  But for fun, here's a shot of my set-up, with a 55" reference for size. 





To get an image of the same brightness in 3D (without even taking image quality into consideration), it would take a 3680 lumen projector.  The latest model (with 3D) in this line costs about double the inexpensive DLP types, yet still puts out only 2400 lumens.  So even with the latest model, in 3D the image would not be as bright.  I'd consider the newer model over my current unit, just for the brightness increase in 2D, but that would be the only reason.  While I have no real need to upgrade at the moment, the inclusion of 3D will not be factor when I do.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I expect that's what will follow...

[ark_ader]

[lilshawn]

using a proper screen reduces the need for increased lumen output on the part of the projector...to the point where you can actually GAIN brightness. ideally you want zero gain to keep everything true,, but when using items like 3D glasses, you would want a slightly +gain screen to overcome the slight loss of the tint in the glasses.

[pbj]

How the hell you going to GAIN brightness?  That doesn't even make sense.

[ChadTower]

WTH?   AFAIK, no modern film was shown without a 2d version available.

This is very, very, very common.  I saw it happen all the time until maybe a year ago.  A theater would have 3 instances of the 3D version and none of the 2D version.  I used to look specifically for the 2D version to take my kids because I wasn't interested in paying an extra $15.  There are a lot of movies we didn't see in the theater, that we would have, because there was no 2D version being offered.

The fact that the studio made a 2D version available has no bearing on whether or not the theater actually put it on a screen.

[RandyT]

How the hell you going to GAIN brightness?  That doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, it doesn't really work that way.  A screen, or any material actually, can only reflect, store or absorb energy.  The "high gain" screens only reduce absorption, or redirect the incoming light directly back to the source (not much good for off axis projection), at the expense of dimmer off axis viewing angles.  In this sense, the word "gain" is a relative term.

*edit* For the sake of accuracy, materials can also "transmit" energy, but it's not really relevant to the discussion, unless it's a rear projection screen. 

[pbj]

Ah, so "gain" actually means "minimize loss."  Got it.   

[ChadTower]

Sort of the same way those clay pot single candle room heaters you see all over the "life hacks" websites actually heat up a room by creating more heat... right?   

[Xiaou2]

Well Randy, Ive looked over the Specs..  and I have to say Im highly doubtful of them. 

 The LCD tech even as recent as a 3 years back...  was always stating how great it was..  and yet there was a ton of visible evidence that they just didnt live up to their hype.  CRTs still produced faster images without any motion blur effect...  Colorspace was severely lacking in tones and accurate color portrayal...  so much so.. that I went back to my old CRTs for graphical work.

 Maybe there were some very high tech LCDs out there.. not in the reach of the mere public poor...   And if thats so.. then thats exactly what you bought.    A very high dollar projector, using LCD tech that was not planned to be put into typical displays and projectors on the mass scale..  until the industry put forth a stream of artificially created "intermediate steps"...  so that people would keep buying the newer models..    Meanwhile, always have been fully capable of producing a much higher level technology during that entire period... and could have been for that same exact price... due to mass scale up.

 So, your argument is that all the movie buffs are spending over $2000 on a projector.    Sorry, but I dont buy it.   Not everyone is going to be able to reach that deeply.

 Yet now that the tech is affordable..  more and more people Are in fact spending money on projectors... usually under a grand.

 As for your picture..  its really not that impressive.   The details seem blurry and lacking.  Maybe its the camera..  but I suspect other things are going on too.   I also didnt find the level of color transitions all that good...  and that contrast is dialed up way too high.. with blinding whites that overpower the surrounding colors.   Is it just that game?   I dont know.

 All I can say for certain.. is that the image looks the same brightness or less, with the glasses on... as my friends Optima.   And that the colors and details are far less sharp than what Ive seen as well.

 If its not so...  its darn close..  and its quite stunning to say the least.

 Id read that the newer projectors with the color wheels..  have far more color accuracy..  as well as are now utilizing a new framerate system to eliminate any flicker.   Not sure if thats what he has or not.  And Im just as surprised as anyone not to detect it in a film.. considering Im very sensitive to visuals.  Super-Aware of small nuances, details, and flaws.  IE - A very tough critic to please.

 I think your in for a shock..  if you head over to someones place that has one of these newer technology setups in place.


 As for your losses, Im sorry to hear..  but the reality is that Glasses Free 3D isnt a very good technology.   It just cant scale up and produce the same effects as with glasses based technology.    HMD's - not counting those... as thats basically a giant set of glasses.

 Anything Lenticular, will never really work well for a room full of people whom are in different positions.

 And anything like those spinning holographic displays... while could be interesting for small game devices and novelties..  again will not scale up enough to be practical.. nor even close to the effect of good stereoscopic film / glasses.

 If you do have Any form of Stereoscopic display, I highly recommend seeing Preditor on it.  Its the original Arnie film converted.. and its probably the best 3d Ive seen to date.  Most especially in regards to live actors, as well as the conversion being so precise and detailed as to make you think they actually shot the film with Stereoscopic cameras from the start.

 (Gah... now I have to wonder if they actually Did plan ahead that far?!   heh )

[RandyT]

Well Randy, Ive looked over the Specs..  and I have to say Im highly doubtful of them. 

 The LCD tech even as recent as a 3 years back...  was always stating how great it was..  and yet there was a ton of visible evidence that they just didnt live up to their hype.  CRTs still produced faster images without any motion blur effect...  Colorspace was severely lacking in tones and accurate color portrayal...  so much so.. that I went back to my old CRTs for graphical work.

 Maybe there were some very high tech LCDs out there.. not in the reach of the mere public poor...   And if thats so.. then thats exactly what you bought.    A very high dollar projector, using LCD tech that was not planned to be put into typical displays and projectors on the mass scale..  until the industry put forth a stream of artificially created "intermediate steps"...  so that people would keep buying the newer models..    Meanwhile, always have been fully capable of producing a much higher level technology during that entire period... and could have been for that same exact price... due to mass scale up.

 So, your argument is that all the movie buffs are spending over $2000 on a projector.    Sorry, but I dont buy it.   Not everyone is going to be able to reach that deeply.

In a day when a large screen LCD or Plasma (my preference) costs around that same amount, it's not as much as you think.  $2000 is a "mid-grade" projector, with the high end costing ~4x as much.  The market for projectors is very diverse, with some caring more about image size and brightness than output quality, or price over installation convenience and "tweakability" of the image.  Many of the lower end models can only be on for 3 hours maximum, before the heat starts to severely degrade the longevity of the bulb, while others can be on all day, every day, with no harmful effects.  All of these features cost money, in the way of more advanced circuitry, specialized optics, mechanical assemblies, etc...  The folks who put the effort in to create a specialized space for home theater, actually use them often, and expect to be able to easily tune the installation to the space, as well as tune the image to the media type being displayed.  Many enthusiasts spend nearly as much on the screen as they do the projector.  This is a far cry from the folks who use a pull down screen and set up a portable unit on the coffee table for the occasional "movie night".  There's nothing wrong at all with doing that, but to expect the same level of cost and performance from the units most well suited to each of those two scenarios, isn't realistic.

The LCD's you are basing your biases on, are not what is inside an LCD projector.  There are three individual units, one for each color, which are factory aligned, and the output of each combined optically, much like the 3 CRT projectors of the past.  The more expensive units use more exotic lamps with spectral responses tuned to overcome any color deficiencies of the LCDs.  Weak red response is common with LCD projection, but some units, like one I am using, use a special lamp which is capable of more red output, resulting in vivid and deeply saturated reds.  Another issue with inexpensive LCD is the "screen door" artifacting, which is a result of the fine black lines between pixels.  These get blown up on large images and can be noticeable.  Again, the better units will have optical elements which eliminate this, and produce a smooth, "film-like" image.  Inexpensive units won't have the same level of hardware.  It's all about budget and expectations, just like any other display technology.

As for whether you believe the specs, that's really up to you.  But people who take this seriously enough to understand what those specs really mean, expect the units to perform exactly as advertised, while the average occasional use consumer will more readily accept specs which are inflated.  It's not uncommon at all for the lower end models to do testing with the units in a wildly inaccurate color mode, included only to boost the numbers in their paperwork.

As for your picture..  its really not that impressive.   The details seem blurry and lacking.  Maybe its the camera..  but I suspect other things are going on too.   I also didnt find the level of color transitions all that good...  and that contrast is dialed up way too high.. with blinding whites that overpower the surrounding colors.   Is it just that game?   I dont know.

 All I can say for certain.. is that the image looks the same brightness or less, with the glasses on... as my friends Optima.   And that the colors and details are far less sharp than what Ive seen as well.

It's a simple snapshot, taken without using a tripod or spending a lot of time tweaking camera settings.  Properly photographing a projected image is not a trivial task, and at the time, was only taken to show the scale, not the quality.  I'm guessing the square footage is also about 3-4 times that of your friend's setup, and that makes a huge difference.  The game also has intentionally washed out "bright daylight" camera effects, so that's what you see in the distance.

There are plenty of properly photographed examples of the projector on the web.   If you are really interested, here's an in-depth review with photos, which really illustrates how many factors are considered when selecting a projector.  For me, black levels and color saturation/accuracy were very important, having previously had a couple of units where this was not great.

