<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_07_1617258</id>
	<title>World's First Integrated Twin-Lens 3D Camcorder</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262882760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ElectricSteve writes <i>"Shooting in 3D has traditionally required a complex, bulky and fragile rig using two cameras and additional hardware to calibrate and adjust them. Panasonic's straight-forwardly-named Twin-lens Full HD 3D camcorder looks to <a href="http://www.gizmag.com/panasonic-twin-lens-full-hd-3d-camcorder/13739/">radically change the 3D game</a>, with integrated lenses and dual SDHC memory card slots allowing you to capture 3D footage immediately, with just one device."</i>  So there ya go,  get started making your own <em>Avatar</em>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ElectricSteve writes " Shooting in 3D has traditionally required a complex , bulky and fragile rig using two cameras and additional hardware to calibrate and adjust them .
Panasonic 's straight-forwardly-named Twin-lens Full HD 3D camcorder looks to radically change the 3D game , with integrated lenses and dual SDHC memory card slots allowing you to capture 3D footage immediately , with just one device .
" So there ya go , get started making your own Avatar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ElectricSteve writes "Shooting in 3D has traditionally required a complex, bulky and fragile rig using two cameras and additional hardware to calibrate and adjust them.
Panasonic's straight-forwardly-named Twin-lens Full HD 3D camcorder looks to radically change the 3D game, with integrated lenses and dual SDHC memory card slots allowing you to capture 3D footage immediately, with just one device.
"  So there ya go,  get started making your own Avatar.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30689324</id>
	<title>3d + hand shake = two to the power of nausea</title>
	<author>pikine</author>
	<datestamp>1262868780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if they made <a href="http://www.upi.com/Odd\_News/2008/01/23/Theaters-warn-of-Cloverfield-nausea/UPI-25711201115871/" title="upi.com">Cloverfield</a> [upi.com] in 3D?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if they made Cloverfield [ upi.com ] in 3D ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if they made Cloverfield [upi.com] in 3D?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376</id>
	<title>Not getting it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262887560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing. It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s; a neat idea, but really nothing but an expensive, impractical gimmick.</p><p>I think I'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck, or at the very least, makes something that doesn't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really just do n't understand this whole 3D movie thing .
It 's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s ; a neat idea , but really nothing but an expensive , impractical gimmick.I think I 'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck , or at the very least , makes something that does n't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing.
It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s; a neat idea, but really nothing but an expensive, impractical gimmick.I think I'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck, or at the very least, makes something that doesn't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685992</id>
	<title>Take a picture, step to the left, take another</title>
	<author>ishmalius</author>
	<datestamp>1262894460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are doing still shots or landscape, then that is more than sufficient.  I have a collection somewhere of a bunch of stereo pairs I took during a vacation that way.  They seem to be as good as any more expensive method.  And if the 3d-ness isn't what you had hoped for, then you still have two shots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are doing still shots or landscape , then that is more than sufficient .
I have a collection somewhere of a bunch of stereo pairs I took during a vacation that way .
They seem to be as good as any more expensive method .
And if the 3d-ness is n't what you had hoped for , then you still have two shots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are doing still shots or landscape, then that is more than sufficient.
I have a collection somewhere of a bunch of stereo pairs I took during a vacation that way.
They seem to be as good as any more expensive method.
And if the 3d-ness isn't what you had hoped for, then you still have two shots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684694</id>
	<title>pr0n</title>
	<author>Soiden</author>
	<datestamp>1262888940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, this is perfect for some homemade pr0n videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , this is perfect for some homemade pr0n videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, this is perfect for some homemade pr0n videos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228</id>
	<title>Cheap 3D Viewing</title>
	<author>FinchWorld</author>
	<datestamp>1262887080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone know of decent suppliers of 3d viewing equipment? Say glasses/monitors? I've found some sites in the US but they aren't cheap (especially with shipping to UK).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know of decent suppliers of 3d viewing equipment ?
Say glasses/monitors ?
I 've found some sites in the US but they are n't cheap ( especially with shipping to UK ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know of decent suppliers of 3d viewing equipment?
Say glasses/monitors?
I've found some sites in the US but they aren't cheap (especially with shipping to UK).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685404</id>
	<title>Cheap 3D Camera = Next Gen Homemade Pornography</title>
	<author>relaxinparadise</author>
	<datestamp>1262891880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not too hard to imagine a glut of really bad homemade porn with this new camera, but maybe someone will make something interesting out if it.

<p> <b>Does it/Do they look bigger in 3D?</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not too hard to imagine a glut of really bad homemade porn with this new camera , but maybe someone will make something interesting out if it .
Does it/Do they look bigger in 3D ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not too hard to imagine a glut of really bad homemade porn with this new camera, but maybe someone will make something interesting out if it.
Does it/Do they look bigger in 3D? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685112</id>
	<title>Re:Now, if only...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262890680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um hello. My JVC does FULL HD (1080i) just fine.   in fact most PROFESSIONAL camcorders only do 1080i.  Most are set at 720p because that is what broadcast WANTS.</p><p>Also, I have shot in 1080p, and it's a crapshoot.  most lenses are shitty and cant record the difference between 720p and 1080p on consumer camcorders. Let me guess, you are the type that wants a 60 megapixel camera in your phone because more=better to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um hello .
My JVC does FULL HD ( 1080i ) just fine .
in fact most PROFESSIONAL camcorders only do 1080i .
Most are set at 720p because that is what broadcast WANTS.Also , I have shot in 1080p , and it 's a crapshoot .
most lenses are shitty and cant record the difference between 720p and 1080p on consumer camcorders .
Let me guess , you are the type that wants a 60 megapixel camera in your phone because more = better to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um hello.
My JVC does FULL HD (1080i) just fine.
in fact most PROFESSIONAL camcorders only do 1080i.
Most are set at 720p because that is what broadcast WANTS.Also, I have shot in 1080p, and it's a crapshoot.
most lenses are shitty and cant record the difference between 720p and 1080p on consumer camcorders.
Let me guess, you are the type that wants a 60 megapixel camera in your phone because more=better to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30688428</id>
	<title>Re:3-D won't take off as a serious tech until....</title>
	<author>Whorhay</author>
	<datestamp>1262863080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's because I've worn glasses my whole life but wearing the polarized glasses they hand out at the theatre has never bothered me all that much. I've had a fwe pairs that were poorly constructed and had burrs from the molding but that's about it. I'd far rather wear glasses like that then shell out thousands of dollars more.</p><p>And I don't get how the double layer tv's are supposed to work, won't both of my eyes see the same pictures and so it'll all just be blurry like watching a current 3d movie at the theatre without the polarized glasses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because I 've worn glasses my whole life but wearing the polarized glasses they hand out at the theatre has never bothered me all that much .
I 've had a fwe pairs that were poorly constructed and had burrs from the molding but that 's about it .
I 'd far rather wear glasses like that then shell out thousands of dollars more.And I do n't get how the double layer tv 's are supposed to work , wo n't both of my eyes see the same pictures and so it 'll all just be blurry like watching a current 3d movie at the theatre without the polarized glasses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because I've worn glasses my whole life but wearing the polarized glasses they hand out at the theatre has never bothered me all that much.
I've had a fwe pairs that were poorly constructed and had burrs from the molding but that's about it.
I'd far rather wear glasses like that then shell out thousands of dollars more.And I don't get how the double layer tv's are supposed to work, won't both of my eyes see the same pictures and so it'll all just be blurry like watching a current 3d movie at the theatre without the polarized glasses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30688878</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh, really?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1262865420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If hardware making stuff easier to produce than older, harder to use stuff resulted in better films, music, books etc then there'd be better music, films and books out now than, say, 30 years ago.  But I'm not sure this is the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If hardware making stuff easier to produce than older , harder to use stuff resulted in better films , music , books etc then there 'd be better music , films and books out now than , say , 30 years ago .
But I 'm not sure this is the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If hardware making stuff easier to produce than older, harder to use stuff resulted in better films, music, books etc then there'd be better music, films and books out now than, say, 30 years ago.
