<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_18_0621219</id>
	<title>3D Blu-ray Spec Finalized, PS3 Supported</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261163160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Lucas123 writes <i>"The Blu-ray Disc Association announced today that it has <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142439/Blu\_ray\_3D\_disc\_specification\_finalized">finalized the specification for Blu-ray 3-D discs</a>. The market for 3-D, which includes 3-D enabled televisions, is expected to be $15.8 billion by 2015. Blu-ray 3-D will create a full 1080p resolution image for both eyes using MPEG4-MVC format. Even though two hi-def images are produced, the overhead is typically only 50\% compared to equivalent 2D content. The spec also allows PS3 game consoles to play Blu-ray 3-D content. 'The specification also incorporates enhanced graphic features for 3D. These features provide a new experience for users, enabling navigation using 3D graphic menus and displaying 3D subtitles positioned in 3D video.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lucas123 writes " The Blu-ray Disc Association announced today that it has finalized the specification for Blu-ray 3-D discs .
The market for 3-D , which includes 3-D enabled televisions , is expected to be $ 15.8 billion by 2015 .
Blu-ray 3-D will create a full 1080p resolution image for both eyes using MPEG4-MVC format .
Even though two hi-def images are produced , the overhead is typically only 50 \ % compared to equivalent 2D content .
The spec also allows PS3 game consoles to play Blu-ray 3-D content .
'The specification also incorporates enhanced graphic features for 3D .
These features provide a new experience for users , enabling navigation using 3D graphic menus and displaying 3D subtitles positioned in 3D video .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lucas123 writes "The Blu-ray Disc Association announced today that it has finalized the specification for Blu-ray 3-D discs.
The market for 3-D, which includes 3-D enabled televisions, is expected to be $15.8 billion by 2015.
Blu-ray 3-D will create a full 1080p resolution image for both eyes using MPEG4-MVC format.
Even though two hi-def images are produced, the overhead is typically only 50\% compared to equivalent 2D content.
The spec also allows PS3 game consoles to play Blu-ray 3-D content.
'The specification also incorporates enhanced graphic features for 3D.
These features provide a new experience for users, enabling navigation using 3D graphic menus and displaying 3D subtitles positioned in 3D video.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484790</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1261130760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the same as the headache technology!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the same as the headache technology !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the same as the headache technology!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30491058</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1261166040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you been to a RealD movie? Do you wear corrective glasses?<br>In my experience wearing the glasses is the most uncomfortable part of it. Having to put the polarized glasses over my own presses against my nose and gives me a headache, like with a new pair of glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been to a RealD movie ?
Do you wear corrective glasses ? In my experience wearing the glasses is the most uncomfortable part of it .
Having to put the polarized glasses over my own presses against my nose and gives me a headache , like with a new pair of glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been to a RealD movie?
Do you wear corrective glasses?In my experience wearing the glasses is the most uncomfortable part of it.
Having to put the polarized glasses over my own presses against my nose and gives me a headache, like with a new pair of glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484412</id>
	<title>Not 3D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261168320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not like a hologram, it is more like a viewmaster.  Now I enjoyed Up in 3D but it didn't really feel like I was looking at the world.  Everything was exaggerated.  Put these discs on a small TV and it is going to be surround sound all over again and stereo before it.  It will take a while before it settles down and films are made which don't try to be sensational with their use of depth, especially since you'll be peering through a tiny 50" or so screen at most.  I'll stick with my HD 100" front projection system until this settles down anyway and if it doesn't catch on, so what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not like a hologram , it is more like a viewmaster .
Now I enjoyed Up in 3D but it did n't really feel like I was looking at the world .
Everything was exaggerated .
Put these discs on a small TV and it is going to be surround sound all over again and stereo before it .
It will take a while before it settles down and films are made which do n't try to be sensational with their use of depth , especially since you 'll be peering through a tiny 50 " or so screen at most .
I 'll stick with my HD 100 " front projection system until this settles down anyway and if it does n't catch on , so what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not like a hologram, it is more like a viewmaster.
Now I enjoyed Up in 3D but it didn't really feel like I was looking at the world.
Everything was exaggerated.
Put these discs on a small TV and it is going to be surround sound all over again and stereo before it.
It will take a while before it settles down and films are made which don't try to be sensational with their use of depth, especially since you'll be peering through a tiny 50" or so screen at most.
I'll stick with my HD 100" front projection system until this settles down anyway and if it doesn't catch on, so what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484966</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261133040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Real life is 3d.  There is no question at all that display technology will eventually go that way, as it slowly approaches maximum realism.  Now, the technology might not be there yet, hence your headaches; but the idea isn't useless.  It's kind of ridiculous to think it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real life is 3d .
There is no question at all that display technology will eventually go that way , as it slowly approaches maximum realism .
Now , the technology might not be there yet , hence your headaches ; but the idea is n't useless .
It 's kind of ridiculous to think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real life is 3d.
There is no question at all that display technology will eventually go that way, as it slowly approaches maximum realism.
Now, the technology might not be there yet, hence your headaches; but the idea isn't useless.
It's kind of ridiculous to think it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can mod me down, but who actually likes 3d video enough to spend extra money on the already expensive blu-ray format?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can mod me down , but who actually likes 3d video enough to spend extra money on the already expensive blu-ray format ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can mod me down, but who actually likes 3d video enough to spend extra money on the already expensive blu-ray format?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485034</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>cyberworm</author>
	<datestamp>1261134180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking along the same lines, except putting them "closer" to the viewer so that they would appear to be floating in the glasses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking along the same lines , except putting them " closer " to the viewer so that they would appear to be floating in the glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking along the same lines, except putting them "closer" to the viewer so that they would appear to be floating in the glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30538900</id>
	<title>No 1080i?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259748540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486306</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clods...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261147500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looked at the sun trough a telescope, have we?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looked at the sun trough a telescope , have we ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looked at the sun trough a telescope, have we?
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484324</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>blu ray is tanking</p><p>something like 2000 dvds sell for every 1 discounted blu-ray sale</p><p>LOOK ITS COOL  BUY BLU-RAY</p><p>look at sales figures for blu-ray for the whole year in sales not shiped then look at dvd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>blu ray is tankingsomething like 2000 dvds sell for every 1 discounted blu-ray saleLOOK ITS COOL BUY BLU-RAYlook at sales figures for blu-ray for the whole year in sales not shiped then look at dvd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blu ray is tankingsomething like 2000 dvds sell for every 1 discounted blu-ray saleLOOK ITS COOL  BUY BLU-RAYlook at sales figures for blu-ray for the whole year in sales not shiped then look at dvd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487874</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3-D p0rn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3-D p0rn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3-D p0rn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484360</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm willing to bet there's a massive market in 3d sports broadcasting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm willing to bet there 's a massive market in 3d sports broadcasting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm willing to bet there's a massive market in 3d sports broadcasting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485804</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261144380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a 49 yo grandmother, feminist, and subtitle encoder for 20+ years I feel highly qualified to comment on this.  Recording an entire movie in 3-D while leaving subtitles to be presented in only 2 dimensions is not only highly racist, sexist, and discriminatory, but is offensive to anyone who watches movies on mute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 49 yo grandmother , feminist , and subtitle encoder for 20 + years I feel highly qualified to comment on this .
Recording an entire movie in 3-D while leaving subtitles to be presented in only 2 dimensions is not only highly racist , sexist , and discriminatory , but is offensive to anyone who watches movies on mute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 49 yo grandmother, feminist, and subtitle encoder for 20+ years I feel highly qualified to comment on this.
Recording an entire movie in 3-D while leaving subtitles to be presented in only 2 dimensions is not only highly racist, sexist, and discriminatory, but is offensive to anyone who watches movies on mute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485246</id>
	<title>3D PS3 Games</title>
	<author>EdgeyEdgey</author>
	<datestamp>1261137300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will this make it easy for developers to piggy back off the 3D glasses method and produce stereoscopic games?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this make it easy for developers to piggy back off the 3D glasses method and produce stereoscopic games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this make it easy for developers to piggy back off the 3D glasses method and produce stereoscopic games?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484478</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1261126860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You can mod me down, but who actually likes 3d video enough to spend extra money on the already expensive blu-ray format?</i>
<p>
Blu Ray players can be had for $100-200. They're also backwards meaning you can play DVDs or Blu Rays on them. Blu Ray discs are settling into the DVD discount model and its easy to find recognizable titles from $8 up. That's hardly expensive. When 3D players turn up, they'll probably occupy a higher price slot (as happens with all early adopter stuff) and then they'll come down in time too.
</p><p>
Personally I think 3D has years to hit the mainstream and has many hurdles to overcome, but Blu Ray is here and affordable right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can mod me down , but who actually likes 3d video enough to spend extra money on the already expensive blu-ray format ?
Blu Ray players can be had for $ 100-200 .
They 're also backwards meaning you can play DVDs or Blu Rays on them .
Blu Ray discs are settling into the DVD discount model and its easy to find recognizable titles from $ 8 up .
That 's hardly expensive .
When 3D players turn up , they 'll probably occupy a higher price slot ( as happens with all early adopter stuff ) and then they 'll come down in time too .