As for your losses, Im sorry to hear..  but the reality is that Glasses Free 3D isnt a very good technology.   It just cant scale up and produce the same effects as with glasses based technology.    HMD's - not counting those... as thats basically a giant set of glasses.

 Anything Lenticular, will never really work well for a room full of people whom are in different positions.

The tech I worked on was not lenticular, but actual full sized polished optics.  It used similar technology to HMDs and flight simulators.  It was geared toward gaming machines and informational kiosks, so wide fields of view were not as important.  Initially, there was great enthusiasm, as the effect was excellent.  Without wearing glasses, a viewer could stand in front of the window and see solid or animated objects which appeared to be floating about a foot in front of it, in free space.  People were very interested and impressed by it, but without a useful function it was only a novelty.  If you've seen it a few times, the attraction wanes quickly.  Essentially, the same drawback associated with any current 3D display technology.  EightBySix summed up the limitations perfectly, when he wrote "I'm not really interested in 3D until it can convey more information than 2D."  And due to the fact that the effect is created from 2D planes, it really can't in any useful sense.

[pbj]

Would you two please make out already?

 

[Malenko]

Would you two please make out already?

That explains your avatar. 

[ChadTower]

Looks like a perfectly decent conversation to me.   

I am enjoying reading it.

[pbj]

[yotsuya]

Looks like a perfectly decent conversation to me.   

I am enjoying reading it.

Me too, although it's more:

RT: Facts and data

X2: Anecdotes and Opinion

RT: Counter facts data

X2: More Ancedotes and Opinion

[pbj]

The inherent problem with 3D in the house is that most people do not simply stare at the screen the entire time a show is on.  Kind of hard to look at porn on my phone or fold laundry if I have to wear headgear.

[ChadTower]

Looks like a perfectly decent conversation to me.   

I am enjoying reading it.

Me too, although it's more:

RT: Facts and data

X2: Anecdotes and Opinion

RT: Counter facts data

X2: More Ancedotes and Opinion

That is usually how consumer-producer conversations work.  Consumers operate on feel and opinion while producers use specs and data.  It is the producer's job to make the consumers feel good.  I'm not saying Randy is a producer of 3D display tech but he does come from the producer's mindset given his occupation.

At the end of the day the producers who have created happy consumers are the producers that have succeeded.  The greatest hardware in the world will fail in the market if nobody enjoys using it. 

[Malenko]

That is usually how consumer-producer conversations work.

but X2 hasnt bought anything in 13 years ?

[ChadTower]

That is usually how consumer-producer conversations work.

but X2 hasnt bought anything in 13 years ?

Okay, add "users" in alongside "consumers".  And make the Producer less interested in the opinion of that specific user since that user does not buy anything.   

[pbj]

Guess those crazy checks don't go as far as you'd think.

[Hoopz]

He's going to start threatening people again. 

[ChadTower]

Nah, pbj rarely threatens anyone anymore.

[pbj]

I cannot recall ever threatening anyone ever but thanks, I guess.

 

[Vigo]

I think you might have threatened to post a selfie once or twice. 

[Xiaou2]

Sorry, but I should have realized Randy had a Mega$ projector.   Regardless..  as far as I can tell, he just hasnt seen the new varients out there.

 I looked over the reviews, and discovered a lot more about the new tech going into these.   But seeing is believing.    And while the 2d image
quality may not be as flawless as Randys..  it was Darn good to my critical eyes... especially for the price.

 But where it really shined, was the 3d.   I cant stress this enough.. that I normally would be against lcd glasses in a typical setup... because Ive seen
some horrible flicker on various newer model tvs... and the depth was really poor.

 This however was Lightyears away from that experience.   He started out with the Imax count down animation.. and my Jaw hit the floor, and stayed there the entire time the projector was on.   It was on par with the Imax experience.   You will have to see it to believe it.

 Also, check the reviews.   It gets high marks for excellent black levels, and many high praises on its 3d abilities.

 If this mid-priced 3d projector is this good..  I can only imagine a 4k varient in a later date, using the same technology.

 Truly Incredible.
 

 And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.   To me, while a nice effect, doesnt count, because it wouldnt display full content properly.   Maybe you could show pics or a better explanation.

 According to one guys review.. he has 60 stereoscopic movies and climbing.   So content Is now finally available.   That was in fact a large problem with 3d.

 Windows sorely needs high level stereoscopic editing programs, such as a Stereoscopic drawing / photoshop...

[Malenko]

I cant stress this enough.

but I bet you'll try.

And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.

This makes me think you don't know what a plane or a dimension  is(or at least what one dimensional means).

[ChadTower]

And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.

This makes me think you don't know what a plane or a dimension  is(or at least what one dimensional means).

Maybe dude's projector had vertical collapse? 

SPOT KILLER ISN'T WORKING!  TURN THE GAME OFF BEFORE IT BURNS THE TUBE!

[RandyT]

Sorry, but I should have realized Randy had a Mega$ projector.   Regardless..  as far as I can tell, he just hasnt seen the new varients out there.

*sigh*  I have.  But there are a lot of them now, so there's no way to see them all, any more than you could have seen the one I am using before calling it old junk.  And in case you didn't read fully what I wrote before, I don't have a "Mega$" projector.  I can't justify paying the cost of the good ones which you can only buy through pro installers.  I just chose the best "off the shelf" 2D projector my money could buy, which was considerably less than a 3D capable one of similar quality.  Just got sick of seeing grays where blacks should be, and off color skin tones.  But yes, the price has come down, and quality has improved quite a bit.  I actually paid more five years earlier for a projector which couldn't come close to the one I use now.  But quality improvements, due to technical advancement, scale across the entire price range, not just the low-end.  The unfortunate fact is that 3D is keeping costs high on new units with marginally better 2D quality, so consumers end up having to pay for 3D, whether they want it or not.  And, instead of manufacturers focusing their attention to useful technology which would allow for brighter images while maintaining color purity and true black levels, they can just crank the brightness on older technology for 3D and maintain the status quo for black levels, because they know that the glasses only allow ~40% transmission across the entire gamut. 

Also, check the reviews.   It gets high marks for excellent black levels, and many high praises on its 3d abilities.

I'd like to, but you never stated the model number, so it's hard to even know which one you are talking about.  I'm genuinely curious, because typically DLP has poorer black levels, but usually somewhat sharper images.  But even with all of the improvements in DLP, I am still seeing complaints about the rainbow effects "in the wild".  I probably won't consider DLP until the 3 chip variety become affordable, which should do away with the color wheel.

And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.   To me, while a nice effect, doesnt count, because it wouldnt display full content properly.   Maybe you could show pics or a better explanation.

2D pictures of of 3D stuff is pretty pointless.  But this system actually could do true 3D with an illuminated solid object as the source.  I.e. when you moved within the field of view, you could see behind things which blocked your view in the previous position.  For digital content, it was a projected floating plane, so "scenes" had to be created with multiple synchronized displays at different distances within the system.

The stereoscopic effect you like, is still not real 3D (similar to the digital content described above.)  It's more like 2.5D.  There is no volume, only 2D planes at varying distances from a fixed pupil which has no relation to the viewers' actual position.  It's very unnatural, and your brain knows this.  It's probably why some folks experience dizziness or migraines, as the brain is spending the entire time trying to reconcile what it's seeing.  I saw TRON in 3D at the theater, and could not enjoy it because of this.  I literally felt mentally exhausted when I walked out of the theater, and not in a good way.  When good 3D headgear is perfected, with head (or pupil) tracking with dynamically generated real-time content, based on the position of either of those things, then 3D will have progressed into something very cool and useful.  But this technology being used in films today is the same old tired stuff from decades ago.  I hate to use the coarse phrase of "putting lipstick on a pig" to describe it, but it's unfortunately all I can think of at the moment.

[Xiaou2]

 Sorry, but Holography isnt 3d.   So you projected a realtime image change.  Whoopie.   Its still 'Flat' with Zero depth, no matter what angle you are viewing it at.

 Thats the problem with Holography.

 Movies would never work in Holography format.. because a movie is designed to tell a story from a certain perspective.  You cant have everyone seeing every different perspective... and expect it to work right.

 And even the generated content, in a holographic projection, is still flat.   So its pretty much Less than 2.5d.

 As for 3d being 2.5d..  thats really poor way of putting it.   You are getting both left and right perspectives as you would see these images in true 3d reality from a fixed position.  Thats 3d.

 The fact that it bothered you, was probably because your eyes are further or closer together than what it was filmed at.  A periscope like device make to adjust the focal distance, would probably change that for you.

 Else yes, its probably HMD for you...  and or custom realtime content.

[Malenko]

You are getting both left and right perspectives as you would see these images in true 3d reality from a fixed position.  Thats 3d.

No its not. That's the illusion of depth. Also, you do realize we live in a 4 dimensional (length, width, depth, time)  world? I know of the scientific intangible 5th through 10th dimensions, but lets not confuse X anymore than he already is.

[Vigo]

In which dimension do those walls of text start making sense? 

[pbj]

Alright, sorry, but I gotta step back into this.