But I'm not sure this is the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684602</id>
	<title>It is only a matter of time</title>
	<author>Kolie</author>
	<datestamp>1262888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before we receive some epic amateur porn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before we receive some epic amateur porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before we receive some epic amateur porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684080</id>
	<title>yay 3d</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262886600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wheres the 3d porn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wheres the 3d porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wheres the 3d porn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685806</id>
	<title>3-D won't take off as a serious tech until....</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1262893680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3-D won't take off as a serious tech until two way brain computer interfaces are as commonplace as cell phones are today.   No one want's to have to deal with 3-D that requires you wear glasses or contact lenses or what not, it would be more easily accepted if you could just stream the data to your visual cortex along with all of the other sensations that "realistic fantasy reality" entails.</p><p>Flittery jittery images in bulky headache producing glasses that appears somewhat 3-D won't compare to simulated optic nerve data being fed by a computer.</p><p>I will wait for the iBrain or the iMind before I go "Full 3-D".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3-D wo n't take off as a serious tech until two way brain computer interfaces are as commonplace as cell phones are today .
No one want 's to have to deal with 3-D that requires you wear glasses or contact lenses or what not , it would be more easily accepted if you could just stream the data to your visual cortex along with all of the other sensations that " realistic fantasy reality " entails.Flittery jittery images in bulky headache producing glasses that appears somewhat 3-D wo n't compare to simulated optic nerve data being fed by a computer.I will wait for the iBrain or the iMind before I go " Full 3-D " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3-D won't take off as a serious tech until two way brain computer interfaces are as commonplace as cell phones are today.
No one want's to have to deal with 3-D that requires you wear glasses or contact lenses or what not, it would be more easily accepted if you could just stream the data to your visual cortex along with all of the other sensations that "realistic fantasy reality" entails.Flittery jittery images in bulky headache producing glasses that appears somewhat 3-D won't compare to simulated optic nerve data being fed by a computer.I will wait for the iBrain or the iMind before I go "Full 3-D".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684678</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>Suki I</author>
	<datestamp>1262888880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just what I was thinking and I can play them on my new 3D TV that I am probably not getting for five years!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what I was thinking and I can play them on my new 3D TV that I am probably not getting for five years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what I was thinking and I can play them on my new 3D TV that I am probably not getting for five years!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684472</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>tiedyejeremy</author>
	<datestamp>1262887980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>sweater kittens?

POV will never be the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sweater kittens ?
POV will never be the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sweater kittens?
POV will never be the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684718</id>
	<title>Evolutionary, not revolutionary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262889000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Panasonic was demonstrating a stereo NTSC camcorder at the NSA (National Stereoscopic Association) convention in Portland in 1987.  It used LCD shutter glasses to view the video on a standard NTSC monitor.  They were showing video shot at the Viewmaster factory in Portland (since closed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Panasonic was demonstrating a stereo NTSC camcorder at the NSA ( National Stereoscopic Association ) convention in Portland in 1987 .
It used LCD shutter glasses to view the video on a standard NTSC monitor .
They were showing video shot at the Viewmaster factory in Portland ( since closed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Panasonic was demonstrating a stereo NTSC camcorder at the NSA (National Stereoscopic Association) convention in Portland in 1987.
It used LCD shutter glasses to view the video on a standard NTSC monitor.
They were showing video shot at the Viewmaster factory in Portland (since closed).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30690374</id>
	<title>Re:Yay!</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1262879040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What !!! no goatse 3d vd's</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ! ! !
no goatse 3d vd 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What !!!
no goatse 3d vd's</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687448</id>
	<title>Basilisk gun?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262858400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wonder if you can load Scorpion Stare onto it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder if you can load Scorpion Stare onto it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder if you can load Scorpion Stare onto it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686122</id>
	<title>Re:W00t!</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1262895180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sitting in the second row at Jordan's Natick Imax, I nearly puked at the opening scene, where my brain almost couldn't tell which way was up or down in the spaceship.  When the background voice said (and I paraphrase) "If you're experiencing nausea, please use one of the space bags", I looked to make sure there was enough room for me to vomit in my popcorn bucket.<br><br>So no, the 3D itself doesn't make me ill - the illusion that it presents my brain kickstarts the general motion sickness I get whenever I'm dehydrated (like I was that day).<br><br>It's not the 3D.  It's the illusion of movement while sitting still.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sitting in the second row at Jordan 's Natick Imax , I nearly puked at the opening scene , where my brain almost could n't tell which way was up or down in the spaceship .
When the background voice said ( and I paraphrase ) " If you 're experiencing nausea , please use one of the space bags " , I looked to make sure there was enough room for me to vomit in my popcorn bucket.So no , the 3D itself does n't make me ill - the illusion that it presents my brain kickstarts the general motion sickness I get whenever I 'm dehydrated ( like I was that day ) .It 's not the 3D .
It 's the illusion of movement while sitting still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sitting in the second row at Jordan's Natick Imax, I nearly puked at the opening scene, where my brain almost couldn't tell which way was up or down in the spaceship.
When the background voice said (and I paraphrase) "If you're experiencing nausea, please use one of the space bags", I looked to make sure there was enough room for me to vomit in my popcorn bucket.So no, the 3D itself doesn't make me ill - the illusion that it presents my brain kickstarts the general motion sickness I get whenever I'm dehydrated (like I was that day).It's not the 3D.
It's the illusion of movement while sitting still.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687028</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1262856420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>. It's often gimicky, because producers (I assume it's producers) demand excuses to show of "it's 3D!" usually by having something pointy come out of the frame too far</p></div></blockquote><p>And the Wizard of Oz used super-saturated colors for the same reason.  But imagine trying to view any movie in black and white now.  3D will be less gimmacky soon as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
It 's often gimicky , because producers ( I assume it 's producers ) demand excuses to show of " it 's 3D !
" usually by having something pointy come out of the frame too farAnd the Wizard of Oz used super-saturated colors for the same reason .
But imagine trying to view any movie in black and white now .
3D will be less gimmacky soon as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
It's often gimicky, because producers (I assume it's producers) demand excuses to show of "it's 3D!
" usually by having something pointy come out of the frame too farAnd the Wizard of Oz used super-saturated colors for the same reason.
But imagine trying to view any movie in black and white now.
3D will be less gimmacky soon as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684126</id>
	<title>Putting the technology to use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262886720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how long before "3dporn.com" becomes a reality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how long before " 3dporn.com " becomes a reality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how long before "3dporn.com" becomes a reality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686524</id>
	<title>Will there be a way to view without glasses?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1262897280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glasses are fine in the theater but I don't think this is going to take off at home until we can view stereoscopic content without glasses. As far as I know, this is impossible because it requires each eye to receive a slightly different image. That's the whole point of the glasses, to show one eye something different from the other. Anyone got suggestions as to how it could be done?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glasses are fine in the theater but I do n't think this is going to take off at home until we can view stereoscopic content without glasses .
As far as I know , this is impossible because it requires each eye to receive a slightly different image .
That 's the whole point of the glasses , to show one eye something different from the other .
Anyone got suggestions as to how it could be done ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glasses are fine in the theater but I don't think this is going to take off at home until we can view stereoscopic content without glasses.
As far as I know, this is impossible because it requires each eye to receive a slightly different image.
That's the whole point of the glasses, to show one eye something different from the other.
Anyone got suggestions as to how it could be done?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685052</id>
	<title>there ya go</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1262890380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.
</p><p>
But with a better plot, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So there ya go , get started making your own Avatar .
But with a better plot , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.
But with a better plot, please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684624</id>
	<title>Re:Next step, Ocular upgrades</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262888640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you could go watch a play.</p><p>(Just kidding. Sort of)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could go watch a play .
( Just kidding .
Sort of )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could go watch a play.
(Just kidding.
Sort of)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684682</id>
	<title>Re:Now, if only...</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1262888880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price? I'd like to see that first.</p></div><p> <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/canon-vixia-hg20/4505-6500\_7-33196959.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody" title="cnet.com">Your wish</a> [cnet.com] is my command. So how was <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/best-hd-camcorders/" title="cnet.com">this last year</a> [cnet.com] you spent in a cave?