Personally I think 3D has years to hit the mainstream and has many hurdles to overcome , but Blu Ray is here and affordable right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can mod me down, but who actually likes 3d video enough to spend extra money on the already expensive blu-ray format?
Blu Ray players can be had for $100-200.
They're also backwards meaning you can play DVDs or Blu Rays on them.
Blu Ray discs are settling into the DVD discount model and its easy to find recognizable titles from $8 up.
That's hardly expensive.
When 3D players turn up, they'll probably occupy a higher price slot (as happens with all early adopter stuff) and then they'll come down in time too.
Personally I think 3D has years to hit the mainstream and has many hurdles to overcome, but Blu Ray is here and affordable right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484998</id>
	<title>More like stereoscopic, not 3D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261133580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's stereoscopic video. Like watching moving View-Master. Not real 3D as I would like it to be. I think it would be pretty hard to create something where you actually could see things from different perspective if you altered your position, but ability to focus on different objects at different distances would be great. This '3-D' looks more like bunch of stuff cut from cardboard and hanged at different, yet too shallow depths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's stereoscopic video .
Like watching moving View-Master .
Not real 3D as I would like it to be .
I think it would be pretty hard to create something where you actually could see things from different perspective if you altered your position , but ability to focus on different objects at different distances would be great .
This '3-D ' looks more like bunch of stuff cut from cardboard and hanged at different , yet too shallow depths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's stereoscopic video.
Like watching moving View-Master.
Not real 3D as I would like it to be.
I think it would be pretty hard to create something where you actually could see things from different perspective if you altered your position, but ability to focus on different objects at different distances would be great.
This '3-D' looks more like bunch of stuff cut from cardboard and hanged at different, yet too shallow depths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485358</id>
	<title>Perhaps content providers want it</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1261139160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Download speeds don't increase all that fast.  Neither are hard drives, at least compared to the earlier part of the decade.</p><p>Maybe, they think, if they can jack up the size enough - perhaps with HVD next - that they can outrun the downloaders just though the sheer size of the data?  Maybe that's why the music industry tried to push DVD-As and SACDs in 1999/2000 as well.</p><p>Idk.</p><p>If blu-ray was backwards compatible like HD-DVD was (you could play one side in a DVD player), I would be encourage to get it.  But as it is, I'm at the good enough stage.  The next format will probably be downloadable, the era of physical formats are dying slowly, and while that won't stop releases on current formats, it will really hamper new ones from emerging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Download speeds do n't increase all that fast .
Neither are hard drives , at least compared to the earlier part of the decade.Maybe , they think , if they can jack up the size enough - perhaps with HVD next - that they can outrun the downloaders just though the sheer size of the data ?
Maybe that 's why the music industry tried to push DVD-As and SACDs in 1999/2000 as well.Idk.If blu-ray was backwards compatible like HD-DVD was ( you could play one side in a DVD player ) , I would be encourage to get it .
But as it is , I 'm at the good enough stage .
The next format will probably be downloadable , the era of physical formats are dying slowly , and while that wo n't stop releases on current formats , it will really hamper new ones from emerging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Download speeds don't increase all that fast.
Neither are hard drives, at least compared to the earlier part of the decade.Maybe, they think, if they can jack up the size enough - perhaps with HVD next - that they can outrun the downloaders just though the sheer size of the data?
Maybe that's why the music industry tried to push DVD-As and SACDs in 1999/2000 as well.Idk.If blu-ray was backwards compatible like HD-DVD was (you could play one side in a DVD player), I would be encourage to get it.
But as it is, I'm at the good enough stage.
The next format will probably be downloadable, the era of physical formats are dying slowly, and while that won't stop releases on current formats, it will really hamper new ones from emerging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485274</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1261137720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Subtitles and other graphics sit on a plane above the video content. When you watch a movie in 3D, you want to be able to adjust where that plane "floats" to make it easier to read the focus between the text and the scene.On a regular TV this isn't an issue because the picture and graphic are sitting on the same perpendicular plane to the viewer at a fixed distance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Subtitles and other graphics sit on a plane above the video content .
When you watch a movie in 3D , you want to be able to adjust where that plane " floats " to make it easier to read the focus between the text and the scene.On a regular TV this is n't an issue because the picture and graphic are sitting on the same perpendicular plane to the viewer at a fixed distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subtitles and other graphics sit on a plane above the video content.
When you watch a movie in 3D, you want to be able to adjust where that plane "floats" to make it easier to read the focus between the text and the scene.On a regular TV this isn't an issue because the picture and graphic are sitting on the same perpendicular plane to the viewer at a fixed distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484410</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261168320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That actually might be an effort to give something which is decisively different from "good enough" DVD.</p><p>And hoping people will like it, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That actually might be an effort to give something which is decisively different from " good enough " DVD.And hoping people will like it , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That actually might be an effort to give something which is decisively different from "good enough" DVD.And hoping people will like it, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</id>
	<title>Subtitles?</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1261167540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...
<br>
<br>
Why do we need 3D subtitles? What good could possibly come of this?
<br>
<br>
In my book, subtitles have several requirements. They need to: be easy-to-read, have proper spelling/grammar, and have good timing. The third dimension doesn't fit in there anywhere. Now, if they were talking about improving the subtitle specifications to allow a wider range of fonts and outlines (as some are hard to read in certain situations), I would be all for it. But 3D? No thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time.. . Why do we need 3D subtitles ?
What good could possibly come of this ?
In my book , subtitles have several requirements .
They need to : be easy-to-read , have proper spelling/grammar , and have good timing .
The third dimension does n't fit in there anywhere .
Now , if they were talking about improving the subtitle specifications to allow a wider range of fonts and outlines ( as some are hard to read in certain situations ) , I would be all for it .
But 3D ?
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...


Why do we need 3D subtitles?
What good could possibly come of this?
In my book, subtitles have several requirements.
They need to: be easy-to-read, have proper spelling/grammar, and have good timing.
The third dimension doesn't fit in there anywhere.
Now, if they were talking about improving the subtitle specifications to allow a wider range of fonts and outlines (as some are hard to read in certain situations), I would be all for it.
But 3D?
No thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487976</id>
	<title>Re:How about us handicapped people!</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1261154940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does it feel to suddenly be on the "crippled" side? Don't worry, the rest of us, naturally conceived, will join you in the next years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does it feel to suddenly be on the " crippled " side ?
Do n't worry , the rest of us , naturally conceived , will join you in the next years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does it feel to suddenly be on the "crippled" side?
Don't worry, the rest of us, naturally conceived, will join you in the next years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487270</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive clods...</title>
	<author>GNUThomson</author>
	<datestamp>1261152120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too, Aarrrr!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too , Aarrrr !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too, Aarrrr!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486216</id>
	<title>Re:Not 3D</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261147080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s the thing that struck me with Avatar. I did not find such &ldquo;because we can&rdquo; scenes. The only weird thing was, that sometimes things looked too big (or too small).</p><p>But stereo video really did fit the movie well. The first scene, inside that ship, you could really see the depth and size of that room. Which, with the added &ldquo;what is this&lsquo;bottom&rsquo; of which you speak&rdquo; look really made you immerse into the scene. I think most of the movie, stereo video was used how it should be used, and had a well-integrated point to it.</p><p>I hope others will follow that model. Then stereo video will become a success.<br>Otherwise, it won&rsquo;t. (And everything in between.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s the thing that struck me with Avatar .
I did not find such    because we can    scenes .
The only weird thing was , that sometimes things looked too big ( or too small ) .But stereo video really did fit the movie well .
The first scene , inside that ship , you could really see the depth and size of that room .
Which , with the added    what is this    bottom    of which you speak    look really made you immerse into the scene .
I think most of the movie , stereo video was used how it should be used , and had a well-integrated point to it.I hope others will follow that model .
Then stereo video will become a success.Otherwise , it won    t .
( And everything in between .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s the thing that struck me with Avatar.
I did not find such “because we can” scenes.
The only weird thing was, that sometimes things looked too big (or too small).But stereo video really did fit the movie well.
The first scene, inside that ship, you could really see the depth and size of that room.
Which, with the added “what is this‘bottom’ of which you speak” look really made you immerse into the scene.
I think most of the movie, stereo video was used how it should be used, and had a well-integrated point to it.I hope others will follow that model.
Then stereo video will become a success.Otherwise, it won’t.
(And everything in between.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30492688</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1261128840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie? Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?</p></div></blockquote><p>Its continuing because:<br>1) It doesn't cause headaches for lots of people (it does for some others -- as does "shakycam" style filming with regular 2D movies, like District 9, Blair Witch, or Cloverfield.)<br>2) People actually enjoy it, so its not "useless" in an entertainment product,<br>3) Given that 3D visualization has been important for decades, 3D presentation capabilities clearly aren't useless in other contexts, either,<br>4) Its getting cheaper to display and generate 3D content, so (given the first three points) its becoming more common.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie ?
Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness ? Its continuing because : 1 ) It does n't cause headaches for lots of people ( it does for some others -- as does " shakycam " style filming with regular 2D movies , like District 9 , Blair Witch , or Cloverfield .