If the movies can't covey more information than flat surfaces, and if 3D will never work because movies aren't filmed to be viewed at all angles, what's the point of using 3D to watch movies?

 

[yotsuya]

Alright, sorry, but I gotta step back into this.

If the movies can't covey more information than flat surfaces, and if 3D will never work because movies aren't filmed to be viewed at all angles, what's the point of using 3D to watch movies?

 

Appparently, it's a mechanism to make your jaw literally drop to the floor.

[pbj]

Man, I can remember when DVDs came out and it was all, "dude, I heard you can see INSIDE Elizabeth Berkley..." and then BluRays came out.... and I'm still waiting... so will I ever been able to see inside Ms Berkley?

Asking for a friend.

[ChadTower]

You are getting both left and right perspectives as you would see these images in true 3d reality from a fixed position.  Thats 3d.

No its not. That's the illusion of depth. Also, you do realize we live in a 4 dimensional (length, width, depth, time)  world? I know of the scientific intangible 5th through 10th dimensions, but lets not confuse X anymore than he already is.

A movie includes the dimension of time. 

[pbj]

Not if you pause it.

[Vigo]

So all the movies I ever watched were in 3D. That also means I watched some 4D movies as well. 

[Malenko]

A movie includes the dimension of time.

Yeah and what does that have to do with X2 not knowing there is a 4th dimension?

stop being a Debbie downer.

[Xiaou2]

 I know what Steroscopic 3d  and  Volumetric  3d  means.

 Im also well aware of the various dimensions, and the various Theories of...

 That really doesnt change the common terminology used to describe stereoscopic material.

 Furthermore, theres theories pointing out that our physical reality is an Illusion.

 
 Do you call your Stereo speakers,  "3d audio illusion devices" ?   Or  "2.5d Audio"  ?   As true volumetric sound cant exist from two speakers... even if it seems like it.

 In a Stereoscopic film, you have x,y, & z.   You can tell the distances of objects.   But more so.. you actually see more of the actual object in this format.

 I think there is this idea that 3d is nothing more than spacing two objects further apart from each other.. and with the eye swapping tech, it creates the depth based on the spacing between them.    That can be done.. such as seen with old flat 3d comic book style material.   However, thats NOT what happens with photographic / true  Stereoscopic 3D.

 Easy way to test this:

1)  Grab your TV Remote.  Hold it vertically in your left hand, in front of you about 6" maximum distance,  in the center of your body, with the buttons facing to the right.

2)  Close your right eye.. and look at the details you can see.  You should see more of the rear (battery) side of the remote than the front (buttons).   Now open your left eye.. and close your right.  You should see more details of the front buttons, and very little of the rear battery side.

 Remember, that each eye is considered a Camera.   A 2d image from a camera would stay exactly the same.. even if you moved that flat photo a few inches over horizontally.  However..  you realize that by seeing more of the back with the left eye.. and more of the front with the right.. that you are in fact getting MORE information than with a flat 2d image.  A LOT more.   Your getting two very different images, taken from two very different perspectives.  Not merely the same object side over a little.   Depending on the details of the subjects viewed..  and the distances away from you.. will effect how great the impact is.

 Rurthermore.. its not like a bunch of paper cut outs..  all in various depths.   If your looking at a curved Jar from two different perspectives ..  you realize that you are also getting that surface of the jar to be presented in 3d space / depth, in a volumetric manor.

 If you projected a Holographic image into the middle of your room..   that doesnt mean it has any depth to it... because each eye still needs its own perspective.   A flat image has only one perspective.. even if its floating in space...
its just a flat image floating in space.

 In order to do full volumetric stereoscopy.. you would still need glasses.. and or use of true volumetric projection methods... which no consumer will ever see in the next +40 years..  if its even possible.   The amount of data would be staggering..  as it would be like 3d printing a full room worth of objects .. +60 times a second.

 And again..  this wouldnt work well for a full room of people.   A good example, is if you were watching a Magican perform.  From the front view.. it might be ok.  But walk too far to the side or behind him.. and you may see the way hes doing the trick.

 
 Finally...  Even Stereocopic HMD's are static 3d images, piped in accordance with your tracking hardware.  Its also an Illusion.   And its also a pair of glasses.  Even worse so.

 

A movie includes the dimension of time.

    Bravo.  And Thanks.   

 To be clear..  Time doesnt have to be at play, for Stereoscopic 3D to be of value.  Sitting in a perfectly still room, in a fixed position, .. with nothing else moving.. and you will still be seeing in 3d.

Appparently, it's a mechanism to make your jaw literally drop to the floor.

 Yes.  You got it!      Especially if its a hot little number, dancing across the screen...


 But I guess I can understand why some people dont get it.   Some may not be getting the depth that they should be getting.. due to their eye spacing.. or the material being shot with perspectives that do not match their typical eye perspectives.   Which makes me wonder how differently everyone sees the world, based upon this fact.

 If you normally dont experience a lot of depth perception in real life..  seeing a capture.. probably wouldnt change that.
And if people experience too great a depth effect.. I wonder if that leads to easy motion sickness and or similar issues.

 Randy, I wonder if you could try to create an adjustable set of glasses that use front surface mirrors... to see if you can change the 3d depth effect you experience?   

 FYI - Out of all the 3d Imax films Ive seen, the new Tron flick, was probably the worst 3d.  It was very flat to my eyes.  Avatar on Imax 3D engulfed you.  Avatar in RealD wasnt even close.  The Polar Express was pretty amazing too.. extended much further out of the screen.   But wow..  seeing the Preditor and a little bit of Keaunas new Ronin movie..   Was probably the best stereoscopic experience so far.

[eds1275]

If you watch a 13" tv, a 60" tv, LED, LCD, Plasma, projector, 3d, 2d... etc etc. After a few minutes, the novelty is lost and your vision narrows to whatever it is you are looking at.

3d does nothing for me but give me a headache after a few minutes. And it really doesn't help save a crappy story (AVATAR - a horrible mishmash of Fern Gully, Halo, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas...)

[yotsuya]

And it really doesn't help save a crappy story (AVATAR - a horrible mishmash of Fern Gully, Halo, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas...)

They played "Land of A Thousand Dances" in Avatar? Cool!

[Malenko]

Im also well aware of the various dimensions, and the various Theories of...

Evidence suggests otherwise.

And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.

 

[Xiaou2]

If you watch a 13" tv, a 60" tv, LED, LCD, Plasma, projector, 3d, 2d... etc etc. After a few minutes, the novelty is lost and your vision narrows to whatever it is you are looking at.

3d does nothing for me but give me a headache after a few minutes. And it really doesn't help save a crappy story (AVATAR - a horrible mishmash of Fern Gully, Halo, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas...)

 Ed, its certainly NOT like this for everyone, I can assure you of this.

 The 3d  DID in fact save Avatar for me.    It wasnt ok as it was.. but a bit rough around the edges.  Certainly seen much worse stories.   And yeah... anything can be claimed to be part this and part that.  When your working off a base of millions of creative works already existing... spanning thousands of years, from beyond the Egyptians...   what do you expect?

[Malenko]

X2 I have some sage advice for you. Now it comes from a rather less than reputable source but in this case its pretty accurate and I think *MAYBE* you might listen to the guy:

its certainly NOT like this for everyone

[ChadTower]

A movie includes the dimension of time.

Yeah and what does that have to do with X2 not knowing there is a 4th dimension?

stop being a Debbie downer.

There isn't anything even slightly Debbie Downer about what I said.  Try to stay civil.  This has been a decent conversation.

[RandyT]

I know what Steroscopic 3d  and  Volumetric  3d  means.

Not sure you do.  Volumetric displays "see" and can reproduce a solid object's reflected or generated light, from any angle visible to the optics, based on the position of the viewer.  Two individuals standing in front of the display are presented with two different views, based on their position in relation to the object.

Do you call your Stereo speakers,  "3d audio illusion devices" ?   Or  "2.5d Audio"  ?   As true volumetric sound cant exist from two speakers... even if it seems like it.

Not sure how stereo can be considered "3D" at all.  But technically, it is close to 2.5D.  It can be heard at different elevations (though not controlled) and can pan left and right.  The Z-axis would be the change in volume.

In a Stereoscopic film, you have x,y, & z.   You can tell the distances of objects.   But more so.. you actually see more of the actual object in this format.

I have a CNC router.  It has X, Y and Z control.  It is considered 2.5D machining.

Rurthermore.. its not like a bunch of paper cut outs..  all in various depths.   If your looking at a curved Jar from two different perspectives ..  you realize that you are also getting that surface of the jar to be presented in 3d space / depth, in a volumetric manor.

Except for the fact that a lot of the 3D content is not shot in 3D, but is converted because it's easier and costs less.  Also, your physical position relative to the object matters when your brain has to merge this data.  When presented on a flat screen, from an incorrect perspective, the entire situation is presented to your brain out of context.  It becomes a jumbled mess which your brain tries very hard to reconcile.  This is why it is an illusion, as it tricks your brain into processing information in a very unnatural way.  I'd go as far as to state that I have concerns about exposing young children in their formative years to too much of this stuff.  Not only because it could lead to building abnormal synaptic pathways, but their eyes are closer together than an adults, which could cause divergence and severe eyestrain with some content.