<br> <br>
Tigerdirect has that first model on sale <a href="http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5551891&amp;SRCCODE=PRICEGRABBER&amp;cm\_mmc\_o=2mHCjCVybgwTyz\_\_wyCjCVqHCjCdwwp" title="tigerdirect.com">for $500</a> [tigerdirect.com]. That seems to me to be a pretty decent price... unless you're one of those "Let me know when I can get [product X] with [feature Q], [feature R], and <i>two</i> [feature S] for $99".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price ?
I 'd like to see that first .
Your wish [ cnet.com ] is my command .
So how was this last year [ cnet.com ] you spent in a cave ?
Tigerdirect has that first model on sale for $ 500 [ tigerdirect.com ] .
That seems to me to be a pretty decent price... unless you 're one of those " Let me know when I can get [ product X ] with [ feature Q ] , [ feature R ] , and two [ feature S ] for $ 99 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price?
I'd like to see that first.
Your wish [cnet.com] is my command.
So how was this last year [cnet.com] you spent in a cave?
Tigerdirect has that first model on sale for $500 [tigerdirect.com].
That seems to me to be a pretty decent price... unless you're one of those "Let me know when I can get [product X] with [feature Q], [feature R], and two [feature S] for $99".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684250</id>
	<title>Oh, great</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1262887080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D handheld shaky-cam shots. My eyes can't wait!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D handheld shaky-cam shots .
My eyes ca n't wait !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D handheld shaky-cam shots.
My eyes can't wait!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684946</id>
	<title>Re:Now, if only...</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1262889900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price?"</i> <p>
I'm seeing HD camcorders for standard consumers all over the place? I'm looking at good Cannon ones (Vixia series), in the $499(refurb) to $699 price range. From what I can tell from the specs...they do take images in full HD???</p><p>
I guess I'm missing you point....looks to me like there are several HD camcorders out there and decent prices...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Maybe it 's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price ?
" I 'm seeing HD camcorders for standard consumers all over the place ?
I 'm looking at good Cannon ones ( Vixia series ) , in the $ 499 ( refurb ) to $ 699 price range .
From what I can tell from the specs...they do take images in full HD ? ? ?
I guess I 'm missing you point....looks to me like there are several HD camcorders out there and decent prices.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price?
" 
I'm seeing HD camcorders for standard consumers all over the place?
I'm looking at good Cannon ones (Vixia series), in the $499(refurb) to $699 price range.
From what I can tell from the specs...they do take images in full HD???
I guess I'm missing you point....looks to me like there are several HD camcorders out there and decent prices...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687134</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh, really?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1262856840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd go original Star Trek style, and it would just be hot chicks in body paint, wearing not much of anything.</p></div><p>And where do I find these hot chicks?  Oh wait, I think I remember a website that had to do with that...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd go original Star Trek style , and it would just be hot chicks in body paint , wearing not much of anything.And where do I find these hot chicks ?
Oh wait , I think I remember a website that had to do with that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd go original Star Trek style, and it would just be hot chicks in body paint, wearing not much of anything.And where do I find these hot chicks?
Oh wait, I think I remember a website that had to do with that...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1262893980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D adds texture.  It's often gimicky, because producers (I assume it's producers) demand excuses to show of "it's 3D!" usually by having something pointy come out of the frame too far (as in, too close for normal people to adjust their eyes to it quickly).</p><p>But it's a perfectly useful tool for adding texture to projects if you avoid the gimmicky "throw stuff at you" tricks.  It really does add to the immersion on films where they're not playing "look, it's 3D!" all the time.</p><p>No one calls greek friezes "gimmky" just because they have some relief (although they would if every frieze had a spear sticking way out to remind you).  It's just another tool for artists to use to evoke emotion.</p><p>Now, I'd challenge you to watch one of the films where it wasn't just a gimmick, but I'd be hard pressed to actually name one.  "Monsters vs. Aliens" wasn't too bad, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D adds texture .
It 's often gimicky , because producers ( I assume it 's producers ) demand excuses to show of " it 's 3D !
" usually by having something pointy come out of the frame too far ( as in , too close for normal people to adjust their eyes to it quickly ) .But it 's a perfectly useful tool for adding texture to projects if you avoid the gimmicky " throw stuff at you " tricks .
It really does add to the immersion on films where they 're not playing " look , it 's 3D !
" all the time.No one calls greek friezes " gimmky " just because they have some relief ( although they would if every frieze had a spear sticking way out to remind you ) .
It 's just another tool for artists to use to evoke emotion.Now , I 'd challenge you to watch one of the films where it was n't just a gimmick , but I 'd be hard pressed to actually name one .
" Monsters vs. Aliens " was n't too bad , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D adds texture.
It's often gimicky, because producers (I assume it's producers) demand excuses to show of "it's 3D!
" usually by having something pointy come out of the frame too far (as in, too close for normal people to adjust their eyes to it quickly).But it's a perfectly useful tool for adding texture to projects if you avoid the gimmicky "throw stuff at you" tricks.
It really does add to the immersion on films where they're not playing "look, it's 3D!
" all the time.No one calls greek friezes "gimmky" just because they have some relief (although they would if every frieze had a spear sticking way out to remind you).
It's just another tool for artists to use to evoke emotion.Now, I'd challenge you to watch one of the films where it wasn't just a gimmick, but I'd be hard pressed to actually name one.
"Monsters vs. Aliens" wasn't too bad, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684786</id>
	<title>Amazing HD, Awesome 3D, Cutting Edge Mono Sound!</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1262889300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cameras need better mic options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cameras need better mic options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cameras need better mic options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685212</id>
	<title>I would have posted this link instead</title>
	<author>WormholeFiend</author>
	<datestamp>1262891040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/stvmkr/" title="jpn.org">Stereo Movie Maker</a> [jpn.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stereo Movie Maker [ jpn.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stereo Movie Maker [jpn.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685658</id>
	<title>Key Missing Feature</title>
	<author>MBoffin</author>
	<datestamp>1262893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only has one eyepiece! Talk about a huge oversight for a 3D camera! With all the engineering that went into this camera, it's amazing they missed this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only has one eyepiece !
Talk about a huge oversight for a 3D camera !
With all the engineering that went into this camera , it 's amazing they missed this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only has one eyepiece!
Talk about a huge oversight for a 3D camera!
With all the engineering that went into this camera, it's amazing they missed this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684542</id>
	<title>Re:Now, if only...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262888340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not sure if you've looked lately, but a 1080p camcorder is no longer an expensive device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not sure if you 've looked lately , but a 1080p camcorder is no longer an expensive device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not sure if you've looked lately, but a 1080p camcorder is no longer an expensive device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687692</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>MostAwesomeDude</author>
	<datestamp>1262859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nightmare Before Christmas was very pleasant as a 3D film, but that's largely because it was originally 2D and the 3D effect was added in later for a re-release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nightmare Before Christmas was very pleasant as a 3D film , but that 's largely because it was originally 2D and the 3D effect was added in later for a re-release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nightmare Before Christmas was very pleasant as a 3D film, but that's largely because it was originally 2D and the 3D effect was added in later for a re-release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh, really?</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262887440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'd go original Star Trek style, and it would just be hot chicks in body paint, wearing not much of anything.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; And then it goes into someone elses comment above "wheres the 3d porn?"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Funny thing about that camera.  There's only one eyepiece.  I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded.  That's a shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    I 'd go original Star Trek style , and it would just be hot chicks in body paint , wearing not much of anything .
    And then it goes into someone elses comment above " wheres the 3d porn ?
" : )     Funny thing about that camera .
There 's only one eyepiece .
I guess you 're not expected to see the scene as it 's recorded .
That 's a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I'd go original Star Trek style, and it would just be hot chicks in body paint, wearing not much of anything.
    And then it goes into someone elses comment above "wheres the 3d porn?
" :)
    Funny thing about that camera.
There's only one eyepiece.
I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded.
