<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_08_1714244</id>
	<title>Hot Or Not &mdash; 3D TV</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262978520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Several sources have written to tell us that in terms of hype at this year's CES show, there is none bigger than that surrounding 3D TV.  Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, and Toshiba all have their own <a href="http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/164200,3d-tv-buzz-at-ces-2010-just-another-gimmick-or-should-you-hang-onto-those-avatar-glasses.aspx">flavors of hardware</a> and ESPN announced a 3D sports channel, but Microsoft seems to be bucking the trend with their apparent <a href="http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-28759-Atlanta-Video-Game-News-Examiner~y2010m1d8-CES-2010-Microsoft-Not-Interested-in-Pushing-3D-on-Xbox-360-Anytime-Soon">lack of 3D interest</a> surrounding the Xbox product.  <i>"We're yet to see any major brand at CES pushing a 3D TV that doesn't require them. In most cases these aren't the basic Ray Ban style you might have worn to watch Avatar. In many cases they'll actually require power. For example, Sony's 3D TVs use a 'frame sequential' display method, which involves active-shutter glasses that turn on and off in sync with the images. Some TVs come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in, but again, in some cases you'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several sources have written to tell us that in terms of hype at this year 's CES show , there is none bigger than that surrounding 3D TV .
Sony , Panasonic , Samsung , LG , and Toshiba all have their own flavors of hardware and ESPN announced a 3D sports channel , but Microsoft seems to be bucking the trend with their apparent lack of 3D interest surrounding the Xbox product .
" We 're yet to see any major brand at CES pushing a 3D TV that does n't require them .
In most cases these are n't the basic Ray Ban style you might have worn to watch Avatar .
In many cases they 'll actually require power .
For example , Sony 's 3D TVs use a 'frame sequential ' display method , which involves active-shutter glasses that turn on and off in sync with the images .
Some TVs come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in , but again , in some cases you 'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several sources have written to tell us that in terms of hype at this year's CES show, there is none bigger than that surrounding 3D TV.
Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, and Toshiba all have their own flavors of hardware and ESPN announced a 3D sports channel, but Microsoft seems to be bucking the trend with their apparent lack of 3D interest surrounding the Xbox product.
"We're yet to see any major brand at CES pushing a 3D TV that doesn't require them.
In most cases these aren't the basic Ray Ban style you might have worn to watch Avatar.
In many cases they'll actually require power.
For example, Sony's 3D TVs use a 'frame sequential' display method, which involves active-shutter glasses that turn on and off in sync with the images.
Some TVs come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in, but again, in some cases you'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698734</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D</author>
	<datestamp>1262983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just explained why colour TV and colour movies are useless. Watch a black and white and within a couple minutes you'll forget you're watching black and white.
</p><p>The short answer is "because we can". It won't be too long before 3D technology brings prices down so that it's as cheap as 2D is now. Just like when colour first came out, people were initially using it for whiz-bang "look what we can do" effect and it took a few years before it just became nothing special. So it will go with 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just explained why colour TV and colour movies are useless .
Watch a black and white and within a couple minutes you 'll forget you 're watching black and white .
The short answer is " because we can " .
It wo n't be too long before 3D technology brings prices down so that it 's as cheap as 2D is now .
Just like when colour first came out , people were initially using it for whiz-bang " look what we can do " effect and it took a few years before it just became nothing special .
So it will go with 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just explained why colour TV and colour movies are useless.
Watch a black and white and within a couple minutes you'll forget you're watching black and white.
The short answer is "because we can".
It won't be too long before 3D technology brings prices down so that it's as cheap as 2D is now.
Just like when colour first came out, people were initially using it for whiz-bang "look what we can do" effect and it took a few years before it just became nothing special.
So it will go with 3D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698652</id>
	<title>3D has no appeal to me or many I know...</title>
	<author>cjmnews</author>
	<datestamp>1262982900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly it is due to the glasses and the effect the glasses have on the wearer.</p><p>Having recently seen my first 3D movie at a theater last night, I can say that yes it does look incredible, but I have significant eye strain, that is still bothering me the next day.</p><p>Others I have talked to said they get headaches from the 3D glasses, others just hate having to wear them due to comfort, interfering with their normal glasses or not used to wearing glasses..</p><p>Sorry, no one I have talked to is willing to veg out for an hour or 2 in the evenings with 3D glasses on.</p><p>I am really not willing to do it for games either.  I'd rather have a few hours gaming in 2D, than a short duration with headaches in 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly it is due to the glasses and the effect the glasses have on the wearer.Having recently seen my first 3D movie at a theater last night , I can say that yes it does look incredible , but I have significant eye strain , that is still bothering me the next day.Others I have talked to said they get headaches from the 3D glasses , others just hate having to wear them due to comfort , interfering with their normal glasses or not used to wearing glasses..Sorry , no one I have talked to is willing to veg out for an hour or 2 in the evenings with 3D glasses on.I am really not willing to do it for games either .
I 'd rather have a few hours gaming in 2D , than a short duration with headaches in 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly it is due to the glasses and the effect the glasses have on the wearer.Having recently seen my first 3D movie at a theater last night, I can say that yes it does look incredible, but I have significant eye strain, that is still bothering me the next day.Others I have talked to said they get headaches from the 3D glasses, others just hate having to wear them due to comfort, interfering with their normal glasses or not used to wearing glasses..Sorry, no one I have talked to is willing to veg out for an hour or 2 in the evenings with 3D glasses on.I am really not willing to do it for games either.
I'd rather have a few hours gaming in 2D, than a short duration with headaches in 3D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698506</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698720</id>
	<title>Re:meh.</title>
	<author>Kenshin</author>
	<datestamp>1262983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?</i></p><p>It's difficult enough in the theatre. I have to wear glasses <i>over</i> my glasses. Keeping them comfortably balanced is an ordeal, and then there's the problem of reflections bouncing back and forth between the two shiny surfaces.</p><p>Makes me wish I wore contacts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV ? It 's difficult enough in the theatre .
I have to wear glasses over my glasses .
Keeping them comfortably balanced is an ordeal , and then there 's the problem of reflections bouncing back and forth between the two shiny surfaces.Makes me wish I wore contacts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?It's difficult enough in the theatre.
I have to wear glasses over my glasses.
Keeping them comfortably balanced is an ordeal, and then there's the problem of reflections bouncing back and forth between the two shiny surfaces.Makes me wish I wore contacts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698896</id>
	<title>Microsoft is the voice of reason?</title>
	<author>TheReverandND</author>
	<datestamp>1262983860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is the company telling you why the latest and greatest thing isn't so great?
Weird. You'd think they'd be hyping 3D display support in Windows 8.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is the company telling you why the latest and greatest thing is n't so great ?
Weird. You 'd think they 'd be hyping 3D display support in Windows 8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is the company telling you why the latest and greatest thing isn't so great?
Weird. You'd think they'd be hyping 3D display support in Windows 8.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699282</id>
	<title>If you have to wear powered glasses anyway...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have to wear powered glasses anyway, then what's the point of a big screen instead of a HUD display?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have to wear powered glasses anyway , then what 's the point of a big screen instead of a HUD display ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have to wear powered glasses anyway, then what's the point of a big screen instead of a HUD display?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700828</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262948820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3d is just not acceptable to those of us that have vision in only one eye. everything looks fuzzing out of focus. So I will stick with my reg LCD TV. Saves me money. BTW Those of us that have vision in one eye only have perfect depth perception and see in 3 d it is not binocular but like a SLR camera</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3d is just not acceptable to those of us that have vision in only one eye .
everything looks fuzzing out of focus .