If you want to see the power of your brain to reconcile what it sees, watch a 2D trailer for your favorite 3D movie, with only your dominant eye.  After about 10 seconds, it'll look 3D.  This is because the thing which tells your brain that you are looking at a flat plane (your second eye) is removed from the equation, and your brain goes into overdrive to compensate.  It will also work with a static image.  Watch an entire 2+ hour film this way, and see how your head feels afterward.

Finally...  Even Stereocopic HMD's are static 3d images, piped in accordance with your tracking hardware.  Its also an Illusion.   And its also a pair of glasses.  Even worse so.

They are exponentially better, just by virtue of being able to dynamically generate content within the context of the individual.  With calibration and tracking, it is possible to create very natural effect, not possible by other means.
 

[Malenko]

There isn't anything even slightly Debbie Downer about what I said.  Try to stay civil.  This has been a decent conversation.

No it hasn't. Its been incoherent walls of texts and an attempt to educate that person in vain.  For a prime example, look at Randy's post above this one.

[ChadTower]

There isn't anything even slightly Debbie Downer about what I said.  Try to stay civil.  This has been a decent conversation.

No it hasn't. Its been incoherent walls of texts and an attempt to educate that person in vain.  For a prime example, look at Randy's post above this one.

Okay, let's lower the bar. 

This conversation was in English.

[lamprey]

Although, not quite what we would consider a (front) projector. I came across this video of a tech demo of a glassless projector:



Kinda cool, but not sure how practical it is considering the front projectors are what people are using in order to have a large screen. But, I'm sure someone will find a way.

[Xiaou2]

Not sure you do.  Volumetric displays "see" and can reproduce a solid object's reflected or generated light, from any angle visible to the optics, based on the position of the viewer.  Two individuals standing in front of the display are presented with two different views, based on their position in relation to the object.

 If there isnt actual depth the to light projection.. its not volumetric, and most of the time.. not even in 3d.   Its a set of various images of a flat plane. (lenticular style.. and or tracked lenticular)

 If your talking something like a spinning loop of LEDs, with an additional set of diagonal cross beams that are also Led lit..  then you can create an actual volumetric picture.   I believe another means some have used..  is a spinning offset disc, and projecting the images onto the disc at various points in its revolution.. for different depths.

 The problem is that these displays are impractical scaled up.   And the images are very limited.  Mostly, they are a novelty.

 The Lenticular and spinning media displays will never create an optimal format for stereocopic film.   The effect just cant even come close to a full sized screen projection with glasses.



    In a Stereoscopic film, you have x,y, & z.   You can tell the distances of objects.   But more so.. you actually see more of the actual object in this format.

I have a CNC router.  It has X, Y and Z control.  It is considered 2.5D machining.

You can call it whatever you want... even if thats not the accepted terminology.   I could care less really.  I find it amusing that you do insist however.   OCD?   How about you start a campaign to change all the titles to:  2.5d

    Furthermore.. its not like a bunch of paper cut outs..  all in various depths.   If your looking at a curved Jar from two different perspectives ..  you realize that you are also getting that surface of the jar to be presented in 3d space / depth, in a volumetric manor.


Except for the fact that a lot of the 3D content is not shot in 3D, but is converted because it's easier and costs less. 

 Doesnt matter.  The conversion takes the images as seen, and is able to generate both perspectives, giving both viewpoints.  Dont ask me how it does it so well...  but I can tell you that the 3d Predator flick was Flawless.  You would never know it wasnt shot with stereo cameras.  Earlier attempts were horrendous..  but they have improved the process to a state of shear perfection.

Also, your physical position relative to the object matters when your brain has to merge this data.  When presented on a flat screen, from an incorrect perspective, the entire situation is presented to your brain out of context.  It becomes a jumbled mess which your brain tries very hard to reconcile.  This is why it is an illusion, as it tricks your brain into processing information in a very unnatural way.  I'd go as far as to state that I have concerns about exposing young children in their formative years to too much of this stuff.  Not only because it could lead to building abnormal synaptic pathways, but their eyes are closer together than an adults, which could cause divergence and severe eyestrain with some content.

If you want to see the power of your brain to reconcile what it sees, watch a 2D trailer for your favorite 3D movie, with only your dominant eye.  After about 10 seconds, it'll look 3D.  This is because the thing which tells your brain that you are looking at a flat plane (your second eye) is removed from the equation, and your brain goes into overdrive to compensate.  It will also work with a static image.  Watch an entire 2+ hour film this way, and see how your head feels afterward.

 Ive always sat in the middle, pretty much..  but very rarely had any issues with images not looking right.  Its a value point..  but seemingly not much of an issue... and well worth the ride.  As of yet, Ive never gotten a headache, nor any kind of strain, from a 3d film.

 As for the children issue... couldnt tell you.   Its probably as bad as people whom cross their eyes.  IE: not as issue.  If they get headaches, they probably wont even want to watch them.   My buddies children had no such complaints.. and loved it.   One of the more critical ones, pointing out moments she thought was not 3d...  due to certain shots being shallower than others.

 As for the growing brain... the more challenges you give it, tends to make it stronger.  Which as far as Ive seen, is why children learning two languages, seems to have an edge over those whom do not.  Similarly, Chinese is much more complicated a languages... with a very complex written character set.   Children in China, Japan..etc..  are often far more advanced than students in a country like USA.  Not talking about individuals.. but rather, in general mass comparison.

 The brain also maintains adaptability well late in life... with people able to learn to use their feet to eat & draw... when they lose their arms..   Able to connect to artificial limbs and devices,  and make them move.   Able to continue to learn and develop...

 Its far more damaging to expose children to the Propaganda thats on the TV, new movies, radio, and news... than a visual stimulation.  And or to abuse and or neglect them.

 
 As for your little 2d experiment..  it doesnt work for me... nor would I want to keep one eye closed for a film..  nor block one ear.   You can tell depth by relative distances of objects as well as if there is motion to show the differences in speeds of passing objects.   But its not on the same level of effectiveness.  There are also limitations... such as when you are not moving... and or to do some tasks involving distances.  In these cases, you find out very quickly the level of losses of that missing information.

They are exponentially better, just by virtue of being able to dynamically generate content within the context of the individual.  With calibration and tracking, it is possible to create very natural effect, not possible by other means.

 But, a movie isnt filmed in every persepctive possible..   so you will be limited to realtime content / games.

 Movies will still be far better in Stereoscopic 3d, for many years to come.

 4k 3d... is probably next up..    so those 1080p  Rift glasses will pale in comparison.   Though, Im not dissing HMD tech, as Id be happy to try one out.. being the 3d buff I am.  I just know their limits, especially in the current technology & economic state.


 Finally.. that tech demo was useless garbage.


 I do have to say, Im surprised to see there is a possibility to capture mega amounts of light data..  as seen in the
Lytro  camera.   After the shot, you can change the focus.. because it captures from 11 million light rays.. upwards of 40million.. in the newer models.   Will be interesting to see 3d stereoscopic versions...

[Malenko]

Tl; dr

[pbj]

Would it be possible for a 3D projection to retain so much chi that it could do the dim mak?

[Xiaou2]

Would it be possible for a 3D projection to retain so much chi that it could do the dim mak?

 Ask Mal.  He has the Cheese you are looking for.


 Seriously though..  Chi is a simplified term for complex biological and physical things that were beyond explanation of the time...  and or Short-Form,  for certain long winded descriptions and explanations.   Mal would appreciate that!  As text walls are the bane of his existence.


 IE:  If you had conditioned yourself very well, able to take a very hard hit... they might say,  "He has good Chi".  Rather than.. his tissue and bone density, is excellent.


 Dim Mak, is the ability to hit with whole body power, with release of full mass, at a fraction of second time unit. 

 Most often causing the non-compressible blood, to burst through its containing vessels... causing internal bleeding.   Easy knock outs.  And in conjunction with specific points of the internal anatomy,  cause bloodflow issues such as severe inflammation - thus swelling and clots.  Its the highest level of striking technology ever invented... lethal in even the hands of a lightweight woman.

 Its my speculation that people had seen elder masters be provoked..  and then what appeared to them as the master 'touching'  the Op...  with the op either immediately passing away.. or passing away a short while later..  becoming what people refer to as the "Death Touch".

 However, it wasnt a touch.  It was a finger strike to a critical area... with Fajin (explosive power / dim mak) release.

 The finger being of less surface area, allows deeper penetration into the body/organs..  able to deliver more power into a smaller area - without heavy surface dissipation losses.   

 Of course, the tech doesnt just have to be applied with a finger.  About 2yrs ago, a Krav Maga guy tried to punch me in the Gut with full force, full speed... A simple and very limited "tap" from my arm, nearly broke his wrists...causing him great pains.. and his wrist joint swelling up nearly twice its size by the next day.   Guy went from.. "rolling eyes" at the inquiry of him seeing a Kungfu demo..   to full on excitement, disbelief,  shaking my hand, and showering me in complements, with deep respect.


 Stuff sounds crazy, and most people will never believe such a thing exists, (let alone me able to do it    ).   Which has made it the best kept secret of the Chinese arts.    Yet, its secrets have been realized to many in more recent years, due to various teachers and with the aid of the internet.  Its no longer a rarity, about to become forgotten knowledge, that it once was.