That's a shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685584</id>
	<title>No 3D TV in the living room</title>
	<author>Via\_Patrino</author>
	<datestamp>1262892780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a 3D TV to work properly you should use it in a dark room (with dark walls) and preferably with a big screen otherwise you'll get insane headaches.</p><p>That's because otherwise you'll perceive not just the TV flipping but the whole environment around it and your body is not just used to that.</p><p>They should release just 3D glasses with lcd (oled) monitors within the glasses, that would be much cheaper and practical.</p><p>It's also better to expect the 240Hz TVs that are scheduled to release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a 3D TV to work properly you should use it in a dark room ( with dark walls ) and preferably with a big screen otherwise you 'll get insane headaches.That 's because otherwise you 'll perceive not just the TV flipping but the whole environment around it and your body is not just used to that.They should release just 3D glasses with lcd ( oled ) monitors within the glasses , that would be much cheaper and practical.It 's also better to expect the 240Hz TVs that are scheduled to release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a 3D TV to work properly you should use it in a dark room (with dark walls) and preferably with a big screen otherwise you'll get insane headaches.That's because otherwise you'll perceive not just the TV flipping but the whole environment around it and your body is not just used to that.They should release just 3D glasses with lcd (oled) monitors within the glasses, that would be much cheaper and practical.It's also better to expect the 240Hz TVs that are scheduled to release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684568</id>
	<title>Still 3D images from the Victorian Era</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1262888460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is good to see that the digital video world has caught up with the Victorian era, in which stereo photos were extremely popular.</p><p>Of course, it did take a while before the RealD technology became available, making high quality COLOR 3D video possible.  It would be interesting to see someone do a steampunked version of the camera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is good to see that the digital video world has caught up with the Victorian era , in which stereo photos were extremely popular.Of course , it did take a while before the RealD technology became available , making high quality COLOR 3D video possible .
It would be interesting to see someone do a steampunked version of the camera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is good to see that the digital video world has caught up with the Victorian era, in which stereo photos were extremely popular.Of course, it did take a while before the RealD technology became available, making high quality COLOR 3D video possible.
It would be interesting to see someone do a steampunked version of the camera.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684846</id>
	<title>Re:W00t!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262889480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether you are joking or not, I wish people constantly complaining of nausea and headaches would just stop. I do not get headaches and nausea from viewing 3-D movies, nor does anyone I know. Yes, it may affect you, but quite complaining. There are people who get car sick, plane sick, boat sick, or in general motion sickness. Notice how most people do not complain about motion sickness every time a car, boat, or airplane is mentioned. And to handle the others that complain about people with only one eye not being able to take advantage of this...enough! There are people born, or inflicted, everyday with multiple kinds of disabilities that preclude them from doing numerous tasks, such as driving, flying an airplane, etc. If you get headaches, or have some ocular disability That prevents you from viewing 3-D tv, I'm sorry to hear that, but shut it. Recognize that there are most likely things that you can do that others can't. Imagine if every time you mention one of these things someone chimes in complain that they can't...</p><p>E.g<br>A. How was your day?<br>B. Well, I was thinking, as I was driving home...<br>A. Driving, yeah you mean that thing that makes me throw-up everytime I do it.<br>B. Okay, Work was fine. What should we do for dinner?<br>A. Chicken sounds good, but we need some peas.<br>B. I'll drive to....<br>A. Yeah, yeah...you'll DRIVE to the store. I hope you don't throw up, like I do...</p><p>Annoying, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you are joking or not , I wish people constantly complaining of nausea and headaches would just stop .
I do not get headaches and nausea from viewing 3-D movies , nor does anyone I know .
Yes , it may affect you , but quite complaining .
There are people who get car sick , plane sick , boat sick , or in general motion sickness .
Notice how most people do not complain about motion sickness every time a car , boat , or airplane is mentioned .
And to handle the others that complain about people with only one eye not being able to take advantage of this...enough !
There are people born , or inflicted , everyday with multiple kinds of disabilities that preclude them from doing numerous tasks , such as driving , flying an airplane , etc .
If you get headaches , or have some ocular disability That prevents you from viewing 3-D tv , I 'm sorry to hear that , but shut it .
Recognize that there are most likely things that you can do that others ca n't .
Imagine if every time you mention one of these things someone chimes in complain that they ca n't...E.gA .
How was your day ? B .
Well , I was thinking , as I was driving home...A. Driving , yeah you mean that thing that makes me throw-up everytime I do it.B .
Okay , Work was fine .
What should we do for dinner ? A .
Chicken sounds good , but we need some peas.B .
I 'll drive to....A. Yeah , yeah...you 'll DRIVE to the store .
I hope you do n't throw up , like I do...Annoying , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether you are joking or not, I wish people constantly complaining of nausea and headaches would just stop.
I do not get headaches and nausea from viewing 3-D movies, nor does anyone I know.
Yes, it may affect you, but quite complaining.
There are people who get car sick, plane sick, boat sick, or in general motion sickness.
Notice how most people do not complain about motion sickness every time a car, boat, or airplane is mentioned.
And to handle the others that complain about people with only one eye not being able to take advantage of this...enough!
There are people born, or inflicted, everyday with multiple kinds of disabilities that preclude them from doing numerous tasks, such as driving, flying an airplane, etc.
If you get headaches, or have some ocular disability That prevents you from viewing 3-D tv, I'm sorry to hear that, but shut it.
Recognize that there are most likely things that you can do that others can't.
Imagine if every time you mention one of these things someone chimes in complain that they can't...E.gA.
How was your day?B.
Well, I was thinking, as I was driving home...A. Driving, yeah you mean that thing that makes me throw-up everytime I do it.B.
Okay, Work was fine.
What should we do for dinner?A.
Chicken sounds good, but we need some peas.B.
I'll drive to....A. Yeah, yeah...you'll DRIVE to the store.
I hope you don't throw up, like I do...Annoying, isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684830</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh, really?</title>
	<author>TuringTest</author>
	<datestamp>1262889420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Funny thing about that camera. There's only one eyepiece. I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded. That's a shame.</p></div></blockquote><p>There's a trick for that - don't use the eyepiece!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing about that camera .
There 's only one eyepiece .
I guess you 're not expected to see the scene as it 's recorded .
That 's a shame.There 's a trick for that - do n't use the eyepiece !
: -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing about that camera.
There's only one eyepiece.
I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded.
That's a shame.There's a trick for that - don't use the eyepiece!
:-P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685526</id>
	<title>Re:$12,000 !!!</title>
	<author>Elwood P Dowd</author>
	<datestamp>1262892360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?</p><p>No. HD video fills up those $500+ P2 memory cards in minutes. They must then be swapped out for the next shot. If you can't afford $80,000 worth of video cards, you will need a person pulling the contents of those video cards onto hard drives full time during the shoot so that they can be reused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Does n't the $ 12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards ? No .
HD video fills up those $ 500 + P2 memory cards in minutes .
They must then be swapped out for the next shot .
If you ca n't afford $ 80,000 worth of video cards , you will need a person pulling the contents of those video cards onto hard drives full time during the shoot so that they can be reused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?No.
HD video fills up those $500+ P2 memory cards in minutes.
They must then be swapped out for the next shot.
If you can't afford $80,000 worth of video cards, you will need a person pulling the contents of those video cards onto hard drives full time during the shoot so that they can be reused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180</id>
	<title>Now, if only...</title>
	<author>dsavi</author>
	<datestamp>1262886960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price? I'd like to see that first. But no, focus development on something comparatively few people care about and are willing to pay for, not something that should have been done a couple of years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price ?
I 'd like to see that first .
But no , focus development on something comparatively few people care about and are willing to pay for , not something that should have been done a couple of years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price?
I'd like to see that first.
But no, focus development on something comparatively few people care about and are willing to pay for, not something that should have been done a couple of years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684944</id>
	<title>So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar</title>
	<author>kungfugleek</author>
	<datestamp>1262889900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With hookers, and blackjack...</htmltext>
<tokenext>With hookers , and blackjack.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With hookers, and blackjack...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684394</id>
	<title>At last!  Hollywood remakes, arise!  ARISE!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262887620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnQZlq9Q2M4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">"Dr. Tongue's Evil House of Wax"</a> [youtube.com]<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u4tTFEF\_XE" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">"Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewerdesses"</a> [youtube.com]  [marginally NSFW]<br>And, of course, "Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Pancakes".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dr. Tongue 's Evil House of Wax " [ youtube.com ] " Dr. Tongue 's 3D House of Stewerdesses " [ youtube.com ] [ marginally NSFW ] And , of course , " Dr. Tongue 's 3D House of Pancakes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dr. Tongue's Evil House of Wax" [youtube.com]"Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewerdesses" [youtube.com]  [marginally NSFW]And, of course, "Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Pancakes".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684774</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262889240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing. It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s; a neat idea, but really nothing but an expensive, impractical gimmick.</p><p>I think I'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck, or at the very least, makes something that doesn't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.</p></div><p>I have no doubt that this movement is being strongly supported by the TV manufacturers who need to have some new selling point (read: gimmick) now that the whole HD thing has slowed. I'm holding out for Smell-o-Vision. Or stylish goggles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really just do n't understand this whole 3D movie thing .