) 2 ) People actually enjoy it , so its not " useless " in an entertainment product,3 ) Given that 3D visualization has been important for decades , 3D presentation capabilities clearly are n't useless in other contexts , either,4 ) Its getting cheaper to display and generate 3D content , so ( given the first three points ) its becoming more common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie?
Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?Its continuing because:1) It doesn't cause headaches for lots of people (it does for some others -- as does "shakycam" style filming with regular 2D movies, like District 9, Blair Witch, or Cloverfield.
)2) People actually enjoy it, so its not "useless" in an entertainment product,3) Given that 3D visualization has been important for decades, 3D presentation capabilities clearly aren't useless in other contexts, either,4) Its getting cheaper to display and generate 3D content, so (given the first three points) its becoming more common.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485298</id>
	<title>XBOX 360?</title>
	<author>ThirdPrize</author>
	<datestamp>1261138080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about 3d downloads?  Will you have to buy a pair of M$ 3d glasses that only work with the 360?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about 3d downloads ?
Will you have to buy a pair of M $ 3d glasses that only work with the 360 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about 3d downloads?
Will you have to buy a pair of M$ 3d glasses that only work with the 360?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484798</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1261130820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will - because I can</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will - because I can</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will - because I can</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484906</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1261132260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like it in cinema, when I've watched 3D movies at the cinema it's been the biggest improvement to film since colour, a far better improvement than digital, high def, surround sound and such.</p><p>But here's the problem, is TV based 3D as good as cinema 3D? afaik it's a completely different technology and up until now, TV 3D has been frankly, complete and utter crap.</p><p>If it's just the tired old crappy TV 3D, then, well, it's a complete waste of time as you say. If however it's as good as the 3D they're pushing in cinemas now, then frankly I'd even prefer 3D over HD if I had to choose between the two because it's a much bigger, much better change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like it in cinema , when I 've watched 3D movies at the cinema it 's been the biggest improvement to film since colour , a far better improvement than digital , high def , surround sound and such.But here 's the problem , is TV based 3D as good as cinema 3D ?
afaik it 's a completely different technology and up until now , TV 3D has been frankly , complete and utter crap.If it 's just the tired old crappy TV 3D , then , well , it 's a complete waste of time as you say .
If however it 's as good as the 3D they 're pushing in cinemas now , then frankly I 'd even prefer 3D over HD if I had to choose between the two because it 's a much bigger , much better change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like it in cinema, when I've watched 3D movies at the cinema it's been the biggest improvement to film since colour, a far better improvement than digital, high def, surround sound and such.But here's the problem, is TV based 3D as good as cinema 3D?
afaik it's a completely different technology and up until now, TV 3D has been frankly, complete and utter crap.If it's just the tired old crappy TV 3D, then, well, it's a complete waste of time as you say.
If however it's as good as the 3D they're pushing in cinemas now, then frankly I'd even prefer 3D over HD if I had to choose between the two because it's a much bigger, much better change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30489516</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>gentoofu</author>
	<datestamp>1261160940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't wait 'til this gets out on karaokes!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait 'til this gets out on karaokes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait 'til this gets out on karaokes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486140</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261146660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s not a question of &ldquo;needing&rdquo; them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>It&rsquo;s simple physics: With those glasses, everything has a depth position. Whether you want it or not. So even if you put the subtitles at position zero, it will still look like it&rsquo;s hovering in space.</p><p>Don&rsquo;t worry, I found the subtitles to be even more readable than normal 2D ones and was positively surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s not a question of    needing    them .
: ) It    s simple physics : With those glasses , everything has a depth position .
Whether you want it or not .
So even if you put the subtitles at position zero , it will still look like it    s hovering in space.Don    t worry , I found the subtitles to be even more readable than normal 2D ones and was positively surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s not a question of “needing” them.
:)It’s simple physics: With those glasses, everything has a depth position.
Whether you want it or not.
So even if you put the subtitles at position zero, it will still look like it’s hovering in space.Don’t worry, I found the subtitles to be even more readable than normal 2D ones and was positively surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30492074</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1261169880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People who like sound enough to buy seven speakers and a subwoofer instead of a perfectly satisfactory two speakers and people who like video quality enough to buy a Blu-Ray instead of a perfectly satisfactory DVD. And as was the case for both of those, people who have not witnessed good 3D video will not be able to comprehend how it can add to the entertainment experience until they have seen if for themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who like sound enough to buy seven speakers and a subwoofer instead of a perfectly satisfactory two speakers and people who like video quality enough to buy a Blu-Ray instead of a perfectly satisfactory DVD .
And as was the case for both of those , people who have not witnessed good 3D video will not be able to comprehend how it can add to the entertainment experience until they have seen if for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who like sound enough to buy seven speakers and a subwoofer instead of a perfectly satisfactory two speakers and people who like video quality enough to buy a Blu-Ray instead of a perfectly satisfactory DVD.
And as was the case for both of those, people who have not witnessed good 3D video will not be able to comprehend how it can add to the entertainment experience until they have seen if for themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484910</id>
	<title>3d via firmware upgrade--but still no bitstream?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261132320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? They plan to upgrade all existing consoles to be 3d-capable via a firmware upgrade, but the only way to get a console capable of bitstreaming the new audio codecs is to buy the new PS3 Slim model. Awesome work there, Sony.

Not that it's really a big deal to send LPCM instead of bitstream, but it would be nice to have the option at least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
They plan to upgrade all existing consoles to be 3d-capable via a firmware upgrade , but the only way to get a console capable of bitstreaming the new audio codecs is to buy the new PS3 Slim model .
Awesome work there , Sony .
Not that it 's really a big deal to send LPCM instead of bitstream , but it would be nice to have the option at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
They plan to upgrade all existing consoles to be 3d-capable via a firmware upgrade, but the only way to get a console capable of bitstreaming the new audio codecs is to buy the new PS3 Slim model.
Awesome work there, Sony.
Not that it's really a big deal to send LPCM instead of bitstream, but it would be nice to have the option at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486038</id>
	<title>And again: Stereo, not 3D.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261146060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s stereo video. Just like stereo audio.<br>3D would be, if you could look at any frame from any position, rotation and depth focus. And slice away parts at will. You know. Then again, that would be 4D, because that volume has a time-dimension too.</p><p>So actually, normal movies already <em>are</em> 3D. Just not the dimensions you&rsquo;d expect.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>(Hey, what would happen, if you could make the time dimension the Z dimension, and then look at the volume from other directions, slicing it away differently?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D<br>(If you then could e.g. center the frames not equally, but based on the position and orientation of the main character...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s stereo video .
Just like stereo audio.3D would be , if you could look at any frame from any position , rotation and depth focus .
And slice away parts at will .
You know .
Then again , that would be 4D , because that volume has a time-dimension too.So actually , normal movies already are 3D .
Just not the dimensions you    d expect .
; ) ( Hey , what would happen , if you could make the time dimension the Z dimension , and then look at the volume from other directions , slicing it away differently ?
: D ( If you then could e.g .
center the frames not equally , but based on the position and orientation of the main character... : D )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s stereo video.
Just like stereo audio.3D would be, if you could look at any frame from any position, rotation and depth focus.
And slice away parts at will.
You know.
Then again, that would be 4D, because that volume has a time-dimension too.So actually, normal movies already are 3D.
Just not the dimensions you’d expect.
;)(Hey, what would happen, if you could make the time dimension the Z dimension, and then look at the volume from other directions, slicing it away differently?
:D(If you then could e.g.
center the frames not equally, but based on the position and orientation of the main character... :D)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493382</id>
	<title>Because it adds a dimension</title>
	<author>Venerable Vegetable</author>
	<datestamp>1261131660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well for starters, me. In fact I don't care to buy a blu-ray player at all. I'm happy with DVD's.</p><p>However, to get the ability to watch high quality 3d movies I'd buy a new player AND a new tv. And I would pay premium for comfortable glasses.</p><p>Why? Because it adds a lot to the movie experience. 3d produces a much more lifelike image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for starters , me .
In fact I do n't care to buy a blu-ray player at all .
I 'm happy with DVD 's.However , to get the ability to watch high quality 3d movies I 'd buy a new player AND a new tv .
And I would pay premium for comfortable glasses.Why ?
Because it adds a lot to the movie experience .
3d produces a much more lifelike image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for starters, me.
In fact I don't care to buy a blu-ray player at all.
I'm happy with DVD's.However, to get the ability to watch high quality 3d movies I'd buy a new player AND a new tv.
And I would pay premium for comfortable glasses.Why?
Because it adds a lot to the movie experience.
3d produces a much more lifelike image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485092</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261134960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, enough with this "expensive blu-ray format" crap! You're living in the past. When was the last time you compared the price difference between Blu-ray and DVD? Check out Amazon. Most Blu-ray discs are only 10-15\% more than their DVD counterparts. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to pay that amount in premium for better picture and sound quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , enough with this " expensive blu-ray format " crap !
You 're living in the past .
When was the last time you compared the price difference between Blu-ray and DVD ?
Check out Amazon .
Most Blu-ray discs are only 10-15 \ % more than their DVD counterparts .