So I will stick with my reg LCD TV .
Saves me money .
BTW Those of us that have vision in one eye only have perfect depth perception and see in 3 d it is not binocular but like a SLR camera</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3d is just not acceptable to those of us that have vision in only one eye.
everything looks fuzzing out of focus.
So I will stick with my reg LCD TV.
Saves me money.
BTW Those of us that have vision in one eye only have perfect depth perception and see in 3 d it is not binocular but like a SLR camera</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700938</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>markass530</author>
	<datestamp>1262949360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yea gotta strongly disagree with the black and white thing</htmltext>
<tokenext>yea got ta strongly disagree with the black and white thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea gotta strongly disagree with the black and white thing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698676</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Alan Shutko</author>
	<datestamp>1262982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Polarity glasses only work if you have a polarized display.  With an LCD or Plasma TV, there's no convenient way to flip the polarization 30 times a second or so.  Instead, you need the active glasses which can block the correct eye in sync with the TV.</p><p>Active glasses could also work with a dvd player or game system without requiring support from the TV.  I knew someone who had them for an Amiga 25 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Polarity glasses only work if you have a polarized display .
With an LCD or Plasma TV , there 's no convenient way to flip the polarization 30 times a second or so .
Instead , you need the active glasses which can block the correct eye in sync with the TV.Active glasses could also work with a dvd player or game system without requiring support from the TV .
I knew someone who had them for an Amiga 25 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polarity glasses only work if you have a polarized display.
With an LCD or Plasma TV, there's no convenient way to flip the polarization 30 times a second or so.
Instead, you need the active glasses which can block the correct eye in sync with the TV.Active glasses could also work with a dvd player or game system without requiring support from the TV.
I knew someone who had them for an Amiga 25 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699210</id>
	<title>No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262941920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glasses of any type are a deal-breaker.</p><p>Please come back when you've got fully morphable real-time 60hz+ 3d tabletop displays...</p><p>Hell I'll even take a fancy version of 'technology' like the holographic battle-chess game in Star Wars without the flicker issue.</p><p>I can wait. 1080p 2d is pretty damn good in the meantime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glasses of any type are a deal-breaker.Please come back when you 've got fully morphable real-time 60hz + 3d tabletop displays...Hell I 'll even take a fancy version of 'technology ' like the holographic battle-chess game in Star Wars without the flicker issue.I can wait .
1080p 2d is pretty damn good in the meantime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glasses of any type are a deal-breaker.Please come back when you've got fully morphable real-time 60hz+ 3d tabletop displays...Hell I'll even take a fancy version of 'technology' like the holographic battle-chess game in Star Wars without the flicker issue.I can wait.
1080p 2d is pretty damn good in the meantime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</id>
	<title>Active glasses?</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1262982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't? Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses would n't ?
Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't?
Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698608</id>
	<title>Killer app: porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's like those 38-DDDs are right in your face!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like those 38-DDDs are right in your face !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like those 38-DDDs are right in your face!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701942</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1262953980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this is a type of problem that simply cannot be avoided with stereoscopic displays.</p><p>Here's an example.  If you're reading this on a monitor, then hold up a finger a few inches in front of it.</p><p>If you focus on the monitor, then you see two fingers.  If you focus on the finger, stuff on the monitor gets doubled up.</p><p>Mind you, both things can be "in focus" in the optical sense.  It's just the nature of human stereo vision that only the object your eyes are converging on looks "right", and other things don't (unless the stereo disparity is low).</p><p>When the director creates a stereoscopic 3D movie, he has to decide for you what is the object being converged upon.  Stereo cameras, whether real or virtual, have a convergence depth control.  This adjusts which objects appear at the same distance as the movie screen, which appear behind, and which appear in front.</p><p>When you watch the movie, if you happen to look at the object being converged upon, it will look okay, and if you try to look at something else, it will take some effort (assuming it's even possible) because your eyes are trying to converge two images that are not meant to be converged.  It's kind of like trying to look at those random dot stereograms that require you to look at them with your eyes straight ahead.</p><p>So if the director wants you to look at the computer monitor in the movie, objects in front of it will be doubled up (because that's how they are supposed to appear, just like your finger did), and if you try to resolve the objects in front, you're giving yourself a hard time.</p><p>Of course, there's another issue at play, and that is that your eyes will be converged and focused at the distance of the actual screen you're viewing.  When you try to converge your eyes to a different distance, your eyes normally want to change the focus as well.  But to keep the screen in focus, they have to remain focused at the same distance.  This difference (vs. how viewing normal 3D objects works) is another source of strain.  Your brain gets used to it after a while, and then, once you come out of the theater, your brain has to readjust back to reality again, which again causes some strain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is a type of problem that simply can not be avoided with stereoscopic displays.Here 's an example .
If you 're reading this on a monitor , then hold up a finger a few inches in front of it.If you focus on the monitor , then you see two fingers .
If you focus on the finger , stuff on the monitor gets doubled up.Mind you , both things can be " in focus " in the optical sense .
It 's just the nature of human stereo vision that only the object your eyes are converging on looks " right " , and other things do n't ( unless the stereo disparity is low ) .When the director creates a stereoscopic 3D movie , he has to decide for you what is the object being converged upon .
Stereo cameras , whether real or virtual , have a convergence depth control .
This adjusts which objects appear at the same distance as the movie screen , which appear behind , and which appear in front.When you watch the movie , if you happen to look at the object being converged upon , it will look okay , and if you try to look at something else , it will take some effort ( assuming it 's even possible ) because your eyes are trying to converge two images that are not meant to be converged .
It 's kind of like trying to look at those random dot stereograms that require you to look at them with your eyes straight ahead.So if the director wants you to look at the computer monitor in the movie , objects in front of it will be doubled up ( because that 's how they are supposed to appear , just like your finger did ) , and if you try to resolve the objects in front , you 're giving yourself a hard time.Of course , there 's another issue at play , and that is that your eyes will be converged and focused at the distance of the actual screen you 're viewing .
When you try to converge your eyes to a different distance , your eyes normally want to change the focus as well .
But to keep the screen in focus , they have to remain focused at the same distance .
This difference ( vs. how viewing normal 3D objects works ) is another source of strain .
Your brain gets used to it after a while , and then , once you come out of the theater , your brain has to readjust back to reality again , which again causes some strain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is a type of problem that simply cannot be avoided with stereoscopic displays.Here's an example.
If you're reading this on a monitor, then hold up a finger a few inches in front of it.If you focus on the monitor, then you see two fingers.
If you focus on the finger, stuff on the monitor gets doubled up.Mind you, both things can be "in focus" in the optical sense.
It's just the nature of human stereo vision that only the object your eyes are converging on looks "right", and other things don't (unless the stereo disparity is low).When the director creates a stereoscopic 3D movie, he has to decide for you what is the object being converged upon.
Stereo cameras, whether real or virtual, have a convergence depth control.