[pbj]

Do you have any fight videos online?

[Xiaou2]

Back when I was doing it hardcore, video cams were a kinda rare.. very expensive, and horrid video quality to boot.

 I was filmed by a Jujitsu school... Knocking their top students out, due to their disrespectful attitudes..   However, its doubtful that the teacher would ever release them.   heh

 My goal was to learn to protect myself, and my loved ones.. not to beat people up.. nor win trophies to pad an ego.
So often, Id hit very lightly, and stop-kicks barely connecting.  IE:  Target practice.   The problem with this, is that it doesnt always stop a serious artists.. especially if hes much larger and stronger than you.

 I used to spar a guy about twice my mass frequently.  I was barely 150# at 6'.  You could see all of my ribs.  You could fit 2 or 3 of my limbs into one of his.   heh    So when he would enter... Id tap him, stop kick..etc.. but because I didnt KO... he would grab me and drive me into the ground... repeatedly.   Which I didnt mind so much... because I knew Id really won.   But it was a little annoying.  Id tell him that the punch would have KO'd..  and the kick would have dropped him.   He laughed.. and kept doing the same.

 One day, he told me  "Steve..  Wing Chun sucks.  And so do you."   as he walked away from our session.

 At that time, my blood started to boil.  I decided to give him a small taste of what I could output, next time we sparred.

 So there we are.. renting a small space out for sparring in a local indoor sports arena.   Me, him, and another artists friend.   We get in position.  Friend says  "Fight!"   Im in a rear weighted stance, with my lead barely touching the ground... ready at the blink of an eye, for motion.   He takes a good step in towards me, starting a punch motion.  As his lead foot goes flat to the floor..   I use my weightless lead leg to stomp kick his knee cap... which at this point.. holds all of his weight.

 Id only dropped about 15% power maximum into it,  as I didnt want to cripple him.   But that was far too much...  as he, the proud owner of a room full of 1st place trophies in full contact bouts,  went down like a sack of potatoes.

 The round was over, in less than 2 seconds.   He lay there crying in tears... and of course, I felt horrible, and regretted what Id done immediately.   He rolled back and forth, crying for about 6min solid... before being helped up to hobble away.    Id later find out, it took him a full month to recover fully from that kick.

 Funny enough...  one day I was mentioning how Id mastered inch power... and that even I was scared of my output capability.  He immediately went into hard head mode.. and wanted to challenge me over it.  After numberous persistent egging..  I finally got ticked off.   I told him that if he wanted to try his luck against it, he fill out his last Will, say goodbye to his wife and children, sign a waiver,  and call an ambulance right before the event.   He quieted down quickly, and decided against it.   I never would have went through with it mind you... but thats just how stubborn he was.

 That event kind of changed things for me.  I didnt want to portray myself as being of poor skill.  On the other hand, I also didnt want to go around crippling people, or worse.  So, from then on, I rarely sparred, unless it was someone close, and or with students.  Nothing public.

 Many of these guys just dont understand the difference in technique and training methods.   I used to stomp kick trees, concrete parking lot posts, and steel poles..   at full power, full speed.. with flat hard bottom dress shoes... for about 30 min each leg... often.   I did the same to a local concrete wall, hitting with a flat foot.   The foot stings with burning pain each impact.  But eventually, impact force multiplies by magnitudes.

 Because too many artists have get too amped and reckless... thinking sparring is a fight..  then trying to turn sparring into a real fight...  you have to be very careful whom you play with.  Not that Im fearful of taking a hit / beating ... as Im well conditioned...   but more fearful of hurting them seriously... due to their lack of self control and thus dangerous level of power & fully harmful intended commitment.

 Even my simple demo, where I used my single hand against the Krav Maga guys two hands,  almost put the kid in the ER, from a tiny tap.   I apologized..  but fact is, he tried to use full power, full speed..  and ran right into the tech..  effectively amplifying its power by magnitudes... thus damaging himself.

 So, the best I could do now... is put up some training vids and examples.   Which I may do at a later time.  I believe I may write a book as well... or make a video series.

 I may get some local MMA guys to 'compare'  their responses on video..  to show the differences and weaknesses of Sport -vs- reality.

 As wearing a 6" diameter pillow on each hand.. is far from reality.   So is thinking your can roll around the floor for 10min..   as in real life, someone is going to come out of nowhere, and stab, kick, punch..etc..  you, while your down there trying to get the lock/choke.

[Malenko]

Say what you want about him, but I am ---smurfing--- impressed.












































PBJ got the OP to derail his own thread. That's talent!

[pbj]

I've watched a couple martial arts tournaments and I think the whole thing is hampered by the fact that nobody really wants to hurt each other.  They all agree to certain equipment, allowed moves, and they all walk away at the end of it (barring freak accidents).  I mean, I can get behind we're here to show our mastery of glorified dancing, but what's the ultimate purpose?  Be interesting to see some actual skilled fighting without a referee blowing a whistle every 10 seconds.  The MMA fad completely eludes me as well.

 

[lilshawn]

Say what you want about him, but I am ---smurfing--- impressed.

uh oh.



also: didn't we cover the "1 inch" fighting thing in another thread??...yeah i'm pretty sure we did.

I've watched a couple martial arts tournaments and I think the whole thing is hampered by the fact that nobody really wants to hurt each other.  They all agree to certain equipment, allowed moves, and they all walk away at the end of it (barring freak accidents).  I mean, I can get behind we're here to show our mastery of glorified dancing, but what's the ultimate purpose?  Be interesting to see some actual skilled fighting without a referee blowing a whistle every 10 seconds.  The MMA fad completely eludes me as well.

 

(POSSIBLY NSFW (if you work in one of "those" places))

[ChadTower]

I've watched a couple martial arts tournaments and I think the whole thing is hampered by the fact that nobody really wants to hurt each other.  They all agree to certain equipment, allowed moves, and they all walk away at the end of it (barring freak accidents).  I mean, I can get behind we're here to show our mastery of glorified dancing, but what's the ultimate purpose?  Be interesting to see some actual skilled fighting without a referee blowing a whistle every 10 seconds.  The MMA fad completely eludes me as well.

 

Really, that's the difference between sport and real life.  Any sport has rules to protect people.  The NFL adds new rules every year.  If you took away all those rules nobody would walk away from the first quarter of an NFL game.  Same with martial arts tournaments and especially MMA.  There are reasons why there are maybe 4 disciplines that dominate MMA and it isn't because they are the most effective.  It's because they fit the MMA ruleset best.  You can't succeed in an MMA context using a fighting art based on soft tissue strikes because they are against the rules.  Seeing as how most older fighting arts were developed for real fighting against trained soldiers you can't use them full out and have everyone come out uninjured.

[yotsuya]

One day, he told me  "Steve..  Wing Chun sucks.  And so do you."   as he walked away from our session.

---fudgesicle--- that dude. Wang Chung was awesome. I hope you kicked his ass while humming "Everybody Have Fun Tonight". 

[lilshawn]

da na na na... everybody get punched tonight....

[pbj]

You know, I've discussed it with someone that literally wrote a textbook on brain injury.  He says football is more dangerous than boxing.  Some of it is the constant jostling and some of it is nobody examines a player after a game unless they start acting like Troy aikman.
 

[Xiaou2]

PBJ got the OP to derail his own thread. That's talent!

 Uhh.. no.  Unlike you, Im not anal about whats said in a forum.   When you have a conversation in real life, do you pipe up and say  "Stay on topic!"      Conversation goes wherever it may, and thats fine.   Its really not MY thread either.  I cant police it.  Cant tell people what and what not to post.  I cant even ban people from it.   I can only ignore people, if I so chose...   But people still can post anyways.. and others will reply & quote.   But IMO, I just dont care.  Its called freedom of speech.   If I cared about a pristine thread all of my own... Id make my own website / blog..   

 I think you place WAY too much value in things that have no real value at all.   I think you need to re-evaluate what life is all about...  and where you SHOULD be putting you time, energy, and value.

I've watched a couple martial arts tournaments and I think the whole thing is hampered by the fact that nobody really wants to hurt each other.  They all agree to certain equipment, allowed moves, and they all walk away at the end of it (barring freak accidents).  I mean, I can get behind we're here to show our mastery of glorified dancing, but what's the ultimate purpose?  Be interesting to see some actual skilled fighting without a referee blowing a whistle every 10 seconds.  The MMA fad completely eludes me as well.

 

 As Chad said.

 To add a little to that... 

 The real arts were developed to protect ones life, from invading attackers, and even to fend off wild animals.  (such as use of spears, swords... )     The arts really came to life, when an monk came to Shaolin in China.. and saw that the other monks were weak and feeble.. from praying all day, but no exercise.   He shared and developed an exercise routine, and helped created a combat system as well...  probably due to the many thieves and bandit gangs, whom stole precious artworks and religious artifacts.    As the years passed on... it would become a martial arts 'factory'.  Where Monks would train non stop, and developed some of the most deadly skills,  as well as acrobatics, healing lineaments, and much more.    These spread outside of Shaolin, probably several times when it was attacked by various leaders of power.   This would later help to form countless styles, all over China...  Of which most share common principles and techniques.   In fact, Karate actually came from some Japanese travelers passing by.. seeing monks practicing.  They learned some very basics of hard style kung fu...  and took that back to Japan.   Originally called Chi-Hand  or  China Hand..  they changed it to Empty Hand, which is the translation of Karate.