I do n't know about you , but I 'm willing to pay that amount in premium for better picture and sound quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, enough with this "expensive blu-ray format" crap!
You're living in the past.
When was the last time you compared the price difference between Blu-ray and DVD?
Check out Amazon.
Most Blu-ray discs are only 10-15\% more than their DVD counterparts.
I don't know about you, but I'm willing to pay that amount in premium for better picture and sound quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488290</id>
	<title>Re:How about us handicapped people!</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261156260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your depth perception in real life is probably due to context - you look at vertical angles, knowing that the ground is always 1.7m (or whatever) below your eyes, you look at objects like birds knowing what their dimensions are so you can tell how far away they are, etc (all subconsciously). If that is true, then you wouldn't benefit from 3D at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your depth perception in real life is probably due to context - you look at vertical angles , knowing that the ground is always 1.7m ( or whatever ) below your eyes , you look at objects like birds knowing what their dimensions are so you can tell how far away they are , etc ( all subconsciously ) .
If that is true , then you would n't benefit from 3D at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your depth perception in real life is probably due to context - you look at vertical angles, knowing that the ground is always 1.7m (or whatever) below your eyes, you look at objects like birds knowing what their dimensions are so you can tell how far away they are, etc (all subconsciously).
If that is true, then you wouldn't benefit from 3D at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30496410</id>
	<title>Re:How about us handicapped people!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1261155960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These new systems will very likely have a mode to work with a normal display, where they only show one of the angles. Since you are already compatible with Real World 3D, I don't see how you'd be incompatible with this. Even red-green glasses should be usable, albeit with only one color actually visible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These new systems will very likely have a mode to work with a normal display , where they only show one of the angles .
Since you are already compatible with Real World 3D , I do n't see how you 'd be incompatible with this .
Even red-green glasses should be usable , albeit with only one color actually visible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These new systems will very likely have a mode to work with a normal display, where they only show one of the angles.
Since you are already compatible with Real World 3D, I don't see how you'd be incompatible with this.
Even red-green glasses should be usable, albeit with only one color actually visible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484404</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1261168320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do we need 3D subtitles? What good could possibly come of this?</p></div><p>When everything else is in 3D, having subtitles in 2D puts them at the furthest effective focal distance.  3D subtitles doesn't necessarily mean that all subtitles are on an angle with depth and drop shadows... it could be used only as a means to control where they appear on the Z axis.</p><p>A character in the foreground could have their subtitle float in the foreground for example.  When you see "[music playing]" as a subtitle, it could be positioned at the same focal distance as that piano player in the back of the room.  When the bird on a branch chirps right in your face, the subtitle is in your face too.  Would be really cool for an action comic kind of "biff" "pow" subtitles without baking them into the video frame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we need 3D subtitles ?
What good could possibly come of this ? When everything else is in 3D , having subtitles in 2D puts them at the furthest effective focal distance .
3D subtitles does n't necessarily mean that all subtitles are on an angle with depth and drop shadows... it could be used only as a means to control where they appear on the Z axis.A character in the foreground could have their subtitle float in the foreground for example .
When you see " [ music playing ] " as a subtitle , it could be positioned at the same focal distance as that piano player in the back of the room .
When the bird on a branch chirps right in your face , the subtitle is in your face too .
Would be really cool for an action comic kind of " biff " " pow " subtitles without baking them into the video frame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we need 3D subtitles?
What good could possibly come of this?When everything else is in 3D, having subtitles in 2D puts them at the furthest effective focal distance.
3D subtitles doesn't necessarily mean that all subtitles are on an angle with depth and drop shadows... it could be used only as a means to control where they appear on the Z axis.A character in the foreground could have their subtitle float in the foreground for example.
When you see "[music playing]" as a subtitle, it could be positioned at the same focal distance as that piano player in the back of the room.
When the bird on a branch chirps right in your face, the subtitle is in your face too.
Would be really cool for an action comic kind of "biff" "pow" subtitles without baking them into the video frame.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484398</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261168260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone planning to purchase a panasonic v10 series plasma TV I might spend extra for 3d stuff. I am not the average<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er though. Average<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er seems to hate anything HD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone planning to purchase a panasonic v10 series plasma TV I might spend extra for 3d stuff .
I am not the average /.er though .
Average /.er seems to hate anything HD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone planning to purchase a panasonic v10 series plasma TV I might spend extra for 3d stuff.
I am not the average /.er though.
Average /.er seems to hate anything HD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30489622</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>djnforce9</author>
	<datestamp>1261161360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really depends on the person. For some (like yourself), it may cause a headache or other undesirable side effects or just not a worthwhile enhancement. However, for others (like myself), it really enhances my enjoyment of a particular movie when I can experience "true depth" instead of the flat image we have all grown accustomed to seeing. In short, it increases immersion even further.</p><p>In my case, I've begun to use it on PC games too with iz3D's drivers and I find the gaming experience a whole lot better (especially with certain titles). The same can be applied to movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends on the person .
For some ( like yourself ) , it may cause a headache or other undesirable side effects or just not a worthwhile enhancement .
However , for others ( like myself ) , it really enhances my enjoyment of a particular movie when I can experience " true depth " instead of the flat image we have all grown accustomed to seeing .
In short , it increases immersion even further.In my case , I 've begun to use it on PC games too with iz3D 's drivers and I find the gaming experience a whole lot better ( especially with certain titles ) .
The same can be applied to movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends on the person.
For some (like yourself), it may cause a headache or other undesirable side effects or just not a worthwhile enhancement.
However, for others (like myself), it really enhances my enjoyment of a particular movie when I can experience "true depth" instead of the flat image we have all grown accustomed to seeing.
In short, it increases immersion even further.In my case, I've begun to use it on PC games too with iz3D's drivers and I find the gaming experience a whole lot better (especially with certain titles).
The same can be applied to movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484388</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>nate\_in\_ME</author>
	<datestamp>1261168140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thought for a potential use would be to make it easier to see who is saying what...for example:<p>

For argument's sake, let's say you're showing a scene of 4 people sitting each on one side of a table talking.  With "conventional" subtitles, they are limited to being overlaid on the scene as a whole, making it difficult at times to figure out which character is saying what, especially if you can not see the lips of one or more characters to determine if they are talking.</p><p>
With a 3d subtitle system, you could place the subtitles properly in the environment to denote who is saying what.  Picture a cross between the speech bubbles on a comic, and that new video game(for the life of me, I can't remember which game it is right now, and Google was no help) that projects messages regarding new missions, etc. directly into the environment - such as onto the side of a building.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thought for a potential use would be to make it easier to see who is saying what...for example : For argument 's sake , let 's say you 're showing a scene of 4 people sitting each on one side of a table talking .
With " conventional " subtitles , they are limited to being overlaid on the scene as a whole , making it difficult at times to figure out which character is saying what , especially if you can not see the lips of one or more characters to determine if they are talking .
With a 3d subtitle system , you could place the subtitles properly in the environment to denote who is saying what .
Picture a cross between the speech bubbles on a comic , and that new video game ( for the life of me , I ca n't remember which game it is right now , and Google was no help ) that projects messages regarding new missions , etc .
directly into the environment - such as onto the side of a building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thought for a potential use would be to make it easier to see who is saying what...for example:

For argument's sake, let's say you're showing a scene of 4 people sitting each on one side of a table talking.
With "conventional" subtitles, they are limited to being overlaid on the scene as a whole, making it difficult at times to figure out which character is saying what, especially if you can not see the lips of one or more characters to determine if they are talking.
With a 3d subtitle system, you could place the subtitles properly in the environment to denote who is saying what.
Picture a cross between the speech bubbles on a comic, and that new video game(for the life of me, I can't remember which game it is right now, and Google was no help) that projects messages regarding new missions, etc.
directly into the environment - such as onto the side of a building.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486764</id>
	<title>In-movie text translation</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1261149660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...</p></div><p>Sometime people use subtitles for a different purpose... Like not speaking the language the movie was shot in. People need also subtitles to provide them translations.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do we need 3D subtitles? What good could possibly come of this?</p></div><p>Very often, in such foreign movie, you'll find also text written on the scenery : marquees, panels, signs, etc.<br>One possibility is to treat them the same way as dialog and write the translation in the same area where dialogs are translated too, with a description prefix "Signs : Do NOT feed the alligators".</p><p>Another possibility is having the subtitles positioned just over the where the original text is in the frame. Thus foreign viewer see the text in-place. I've seen this done very often in anime.<br>This trick works not so bad with 2D movie because everything is flat. In a 3D movie, if not corrected for depth, the translation won't seem written over the original, but would either seem floating mid-scene, or worse : would seem further than the text it's supposed to be written over.</p><p>Same argument also when the translation is written "next to" the original. For the trick to work in 3D you need to also place correctly the subtitles in depth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...Sometime people use subtitles for a different purpose... Like not speaking the language the movie was shot in .
People need also subtitles to provide them translations.Why do we need 3D subtitles ?
What good could possibly come of this ? Very often , in such foreign movie , you 'll find also text written on the scenery : marquees , panels , signs , etc.One possibility is to treat them the same way as dialog and write the translation in the same area where dialogs are translated too , with a description prefix " Signs : Do NOT feed the alligators " .Another possibility is having the subtitles positioned just over the where the original text is in the frame .