This adjusts which objects appear at the same distance as the movie screen, which appear behind, and which appear in front.When you watch the movie, if you happen to look at the object being converged upon, it will look okay, and if you try to look at something else, it will take some effort (assuming it's even possible) because your eyes are trying to converge two images that are not meant to be converged.
It's kind of like trying to look at those random dot stereograms that require you to look at them with your eyes straight ahead.So if the director wants you to look at the computer monitor in the movie, objects in front of it will be doubled up (because that's how they are supposed to appear, just like your finger did), and if you try to resolve the objects in front, you're giving yourself a hard time.Of course, there's another issue at play, and that is that your eyes will be converged and focused at the distance of the actual screen you're viewing.
When you try to converge your eyes to a different distance, your eyes normally want to change the focus as well.
But to keep the screen in focus, they have to remain focused at the same distance.
This difference (vs. how viewing normal 3D objects works) is another source of strain.
Your brain gets used to it after a while, and then, once you come out of the theater, your brain has to readjust back to reality again, which again causes some strain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698686</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>electricbern</author>
	<datestamp>1262983020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It happens to me too and it doesn't go away after 10 minutes as other commenter posted. I watched Avatar 2D and headache-free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It happens to me too and it does n't go away after 10 minutes as other commenter posted .
I watched Avatar 2D and headache-free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happens to me too and it doesn't go away after 10 minutes as other commenter posted.
I watched Avatar 2D and headache-free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701376</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262951340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't prove anything other than the unbelievable hype that convinced people they wanted to see it.  Just because people responded to marketing and went to see it in 3D once doesn't mean they enjoyed it any more than someone who saw the normal version of the movie.  If 3D is demonstrated to be so commercially successful apart from occasional fads, where has it been until now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't prove anything other than the unbelievable hype that convinced people they wanted to see it .
Just because people responded to marketing and went to see it in 3D once does n't mean they enjoyed it any more than someone who saw the normal version of the movie .
If 3D is demonstrated to be so commercially successful apart from occasional fads , where has it been until now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't prove anything other than the unbelievable hype that convinced people they wanted to see it.
Just because people responded to marketing and went to see it in 3D once doesn't mean they enjoyed it any more than someone who saw the normal version of the movie.
If 3D is demonstrated to be so commercially successful apart from occasional fads, where has it been until now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700506</id>
	<title>Re:Sony rescinding "NIH" attitude with 3DTVs</title>
	<author>cmburns69</author>
	<datestamp>1262947380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most slashdotters will agree--we don't need more proprietary, incompatible Sony formats.</p></div></blockquote><p>Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to matter to anyone else. Just look at the (general) success of Sony in the marketplace, and you'll see their proprietary formats doing just fine in many cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most slashdotters will agree--we do n't need more proprietary , incompatible Sony formats.Unfortunately , this does n't seem to matter to anyone else .
Just look at the ( general ) success of Sony in the marketplace , and you 'll see their proprietary formats doing just fine in many cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most slashdotters will agree--we don't need more proprietary, incompatible Sony formats.Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to matter to anyone else.
Just look at the (general) success of Sony in the marketplace, and you'll see their proprietary formats doing just fine in many cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702930</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1262959260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, but my problem is that my eyes can't see 3D.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( The only time that worked was at Disneyland's Captain EO back in the 80s. Ever since then, nothing worked like Chuck: Third Dimension episode, SuperBowl TV ads., Rose Bowl parade over a decade ago or so, CA Adventure's Muppets Show, etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , but my problem is that my eyes ca n't see 3D .
: ( The only time that worked was at Disneyland 's Captain EO back in the 80s .
Ever since then , nothing worked like Chuck : Third Dimension episode , SuperBowl TV ads. , Rose Bowl parade over a decade ago or so , CA Adventure 's Muppets Show , etc .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, but my problem is that my eyes can't see 3D.
:( The only time that worked was at Disneyland's Captain EO back in the 80s.
Ever since then, nothing worked like Chuck: Third Dimension episode, SuperBowl TV ads., Rose Bowl parade over a decade ago or so, CA Adventure's Muppets Show, etc.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699258</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262942160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a manufacturing problem. In the theater, they use 2 projectors with polarization filters offset by 90 degrees.  To do that with TV, they'd have to double the pixel density and the panel would have to be a mosaic of single pixel cells.</p><p>So instead, they use shutter glasses that need power and a synch signal from the display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a manufacturing problem .
In the theater , they use 2 projectors with polarization filters offset by 90 degrees .
To do that with TV , they 'd have to double the pixel density and the panel would have to be a mosaic of single pixel cells.So instead , they use shutter glasses that need power and a synch signal from the display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a manufacturing problem.
In the theater, they use 2 projectors with polarization filters offset by 90 degrees.
To do that with TV, they'd have to double the pixel density and the panel would have to be a mosaic of single pixel cells.So instead, they use shutter glasses that need power and a synch signal from the display.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700930</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>lunadude</author>
	<datestamp>1262949360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree.  An effect (3D, CGI, Sound, Stage Magic), when done well, is not even recognized.  We are so used to "gimmick 3D".</p><p>The key to 3DTV is going to be CONTENT.  Whoever invents the "killer app", they'll be rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
An effect ( 3D , CGI , Sound , Stage Magic ) , when done well , is not even recognized .
We are so used to " gimmick 3D " .The key to 3DTV is going to be CONTENT .
Whoever invents the " killer app " , they 'll be rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
An effect (3D, CGI, Sound, Stage Magic), when done well, is not even recognized.
We are so used to "gimmick 3D".The key to 3DTV is going to be CONTENT.
Whoever invents the "killer app", they'll be rich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698696</id>
	<title>3D P0rn</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1262983080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will not be viable until we get 3D porn. Then I'm in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will not be viable until we get 3D porn .
Then I 'm in : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will not be viable until we get 3D porn.
Then I'm in :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704214</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1262968740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the risk of overposting in this story, Video glasses generally have horrible "real" resolution, and rely upon an idealized face and idealized viewing positions / angles.  In practice, their a blurry PITA to try to keep in the exact right position for even remotely viewable video, let alone 1080p levels.  And, as an added bonus, they seem to make you more nauseous than normal 3D glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the risk of overposting in this story , Video glasses generally have horrible " real " resolution , and rely upon an idealized face and idealized viewing positions / angles .
In practice , their a blurry PITA to try to keep in the exact right position for even remotely viewable video , let alone 1080p levels .
And , as an added bonus , they seem to make you more nauseous than normal 3D glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the risk of overposting in this story, Video glasses generally have horrible "real" resolution, and rely upon an idealized face and idealized viewing positions / angles.
In practice, their a blurry PITA to try to keep in the exact right position for even remotely viewable video, let alone 1080p levels.
And, as an added bonus, they seem to make you more nauseous than normal 3D glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699062</id>
	<title>Nay I say: Blame the focus groups.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262941200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nay I say.  I just don't need 3d, it's that simple. I don't really want to wear glasses other than vision glasses, as I would find them distracting. I don't want to upgrade technology, I don't really find the content that much better...if anything as others have pointed out I find it distracting and cheesy.  Whaqt is the upside?  I can't believe that execs are making such a huge mistake. They are confusing one-off "wow" appeal for long term preferences.  Note to execs: That's a problem with focus groups.  Next time try a focus group for 3 years and then ask what they think. Stupid execs.  Stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nay I say .
I just do n't need 3d , it 's that simple .