It 's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s ; a neat idea , but really nothing but an expensive , impractical gimmick.I think I 'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck , or at the very least , makes something that does n't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.I have no doubt that this movement is being strongly supported by the TV manufacturers who need to have some new selling point ( read : gimmick ) now that the whole HD thing has slowed .
I 'm holding out for Smell-o-Vision .
Or stylish goggles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing.
It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s; a neat idea, but really nothing but an expensive, impractical gimmick.I think I'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck, or at the very least, makes something that doesn't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.I have no doubt that this movement is being strongly supported by the TV manufacturers who need to have some new selling point (read: gimmick) now that the whole HD thing has slowed.
I'm holding out for Smell-o-Vision.
Or stylish goggles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684586</id>
	<title>Re:$12,000 !!!</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1262888520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the first, either.  Several stereoscopic video systems already exist - although I'm not sure if they do HD, it would surprise me if at least one of them didn't already.  In addition, this is a twin lens system.  That means that unless it records at twice the frame rate and records LRLRLR or to two separate streams, you'll either lose half the frame rate for each eye, or you lose half the resolution somewhere due to recording of both views onto the same virtual frame (left/right or top/bottom as in HDMI 1.4).</p><p>People who use dSLRs can go google '3d lens in a cap' for existing solutions for stereo photography and - as the summary mentions - video recording if the dSLR supports video recording.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the first , either .
Several stereoscopic video systems already exist - although I 'm not sure if they do HD , it would surprise me if at least one of them did n't already .
In addition , this is a twin lens system .
That means that unless it records at twice the frame rate and records LRLRLR or to two separate streams , you 'll either lose half the frame rate for each eye , or you lose half the resolution somewhere due to recording of both views onto the same virtual frame ( left/right or top/bottom as in HDMI 1.4 ) .People who use dSLRs can go google '3d lens in a cap ' for existing solutions for stereo photography and - as the summary mentions - video recording if the dSLR supports video recording .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the first, either.
Several stereoscopic video systems already exist - although I'm not sure if they do HD, it would surprise me if at least one of them didn't already.
In addition, this is a twin lens system.
That means that unless it records at twice the frame rate and records LRLRLR or to two separate streams, you'll either lose half the frame rate for each eye, or you lose half the resolution somewhere due to recording of both views onto the same virtual frame (left/right or top/bottom as in HDMI 1.4).People who use dSLRs can go google '3d lens in a cap' for existing solutions for stereo photography and - as the summary mentions - video recording if the dSLR supports video recording.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684296</id>
	<title>Monster Chiller Horror Theatre!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262887260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses - now in actual 3D</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>There may also be "other" applications. I'll get back to you on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dr. Tongue 's 3D House of Stewardesses - now in actual 3Dhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 87WgmGHz9U4 [ youtube.com ] There may also be " other " applications .
I 'll get back to you on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses - now in actual 3Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4 [youtube.com]There may also be "other" applications.
I'll get back to you on that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30708428</id>
	<title>How do you zoom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263063960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't the parallax be consistent with the zoom level? How is that possible when the distance between the oculars is fixed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the parallax be consistent with the zoom level ?
How is that possible when the distance between the oculars is fixed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the parallax be consistent with the zoom level?
How is that possible when the distance between the oculars is fixed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685546</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262892480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA</p><p>"The Twin-lens Full HD 3D camcorder will be available in Q4 2010, and Panasonic plans to release a 3D Full HD LCD monitor for use in the field, and a digital mixer for live 3D broadcasting shortly after."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA " The Twin-lens Full HD 3D camcorder will be available in Q4 2010 , and Panasonic plans to release a 3D Full HD LCD monitor for use in the field , and a digital mixer for live 3D broadcasting shortly after .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA"The Twin-lens Full HD 3D camcorder will be available in Q4 2010, and Panasonic plans to release a 3D Full HD LCD monitor for use in the field, and a digital mixer for live 3D broadcasting shortly after.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685930</id>
	<title>Re:$12,000 !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262894160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said. $21,000 is a rip off. (And you put this as $12,000 by mistake twice, even in the title - you fool!)</p><p>It's a piece of piss for a company like this to put two camcorders together to make 3D recording, give it a year and 3D camcorders will be well under $200.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
$ 21,000 is a rip off .
( And you put this as $ 12,000 by mistake twice , even in the title - you fool !
) It 's a piece of piss for a company like this to put two camcorders together to make 3D recording , give it a year and 3D camcorders will be well under $ 200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
$21,000 is a rip off.
(And you put this as $12,000 by mistake twice, even in the title - you fool!
)It's a piece of piss for a company like this to put two camcorders together to make 3D recording, give it a year and 3D camcorders will be well under $200.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684652</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1262888760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go to Toys R' Us</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to Toys R ' Us</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to Toys R' Us</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684818</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh, really?</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1262889420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Special effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Special effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Special effects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686302</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262896260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D movies tend to do the cheap coming at you trick because that's what people bizarrely want. All the complaints I've hard about Avatar 3D was that it didn't do this, leaving them disappointed. *shakes head*</p><p>But moving on from movies, this cheesy poking out effect could be pretty good in gaming. Could you imagine something like condemned 2 having a presence in your room? Talk about change of underwear!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D movies tend to do the cheap coming at you trick because that 's what people bizarrely want .
All the complaints I 've hard about Avatar 3D was that it did n't do this , leaving them disappointed .
* shakes head * But moving on from movies , this cheesy poking out effect could be pretty good in gaming .
Could you imagine something like condemned 2 having a presence in your room ?
Talk about change of underwear !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D movies tend to do the cheap coming at you trick because that's what people bizarrely want.
All the complaints I've hard about Avatar 3D was that it didn't do this, leaving them disappointed.
*shakes head*But moving on from movies, this cheesy poking out effect could be pretty good in gaming.
Could you imagine something like condemned 2 having a presence in your room?
Talk about change of underwear!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685558</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1262892540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing. It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s</i> </p><p>Avatar grossed $1 billion dollars in eighteen days. Up and Monsters vs Aliens about $300 million each in theatrical release.</p><p>Not so many years back, the geek-in-embryo couldn't see any value in surround-sound.</p><p> It took his dad or grandad quite some time to come around to the idea - and expense - of investing in FM and stereo Hi-Fi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really just do n't understand this whole 3D movie thing .
It 's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s Avatar grossed $ 1 billion dollars in eighteen days .
Up and Monsters vs Aliens about $ 300 million each in theatrical release.Not so many years back , the geek-in-embryo could n't see any value in surround-sound .
It took his dad or grandad quite some time to come around to the idea - and expense - of investing in FM and stereo Hi-Fi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing.
It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s Avatar grossed $1 billion dollars in eighteen days.
Up and Monsters vs Aliens about $300 million each in theatrical release.Not so many years back, the geek-in-embryo couldn't see any value in surround-sound.
It took his dad or grandad quite some time to come around to the idea - and expense - of investing in FM and stereo Hi-Fi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685522</id>
	<title>Cost prohibitive</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1262892360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At some point, yes, our relatives shall bore us with their hours-long videos of their cruise, and leave us with (worse) headaches and intense nausea.</p><p>But at a current price of US$21,000 it won't be soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point , yes , our relatives shall bore us with their hours-long videos of their cruise , and leave us with ( worse ) headaches and intense nausea.But at a current price of US $ 21,000 it wo n't be soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point, yes, our relatives shall bore us with their hours-long videos of their cruise, and leave us with (worse) headaches and intense nausea.But at a current price of US$21,000 it won't be soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684136</id>
	<title>Finally - 3D porn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262886780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nuff said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nuff said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nuff said</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</id>
	<title>$12,000 !!!</title>
	<author>frovingslosh</author>
	<datestamp>1262887500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hype claims "While it's far cheaper than building your own 3D rig, the SRP of US$21,000... ", but that is far from accurate. You can build your own quite decent 3D system with two inexpensive (around $100 bucks each) Canon cameras, some free open source software, and very simple hardware. See <a href="http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/sdm/index.htm" title="jpn.org">http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/sdm/index.htm</a> [jpn.org] for details.