Thus foreign viewer see the text in-place .
I 've seen this done very often in anime.This trick works not so bad with 2D movie because everything is flat .
In a 3D movie , if not corrected for depth , the translation wo n't seem written over the original , but would either seem floating mid-scene , or worse : would seem further than the text it 's supposed to be written over.Same argument also when the translation is written " next to " the original .
For the trick to work in 3D you need to also place correctly the subtitles in depth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...Sometime people use subtitles for a different purpose... Like not speaking the language the movie was shot in.
People need also subtitles to provide them translations.Why do we need 3D subtitles?
What good could possibly come of this?Very often, in such foreign movie, you'll find also text written on the scenery : marquees, panels, signs, etc.One possibility is to treat them the same way as dialog and write the translation in the same area where dialogs are translated too, with a description prefix "Signs : Do NOT feed the alligators".Another possibility is having the subtitles positioned just over the where the original text is in the frame.
Thus foreign viewer see the text in-place.
I've seen this done very often in anime.This trick works not so bad with 2D movie because everything is flat.
In a 3D movie, if not corrected for depth, the translation won't seem written over the original, but would either seem floating mid-scene, or worse : would seem further than the text it's supposed to be written over.Same argument also when the translation is written "next to" the original.
For the trick to work in 3D you need to also place correctly the subtitles in depth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484482</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261127040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm willing to pay for it. I saw Avatar last night in 3d and it was amazing. Totally worth the extra money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm willing to pay for it .
I saw Avatar last night in 3d and it was amazing .
Totally worth the extra money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm willing to pay for it.
I saw Avatar last night in 3d and it was amazing.
Totally worth the extra money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485372</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1261139520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie? Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Here's a note, old timer. If you don't like it out here, stay on your lawn. Don't you get this? <b>We can have 3D movies in our living room!</b> At what point did you switch from thinking new technology was cool to complaining about it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie ?
Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness ?
Here 's a note , old timer .
If you do n't like it out here , stay on your lawn .
Do n't you get this ?
We can have 3D movies in our living room !
At what point did you switch from thinking new technology was cool to complaining about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie?
Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?
Here's a note, old timer.
If you don't like it out here, stay on your lawn.
Don't you get this?
We can have 3D movies in our living room!
At what point did you switch from thinking new technology was cool to complaining about it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30490340</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261163460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The push for 3D (steroscopic) imaging continues because our debt-based western capitalist technological civilization's economic game of musical chairs depends on it.  If there is nothing new to sell, then there is no growth, and without growth there is no debt/wealth-creation, which means you have to start paying back your debts.  That, of course, is impossible, so the music must go on.</p><p>First it was HD.  For years they pushed that at SIGGRAPH and other industry conferences, until people finally bought in to it.  Now you can see all the acne and chicken pox scars of your local news anchors.  Don't you feel better?</p><p>On the bright side, you've created a little industry for compositors who have to go back through all the HD movies coming out of Hollywood and clean up the imperfections on actresses' skin.  That's kind of like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken\_window\_fallacy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">broken window fallacy</a> [wikipedia.org], but don't worry about it too much.</p><p>The only thing you can edit HD off of is a SAN, so now we all bought fibre channel rigs, swiches, HBAs, etc.  Storage requirements jumped from gigabytes to terabytes, and rendering capacity had to increase, so we bought all that stuff, too.</p><p>Come on, don't you just <i>feel</i> better now, knowing that the media you consume is "high definition"?</p><p>Given enough time and propaganda, we're confident you will <i>feel</i> better knowing the movies you are watching are in 3D.  I mean, isn't this an improvement?</p><p>The best thing about stereoscopic workflow is this isn't going to be a hardware scaling of 1.6x, but rather 2.0x!  Studios will be required to increase their storage, network, and rendering bandwidth by 2x to compensate for the running a second channel of video through the pipeline.</p><p>You're also creating a market for software developers to make plugins and other utilities to deal with all the issues brought about by a stereo workflow.</p><p>So, is this good?  Well, it is what it is.  It's the way our civilization works.  But, one thing is for sure, stereoscopic-everything is coming, and you will buy it, and you will like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The push for 3D ( steroscopic ) imaging continues because our debt-based western capitalist technological civilization 's economic game of musical chairs depends on it .
If there is nothing new to sell , then there is no growth , and without growth there is no debt/wealth-creation , which means you have to start paying back your debts .
That , of course , is impossible , so the music must go on.First it was HD .
For years they pushed that at SIGGRAPH and other industry conferences , until people finally bought in to it .
Now you can see all the acne and chicken pox scars of your local news anchors .
Do n't you feel better ? On the bright side , you 've created a little industry for compositors who have to go back through all the HD movies coming out of Hollywood and clean up the imperfections on actresses ' skin .
That 's kind of like the broken window fallacy [ wikipedia.org ] , but do n't worry about it too much.The only thing you can edit HD off of is a SAN , so now we all bought fibre channel rigs , swiches , HBAs , etc .
Storage requirements jumped from gigabytes to terabytes , and rendering capacity had to increase , so we bought all that stuff , too.Come on , do n't you just feel better now , knowing that the media you consume is " high definition " ? Given enough time and propaganda , we 're confident you will feel better knowing the movies you are watching are in 3D .
I mean , is n't this an improvement ? The best thing about stereoscopic workflow is this is n't going to be a hardware scaling of 1.6x , but rather 2.0x !
Studios will be required to increase their storage , network , and rendering bandwidth by 2x to compensate for the running a second channel of video through the pipeline.You 're also creating a market for software developers to make plugins and other utilities to deal with all the issues brought about by a stereo workflow.So , is this good ?
Well , it is what it is .
It 's the way our civilization works .
But , one thing is for sure , stereoscopic-everything is coming , and you will buy it , and you will like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The push for 3D (steroscopic) imaging continues because our debt-based western capitalist technological civilization's economic game of musical chairs depends on it.
If there is nothing new to sell, then there is no growth, and without growth there is no debt/wealth-creation, which means you have to start paying back your debts.
That, of course, is impossible, so the music must go on.First it was HD.
For years they pushed that at SIGGRAPH and other industry conferences, until people finally bought in to it.
Now you can see all the acne and chicken pox scars of your local news anchors.
Don't you feel better?On the bright side, you've created a little industry for compositors who have to go back through all the HD movies coming out of Hollywood and clean up the imperfections on actresses' skin.
That's kind of like the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org], but don't worry about it too much.The only thing you can edit HD off of is a SAN, so now we all bought fibre channel rigs, swiches, HBAs, etc.
Storage requirements jumped from gigabytes to terabytes, and rendering capacity had to increase, so we bought all that stuff, too.Come on, don't you just feel better now, knowing that the media you consume is "high definition"?Given enough time and propaganda, we're confident you will feel better knowing the movies you are watching are in 3D.
I mean, isn't this an improvement?The best thing about stereoscopic workflow is this isn't going to be a hardware scaling of 1.6x, but rather 2.0x!
Studios will be required to increase their storage, network, and rendering bandwidth by 2x to compensate for the running a second channel of video through the pipeline.You're also creating a market for software developers to make plugins and other utilities to deal with all the issues brought about by a stereo workflow.So, is this good?
Well, it is what it is.
It's the way our civilization works.
But, one thing is for sure, stereoscopic-everything is coming, and you will buy it, and you will like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485362</id>
	<title>Imagine...</title>
	<author>rapturizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261139340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3D porn on a large screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3D porn on a large screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D porn on a large screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484392</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261168200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...</p><p>Why do we need 3D subtitles?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>The answer is rather simple: if you have 3D picture, the subtitles must also be shown in 3D. What you really care about is the quality of this projection, a rather confusing matter: what is a good depth to display subtitles (assuming that they are projected at a standard depth)? And many more questions for which I don't think we have the answers yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...Why do we need 3D subtitles ?
...The answer is rather simple : if you have 3D picture , the subtitles must also be shown in 3D .
What you really care about is the quality of this projection , a rather confusing matter : what is a good depth to display subtitles ( assuming that they are projected at a standard depth ) ?
And many more questions for which I do n't think we have the answers yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...Why do we need 3D subtitles?
...The answer is rather simple: if you have 3D picture, the subtitles must also be shown in 3D.
What you really care about is the quality of this projection, a rather confusing matter: what is a good depth to display subtitles (assuming that they are projected at a standard depth)?
And many more questions for which I don't think we have the answers yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484374</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261168020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has been a surge of new tech resistance on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ lately. Why not just rename it.</p><p>Slashdot! News for old guys. Stuff that never change.</p><p>Judging by your low id you would fit right in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has been a surge of new tech resistance on ./ lately .
Why not just rename it.Slashdot !
News for old guys .
Stuff that never change.Judging by your low id you would fit right in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has been a surge of new tech resistance on ./ lately.
Why not just rename it.Slashdot!
News for old guys.