I do n't really want to wear glasses other than vision glasses , as I would find them distracting .
I do n't want to upgrade technology , I do n't really find the content that much better...if anything as others have pointed out I find it distracting and cheesy .
Whaqt is the upside ?
I ca n't believe that execs are making such a huge mistake .
They are confusing one-off " wow " appeal for long term preferences .
Note to execs : That 's a problem with focus groups .
Next time try a focus group for 3 years and then ask what they think .
Stupid execs .
Stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nay I say.
I just don't need 3d, it's that simple.
I don't really want to wear glasses other than vision glasses, as I would find them distracting.
I don't want to upgrade technology, I don't really find the content that much better...if anything as others have pointed out I find it distracting and cheesy.
Whaqt is the upside?
I can't believe that execs are making such a huge mistake.
They are confusing one-off "wow" appeal for long term preferences.
Note to execs: That's a problem with focus groups.
Next time try a focus group for 3 years and then ask what they think.
Stupid execs.
Stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30724932</id>
	<title>Glasses not necessary</title>
	<author>JSR\_789</author>
	<datestamp>1263233700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen a 3D TV in the flesh, which works without glasses of any kind. The 3D is very impressive, and images really do seem to float in the air in front of the screen. You have to be standing in the right places to get the 3D effect (this isn't as restrictive as it sounds, there are many places you can be standing, and they each allow enough flexibility that moving your head won't stop the effect working). The TV wasn't for sale, just a demo of things to come, but was on show in Harrods electrical department about 5 months ago. It may well still be on display - I haven't been in there since.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a 3D TV in the flesh , which works without glasses of any kind .
The 3D is very impressive , and images really do seem to float in the air in front of the screen .
You have to be standing in the right places to get the 3D effect ( this is n't as restrictive as it sounds , there are many places you can be standing , and they each allow enough flexibility that moving your head wo n't stop the effect working ) .
The TV was n't for sale , just a demo of things to come , but was on show in Harrods electrical department about 5 months ago .
It may well still be on display - I have n't been in there since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a 3D TV in the flesh, which works without glasses of any kind.
The 3D is very impressive, and images really do seem to float in the air in front of the screen.
You have to be standing in the right places to get the 3D effect (this isn't as restrictive as it sounds, there are many places you can be standing, and they each allow enough flexibility that moving your head won't stop the effect working).
The TV wasn't for sale, just a demo of things to come, but was on show in Harrods electrical department about 5 months ago.
It may well still be on display - I haven't been in there since.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698990</id>
	<title>Headache making glasses?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262984220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought those powered blinky glasses were the ones that gave everyone headaches...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought those powered blinky glasses were the ones that gave everyone headaches.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought those powered blinky glasses were the ones that gave everyone headaches...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700664</id>
	<title>Re:Do these not suck?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262948100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're lucky.  MY wife wants to see Avatar in Braille!  I'll take her, because I love her and want her to be happy, but I'm not looking forward to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're lucky .
MY wife wants to see Avatar in Braille !
I 'll take her , because I love her and want her to be happy , but I 'm not looking forward to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're lucky.
MY wife wants to see Avatar in Braille!
I'll take her, because I love her and want her to be happy, but I'm not looking forward to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699072</id>
	<title>I'll wait until 4D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262941260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm waiting for 4D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for 4D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for 4D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698728</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1262983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then don't buy it.</p><p>I don't see the benefit in a big screen TV.  I don't watch TV and don't watch too many movies.  So I don't buy one.  It's pretty simple.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do n't buy it.I do n't see the benefit in a big screen TV .
I do n't watch TV and do n't watch too many movies .
So I do n't buy one .
It 's pretty simple .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then don't buy it.I don't see the benefit in a big screen TV.
I don't watch TV and don't watch too many movies.
So I don't buy one.
It's pretty simple.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699438</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Active glasses don't require a whole new display technology, just higher frame rates.</p><p>With polarity glasses, the display needs to be separate polarity for each eye.  This is easy to do with two projectors, but hard to do with a flatscreen TV.</p><p>Maybe they'll go both routes, with the home theater systems using polarity and the TVs using active glasses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Active glasses do n't require a whole new display technology , just higher frame rates.With polarity glasses , the display needs to be separate polarity for each eye .
This is easy to do with two projectors , but hard to do with a flatscreen TV.Maybe they 'll go both routes , with the home theater systems using polarity and the TVs using active glasses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Active glasses don't require a whole new display technology, just higher frame rates.With polarity glasses, the display needs to be separate polarity for each eye.
This is easy to do with two projectors, but hard to do with a flatscreen TV.Maybe they'll go both routes, with the home theater systems using polarity and the TVs using active glasses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699188</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Hassman</author>
	<datestamp>1262941860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about people with only one eye?  The polarized glasses make it possible for those individuals to still view the movie, though in plain 2D.</p><p>I don't know much about the technology, but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV?  If so then there are many people who won't be able to take part in the experience.</p><p>All this it to me is another way for cable companies to charge another 5 dollars a month for "premium" content, and then another 5 dollars a month for a special cable box to watch it (explain that).  And don't think for a second that the 5 dollars a month for HD programming will go away.</p><p>I can't wait for the Comcast NBC deal to go through.  Yet another way for content to be filtered and charged for.</p><p>Something is broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about people with only one eye ?
The polarized glasses make it possible for those individuals to still view the movie , though in plain 2D.I do n't know much about the technology , but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV ?
If so then there are many people who wo n't be able to take part in the experience.All this it to me is another way for cable companies to charge another 5 dollars a month for " premium " content , and then another 5 dollars a month for a special cable box to watch it ( explain that ) .
And do n't think for a second that the 5 dollars a month for HD programming will go away.I ca n't wait for the Comcast NBC deal to go through .
Yet another way for content to be filtered and charged for.Something is broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about people with only one eye?
The polarized glasses make it possible for those individuals to still view the movie, though in plain 2D.I don't know much about the technology, but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV?
If so then there are many people who won't be able to take part in the experience.All this it to me is another way for cable companies to charge another 5 dollars a month for "premium" content, and then another 5 dollars a month for a special cable box to watch it (explain that).
And don't think for a second that the 5 dollars a month for HD programming will go away.I can't wait for the Comcast NBC deal to go through.
Yet another way for content to be filtered and charged for.Something is broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700860</id>
	<title>I'm looking forward to it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262949000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geez, what a bunch of complainers. Technology marches on, and here's one tech I'm looking forward to.</p><p>If you think 3D is lame and just a fad, I invite you to poke one of your eyes out since it obviously has no benefit. Pick either one you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez , what a bunch of complainers .
Technology marches on , and here 's one tech I 'm looking forward to.If you think 3D is lame and just a fad , I invite you to poke one of your eyes out since it obviously has no benefit .
Pick either one you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geez, what a bunch of complainers.
Technology marches on, and here's one tech I'm looking forward to.If you think 3D is lame and just a fad, I invite you to poke one of your eyes out since it obviously has no benefit.
Pick either one you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701324</id>
	<title>Re:What about prescription lens wearers?</title>
	<author>SpeedBump0619</author>
	<datestamp>1262950980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a life-long wearer of prescription lenses I'm with you on this.  The two major implementations that I've seen are Dolby (wavelength multiplex) and Real-D (circular polarization).  Of the two I *strongly* prefer the Real-D glasses because</p><p>1) They are much lighter weight.<br>2) they don't interact oddly with the house lighting (filtering one eye more than the other).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a life-long wearer of prescription lenses I 'm with you on this .
