Search results

Don't worry, I am too.

That very well may be. But I still predict that 3D will not be widely accepted because most people don't need it to enjoy a movie, just like a lot of people don't need surround sound to enjoy a movie. I have surround, I have a lot of fun with it. But I know a lot of people who live with out it...

I know what you mean. But honestly, I have little interest in 3D at home (and really not that much in the theater). It's all fine and good, but after about 20 minutes my mind adjusted to the effect and "Avatar" didn't look any different than a 2D film. Every now and then something would "stick...

No, the 2D and the 3D cuts are identical. I think what you're thinking about is that with 3D directors have to be a little more cautious with how they move the camera and how quickly they cut scenes -- overdoing either could lead to motion sickness due to the added 3D effect.

I was using "print" as a catch-all term to keep it simple.

From what I understand, the prints shipped to theaters matched the screen in the auditorium it would be playing to get the most massive picture. If the auditorium is constant width, it got a 1.85 print, if it is constant height then it got a 2.35 print. Cameron has always been about variable...