Stuff that never change.Judging by your low id you would fit right in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485624</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1261142520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having subtitles appear in the foreground near where the actor is on screen, and then slowly "sinking" to the back of the depth of field before disappearing would be pretty damn cool. I'm sure if there was some sort of standardized system, the anime folk would have a hay-day with that technology (especially if you could separate the subtitles from the 2D animation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having subtitles appear in the foreground near where the actor is on screen , and then slowly " sinking " to the back of the depth of field before disappearing would be pretty damn cool .
I 'm sure if there was some sort of standardized system , the anime folk would have a hay-day with that technology ( especially if you could separate the subtitles from the 2D animation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having subtitles appear in the foreground near where the actor is on screen, and then slowly "sinking" to the back of the depth of field before disappearing would be pretty damn cool.
I'm sure if there was some sort of standardized system, the anime folk would have a hay-day with that technology (especially if you could separate the subtitles from the 2D animation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486498</id>
	<title>MPEG4-MVC ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't you guys just call it H.264 like everyone else on the planet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't you guys just call it H.264 like everyone else on the planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't you guys just call it H.264 like everyone else on the planet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493282</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1261131360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, 3D is just about the only thing that can get me into a theater these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , 3D is just about the only thing that can get me into a theater these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, 3D is just about the only thing that can get me into a theater these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488016</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1261155120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...</p><p>Does that answer your question?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A long time ago , in a galaxy far far away...Does that answer your question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...Does that answer your question?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484878</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>santiagodraco</author>
	<datestamp>1261132020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go see Avatar in 3D and come back and say that 3D isn't worthwhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go see Avatar in 3D and come back and say that 3D is n't worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go see Avatar in 3D and come back and say that 3D isn't worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485852</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>pelrun</author>
	<datestamp>1261144740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually probably the *only* thing that would make me want to spend money on the format. I'd be just as happy with frame-sequential 3d dvds, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually probably the * only * thing that would make me want to spend money on the format .
I 'd be just as happy with frame-sequential 3d dvds , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually probably the *only* thing that would make me want to spend money on the format.
I'd be just as happy with frame-sequential 3d dvds, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30503816</id>
	<title>Re:How about us handicapped people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a similar condition where my depth perception has trouble. Some eye doctors have diagnosed me with duaynes syndrome, where the eyes don't match up with lateral movement and even with depth perception. It's very similar to lazy eye.</p><p>Anyhow, earlier in life I joined the Air Force and at MEPs they test your depth perception, which can be a factor in some job fields. The test has 20 or so circles on a page, and they each increase in difficulty to process in 3D imagery. Out of the 20 I could see the first THREE in good ol' 3d.</p><p>I've had a few little trials with 3d film, including dual color glasses and also the polarised glasses.</p><p>Back in 2003 I tried watching a 3d undersea movie in IMAX and it was horrible. Recently with Harry Potters 5 and 6, and also The Dark Night, I've noticed a HUGE impovement in the ability for me to watch these movies and actually enjoy the 3d experience.</p><p>So, from my own personal experience, and having limited depth perception, I've noticed that technology is getting to the point where I can watch a 3d film and actually notice 3d images instead of just being irritated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a similar condition where my depth perception has trouble .
Some eye doctors have diagnosed me with duaynes syndrome , where the eyes do n't match up with lateral movement and even with depth perception .
It 's very similar to lazy eye.Anyhow , earlier in life I joined the Air Force and at MEPs they test your depth perception , which can be a factor in some job fields .
The test has 20 or so circles on a page , and they each increase in difficulty to process in 3D imagery .
Out of the 20 I could see the first THREE in good ol ' 3d.I 've had a few little trials with 3d film , including dual color glasses and also the polarised glasses.Back in 2003 I tried watching a 3d undersea movie in IMAX and it was horrible .
Recently with Harry Potters 5 and 6 , and also The Dark Night , I 've noticed a HUGE impovement in the ability for me to watch these movies and actually enjoy the 3d experience.So , from my own personal experience , and having limited depth perception , I 've noticed that technology is getting to the point where I can watch a 3d film and actually notice 3d images instead of just being irritated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a similar condition where my depth perception has trouble.
Some eye doctors have diagnosed me with duaynes syndrome, where the eyes don't match up with lateral movement and even with depth perception.
It's very similar to lazy eye.Anyhow, earlier in life I joined the Air Force and at MEPs they test your depth perception, which can be a factor in some job fields.
The test has 20 or so circles on a page, and they each increase in difficulty to process in 3D imagery.
Out of the 20 I could see the first THREE in good ol' 3d.I've had a few little trials with 3d film, including dual color glasses and also the polarised glasses.Back in 2003 I tried watching a 3d undersea movie in IMAX and it was horrible.
Recently with Harry Potters 5 and 6, and also The Dark Night, I've noticed a HUGE impovement in the ability for me to watch these movies and actually enjoy the 3d experience.So, from my own personal experience, and having limited depth perception, I've noticed that technology is getting to the point where I can watch a 3d film and actually notice 3d images instead of just being irritated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486726</id>
	<title>Re:How about us handicapped people!</title>
	<author>melstav</author>
	<datestamp>1261149420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are three types of "3d glasses" out there... (four if you count the "VR Headset" which actually straps two displays to your head - one for each eye.)<br>In ascending order of "goodness" (or descending order of "suckitude") they are:</p><p>1) red/blue glasses. These work (more or less) with any format from projected images onto a screen to stuff that's printed on a page. But they mess up all of the colors. They're also really cheap to make.</p><p>2) polarized glasses. These really only work in situations where you have images projected onto a screen. You need two projectors with their lenses polarized in opposite directions. That way, when you put on the polarized glasses, each eye only sees the image meant for it. These are only slightly less cheap because of the need for polarized plastic film.</p><p>3) shutter glasses. These will work with any "motion picture" format -- projected, television, whatever. Here's how they work: Say you're used to watching cinema at 30 frames a second. Double the framerate to 60 frames/sec, *BUT* alternate between frames intended for the left eye and right eye. That way, both eyes still get 30 frames/second. The glasses have a "shutter" or an lcd element that opaques the lenses when told to. These glasses have to receive a synchronization signal from the display to make sure that you can see out of your left eye when the left eye image is displayed and out of the right eye when the right eye is displayed. If the glasses fall out of synch, your brain gets confused.</p><p>As you can imagine, shutter glasses are considerably more expensive than the other two types. They're also, by far, vastly superior, and certainly the method they're designing the 3D blu-ray spec for.</p><p>And no, I didn't RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three types of " 3d glasses " out there... ( four if you count the " VR Headset " which actually straps two displays to your head - one for each eye .
) In ascending order of " goodness " ( or descending order of " suckitude " ) they are : 1 ) red/blue glasses .
These work ( more or less ) with any format from projected images onto a screen to stuff that 's printed on a page .
But they mess up all of the colors .
They 're also really cheap to make.2 ) polarized glasses .
These really only work in situations where you have images projected onto a screen .
You need two projectors with their lenses polarized in opposite directions .
That way , when you put on the polarized glasses , each eye only sees the image meant for it .
These are only slightly less cheap because of the need for polarized plastic film.3 ) shutter glasses .
These will work with any " motion picture " format -- projected , television , whatever .
Here 's how they work : Say you 're used to watching cinema at 30 frames a second .
Double the framerate to 60 frames/sec , * BUT * alternate between frames intended for the left eye and right eye .
That way , both eyes still get 30 frames/second .
The glasses have a " shutter " or an lcd element that opaques the lenses when told to .
These glasses have to receive a synchronization signal from the display to make sure that you can see out of your left eye when the left eye image is displayed and out of the right eye when the right eye is displayed .
If the glasses fall out of synch , your brain gets confused.As you can imagine , shutter glasses are considerably more expensive than the other two types .
They 're also , by far , vastly superior , and certainly the method they 're designing the 3D blu-ray spec for.And no , I did n't RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three types of "3d glasses" out there... (four if you count the "VR Headset" which actually straps two displays to your head - one for each eye.
)In ascending order of "goodness" (or descending order of "suckitude") they are:1) red/blue glasses.
These work (more or less) with any format from projected images onto a screen to stuff that's printed on a page.
But they mess up all of the colors.
They're also really cheap to make.2) polarized glasses.
These really only work in situations where you have images projected onto a screen.
You need two projectors with their lenses polarized in opposite directions.
That way, when you put on the polarized glasses, each eye only sees the image meant for it.
These are only slightly less cheap because of the need for polarized plastic film.3) shutter glasses.
These will work with any "motion picture" format -- projected, television, whatever.
Here's how they work: Say you're used to watching cinema at 30 frames a second.
Double the framerate to 60 frames/sec, *BUT* alternate between frames intended for the left eye and right eye.
That way, both eyes still get 30 frames/second.
The glasses have a "shutter" or an lcd element that opaques the lenses when told to.
These glasses have to receive a synchronization signal from the display to make sure that you can see out of your left eye when the left eye image is displayed and out of the right eye when the right eye is displayed.
If the glasses fall out of synch, your brain gets confused.As you can imagine, shutter glasses are considerably more expensive than the other two types.