The two major implementations that I 've seen are Dolby ( wavelength multiplex ) and Real-D ( circular polarization ) .
Of the two I * strongly * prefer the Real-D glasses because1 ) They are much lighter weight.2 ) they do n't interact oddly with the house lighting ( filtering one eye more than the other ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a life-long wearer of prescription lenses I'm with you on this.
The two major implementations that I've seen are Dolby (wavelength multiplex) and Real-D (circular polarization).
Of the two I *strongly* prefer the Real-D glasses because1) They are much lighter weight.2) they don't interact oddly with the house lighting (filtering one eye more than the other).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699778</id>
	<title>What About Disney?</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1262944200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The folks that work for the Mouse have been using some type of polarized lens sun glasses, well, 10 years ago they did.  Why can't Sony, et.al. do the same?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The folks that work for the Mouse have been using some type of polarized lens sun glasses , well , 10 years ago they did .
Why ca n't Sony , et.al .
do the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The folks that work for the Mouse have been using some type of polarized lens sun glasses, well, 10 years ago they did.
Why can't Sony, et.al.
do the same?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701064</id>
	<title>Re:Do these not suck?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262949900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would you sue for? Even if 'one eye' was duisableded 'enough' you wouldn't ahve a case. No mre then a blind man using lamp manufacturers</p><p>You should sue your wife for making you go. You would think if she cared she go with friends, or let you read in the lobby. I can not imagine making my wife go to a movie and sit through that.</p><p>Good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would you sue for ?
Even if 'one eye ' was duisableded 'enough ' you would n't ahve a case .
No mre then a blind man using lamp manufacturersYou should sue your wife for making you go .
You would think if she cared she go with friends , or let you read in the lobby .
I can not imagine making my wife go to a movie and sit through that.Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would you sue for?
Even if 'one eye' was duisableded 'enough' you wouldn't ahve a case.
No mre then a blind man using lamp manufacturersYou should sue your wife for making you go.
You would think if she cared she go with friends, or let you read in the lobby.
I can not imagine making my wife go to a movie and sit through that.Good luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699216</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262941980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a 3D monitor (Trimon 22").  There is some kind of overlay on top of the LCD.  It polarizes every other row of pixels using circular polarization.</p><p>It works great and doesn't require exotic projectors or active glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 3D monitor ( Trimon 22 " ) .
There is some kind of overlay on top of the LCD .
It polarizes every other row of pixels using circular polarization.It works great and does n't require exotic projectors or active glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 3D monitor (Trimon 22").
There is some kind of overlay on top of the LCD.
It polarizes every other row of pixels using circular polarization.It works great and doesn't require exotic projectors or active glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701390</id>
	<title>Re:New TV or not?</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1262951460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's 120hz and there's 120hz.  A non-3D 120hz TV takes the same image (or possibly an interpolated image) and displays it multiple times.</p><p>A 3D 120hz TV takes 2 different images and displays them alternately.</p><p>Because 3D demands doing something different, the non-3D TV may not be able to handle it, unless its hardware is sufficiently reprogrammable.</p><p>In addition, there needs to be an IR transmitter somewhere to sync the glasses with the TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's 120hz and there 's 120hz .
A non-3D 120hz TV takes the same image ( or possibly an interpolated image ) and displays it multiple times.A 3D 120hz TV takes 2 different images and displays them alternately.Because 3D demands doing something different , the non-3D TV may not be able to handle it , unless its hardware is sufficiently reprogrammable.In addition , there needs to be an IR transmitter somewhere to sync the glasses with the TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's 120hz and there's 120hz.
A non-3D 120hz TV takes the same image (or possibly an interpolated image) and displays it multiple times.A 3D 120hz TV takes 2 different images and displays them alternately.Because 3D demands doing something different, the non-3D TV may not be able to handle it, unless its hardware is sufficiently reprogrammable.In addition, there needs to be an IR transmitter somewhere to sync the glasses with the TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699298</id>
	<title>Re:Do these not suck?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, these do suck on the same level that radio sucks for the deaf. Sorry pal, your disability isn't going to make or break an entire technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , these do suck on the same level that radio sucks for the deaf .
Sorry pal , your disability is n't going to make or break an entire technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, these do suck on the same level that radio sucks for the deaf.
Sorry pal, your disability isn't going to make or break an entire technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699318</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262942340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back then?<br>I have trouble coming up with any consumer technology at all whose success was/is not mainly pushed by porn.<br>Just as industrial technology is mainly pushed by war.</p><p>And it&rsquo;s obvious. Even if most of society in some weird reality distortion bubble denies it, we&rsquo;re just expanding (sex) bio-mass, fighting for resources (war).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back then ? I have trouble coming up with any consumer technology at all whose success was/is not mainly pushed by porn.Just as industrial technology is mainly pushed by war.And it    s obvious .
Even if most of society in some weird reality distortion bubble denies it , we    re just expanding ( sex ) bio-mass , fighting for resources ( war ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back then?I have trouble coming up with any consumer technology at all whose success was/is not mainly pushed by porn.Just as industrial technology is mainly pushed by war.And it’s obvious.
Even if most of society in some weird reality distortion bubble denies it, we’re just expanding (sex) bio-mass, fighting for resources (war).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699534</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262943180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No but my ex-wife has strabismus. Anyone with that condition, or without a boatload of money, won't get any benefit from this.</p><p>I've had a 3-D TV for literally years. The only 3-D movies I have are on VHS - John Wayne <i>Hondo</i> and the Rolling Stones <i>Steel Wheel Concert</i>.</p><p>It's the old red-green technology that was in theaters at least as early as the 1950s. There was polaroid tech at Epcot in the early eighties; impressive, good color and good illusion of depth, but seems a novelty only and not worth extra expense. I mean, say you have $3k for a new TV (which I don't). Would you buy a 35 inch 3D TV or a 52 inch 2D TV? If I were shopping for a new TV I'd opt for a bigger 2D screen than a smaller 3D screen. I'd buy the biggest screen with the highest resolution I could afford, not a gimick that would add nothing to my existing movie collection and would make new movies I buy cost more.</p><p>Which is the crux of the matter -- most people don't have money to burn, especially in this economy. The people making this stuff don't seem to understand that. I want the most bang for the buck, and to me 3D isn't much bang, but a bigger, sharper picture is.</p><p>And one more thing -- have they standardized formats? If not, you're gambling if you buy one of these. Actually you may be gambling anyway, since there's a good chance 3D will be a collossal flop. 3D has been around for decades, but you don't see much of it in the theaters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No but my ex-wife has strabismus .
Anyone with that condition , or without a boatload of money , wo n't get any benefit from this.I 've had a 3-D TV for literally years .
The only 3-D movies I have are on VHS - John Wayne Hondo and the Rolling Stones Steel Wheel Concert.It 's the old red-green technology that was in theaters at least as early as the 1950s .
There was polaroid tech at Epcot in the early eighties ; impressive , good color and good illusion of depth , but seems a novelty only and not worth extra expense .
I mean , say you have $ 3k for a new TV ( which I do n't ) .