</p><p>
Plus, adding insult to injury, the article raves about this $12,000 camera working with two inexpensive SDHC memory cards rather than more expensive P2 memory cards. Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hype claims " While it 's far cheaper than building your own 3D rig , the SRP of US $ 21,000... " , but that is far from accurate .
You can build your own quite decent 3D system with two inexpensive ( around $ 100 bucks each ) Canon cameras , some free open source software , and very simple hardware .
See http : //stereo.jpn.org/eng/sdm/index.htm [ jpn.org ] for details .
Plus , adding insult to injury , the article raves about this $ 12,000 camera working with two inexpensive SDHC memory cards rather than more expensive P2 memory cards .
Does n't the $ 12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hype claims "While it's far cheaper than building your own 3D rig, the SRP of US$21,000... ", but that is far from accurate.
You can build your own quite decent 3D system with two inexpensive (around $100 bucks each) Canon cameras, some free open source software, and very simple hardware.
See http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/sdm/index.htm [jpn.org] for details.
Plus, adding insult to injury, the article raves about this $12,000 camera working with two inexpensive SDHC memory cards rather than more expensive P2 memory cards.
Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684432</id>
	<title>Re:Now, if only...</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1262887860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not your father's cam corder.  At USD21,000 or so, this is low end pro (or insane serious amateur) stuff.  Mostly this is an engineering exercise to see how things work and get some presence in the market.<br> <br>
Expect to see something similar to this on you cell phone in about, let's say, 2038.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not your father 's cam corder .
At USD21,000 or so , this is low end pro ( or insane serious amateur ) stuff .
Mostly this is an engineering exercise to see how things work and get some presence in the market .
Expect to see something similar to this on you cell phone in about , let 's say , 2038 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not your father's cam corder.
At USD21,000 or so, this is low end pro (or insane serious amateur) stuff.
Mostly this is an engineering exercise to see how things work and get some presence in the market.
Expect to see something similar to this on you cell phone in about, let's say, 2038.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30688812</id>
	<title>but which one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"radically change the 3D game"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to which video game are you referring?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" radically change the 3D game " ... to which video game are you referring ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"radically change the 3D game" ... to which video game are you referring?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687640</id>
	<title>Re:Too close to each other?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262859300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks about right to me. The typical lens separation used for standard stereoscopic photography is around 6-7cm. The rule of thumb is that you separate the lenses approximately 1/30th of the distance from lens to subject. Having them wider exaggerates the 3D effect, at the expense of realism, and also makes it harder for the brain to fuse the images together.</p><p>Ideally, you'd use an adjustable rig - but that's a lot more work, and a lot more bulk and impracticality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks about right to me .
The typical lens separation used for standard stereoscopic photography is around 6-7cm .
The rule of thumb is that you separate the lenses approximately 1/30th of the distance from lens to subject .
Having them wider exaggerates the 3D effect , at the expense of realism , and also makes it harder for the brain to fuse the images together.Ideally , you 'd use an adjustable rig - but that 's a lot more work , and a lot more bulk and impracticality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks about right to me.
The typical lens separation used for standard stereoscopic photography is around 6-7cm.
The rule of thumb is that you separate the lenses approximately 1/30th of the distance from lens to subject.
Having them wider exaggerates the 3D effect, at the expense of realism, and also makes it harder for the brain to fuse the images together.Ideally, you'd use an adjustable rig - but that's a lot more work, and a lot more bulk and impracticality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684842</id>
	<title>Re:$12,000 !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262889480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering: What's the target market is for this camera? Is it in preparation for the supposed upcoming 3D TV stuff? It's too pricey for casual users, but it seems to me that if you're trying to do something professional you'd probably better off spending the money on a higher-quality regular camera (and lights and sound... so many indie productions are ruined by poor lighting or sound). Is this just for people who want 3D for very niche purposes, or as a gimmick, or is this price point where you really can't buy any meaningful improvement in visual quality without a huge jump in cost? I used to be into video production in college, but this is above the price range of prosumer cameras where prices were readily available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering : What 's the target market is for this camera ?
Is it in preparation for the supposed upcoming 3D TV stuff ?
It 's too pricey for casual users , but it seems to me that if you 're trying to do something professional you 'd probably better off spending the money on a higher-quality regular camera ( and lights and sound... so many indie productions are ruined by poor lighting or sound ) .
Is this just for people who want 3D for very niche purposes , or as a gimmick , or is this price point where you really ca n't buy any meaningful improvement in visual quality without a huge jump in cost ?
I used to be into video production in college , but this is above the price range of prosumer cameras where prices were readily available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering: What's the target market is for this camera?
Is it in preparation for the supposed upcoming 3D TV stuff?
It's too pricey for casual users, but it seems to me that if you're trying to do something professional you'd probably better off spending the money on a higher-quality regular camera (and lights and sound... so many indie productions are ruined by poor lighting or sound).
Is this just for people who want 3D for very niche purposes, or as a gimmick, or is this price point where you really can't buy any meaningful improvement in visual quality without a huge jump in cost?
I used to be into video production in college, but this is above the price range of prosumer cameras where prices were readily available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30708370</id>
	<title>Re:W00t!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263063480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I watched Avatar with an eyepatch and I puked all over the place, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I watched Avatar with an eyepatch and I puked all over the place , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I watched Avatar with an eyepatch and I puked all over the place, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684042</id>
	<title>furst p0st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262886480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ZOMG</htmltext>
<tokenext>ZOMG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZOMG</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687770</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, having to wear retarded-looking glasses REALLY doesn't help the whole 3D movement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , having to wear retarded-looking glasses REALLY does n't help the whole 3D movement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, having to wear retarded-looking glasses REALLY doesn't help the whole 3D movement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685328</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262891580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'd go original Star Trek style, and it would just be hot chicks in body paint, wearing not much of anything.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; And then it goes into someone elses comment above "wheres the 3d porn?"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Funny thing about that camera.  There's only one eyepiece.  I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded.  That's a shame.</p></div><p>Helpful to read the article. They are coming out with a monitor to view the 3D on an LCD screen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>    I 'd go original Star Trek style , and it would just be hot chicks in body paint , wearing not much of anything .
    And then it goes into someone elses comment above " wheres the 3d porn ?
" : )     Funny thing about that camera .
There 's only one eyepiece .
I guess you 're not expected to see the scene as it 's recorded .
That 's a shame.Helpful to read the article .
They are coming out with a monitor to view the 3D on an LCD screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I'd go original Star Trek style, and it would just be hot chicks in body paint, wearing not much of anything.
    And then it goes into someone elses comment above "wheres the 3d porn?
" :)
    Funny thing about that camera.
There's only one eyepiece.
I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded.
That's a shame.Helpful to read the article.
They are coming out with a monitor to view the 3D on an LCD screen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685090</id>
	<title>Re:$12,000 !!!</title>
	<author>VisiX</author>
	<datestamp>1262890500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Plus, adding insult to injury, the article raves about this $12,000 camera working with two inexpensive SDHC memory cards rather than more expensive P2 memory cards. Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?</p></div><p>I would bet that either the article writer or the target audience are the kind of people that will drive 10 miles across town to save $.02/gal on gas.  Cost benefit analysis is much too complicated for most people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , adding insult to injury , the article raves about this $ 12,000 camera working with two inexpensive SDHC memory cards rather than more expensive P2 memory cards .
Does n't the $ 12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards ? I would bet that either the article writer or the target audience are the kind of people that will drive 10 miles across town to save $ .02/gal on gas .
Cost benefit analysis is much too complicated for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, adding insult to injury, the article raves about this $12,000 camera working with two inexpensive SDHC memory cards rather than more expensive P2 memory cards.
Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?I would bet that either the article writer or the target audience are the kind of people that will drive 10 miles across town to save $.02/gal on gas.
Cost benefit analysis is much too complicated for most people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684698</id>
	<title>Re:$12,000 !!!</title>
	<author>C=64</author>
	<datestamp>1262888940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I missed something, but the link you supplied to demonstrate why the Panasonic camcorder is overpriced seems to only provides information for 3D <i>still photography</i>, <b>not</b> 3D video.  An apples to oranges comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I missed something , but the link you supplied to demonstrate why the Panasonic camcorder is overpriced seems to only provides information for 3D still photography , not 3D video .
An apples to oranges comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I missed something, but the link you supplied to demonstrate why the Panasonic camcorder is overpriced seems to only provides information for 3D still photography, not 3D video.
An apples to oranges comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094</id>
	<title>Ohh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262886660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.
</i> <p>So where do I get the blue aliens and the monsters and the vehicles and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So there ya go , get started making your own Avatar .
So where do I get the blue aliens and the monsters and the vehicles and .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.
So where do I get the blue aliens and the monsters and the vehicles and ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685530</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap 3D Viewing</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1262892360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy a 3D movie DVD, it comes with glasses.  You can usually find a few cheap titles - Coraline is worth the investment just for the movie, glasses are a bonus.</p><p>however, Coraline's colors don't match the typical red/cyan anaglyph you'll find, so you'll have to decide which colors you want, and find that movie.</p><p>At that point, you can typically take side-by-side photos or whatever source and anaglyph them into the proper colors with free software.</p><p>Alternatively, go see Avatar with a friend and keep the glasses.  Buy some cheap projectors and you'll probably need a grey screen to preserve the polarization, but put the left lens over the left projector, the right lens over the right one, and wear the other pair.  Full color 3D.  Especially with some of the pocket-sized projectors that cost a couple hundred dollars max, you can get a decent cheap effect.  This experiment is currently in progress chez moi, having accomplished the first.</p><p>Next is typing the power and trigger lines of a cheap digicam to create a master/slave, giving me cheap 3D photo/video acquisition.  The trick is to use fixed-focus or you'll suffer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a 3D movie DVD , it comes with glasses .
You can usually find a few cheap titles - Coraline is worth the investment just for the movie , glasses are a bonus.however , Coraline 's colors do n't match the typical red/cyan anaglyph you 'll find , so you 'll have to decide which colors you want , and find that movie.At that point , you can typically take side-by-side photos or whatever source and anaglyph them into the proper colors with free software.Alternatively , go see Avatar with a friend and keep the glasses .
Buy some cheap projectors and you 'll probably need a grey screen to preserve the polarization , but put the left lens over the left projector , the right lens over the right one , and wear the other pair .
Full color 3D .
Especially with some of the pocket-sized projectors that cost a couple hundred dollars max , you can get a decent cheap effect .
This experiment is currently in progress chez moi , having accomplished the first.Next is typing the power and trigger lines of a cheap digicam to create a master/slave , giving me cheap 3D photo/video acquisition .
The trick is to use fixed-focus or you 'll suffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy a 3D movie DVD, it comes with glasses.
You can usually find a few cheap titles - Coraline is worth the investment just for the movie, glasses are a bonus.however, Coraline's colors don't match the typical red/cyan anaglyph you'll find, so you'll have to decide which colors you want, and find that movie.At that point, you can typically take side-by-side photos or whatever source and anaglyph them into the proper colors with free software.Alternatively, go see Avatar with a friend and keep the glasses.
Buy some cheap projectors and you'll probably need a grey screen to preserve the polarization, but put the left lens over the left projector, the right lens over the right one, and wear the other pair.
Full color 3D.
Especially with some of the pocket-sized projectors that cost a couple hundred dollars max, you can get a decent cheap effect.
This experiment is currently in progress chez moi, having accomplished the first.Next is typing the power and trigger lines of a cheap digicam to create a master/slave, giving me cheap 3D photo/video acquisition.
The trick is to use fixed-focus or you'll suffer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686130</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap 3D Viewing</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1262895180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nVidia has a video card and glasses you can buy that give you 3d on your computer screen.  Another option is www.iz3d.com  They sell a monitor, with glasses, that let you see 3d.  They include that it works on games and include a list of games. I was thinking the iz3d and buying it - but it requires i use both my video ports, which means I have to buy a second video card to run my second monitor.  So spending about $600 on that, or buying a drysuit for scuba diving...well I like scuba diving more then playing Warhammer online in 3d<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>nVidia has a video card and glasses you can buy that give you 3d on your computer screen .
Another option is www.iz3d.com They sell a monitor , with glasses , that let you see 3d .
They include that it works on games and include a list of games .
I was thinking the iz3d and buying it - but it requires i use both my video ports , which means I have to buy a second video card to run my second monitor .
So spending about $ 600 on that , or buying a drysuit for scuba diving...well I like scuba diving more then playing Warhammer online in 3d : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nVidia has a video card and glasses you can buy that give you 3d on your computer screen.
Another option is www.iz3d.com  They sell a monitor, with glasses, that let you see 3d.
They include that it works on games and include a list of games.
I was thinking the iz3d and buying it - but it requires i use both my video ports, which means I have to buy a second video card to run my second monitor.
So spending about $600 on that, or buying a drysuit for scuba diving...well I like scuba diving more then playing Warhammer online in 3d :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686392</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>MadCow42</author>
	<datestamp>1262896680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Now, I'd challenge you to watch one of the films where it wasn't just a gimmick, but I'd be hard pressed to actually name one. "Monsters vs. Aliens" wasn't too bad, though.</p><p>Avatar in 3D... sure, there were a couple scenes where it was over-used, but by far it was the best use of 3D I've ever seen.  I was very skeptical, especially after watching 5 really annoying 3D trailers before the movie (oxymoron...), but it was not distracting in the least.</p><p>MadCow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Now , I 'd challenge you to watch one of the films where it was n't just a gimmick , but I 'd be hard pressed to actually name one .
" Monsters vs. Aliens " was n't too bad , though.Avatar in 3D... sure , there were a couple scenes where it was over-used , but by far it was the best use of 3D I 've ever seen .
I was very skeptical , especially after watching 5 really annoying 3D trailers before the movie ( oxymoron... ) , but it was not distracting in the least.MadCow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Now, I'd challenge you to watch one of the films where it wasn't just a gimmick, but I'd be hard pressed to actually name one.
"Monsters vs. Aliens" wasn't too bad, though.Avatar in 3D... sure, there were a couple scenes where it was over-used, but by far it was the best use of 3D I've ever seen.
I was very skeptical, especially after watching 5 really annoying 3D trailers before the movie (oxymoron...), but it was not distracting in the least.MadCow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684088</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>Jethro</author>
	<datestamp>1262886600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't WAIT to see all those cute kitten videos in 3D!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't WAIT to see all those cute kitten videos in 3D ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't WAIT to see all those cute kitten videos in 3D!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686046</id>
	<title>Re:W00t!</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1262894700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, here is an idea: Quit complaining about people complaining.</p><p>A.  I went to the amusement park over the weekend with my family.<br>B.  Ride any good rides?<br>A.  Yeah, that new rollercoaster they have is rather awesome.<br>B.  Aw man, I can't do those things, they make me throw up every time.</p><p>Same fucking concept.  Now, if person B in this situation annoyed you, then you are a jackass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , here is an idea : Quit complaining about people complaining.A .
I went to the amusement park over the weekend with my family.B .
Ride any good rides ? A .
Yeah , that new rollercoaster they have is rather awesome.B .
Aw man , I ca n't do those things , they make me throw up every time.Same fucking concept .
Now , if person B in this situation annoyed you , then you are a jackass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, here is an idea: Quit complaining about people complaining.A.
I went to the amusement park over the weekend with my family.B.
Ride any good rides?A.
Yeah, that new rollercoaster they have is rather awesome.B.
Aw man, I can't do those things, they make me throw up every time.Same fucking concept.