They're also, by far, vastly superior, and certainly the method they're designing the 3D blu-ray spec for.And no, I didn't RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487142</id>
	<title>Remember, this is only simulated 3D</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1261151580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is theater-style simulated 3D, not real, walk-around-the-display 3D like you see in science fiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is theater-style simulated 3D , not real , walk-around-the-display 3D like you see in science fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is theater-style simulated 3D, not real, walk-around-the-display 3D like you see in science fiction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493604</id>
	<title>Re:Not 3D</title>
	<author>Raptor851</author>
	<datestamp>1261132620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone else with a similar front projection system, if yours is fast enough try out a 3d system that uses electronically controlled glasses.  Works with pretty much any 3d game already and looks awesome, you just have to tune what the offset is.  I was never much of a fan of world of warcraft...but at 96 inches in full 3d i have to say it was pretty badass for a while<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).  When tuned properly it's like you're looking through a window out into the world. (text and chats float at the "pane" of the window, everything else drops behind)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone else with a similar front projection system , if yours is fast enough try out a 3d system that uses electronically controlled glasses .
Works with pretty much any 3d game already and looks awesome , you just have to tune what the offset is .
I was never much of a fan of world of warcraft...but at 96 inches in full 3d i have to say it was pretty badass for a while : ) .
When tuned properly it 's like you 're looking through a window out into the world .
( text and chats float at the " pane " of the window , everything else drops behind )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone else with a similar front projection system, if yours is fast enough try out a 3d system that uses electronically controlled glasses.
Works with pretty much any 3d game already and looks awesome, you just have to tune what the offset is.
I was never much of a fan of world of warcraft...but at 96 inches in full 3d i have to say it was pretty badass for a while :).
When tuned properly it's like you're looking through a window out into the world.
(text and chats float at the "pane" of the window, everything else drops behind)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485152</id>
	<title>Not at all insensitive then</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1261135800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I only have one good eye!</i></p><p>So the 3-D movies will look true-to-life for you.</p><p>Sounds like a plus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only have one good eye ! So the 3-D movies will look true-to-life for you.Sounds like a plus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only have one good eye!So the 3-D movies will look true-to-life for you.Sounds like a plus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620</id>
	<title>How about us handicapped people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261129380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would someone please think of us!

I have what I think is called monovision - that is, I only focus with one eye at a time. I do see with the other eye too but it more, sort of, along for the ride. It's not a problem in real life - I have sub-par depth perception of course but I have learned to compensate for that.
However, I am not able to use the good old red-green 3d glasses. Do anyone know if some of the new systems can be used by people with my condition?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone please think of us !
I have what I think is called monovision - that is , I only focus with one eye at a time .
I do see with the other eye too but it more , sort of , along for the ride .
It 's not a problem in real life - I have sub-par depth perception of course but I have learned to compensate for that .
However , I am not able to use the good old red-green 3d glasses .
Do anyone know if some of the new systems can be used by people with my condition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone please think of us!
I have what I think is called monovision - that is, I only focus with one eye at a time.
I do see with the other eye too but it more, sort of, along for the ride.
It's not a problem in real life - I have sub-par depth perception of course but I have learned to compensate for that.
However, I am not able to use the good old red-green 3d glasses.
Do anyone know if some of the new systems can be used by people with my condition?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486538</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1261148520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fry: Wow the 3-D's great!<br>Leela: Mine's not working!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fry : Wow the 3-D 's great ! Leela : Mine 's not working !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fry: Wow the 3-D's great!Leela: Mine's not working!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486892</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1261150140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But there are already how many PS3 owners who now have a 3D Blu-Ray player? This is the easiest introduction of a new format ever. It's like the PS2 and DVDs. That was a massive trojan horse to getting people onto the DVD format.</p><p>I'm excited that I'll be getting 3D. My wife and I are thinking about upgrading our TV in the next two years to take advantage.</p><p>So I guess some of us are excited, yes. My wife hates people in movie theater and BluRay really gives you something very close to the big screen experience without the people.</p><p>That said, I haven't bought a single BluRay movie. We have Netflix. And probably 90\% of what we watch is BluRay from them. I know 3 people who have BluRay players, all of them have Netflix. I think Netflix is actually killing their sales numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But there are already how many PS3 owners who now have a 3D Blu-Ray player ?
This is the easiest introduction of a new format ever .
It 's like the PS2 and DVDs .
That was a massive trojan horse to getting people onto the DVD format.I 'm excited that I 'll be getting 3D .
My wife and I are thinking about upgrading our TV in the next two years to take advantage.So I guess some of us are excited , yes .
My wife hates people in movie theater and BluRay really gives you something very close to the big screen experience without the people.That said , I have n't bought a single BluRay movie .
We have Netflix .
And probably 90 \ % of what we watch is BluRay from them .
I know 3 people who have BluRay players , all of them have Netflix .
I think Netflix is actually killing their sales numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there are already how many PS3 owners who now have a 3D Blu-Ray player?
This is the easiest introduction of a new format ever.
It's like the PS2 and DVDs.
That was a massive trojan horse to getting people onto the DVD format.I'm excited that I'll be getting 3D.
My wife and I are thinking about upgrading our TV in the next two years to take advantage.So I guess some of us are excited, yes.
My wife hates people in movie theater and BluRay really gives you something very close to the big screen experience without the people.That said, I haven't bought a single BluRay movie.
We have Netflix.
And probably 90\% of what we watch is BluRay from them.
I know 3 people who have BluRay players, all of them have Netflix.
I think Netflix is actually killing their sales numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261166940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie? Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie ?
Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie?
Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484470</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1261126860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?</p></div><p>I was saying the same thing about new coke and boy bands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness ? I was saying the same thing about new coke and boy bands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?I was saying the same thing about new coke and boy bands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484400</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261168260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they're being specific about is where in the third dimension the subtitles are placed. If you have a space or city scene at mostly infinite focus, its a major strain to suddenly focus on screen-depth subtitles.<br> <br>This issue has been around a long time in first-person-shooter titles when using any of several 3d methods, including the shutter glasses once sold by E-Dimensional and now NVidia and even just red/blue anaglyph, when attempting to aim with a flat screen-depth reticle at an object at much further focus (real gun sights do not utilize binocular vision) and each eye views the reticle to be aimed at a different point.<br> <br>It would actually take some artistic meddling and forethought for each scene of a movie as to where the subtitles should be placed. The same depth as whichever character is talking should suffice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 're being specific about is where in the third dimension the subtitles are placed .
If you have a space or city scene at mostly infinite focus , its a major strain to suddenly focus on screen-depth subtitles .
This issue has been around a long time in first-person-shooter titles when using any of several 3d methods , including the shutter glasses once sold by E-Dimensional and now NVidia and even just red/blue anaglyph , when attempting to aim with a flat screen-depth reticle at an object at much further focus ( real gun sights do not utilize binocular vision ) and each eye views the reticle to be aimed at a different point .
It would actually take some artistic meddling and forethought for each scene of a movie as to where the subtitles should be placed .
The same depth as whichever character is talking should suffice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they're being specific about is where in the third dimension the subtitles are placed.
If you have a space or city scene at mostly infinite focus, its a major strain to suddenly focus on screen-depth subtitles.
This issue has been around a long time in first-person-shooter titles when using any of several 3d methods, including the shutter glasses once sold by E-Dimensional and now NVidia and even just red/blue anaglyph, when attempting to aim with a flat screen-depth reticle at an object at much further focus (real gun sights do not utilize binocular vision) and each eye views the reticle to be aimed at a different point.
It would actually take some artistic meddling and forethought for each scene of a movie as to where the subtitles should be placed.
The same depth as whichever character is talking should suffice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484592</id>
	<title>Great News!</title>
	<author>mindcorrosive</author>
	<datestamp>1261128840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>About time - we'll now be able to get those kewl advertisements before each movie in 3D as well..</htmltext>
<tokenext>About time - we 'll now be able to get those kewl advertisements before each movie in 3D as well. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About time - we'll now be able to get those kewl advertisements before each movie in 3D as well..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30494976</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>JackieBrown</author>
	<datestamp>1261140540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually, I will be able watch that 3d episode of Chuck</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually , I will be able watch that 3d episode of Chuck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually, I will be able watch that 3d episode of Chuck</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485128</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>idji</author>
	<datestamp>1261135560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I watched Avatar in 3D last night. The Na'vi subtitles where hovering "in front of the scene" - not " in the scene"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I watched Avatar in 3D last night .
The Na'vi subtitles where hovering " in front of the scene " - not " in the scene "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I watched Avatar in 3D last night.
The Na'vi subtitles where hovering "in front of the scene" - not " in the scene"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484954</id>
	<title>Re:How about us handicapped people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261132860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've clearly no experience with the technology.</p><p>Monovision does not prevent you from watching movies in 3D. Your brain will do what it is always doing: processing the input from both eyes, giving preference to either and you will see what "normal" people would see if they closed either eye. You'll see the movie from a single vantage point, whereas people with normal depth perception will use dual vantage points to infer depth.</p><p>Frankly, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to watch a movie with the old red/green tech either though? Granted, you're likely to be more bothered by the hue of your dominant eye, but you should be able to follow the image just fine. You don't actually need both left -and- right to make sense of it. </p><p>Perhaps some movies split up the content, showing some of it to only one of the eyes, in which case it would explain your trouble, but you can rest assured that either eye in modern 3D gets enough information to get all of the movie in 2D. By the way: even people who are blind to one eye would still need to wear the glasses, since not wearing them will allow both eyes to see the image for both, blended together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've clearly no experience with the technology.Monovision does not prevent you from watching movies in 3D .