Would you buy a 35 inch 3D TV or a 52 inch 2D TV ?
If I were shopping for a new TV I 'd opt for a bigger 2D screen than a smaller 3D screen .
I 'd buy the biggest screen with the highest resolution I could afford , not a gimick that would add nothing to my existing movie collection and would make new movies I buy cost more.Which is the crux of the matter -- most people do n't have money to burn , especially in this economy .
The people making this stuff do n't seem to understand that .
I want the most bang for the buck , and to me 3D is n't much bang , but a bigger , sharper picture is.And one more thing -- have they standardized formats ?
If not , you 're gambling if you buy one of these .
Actually you may be gambling anyway , since there 's a good chance 3D will be a collossal flop .
3D has been around for decades , but you do n't see much of it in the theaters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No but my ex-wife has strabismus.
Anyone with that condition, or without a boatload of money, won't get any benefit from this.I've had a 3-D TV for literally years.
The only 3-D movies I have are on VHS - John Wayne Hondo and the Rolling Stones Steel Wheel Concert.It's the old red-green technology that was in theaters at least as early as the 1950s.
There was polaroid tech at Epcot in the early eighties; impressive, good color and good illusion of depth, but seems a novelty only and not worth extra expense.
I mean, say you have $3k for a new TV (which I don't).
Would you buy a 35 inch 3D TV or a 52 inch 2D TV?
If I were shopping for a new TV I'd opt for a bigger 2D screen than a smaller 3D screen.
I'd buy the biggest screen with the highest resolution I could afford, not a gimick that would add nothing to my existing movie collection and would make new movies I buy cost more.Which is the crux of the matter -- most people don't have money to burn, especially in this economy.
The people making this stuff don't seem to understand that.
I want the most bang for the buck, and to me 3D isn't much bang, but a bigger, sharper picture is.And one more thing -- have they standardized formats?
If not, you're gambling if you buy one of these.
Actually you may be gambling anyway, since there's a good chance 3D will be a collossal flop.
3D has been around for decades, but you don't see much of it in the theaters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698826</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree!</p><p>Went to see Avatar and figured I'd try 3D for the first time... talk about over hype!  The only thing that really jumped out at me was when an object in the foreground would pass by, then it was noticeable, otherwise it was like any other movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree ! Went to see Avatar and figured I 'd try 3D for the first time... talk about over hype !
The only thing that really jumped out at me was when an object in the foreground would pass by , then it was noticeable , otherwise it was like any other movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree!Went to see Avatar and figured I'd try 3D for the first time... talk about over hype!
The only thing that really jumped out at me was when an object in the foreground would pass by, then it was noticeable, otherwise it was like any other movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700236</id>
	<title>Re:Sony rescinding "NIH" attitude with 3DTVs</title>
	<author>pavon</author>
	<datestamp>1262946000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the otherhand, less than 40\% of consumers have upgraded to HDTV yet. When I finally get around to buying one, if I can get a 3D for only 10\% more I might spring for it (assuming a standard has been established). It may also provide more incentive for people who haven't upgraded yet to do so if they see more value in 3D then they did in HD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the otherhand , less than 40 \ % of consumers have upgraded to HDTV yet .
When I finally get around to buying one , if I can get a 3D for only 10 \ % more I might spring for it ( assuming a standard has been established ) .
It may also provide more incentive for people who have n't upgraded yet to do so if they see more value in 3D then they did in HD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the otherhand, less than 40\% of consumers have upgraded to HDTV yet.
When I finally get around to buying one, if I can get a 3D for only 10\% more I might spring for it (assuming a standard has been established).
It may also provide more incentive for people who haven't upgraded yet to do so if they see more value in 3D then they did in HD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701104</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262950080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sad thing is the only thing they can come up with as a gimmick has already been done and rejected decades ago.  It boggles my mind that people are actually excited about 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing is the only thing they can come up with as a gimmick has already been done and rejected decades ago .
It boggles my mind that people are actually excited about 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing is the only thing they can come up with as a gimmick has already been done and rejected decades ago.
It boggles my mind that people are actually excited about 3D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730</id>
	<title>Sony rescinding "NIH" attitude with 3DTVs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An article on <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126281921528818651.html" title="wsj.com">Sony and "betting it all" on 3D TVs</a> [wsj.com] was published in the Wall Street Journal, yesterday.  A pretty detailed article, imo.</p><p>Basically, that article pointed out the fatal flaw:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The challenge for Sony and the other electronics makers: persuading people to adopt 3-D so quickly after hundreds of millions of households just made the transition to high-definition video. Consumers will have to buy brand new televisions, which, according to some estimates, could cost between 10\% and 20\% more than the high-definition TVs currently on the market.</p></div><p>Not going to happen.  People are going to resist this like mad.  "New TV?  I just bought a new HDTV, and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive?  Yeah, go fuck yourselves."</p><p>Inflammatory rhetoric aside, what I found most interesting, though, is that CEO Stringer appears to be his push (at least in this arena) against the "Not invented here" bias that is apparently so prevalent at Sony.  Most slashdotters will agree--we don't need more proprietary, incompatible Sony formats.  Hopefully this attitude is promoted outside the 3D TV realm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An article on Sony and " betting it all " on 3D TVs [ wsj.com ] was published in the Wall Street Journal , yesterday .
A pretty detailed article , imo.Basically , that article pointed out the fatal flaw : The challenge for Sony and the other electronics makers : persuading people to adopt 3-D so quickly after hundreds of millions of households just made the transition to high-definition video .
Consumers will have to buy brand new televisions , which , according to some estimates , could cost between 10 \ % and 20 \ % more than the high-definition TVs currently on the market.Not going to happen .
People are going to resist this like mad .
" New TV ?
I just bought a new HDTV , and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive ?
Yeah , go fuck yourselves .
" Inflammatory rhetoric aside , what I found most interesting , though , is that CEO Stringer appears to be his push ( at least in this arena ) against the " Not invented here " bias that is apparently so prevalent at Sony .
Most slashdotters will agree--we do n't need more proprietary , incompatible Sony formats .
Hopefully this attitude is promoted outside the 3D TV realm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article on Sony and "betting it all" on 3D TVs [wsj.com] was published in the Wall Street Journal, yesterday.
A pretty detailed article, imo.Basically, that article pointed out the fatal flaw:The challenge for Sony and the other electronics makers: persuading people to adopt 3-D so quickly after hundreds of millions of households just made the transition to high-definition video.
Consumers will have to buy brand new televisions, which, according to some estimates, could cost between 10\% and 20\% more than the high-definition TVs currently on the market.Not going to happen.
People are going to resist this like mad.
"New TV?
I just bought a new HDTV, and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive?
Yeah, go fuck yourselves.
"Inflammatory rhetoric aside, what I found most interesting, though, is that CEO Stringer appears to be his push (at least in this arena) against the "Not invented here" bias that is apparently so prevalent at Sony.
Most slashdotters will agree--we don't need more proprietary, incompatible Sony formats.
Hopefully this attitude is promoted outside the 3D TV realm.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30706960</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1263049260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just planned obsolescence. Next they will come out with 4D TV allowing me to go back in time so that my Giants would win Super Bowl in 2010</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just planned obsolescence .