 Back then, the Arts  were a way of life.   But after a few leaders banned the arts for spans of 50 to 100yrs..  as well as the industrial revolution happening..  the arts almost vanished completely.   Many of the greatest schools and masters.. were killed in mass soldier raids.  Many went into hiding..  some practicing in secret... to private students.. in the late hours of the night.

 Wing Chun was one such art..  Created over 300yrs ago, by some of the top minds and masters of the arts.  It was designed to be a killing art, used by rebels, to take out the current govt. leadership.   Unlike many Chinese systems, WC didnt have 20yrs to create fighters.  So it cut out a lot of material... and reduced it to the most important and effective techniques.   It was made to be learned and mastered in 3 to 5yrs, depending on the practitioner, & the kind of teaching.  (These days, it would take you 10 to 20yrs in most schools...  due to the material being spread out way too thin, less intensity, less quality, ... and merely to make the Sifu more money)

 It was also known, that a bunch of young rebels would not easily best warriors that had 20+ yrs of experience.. and were larger & much stronger.   Not only that.. but the fact stands.. that there is always someone stronger and or faster than you... so then what do you do?    Because of this, WC uses techniques based on leverage and position.. and does not require great strength, nor even blinding speed, to attain victory.

 After years of study, Ive come to see that it contains knowledge from the Internal systems, such as Tai Chi, Bagua, Xingyi...etc.  Sadly, many western teachers of WC, do not know this... and kind of have made it more of a hard style karate-like system.   This fails easily, when the Op is larger and stronger than you...  whereas the internal way of WC, can easily handle much larger and stronger ops with little trouble.

 WC rebels put up a good fight, but due to the shear numbers of the troops they were up against..  eventually they had to return back into hiding.  The art was kept alive in underground training in private classes... only to fully become public in recent years, by Ip Man.   Bruce Lee took Ip Mans classes...  before being shipped to usa, due to a fight with a kid of a Triad gang.

 
 So, as the need for martial arts dwindled... so often did the quality.   Even so much as 120 yrs ago... the arts were far different than those much deeper in history.  Each year, degrading further.  Some systems being lost due to low number of dedicated students to continue them.

 Then came the Sport fighting...   The thing that would degrade all combat arts into near oblivion.

 Its my speculation, these Tournaments were created on purpose... to make sure that the general masses were no longer capable of real combat effectivity.    As once rules like  "You cant hit the head",  or  "Kick below the belt"... as well as the point-taps... vs... a real solid hit,   then the arts changed to suit the Comps... and lost all the hardcore abilities.

 That.. and because most people dont want to stand there and punch a sand bag till their skin is ripped off their hands... or Kick a wooden posts for 1hr spans, at full power, full speed.

 
 I believe the 'kings of power',  have realized that they cant shut down the drive for certain people to practice hard-core arts...  and so this time, they have decided to use the grappling tactic, as a ruse.   The grapplers chose very poor standup fighters, many of which were sport based in nature...  and easily feinted them, taking them down... and posting the results on video.   Yet, when well known hardcore fighters asked for a bout.. they politely declined.

 They started UFC, to capitalize on this... because people believe everything they see on TV media.  Its hilarious, and sad, at the same time.  They put a bunch of horrible 'fighters' into a ring, up against a bunch of highly skilled grapplers... in a grappler slanted event.   Easy to know what would happen..   and equally easy to see a bunch of new fanboys born into this, thinking that this was the best 'real' combat available.   Far superior to the OLD arts?   Not even close   

 The problem with the good traditional arts.. is time & work.  Nobody wants to put in the required time and work.  They will do the stuff in class... 3 days a week... maybe...    and even then, are not stressing that hard, with low intensity.  They get cocky, because they are good at drills... and know the material...  but they have never mastered any of it.  Most especially, the very basics.  So it all falls apart, in high speed, heavy force, combat...

 The problem with MMA, is that they stick to a few certain sport based arts, and train these even worse than the watered down equivalent.   They place most all the emphasis on grappling..  due to the rules and ring play advantages..  but are tying to learn too many things too quickly... and are good at none of it.   Their foundations are often even worse than the former... but at least they are in better shape, and semi-conditioned.   Yet when confronted by more than one attacker...  they would almost never survive that situation.   As their hobbled together sport art.. just isnt suited to it.   Let alone, they punch anyone barefist, without taped wrists.  Most of them would break their wrists and fingers on the first hit.

 
 As for the Way many of these people fight in a tournament..  its completely different than in a real situation.   So PBJ, you are correct.    In a real fight... the person isnt going to hunt and peck at a distance.  Hes charging at you with reckless abandon... and hes not fearful of taking a hit.   He's so blinded with rage, he doenst care about being careful. He wont hit once or twice than back off.  He will keep hammering you, until you look like roadkill.   Most sport fighters cant deal with anything like that.  They dont really train for it.

 And the gear itself..  its a HUGE factor in how things pan out.   Even the MMA gloves are quite thick.. and the padding is high density foam, that absorbs a LOT of the impact force.  This mostly leaves push force as the only means for a smaller Op... because their normal hits are no longer sharp enough with the gloves on.  Take the gloves off... and that same 140lb guy, with KO the biggest and best of them.

 The diameter of the gloves, is a big factor too.   At about 7" in diameter,  times 2...  and you realize just how much more protection you have with them on.  You can form a two handed shield for goodness sake.  lol     It slows down your strikes, makes them easier too see & intercept,  makes it harder to slip through defensive holes... due to the volume of space they take up...  and since your moving slower, and being cushion slowed.. it makes it all the more easy for a person to grab onto you...

   Especially when they dont have to worry about close range kill strikes...   Eye pokes, ribcage grabs, nerve strikes, and groin attacks (you wont see the 69 happen in real life combat!  But you will see it often in MMA bouts  >.<  )

 They also dont have to worry about the environment.  For example... broken glass on the ground, hard pavement and rocks to fall and or roll over / on.   Uneven ground,  getting bashed into a sidewalk edge,  kicked in the face,  and or having a knife come out on you...


 So yeah...  sport play is ok.. if thats your game.   But if you want to protect your life without padded gloves, a ref., taped wrists, etc..   you are better off seeking a school that teaches actual combat.   These schools usually do not participate in sport competitions.   Some of the best, are probably going to be 'closed door'  teachers...Being taught in private, or small private groups...   Because the motivation isnt about mere money, with small private classes.  Its about the love of the art, love of teaching and passing the material down to a good student..  having them develop real workable combat skills in a timely manor.

da na na na... everybody get punched tonight....

   Love it!   

[Malenko]

Its time for X2 translations, powered by Malenkosoft®

In addition to not knowing how to carry a conversation in on a forum, I dont know how to carry one in real life either. I also dont know that when a person starts a thread its considered theirs in the sense they started it, not that they own the actual thread. You should put your time , energy, and value into writing super long posts on forums about Ki. I agree with Chad, its the only way I know of to make him look worse than he already does.

I shall now make up some really convoluted story about Shaolin Temples with literally no citation or backing by facts (my Google is broke). I saw it in a movie and the Wu Tang raps about it, it must be true.  I have no idea what Red Turban Rebellion was or what the Ming Dynasty was all about it. I'll now regale you with a tale about Wing Chun thats maybe 30% accurate if you round up.  Now, as a well known conspiracy theorist , I must stress how MMA and the UFC was created NOT to make money and appeal to people who want to watch violence, but to degrade martial arts. I will completely gloss over the fact many fighter practice their arts just like a job, because its what they do for a living. Instead I'll pigeon hole all of them baselessly and just assume I'm right, as always.  Also, I think they should allow kill shots and knives in the octagon. I would teach martial arts for free because when you do they don't charge you rent for a dojo. That is, I'd do it if I didn't have brittle bone disease.

[ChadTower]

Sounds like Malenko needs a fully three dimensional demonstration of a "kick below the belt".

[Malenko]

Sounds like Malenko needs a fully three dimensional demonstration of a "kick below the belt".

I cant wear my piss stained semi pro football gear like you, but I suppose if its a regular kick and not a Shoalin testicle toe stab I'll be ok.

[eds1275]

MY EYES HURT FROM ROLLING

[Vigo]

I cant wear my piss stained semi pro football gear like you, but I suppose if its a regular kick and not a Shoalin testicle toe stab I'll be ok.

You know, if you rammed your nuts into concrete parking lot posts and steel poles at full power, full speed, for 30 minutes for each ball every day. You probably wouldn't notice any pain when receiving a shaolin testicle toe stab.

[PL1]

Kick me in the jimmy

. . . and the ever popular . . .



You gotta love Butthead's wrong-way 360 degree sidekick.


Scott

[ChadTower]

It's awesome how quickly Malenko's behavior degenerates the second pbj begins trolling.  It's like Malenko lives for those moments.  Sometimes it's so immediate that it makes me question who pbj is really trolling...   