Your brain will do what it is always doing : processing the input from both eyes , giving preference to either and you will see what " normal " people would see if they closed either eye .
You 'll see the movie from a single vantage point , whereas people with normal depth perception will use dual vantage points to infer depth.Frankly , I do n't see why you would n't be able to watch a movie with the old red/green tech either though ?
Granted , you 're likely to be more bothered by the hue of your dominant eye , but you should be able to follow the image just fine .
You do n't actually need both left -and- right to make sense of it .
Perhaps some movies split up the content , showing some of it to only one of the eyes , in which case it would explain your trouble , but you can rest assured that either eye in modern 3D gets enough information to get all of the movie in 2D .
By the way : even people who are blind to one eye would still need to wear the glasses , since not wearing them will allow both eyes to see the image for both , blended together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've clearly no experience with the technology.Monovision does not prevent you from watching movies in 3D.
Your brain will do what it is always doing: processing the input from both eyes, giving preference to either and you will see what "normal" people would see if they closed either eye.
You'll see the movie from a single vantage point, whereas people with normal depth perception will use dual vantage points to infer depth.Frankly, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to watch a movie with the old red/green tech either though?
Granted, you're likely to be more bothered by the hue of your dominant eye, but you should be able to follow the image just fine.
You don't actually need both left -and- right to make sense of it.
Perhaps some movies split up the content, showing some of it to only one of the eyes, in which case it would explain your trouble, but you can rest assured that either eye in modern 3D gets enough information to get all of the movie in 2D.
By the way: even people who are blind to one eye would still need to wear the glasses, since not wearing them will allow both eyes to see the image for both, blended together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486968</id>
	<title>Re:3d via firmware upgrade--but still no bitstream</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1261150620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No amount of software will fix a hardware limitation. You'll never get 1080p HD video over an S-VIDEO cable... the modulators attached to the actual jack just can't do it. Same with the Sony issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No amount of software will fix a hardware limitation .
You 'll never get 1080p HD video over an S-VIDEO cable... the modulators attached to the actual jack just ca n't do it .
Same with the Sony issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No amount of software will fix a hardware limitation.
You'll never get 1080p HD video over an S-VIDEO cable... the modulators attached to the actual jack just can't do it.
Same with the Sony issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484414</id>
	<title>Do we really need another headache generator?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261168380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 3D of "Up" gave me a migraine. I can get those for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 3D of " Up " gave me a migraine .
I can get those for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 3D of "Up" gave me a migraine.
I can get those for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484312</id>
	<title>You insensitive clods...</title>
	<author>Aliotroph</author>
	<datestamp>1261167120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only have one good eye!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only have one good eye !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only have one good eye!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484362</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coraline, Up. Possibly Avatar....</p><p>Not a market huge enough to warrant a new TV, but there is a market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coraline , Up .
Possibly Avatar....Not a market huge enough to warrant a new TV , but there is a market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coraline, Up.
Possibly Avatar....Not a market huge enough to warrant a new TV, but there is a market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485570</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1261141980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you can resolve 3D space particularly well beyond 20 feet or so (you can, but it's much less effective, and your eyes would need to be much further apart to do so). I imagine it would be pretty disorienting to go from a closeup of a football game where the linebackers hiking to the QB, and then suddenly a wide angle shot (Which is basically 2D), and then zoom in on the 3D shot of the wide receiver catching the football in 3D, then to a 2D shot of the crowd going wild and so on. 3D sportscasting might be effectively limited to sports like boxing, or pool where the camera is only 10 feet or so (perceived) from the action, with lots of closeups. 120hz, 1080p fencing would be pretty cool to watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you can resolve 3D space particularly well beyond 20 feet or so ( you can , but it 's much less effective , and your eyes would need to be much further apart to do so ) .
I imagine it would be pretty disorienting to go from a closeup of a football game where the linebackers hiking to the QB , and then suddenly a wide angle shot ( Which is basically 2D ) , and then zoom in on the 3D shot of the wide receiver catching the football in 3D , then to a 2D shot of the crowd going wild and so on .
3D sportscasting might be effectively limited to sports like boxing , or pool where the camera is only 10 feet or so ( perceived ) from the action , with lots of closeups .
120hz , 1080p fencing would be pretty cool to watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you can resolve 3D space particularly well beyond 20 feet or so (you can, but it's much less effective, and your eyes would need to be much further apart to do so).
I imagine it would be pretty disorienting to go from a closeup of a football game where the linebackers hiking to the QB, and then suddenly a wide angle shot (Which is basically 2D), and then zoom in on the 3D shot of the wide receiver catching the football in 3D, then to a 2D shot of the crowd going wild and so on.
3D sportscasting might be effectively limited to sports like boxing, or pool where the camera is only 10 feet or so (perceived) from the action, with lots of closeups.
120hz, 1080p fencing would be pretty cool to watch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484854</id>
	<title>Re:Subtitles?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1261131660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the US DVD (not the bluray) of the russian film "Nochnoi Dozor" aka "Nightwatch."  The animated subtitles really add to the experience.</p><p>Not saying every film needs to do that.  Just that artistry can be expressed in subs too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the US DVD ( not the bluray ) of the russian film " Nochnoi Dozor " aka " Nightwatch .
" The animated subtitles really add to the experience.Not saying every film needs to do that .
Just that artistry can be expressed in subs too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the US DVD (not the bluray) of the russian film "Nochnoi Dozor" aka "Nightwatch.
"  The animated subtitles really add to the experience.Not saying every film needs to do that.
Just that artistry can be expressed in subs too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484302</id>
	<title>3D subtitles!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I just pissed my pants!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I just pissed my pants !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I just pissed my pants!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485346</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261139040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean headache? I've seen one of the first experimental 3D movies at a fair and noticed no problems (it was a polarisation based system). I've also played Half-Life with red-green glasses for hours and hours on end with no ill side effects except for the occasional heart attack when a headcrab jumped out of the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean headache ?
I 've seen one of the first experimental 3D movies at a fair and noticed no problems ( it was a polarisation based system ) .
I 've also played Half-Life with red-green glasses for hours and hours on end with no ill side effects except for the occasional heart attack when a headcrab jumped out of the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean headache?
I've seen one of the first experimental 3D movies at a fair and noticed no problems (it was a polarisation based system).
I've also played Half-Life with red-green glasses for hours and hours on end with no ill side effects except for the occasional heart attack when a headcrab jumped out of the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488504</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>andreyvul</author>
	<datestamp>1261157100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us enjoy playing Crysis at 1080p, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us enjoy playing Crysis at 1080p , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us enjoy playing Crysis at 1080p, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486782</id>
	<title>Re:How about us handicapped people!</title>
	<author>J1Dopeman</author>
	<datestamp>1261149720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called alternating strabismus, I have it as well.  I can't do those magic eye pictures at all, but I remember being able to use the glasses.  I haven't tried either since I was a kid though.  I should give it another shot and see how it works, I hardly ever go to the movies though.  I think it depends on how much your other eye drifts / is used.  I had a huge drift so I got the surgery when I was younger and since then they stay almost parallel, just a little off, so I'm not seeing perfect stereoscopic but I do use both eyes at the same time, one is just dominant.  If you close one eye does part of your vision cut out?  I lose some peripheral vision.  I think it helps if you relax your eyes and don't try to focus too hard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called alternating strabismus , I have it as well .
I ca n't do those magic eye pictures at all , but I remember being able to use the glasses .
I have n't tried either since I was a kid though .
I should give it another shot and see how it works , I hardly ever go to the movies though .
I think it depends on how much your other eye drifts / is used .
I had a huge drift so I got the surgery when I was younger and since then they stay almost parallel , just a little off , so I 'm not seeing perfect stereoscopic but I do use both eyes at the same time , one is just dominant .
If you close one eye does part of your vision cut out ?
I lose some peripheral vision .
I think it helps if you relax your eyes and do n't try to focus too hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called alternating strabismus, I have it as well.
I can't do those magic eye pictures at all, but I remember being able to use the glasses.
I haven't tried either since I was a kid though.
I should give it another shot and see how it works, I hardly ever go to the movies though.
I think it depends on how much your other eye drifts / is used.
I had a huge drift so I got the surgery when I was younger and since then they stay almost parallel, just a little off, so I'm not seeing perfect stereoscopic but I do use both eyes at the same time, one is just dominant.
If you close one eye does part of your vision cut out?
I lose some peripheral vision.
I think it helps if you relax your eyes and don't try to focus too hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30490340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30492074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30489516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30492688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30494976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30489622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30503816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30496410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30491058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0621219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30494976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30492074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30491058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30490340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30492688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30489622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30493604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30503816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30487976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30496410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0621219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30489516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30488016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30486140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30484404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0621219.30485034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