Next they will come out with 4D TV allowing me to go back in time so that my Giants would win Super Bowl in 2010</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just planned obsolescence.
Next they will come out with 4D TV allowing me to go back in time so that my Giants would win Super Bowl in 2010</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701712</id>
	<title>Old tech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They had active glasses for my Sega Master System for 3D gaming back in the mid 80s. It wasn't very expensive either. I forget the name of the game the used them, but it was some space game and you couldn't play it without the glasses on and plugged in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They had active glasses for my Sega Master System for 3D gaming back in the mid 80s .
It was n't very expensive either .
I forget the name of the game the used them , but it was some space game and you could n't play it without the glasses on and plugged in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had active glasses for my Sega Master System for 3D gaming back in the mid 80s.
It wasn't very expensive either.
I forget the name of the game the used them, but it was some space game and you couldn't play it without the glasses on and plugged in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698672</id>
	<title>Why care what MS thinks?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1262982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me ONE example where MS has ever been on the ball. They are always late to every party.
</p><p>And it has served them well. I don't think they do it on person, just that MS is very susceptible to the "not invented here" syndrome. If MS cannot control it from the start, it doesn't want it. And then it comes in late, announces that it will soon have something superior out and hope that buys it enough time to get its second version out, because the first sucks donkey balls as MS fails to have learned any lessons from watching everyone else.
</p><p>But since MS is doing fine in a bad economy while its competitors are either dead, dying or to small. Sony is making record losses, Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them. The other unixes are gone, Apple is doing fine but its catch-up is to slow and OSX is getting older everyday.
</p><p>Basically, never bother watching MS for the next trend.Rather watch them to see what trends have turned into every day reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me ONE example where MS has ever been on the ball .
They are always late to every party .
And it has served them well .
I do n't think they do it on person , just that MS is very susceptible to the " not invented here " syndrome .
If MS can not control it from the start , it does n't want it .
And then it comes in late , announces that it will soon have something superior out and hope that buys it enough time to get its second version out , because the first sucks donkey balls as MS fails to have learned any lessons from watching everyone else .
But since MS is doing fine in a bad economy while its competitors are either dead , dying or to small .
Sony is making record losses , Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them .
The other unixes are gone , Apple is doing fine but its catch-up is to slow and OSX is getting older everyday .
Basically , never bother watching MS for the next trend.Rather watch them to see what trends have turned into every day reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me ONE example where MS has ever been on the ball.
They are always late to every party.
And it has served them well.
I don't think they do it on person, just that MS is very susceptible to the "not invented here" syndrome.
If MS cannot control it from the start, it doesn't want it.
And then it comes in late, announces that it will soon have something superior out and hope that buys it enough time to get its second version out, because the first sucks donkey balls as MS fails to have learned any lessons from watching everyone else.
But since MS is doing fine in a bad economy while its competitors are either dead, dying or to small.
Sony is making record losses, Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them.
The other unixes are gone, Apple is doing fine but its catch-up is to slow and OSX is getting older everyday.
Basically, never bother watching MS for the next trend.Rather watch them to see what trends have turned into every day reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1262982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't? Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?</p></div><p>It's technically feasible to build a consumer television that alternates the left/right eye images, frame by frame, in sync with alternate blanking on glasses. All you need is a LCD with a good enough refresh rate and the right electronics.</p><p>To use polarising glasses requires a large exotic projector, the space to set it up (think 'theatre' not 'living room') and a massively expensive reflective screen (AFAIK, anyway). Thats why.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses would n't ?
Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer ? It 's technically feasible to build a consumer television that alternates the left/right eye images , frame by frame , in sync with alternate blanking on glasses .
All you need is a LCD with a good enough refresh rate and the right electronics.To use polarising glasses requires a large exotic projector , the space to set it up ( think 'theatre ' not 'living room ' ) and a massively expensive reflective screen ( AFAIK , anyway ) .
Thats why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't?
Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?It's technically feasible to build a consumer television that alternates the left/right eye images, frame by frame, in sync with alternate blanking on glasses.
All you need is a LCD with a good enough refresh rate and the right electronics.To use polarising glasses requires a large exotic projector, the space to set it up (think 'theatre' not 'living room') and a massively expensive reflective screen (AFAIK, anyway).
Thats why.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699834</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1262944440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't? Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?</p></div><p>Active polarity can not only give you 3D but on a set with 240Hz refresh rate think 4 shows at the same time all using the full screen, or 1 3D show and 1 TV show while the kid is playing the PS3. That is what Active polarity glasses can give you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses would n't ?
Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer ? Active polarity can not only give you 3D but on a set with 240Hz refresh rate think 4 shows at the same time all using the full screen , or 1 3D show and 1 TV show while the kid is playing the PS3 .
That is what Active polarity glasses can give you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't?
Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?Active polarity can not only give you 3D but on a set with 240Hz refresh rate think 4 shows at the same time all using the full screen, or 1 3D show and 1 TV show while the kid is playing the PS3.
That is what Active polarity glasses can give you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699460</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Active glasses were available on the Sega Master system around 1986.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega\_Master\_System#SegaScope\_3-D\_Glasses</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Active glasses were available on the Sega Master system around 1986.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega \ _Master \ _System # SegaScope \ _3-D \ _Glasses</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Active glasses were available on the Sega Master system around 1986.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega\_Master\_System#SegaScope\_3-D\_Glasses</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699924</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Wraithlyn</author>
	<datestamp>1262944680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try this, go watch Avatar 3D again, and occasionally cover one of your eyes to force it into 2D.  I was honestly surprised how much my eyes "missed" the 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this , go watch Avatar 3D again , and occasionally cover one of your eyes to force it into 2D .
I was honestly surprised how much my eyes " missed " the 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this, go watch Avatar 3D again, and occasionally cover one of your eyes to force it into 2D.
I was honestly surprised how much my eyes "missed" the 3D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700160</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1262945700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have in the past, but did not with Avatar. It seems that the quality of the projection and glasses have a major effect on how much of an issue this is. I suspect (like motion-induced motion-sickness), proximity to the screen is also an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have in the past , but did not with Avatar .
It seems that the quality of the projection and glasses have a major effect on how much of an issue this is .
I suspect ( like motion-induced motion-sickness ) , proximity to the screen is also an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have in the past, but did not with Avatar.
It seems that the quality of the projection and glasses have a major effect on how much of an issue this is.
I suspect (like motion-induced motion-sickness), proximity to the screen is also an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703990</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262967120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the normal way to build shutter glasses with an LCD anyway?</p><p>With passive glasses there are a couple of advantages over LCD glasses.  You mentioned the first one - the average person watches a LOT of TV, and they're not going to be able to do it all in 3D.  The second is that the glasses are cheap enough to be effectively free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the normal way to build shutter glasses with an LCD anyway ? With passive glasses there are a couple of advantages over LCD glasses .
You mentioned the first one - the average person watches a LOT of TV , and they 're not going to be able to do it all in 3D .
The second is that the glasses are cheap enough to be effectively free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the normal way to build shutter glasses with an LCD anyway?With passive glasses there are a couple of advantages over LCD glasses.
You mentioned the first one - the average person watches a LOT of TV, and they're not going to be able to do it all in 3D.