[Malenko]

It's awesome how quickly Malenko's behavior degenerates the second pbj begins trolling.  It's like Malenko lives for those moments.  Sometimes it's so immediate that it makes me question who pbj is really trolling...   

You must be too busy replacing 72 pin connectors to pay attention, its cool. Much like peanut butter and jammy (not a typo) Im just trolling X2 and you, but mostly him because you get butt hurt too much.

[ChadTower]

I seem to be quite nonbutthurty given how butthurt I must be.  This is confusing.  Are you sure about how butthurt I am? 

[Xiaou2]

It's awesome how quickly Malenko's behavior degenerates the second pbj begins trolling.  It's like Malenko lives for those moments.  Sometimes it's so immediate that it makes me question who pbj is really trolling...   
[/quote]


 


 Funny as this has been getting.. I do actually feel sympathy for Mal.   For Mal lives in another universe, created by himeself.  Partially due to chemical imabalances, and brain timing issues.

 If a car has 4 spark plugs..  its needs to time them fairly precise, to make use of that energy.  But what if there those 4 plugs fired over 8 times as often.. without the alignment being correctly timed?    You would be wasting a ton of energy and heat.. and not really accomplishing anything.

 People with this kind of issue, do actually think faster than the average bear.    A delay of 2 seconds in a verbal response.. is like 10 min  to them.   So they will cut you off before you can even formulate a response..  and in the process... they have incorrectly assumed about 30 different scenario's.  Narrowed it down to what they believe is most likely.. and go full throttle on an extreme response to match.
 
 I know this behavior ohh too well, considering it runs deep on my fathers side of the family.   But along the way, Ive seen it in many others... including a girl I dated for a short time.  Its scary, and sad.

 They believe that because they can predict simple things like TV shows.. that they are in fact Always right, and fully justified to attack, as if it were so.   As well as to make countless assumptions and try to set-up people with all kinds of psychological games to Test... because they cant Stand to "Not Know" the truth of the matter.

 Yet, the main focus is really on them.  Any little thing that bothers them... is like the most cataclysmic event possible.  Such as a simple mistake, turning into a 2hr screaming rant session.  And the idea that a single degree of temperature, was done Intentionally to cause massive damages to them on purpose.    I know you all wont believe this... but thats exactly what happened recently with my Uncle.  Going Bonkers, talking and swearing quite loudly to himself... over 1 degree of temperature.   Because to him, it didnt matter if it was 45 degrees in the spring... Due to the time of year.. the heat should not be on at all.   There is not logic, rhyme or reason.   Only patterns that likes, and has gotten stuck within.   Maybe Mel isnt fully at that level yet.. but its probably just a short matter of time.   No doubt, he cant stand post longer than 20 words... and turns into an attacking beast immediately.   Its pretty much textbook to this behavior.

 The condition?  Bi-polarism.   Of which he at least was able to admit to me... and is better than many of my own family members.. who remain completely clueless to their disease... and completely opposed to the facts, despite a branch of the family, being treated for it.

 It seems that Bi-Polarism often seems to carry other mental issues, such as OCD, Phobias, Irrational & Illogical thoughts and behaviors, as well as completely self destructive behaviors.. such as spending beyond their means, heavy drug and or alcohol abuse, and gambling..  Possibly even binge eating.

 They often can not comunicate civily with others face to face.  Instead, they may bottle things up..  and their things are completely lame to you and I...  but to them..  these things are like the equivalent of putting an assault rifle to their head...  but they will never see it, nor feel it, any other way.     So, they will blow up like a nuclear bomb out of nowhere.  Then 3hrs later, they might be smiling happily, as it nothing ever happened...  nothing mean was ever said.. and they want to be best buddies.  Praise you.. after they prejudged and disrespected you..  Shake your hand after they dissed you.  Etc.

 Many of these people seem fun and interesting when you dont know them on a deeper level.   Then you catch them in one of their Jeckle & Hyde  moments.. and HOLT CRAP!    The Girl I was seeing... started cursing at her Radio because of the commercials.  Making negative comment after negative comment about them... non stop.   This happened at every break.  Then I realize the depths of her insanity, lack of logic and reason, complete irrationality,  and lack of any real self control... as well as being completely self-absorbed.   Because to them... the entire world is against them... ruining their lives.

Only if you are a very shallow aquaintence, will they get along well with you... because once they know you on a personal level... they will judge you like the Supreme Court.   They will hold that judgement forever..  even if its completely wrong..   and will never forgive, apologize for their negativity when proven wrong,  as well as will hold any mistake you have made against you... always making sure to keep bringing it up over and over... every chance they get.

  As you can see...  I know this game all too well..   As sadly, Ive had to live in a house of Madness for far too long.  The abuses Ive had to endure as a result, are beyond  comprehension.

 But I guess at least I only have trace instances of these things, compared to them and others Ive met.  In this respect, I guess Im lucky.    Which is why I truly feel sympathy for my dear friend and enemy, Malenko.

[Xiaou2]

But regardless, I will respond to the insaniity:

Its time for X2 translations, powered by Malenkosoft®

 Maleksoft PCB is Broken.  Its full of bugs and static assumption stress cracks.  Its Ram is completely corrupt, and its Hard Drive is failing.   Please remove bad CPU, and replace with known working good CPU.

In addition to not knowing how to carry a conversation in on a forum, I dont know how to carry one in real life either. I also dont know that when a person starts a thread its considered theirs in the sense they started it, not that they own the actual thread. You should put your time , energy, and value into writing super long posts on forums about Ki. I agree with Chad, its the only way I know of to make him look worse than he already does.

 I really have to shake my head at this in utter amazement.  How anyone could even think of something to whacked out.. it beyond me.   I have a hard time even knowing where to begin..   as disecting this mere few sentences could literally take about 50 pages of deciphered lunacy.

 Which is my exactly the point.   You dont comprehend reality like the majority.  Not even 1% close.   We are talking something like the distance to Urauns..  rather than the Corner Cafe.

 Heres a thought... If you dont like to read a post, dont read a post.   Remarkable ehh?    Ohh, thats right... I post with great length and detail, because my goal in life is to burn you up inside.   Its my Only real Joy in life.. and Damnit, Im good at it!!!

 Ohh wait.. Id better tell you that was Sarcasm..  or you will show up with a note from your mother right?

 Maybe what you really need, is a change of Meds.

 I post as I please, with length and detail that match my passion, knowledge and experience.  While I may not reveal every Textbook answer to a TEE..  I put down the generalities.   Sadly, I dont have a photograhic memory like you.  In fact, my memory is very bad with short term stuff.   We all have our strengths and weaknesses.  I know you wont accept that... much like Howard.. who thinks Anyone can just learn and do programming.   Yup.. its ignorant.   But thats what kind of mindset a mentally Ill person has.  Its pretty much Black and White...  With very little range of in-betweens.

 But how could you of all people be wrong?!   Inconceivable.  Even for someone with a mental condition.  Because you believe, it makes you Smarter than others.  When in fact.. it actually detracts,  due to the constant negative output and reactions... and completely baseless and outright wrong assumptions.

 Heres one to check off your list:  I dont hate you.  And I dont really care about anything you post.  I find most of it sad and tradgic, with the occasional facepalm and chuckle.  But overall..  I just find it sad.. for you.   For me, nothing you say can really bother me much.  Ive taken abuse from people 1000x more screwed up than you... for all of my life.  Ive got the physical abuse side of it.. with scars on my back from the metal coat hangers on bare skin from age 5..  to the mental abuse and neglect.   And Ive done one heck of a job surviving that crap.   Trust me, nothing you can do or say, could EVER top what my mother, father, uncle or aunt, has done and said.

 This is where I now say:    If you have a problem, rotate on your Pole Position Shifter, until it goes away.

I shall now make up some really convoluted story about Shaolin Temples with literally no citation or backing by facts (my Google is broke). I saw it in a movie and the Wu Tang raps about it, it must be true.  I have no idea what Red Turban Rebellion was or what the Ming Dynasty was all about it. I'll now regale you with a tale about Wing Chun thats maybe 30% accurate if you round up.  Now, as a well known conspiracy theorist , I must stress how MMA and the UFC was created NOT to make money and appeal to people who want to watch violence, but to degrade martial arts. I will completely gloss over the fact many fighter practice their arts just like a job, because its what they do for a living. Instead I'll pigeon hole all of them baselessly and just assume I'm right, as always.  Also, I think they should allow kill shots and knives in the octagon. I would teach martial arts for free because when you do they don't charge you rent for a dojo. That is, I'd do it if I didn't have brittle bone disease.

As for the WC story.. Ive trained briefly under the lineage that claims it has ties to the history of its inception.
They didnt call it anything in relation to the Turban Rebellion.  Something like blah moon society.  Whatever.  I didnt care.
 
 Furthermore, there is a good deal of evidence that has been found.  But I just dont really care enough to dig and recite it.  Others are welcome to do so.   And anyone is free to believe whatever they wish.   But regardless of the Actual word for word details you so desire and cant live without...  Well, its easy for anyone to go and see the proven Historical Bans on martial arts over the course of China's history... as well as find information on rebel underground movements.   Theres no 30% in that at all.  Its 100% fact.