Now, if person B in this situation annoyed you, then you are a jackass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685108</id>
	<title>Too close to each other?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262890620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone else notice, how the lenses seem too close to each other?</p><p>Looks like everything recorded by that thing will look like a dog&rsquo;s perspective (eye-distance-wise).</p><p>YOU&rsquo;RE WINNER!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else notice , how the lenses seem too close to each other ? Looks like everything recorded by that thing will look like a dog    s perspective ( eye-distance-wise ) .YOU    RE WINNER !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else notice, how the lenses seem too close to each other?Looks like everything recorded by that thing will look like a dog’s perspective (eye-distance-wise).YOU’RE WINNER!
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216</id>
	<title>W00t!</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1262887020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now not only can our relatives bore us with their hours-long videos of their cruise, but they can also leave us with (worse) headaches and intense nausea!  Now that's what I call progress!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now not only can our relatives bore us with their hours-long videos of their cruise , but they can also leave us with ( worse ) headaches and intense nausea !
Now that 's what I call progress !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now not only can our relatives bore us with their hours-long videos of their cruise, but they can also leave us with (worse) headaches and intense nausea!
Now that's what I call progress!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685348</id>
	<title>Is 3D really THAT great?</title>
	<author>a0schweitzer</author>
	<datestamp>1262891640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have some vision issues (wear glasses, have had surgery, was born cross-eyed, etc). I can't for the life of me remember the exact medical term, but I don't have depth perception like average folks. When the optometrist does the depth-perception test with the little dots, and one is supposed to pop out at you, I see no popping.</p><p> Now, I've watched Avatar (twice - once in non-3D and once in RealD) and thought it was great. I could see the 3D, but it wasn't anything crazy. It really just emphasized the focus point of the camera, and made things appropriately blurry if they were not the thing being focussed on. Trees closer to the camera loooked like they were closer to the camera. But I already knew that, because they're, well, bigger. I guess it added a bit of perspective, but nothing spectacular.</p><p>My question, thus, being: Is 3D really THAT great, that we want 3D TVs and camcorders? Or am I missing out on the full AWESOME of 3D becasue of my vision issues?</p><p>To me 3D still seems really gimmikey and more of a distraction than an actual addition to a film</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have some vision issues ( wear glasses , have had surgery , was born cross-eyed , etc ) .
I ca n't for the life of me remember the exact medical term , but I do n't have depth perception like average folks .
When the optometrist does the depth-perception test with the little dots , and one is supposed to pop out at you , I see no popping .
Now , I 've watched Avatar ( twice - once in non-3D and once in RealD ) and thought it was great .
I could see the 3D , but it was n't anything crazy .
It really just emphasized the focus point of the camera , and made things appropriately blurry if they were not the thing being focussed on .
Trees closer to the camera loooked like they were closer to the camera .
But I already knew that , because they 're , well , bigger .
I guess it added a bit of perspective , but nothing spectacular.My question , thus , being : Is 3D really THAT great , that we want 3D TVs and camcorders ?
Or am I missing out on the full AWESOME of 3D becasue of my vision issues ? To me 3D still seems really gimmikey and more of a distraction than an actual addition to a film</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have some vision issues (wear glasses, have had surgery, was born cross-eyed, etc).
I can't for the life of me remember the exact medical term, but I don't have depth perception like average folks.
When the optometrist does the depth-perception test with the little dots, and one is supposed to pop out at you, I see no popping.
Now, I've watched Avatar (twice - once in non-3D and once in RealD) and thought it was great.
I could see the 3D, but it wasn't anything crazy.
It really just emphasized the focus point of the camera, and made things appropriately blurry if they were not the thing being focussed on.
Trees closer to the camera loooked like they were closer to the camera.
But I already knew that, because they're, well, bigger.
I guess it added a bit of perspective, but nothing spectacular.My question, thus, being: Is 3D really THAT great, that we want 3D TVs and camcorders?
Or am I missing out on the full AWESOME of 3D becasue of my vision issues?To me 3D still seems really gimmikey and more of a distraction than an actual addition to a film</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684428</id>
	<title>Next step, Ocular upgrades</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1262887800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that we have a consumer-grade method of creating 3D footage, I'm waiting for ocular implants so the 3D footage can be streamed directly to my brain!
<br> <br>
I've always thought it would be pretty awesome to have a 3D HUD to life without having any goggles; it would just be built right into my synapses! I suppose the challenges would be streaming the data to the ocular implants; I have a feeling bluetooth wouldn't have enough bandwidth to handle the feeds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we have a consumer-grade method of creating 3D footage , I 'm waiting for ocular implants so the 3D footage can be streamed directly to my brain !
I 've always thought it would be pretty awesome to have a 3D HUD to life without having any goggles ; it would just be built right into my synapses !
I suppose the challenges would be streaming the data to the ocular implants ; I have a feeling bluetooth would n't have enough bandwidth to handle the feeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we have a consumer-grade method of creating 3D footage, I'm waiting for ocular implants so the 3D footage can be streamed directly to my brain!
I've always thought it would be pretty awesome to have a 3D HUD to life without having any goggles; it would just be built right into my synapses!
I suppose the challenges would be streaming the data to the ocular implants; I have a feeling bluetooth wouldn't have enough bandwidth to handle the feeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687220</id>
	<title>Re:Not getting it...</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1262857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing.</i></p><p>Ok, I get your sentiment, but the same was said about sound and color.  3D, by itself, won't make a good movie. At the worst you'll get something that's a crappy movie with crappy 3D effects. At the middle you'd get something like "The Mind's Eye", except in 3D and even that bar would be raised as the technology trickles down so regular folks can do those effects (e.g., the Terminator liquid metal man can now be done with $2,000 software).  And the very best would be an immersive movie with an interesting storyline that completely transports the viewer away. Yeah, you can do the same with 2D, but 3D is just another paintbrush.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really just do n't understand this whole 3D movie thing.Ok , I get your sentiment , but the same was said about sound and color .
3D , by itself , wo n't make a good movie .
At the worst you 'll get something that 's a crappy movie with crappy 3D effects .
At the middle you 'd get something like " The Mind 's Eye " , except in 3D and even that bar would be raised as the technology trickles down so regular folks can do those effects ( e.g. , the Terminator liquid metal man can now be done with $ 2,000 software ) .
And the very best would be an immersive movie with an interesting storyline that completely transports the viewer away .
Yeah , you can do the same with 2D , but 3D is just another paintbrush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing.Ok, I get your sentiment, but the same was said about sound and color.
3D, by itself, won't make a good movie.
At the worst you'll get something that's a crappy movie with crappy 3D effects.
At the middle you'd get something like "The Mind's Eye", except in 3D and even that bar would be raised as the technology trickles down so regular folks can do those effects (e.g., the Terminator liquid metal man can now be done with $2,000 software).
And the very best would be an immersive movie with an interesting storyline that completely transports the viewer away.
Yeah, you can do the same with 2D, but 3D is just another paintbrush.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684254</id>
	<title>Get the tarp</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1262887140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, now every porn flick is going to look like a Gallagher concert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , now every porn flick is going to look like a Gallagher concert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, now every porn flick is going to look like a Gallagher concert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684918</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap 3D Viewing</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1262889780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you looked into NVidia's offering? If you've got a good enough monitor (needs 120Hz) and a decent NVidia card already, the glasses are only 200USD, and I'd imagine you could find somewhere in the UK selling them as well. But again, that assumes you already have the graphics card (probably not \_too\_ expensive) and a 120Hz monitor (more expensive)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you looked into NVidia 's offering ?
If you 've got a good enough monitor ( needs 120Hz ) and a decent NVidia card already , the glasses are only 200USD , and I 'd imagine you could find somewhere in the UK selling them as well .
But again , that assumes you already have the graphics card ( probably not \ _too \ _ expensive ) and a 120Hz monitor ( more expensive )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you looked into NVidia's offering?
If you've got a good enough monitor (needs 120Hz) and a decent NVidia card already, the glasses are only 200USD, and I'd imagine you could find somewhere in the UK selling them as well.
But again, that assumes you already have the graphics card (probably not \_too\_ expensive) and a 120Hz monitor (more expensive)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30688428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30708370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30689324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30688878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30690374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1617258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30688878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30708370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30689324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30690374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30687692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30686524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30688428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30684126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1617258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1617258.30685348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