 Although, for the sake of my own feelings about the organization I recognized..  I wasnt impressed with the Elder form of WC.  Id go into a rant about it.. but Im not in the mood for it.

 
 As for the Degredation of the arts, Its pretty much documented history.  China, after abolising the arts for over 50yrs.. decided to let people do the arts again.  But this time, they made their Own form of art, and made it the national standard... called "Wushu".    Wushu being an acrobatic performance, with NONE of the applicable training aspects needed to actually Protect oneself.

 This has happened in the past with other arts, and is continuing to happen to this very date.  You can believe whatever your little Whacked out Pattern following mind forces you to.  But hey?   NO Conspiracies have EVER taken place in History or mankind...  Right?!          Yup.. Im the nutcase!     

 Btw - you do know your camera phone, laptop, and Kinnect, can all be turned on to watch you by big bruta right?   I, and many others have said it for years.   Its also came out, from people in the game.. they were monitoring the elder tech as well.. such as the old patch-cord phone swichboards.  Ive had people I know personally tell me about proofs of this, as well as the many others written, and even Admitted, in declassidied documents.

 But again.. Conspiracies dont exist.   Yes, I know, Im upsetting your My Little Pony fantasy land... where Unicorns poop rainbow skittles...   Ohh Glorious Unicorns, rain your Majesty into my open mouth...

 Is that going too far?

 A little exercise in Reality.   Fighters do not make the conspiracy.  They are the Grunts.  Much like the Soldiers, that take the bullets, or the experimental Vaccines...

 But our Govt. would NEVER do anything to harm its great Citizens !   Absurd!    Yet somehow Clinton was appointed to apologize for a project in which secretly dosed Thousands of Americans with Radiation, at a local hospital, for their entire lives...  to see what would happen.   Ruining their, and their families lives...  because they Could.   That Apology makes it all better now right?   Now go and take your Flu Shots & Mercury Packed Vaccinations everyone!   Whee...

 (Its no wonder why everyone is going "Mental")

[Malenko]

I'm not actually bi-polar, I was just using the joke "its not all bad it has its ups and downs" you are the one that took it to heart. Did you get your doctorate in Psychology from the school of Chad®? I cant really reply to any of your bi-polar rant, since it doesn't apply to me at all, sorry Bro Montana.  Sucks that you suffered abuse, I had a rough childhood too and can relate, but it does sound like you had it worse.

" If a car has 4 spark plugs..  its needs to time them fairly precise, to make use of that energy.  But what if there those 4 plugs fired over 8 times as often.. without the alignment being correctly timed?    You would be wasting a ton of energy and heat.. and not really accomplishing anything."

If your spark plugs fired 8 times faster than normal you would have engine knock, and at that rate you'd prolly ping or blow the motor. However you wouldn't adjust the alignment. An alignment is adjusting the angles of the wheels so that they are set to spec usually done after suspension modifications or new tires; in this instance you would want to adjust the timing / timing belt /timing gear. Citation: I worked at Chrysler's Newark Assembly Plant for almost a decade, though most of my time was spend in trim and bodyshop, not chassis/drive train.

I don't really have an issue with you, just poking fun that you cant seem to get your point across in a succinct manner. My translations were just truncating your posts while glossing over the points you made. They are hilariously accurate and the fact they are considerably smaller with all the same info just makes it funnier to me. Id love to make fun of your way off analogies, but they are funny enough on their own. Its like bringing a slingshot to a gun fight! Check the other areas of the forum if you think I'm negative, the results may actually surprise you.

If you have a problem, rotate on your Pole Position Shifter, until it goes away.

1 pole position fell off the truck
1 pole position was given away (along with all the extra wheels and shifters)
1 pole position was cut up with a circular saw

[ChadTower]

I just realized that all this time I have been hearing Xiaou2's posts in my head as narrated by the Ultimate Warrior.

Now I need to find someone to voice Malenko's posts.  I'm thinking maybe Sensational Sherri.

[Malenko]

I just realized that all this time I have been hearing Xiaou2's posts in my head as narrated by the Ultimate Warrior.

Now I need to find someone to voice Malenko's posts.  I'm thinking maybe Sensational Sherri.

Totally worth bumping this thread for that. Little uncouth to choose two deceased people. Kudos to you for admitting you have voices in your head. Admittance is the first step to getting better.

[ChadTower]

Totally worth bumping this thread for that. Little uncouth to choose two deceased people. Kudos to you for admitting you have voices in your head. Admittance is the first step to getting better.

You do realize there is a difference between referring to fictional characters and referring to the people who portrayed them?  Those two people were not really the Ultimate Warrior and Sensational Sherri...

[spoot]

I just realized that all this time I have been hearing Xiaou2's posts in my head as narrated by the Ultimate Warrior.

Holy crap........it all makes sense now.   

[Malenko]

Totally worth bumping this thread for that. Little uncouth to choose two deceased people. Kudos to you for admitting you have voices in your head. Admittance is the first step to getting better.

You do realize there is a difference between referring to fictional characters and referring to the people who portrayed them?  Those two people were not really the Ultimate Warrior and Sensational Sherri...

It is who they were known as, don't argue semantics. If I say the Macho Man Randy Savage died , you know who it was who died even if you don't know his real name was Randy Poffo. Doesnt make it any less ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up, and doesnt make the bump any less pointless.

[lilshawn]

Totally worth bumping this thread for that. Little uncouth to choose two deceased people. Kudos to you for admitting you have voices in your head. Admittance is the first step to getting better.

You do realize there is a difference between referring to fictional characters and referring to the people who portrayed them?  Those two people were not really the Ultimate Warrior and Sensational Sherri...

It is who they were known as, don't argue semantics. If I say the Macho Man Randy Savage died , you know who it was who died even if you don't know his real name was Randy Poffo. Doesnt make it any less ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up, and doesnt make the bump any less pointless.

James Hellwig and Sherri Russell are turning over in their respective graves.

[Malenko]

He did legally change his name to Warrior.

[Vigo]

  To me, X2 posts sound like the Tazmanian Devil

[lilshawn]

He did legally change his name to Warrior.

"Warrior Warrior"  guess he had to have a first AND last name

------------------------------

I'm here to check in for my flight, DIG IT?

excuse me sir, what was your name again?

Warrior.

Uh, okay is that your first name or last name??

Both.

(Warrior "Warrior presses" the check-in counter attendant then slams them to the floor)

[pbj]

Drifting off topic here, but my father is known by a nickname so ubiquitous that's how I refer to him, and it has caused him no end of troubles at counters.  Perhaps a few of you have noticed my insistence on being called by my given name?   

Don't give your kids stupid nicknames.  Don't give them trendy names.  The Kaitlyn resumes are starting to pour in and I roll my eyes at every one of them.

 

[lilshawn]

I've been "Li'l Shawn" since grade school. always have...always will.

it was because of another "Shawn" in school. Not a lot of my friends parents liked him. He was older by a year and kind of (really) annoying. My friends would often ask if "Shawn" could come over but thinking the dreaded other Shawn, they would say no.

One of my friends actually asked one time while i was on the telephone and I heard this resounding "NO!" from nearly the entire family at once... he said, "Oh no, the "little Shawn" not the big Shawn" and they where all like "oh yeah, yeah, that's fine, he can come over" and the name just stuck.

been "Li'l Shawn" ever since.

[pbj]

The other dude at my high school with my name brought a pistol in one day and fired into a crowd of students.

What was everyone screaming?  "JAMES HAS A GUN."

Nicknames aren't ALL bad.  :-/

[ChadTower]

All of my kids' friends seem to have the same names.  It's all Connors, Caseys, Rihannas, Bradys.  Given where I live it's not suprising to see kids named Brady that are 8-10 years old.  I want to know where all the 14 year old Rihannas came from. 

That's actually not as bad as some others I have met.  I know a Justice, a Destiny, and a Messiah.  All of a sudden those Tuesdays seem sort of normal.

[lilshawn]

Connors, Caseys, Rihannas, Bradys.

I know a Justice, a Destiny, and a Messiah.

still better than "East West"  *rolls eyes so hard my retinas detach*

[pbj]

There were a lot of goofy names in the 1800s.  This isn't a new phenomenon.

[ChadTower]

still better than "East West"  *rolls eyes so hard my retinas detach*

Have you actually met that kid or is it just something you heard?  I'm talking about kids I've met either as my kids' classmates or I am acquainted with their parents.

[Hoopz]

I know a Leviticus and his baby brother is "Revelation Jedi Prophet LAST NAME".

I'd doubt it would come as a surprise that the kid is home schooled.

[ChadTower]

Hi, my name is Ralphie!  I bent my wookie...

[Vigo]

A co-worker of mine named their kid Slevin after the Bruce Willis movie that just came out at the time.

[eds1275]

Let's not forget



omg lol roflololol

[lilshawn]

still better than "East West"  *rolls eyes so hard my retinas detach*

Have you actually met that kid or is it just something you heard?  I'm talking about kids I've met either as my kids' classmates or I am acquainted with their parents.

Named because of Kanye West's kid's awesome name of "North West" i feel sorry for that poor kid too.