The second is that the glasses are cheap enough to be effectively free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30709918</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1263034080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe. Or maybe a commercially-significant number of people only believe that 3D will add to the entertainment value.</p></div> </blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Just as an example, I remember when HDTVs started coming down in price, my parents got a cheap 720p TV and hooked it up to their low-def cable box. My dad kept talking about how wonderful and sharp the HD picture was, and how worthwhile his purchase of a new TV was. In that case, the idea of HDTV added to his enjoyment even without actually watching HD.</p></div></blockquote><p>Or, maybe the TV was better than his older SDTV even when displaying SD content. Certainly, the 1080p LCD I currently have looks better even with 480p content than the 1080i/540p CRT I had previously.</p><p>And, also, entertainment value is subjective. There is literally no difference between someone believing that something has better entertainment value for them and it actually having better entertainment value for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
Or maybe a commercially-significant number of people only believe that 3D will add to the entertainment value .
Just as an example , I remember when HDTVs started coming down in price , my parents got a cheap 720p TV and hooked it up to their low-def cable box .
My dad kept talking about how wonderful and sharp the HD picture was , and how worthwhile his purchase of a new TV was .
In that case , the idea of HDTV added to his enjoyment even without actually watching HD.Or , maybe the TV was better than his older SDTV even when displaying SD content .
Certainly , the 1080p LCD I currently have looks better even with 480p content than the 1080i/540p CRT I had previously.And , also , entertainment value is subjective .
There is literally no difference between someone believing that something has better entertainment value for them and it actually having better entertainment value for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
Or maybe a commercially-significant number of people only believe that 3D will add to the entertainment value.
Just as an example, I remember when HDTVs started coming down in price, my parents got a cheap 720p TV and hooked it up to their low-def cable box.
My dad kept talking about how wonderful and sharp the HD picture was, and how worthwhile his purchase of a new TV was.
In that case, the idea of HDTV added to his enjoyment even without actually watching HD.Or, maybe the TV was better than his older SDTV even when displaying SD content.
Certainly, the 1080p LCD I currently have looks better even with 480p content than the 1080i/540p CRT I had previously.And, also, entertainment value is subjective.
There is literally no difference between someone believing that something has better entertainment value for them and it actually having better entertainment value for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699678</id>
	<title>3D Porn!</title>
	<author>node808</author>
	<datestamp>1262943840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cant wait....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cant wait... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cant wait....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699720</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262944020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're trying to keep people going to theaters, then why make a 3D TV at all? That just means people WON'T go to the theaters for 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're trying to keep people going to theaters , then why make a 3D TV at all ?
That just means people WO N'T go to the theaters for 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're trying to keep people going to theaters, then why make a 3D TV at all?
That just means people WON'T go to the theaters for 3D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698520</id>
	<title>New TV or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the PC, all I need is the Nvidia glasses and a display that can do 120 Hz. I heard that with TVs, you can do the same thing. So, do we just need a TV that does 120 Hz, and let the receiver do the rest, or do we need a special TV?</p><p>DirecTV hasn't said what their 3D receiver will be yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the PC , all I need is the Nvidia glasses and a display that can do 120 Hz .
I heard that with TVs , you can do the same thing .
So , do we just need a TV that does 120 Hz , and let the receiver do the rest , or do we need a special TV ? DirecTV has n't said what their 3D receiver will be yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the PC, all I need is the Nvidia glasses and a display that can do 120 Hz.
I heard that with TVs, you can do the same thing.
So, do we just need a TV that does 120 Hz, and let the receiver do the rest, or do we need a special TV?DirecTV hasn't said what their 3D receiver will be yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700184</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>OhHellWithIt</author>
	<datestamp>1262945820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Watch a black and white and within a couple minutes you'll forget you're watching black and white.</p></div><p>Wait, do you mean to tell me that the <em>Three Stooges</em> aren't in color?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch a black and white and within a couple minutes you 'll forget you 're watching black and white.Wait , do you mean to tell me that the Three Stooges are n't in color ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch a black and white and within a couple minutes you'll forget you're watching black and white.Wait, do you mean to tell me that the Three Stooges aren't in color?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699730</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>loftwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1262944020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time.  I had to watch Coraline with the glasses off and periodically put them on to see what I was missing in certain scenes.</p><p>I'm not bothering with Avatar, without the 3D, it'll just be another movie with animated effects and bad acting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time .
I had to watch Coraline with the glasses off and periodically put them on to see what I was missing in certain scenes.I 'm not bothering with Avatar , without the 3D , it 'll just be another movie with animated effects and bad acting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time.
I had to watch Coraline with the glasses off and periodically put them on to see what I was missing in certain scenes.I'm not bothering with Avatar, without the 3D, it'll just be another movie with animated effects and bad acting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30708118</id>
	<title>Re:Lazy eye</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263061200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately for me, I've had an incurable lazy eye since birth,</p></div></blockquote><p>

Did they try eye muscle surgery? I too was born with a lazy eye (so much so that I was unable to see straight from the moment of birth) but this was fixed via three eye muscle surgeries when I was 16 and 19 months old (one on each eye) and 11 years old (the left again). Eye muscle surgery involved severing and stitching the muscle that was causing my eye to go out of focus so it did not move at all. I've been to 3D movies before and did not find the 3D effect that everyone else talked about (granted, I have not seen Avatar yet) but experienced no ill effects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for me , I 've had an incurable lazy eye since birth , Did they try eye muscle surgery ?
I too was born with a lazy eye ( so much so that I was unable to see straight from the moment of birth ) but this was fixed via three eye muscle surgeries when I was 16 and 19 months old ( one on each eye ) and 11 years old ( the left again ) .
Eye muscle surgery involved severing and stitching the muscle that was causing my eye to go out of focus so it did not move at all .
I 've been to 3D movies before and did not find the 3D effect that everyone else talked about ( granted , I have not seen Avatar yet ) but experienced no ill effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for me, I've had an incurable lazy eye since birth,

Did they try eye muscle surgery?
I too was born with a lazy eye (so much so that I was unable to see straight from the moment of birth) but this was fixed via three eye muscle surgeries when I was 16 and 19 months old (one on each eye) and 11 years old (the left again).
Eye muscle surgery involved severing and stitching the muscle that was causing my eye to go out of focus so it did not move at all.
I've been to 3D movies before and did not find the 3D effect that everyone else talked about (granted, I have not seen Avatar yet) but experienced no ill effects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699150</id>
	<title>Re:Killer app: porn</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1262941620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You saw the preview for Piranhas 3D before the movie too?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You saw the preview for Piranhas 3D before the movie too ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You saw the preview for Piranhas 3D before the movie too?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699494</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1262943060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't know much about the technology, but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV?</i></p><p>Yes - just like the polarized images.  The solution is the same either way - wear the glasses even though you have only one eye.  Then that one eye will get only one consistent image and will be fine.</p><p>You could probably have a 2D mode on the screen as well - it isn't like the screen HAS to show both images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know much about the technology , but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV ? Yes - just like the polarized images .
The solution is the same either way - wear the glasses even though you have only one eye .
Then that one eye will get only one consistent image and will be fine.You could probably have a 2D mode on the screen as well - it is n't like the screen HAS to show both images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know much about the technology, but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV?Yes - just like the polarized images.
The solution is the same either way - wear the glasses even though you have only one eye.
Then that one eye will get only one consistent image and will be fine.You could probably have a 2D mode on the screen as well - it isn't like the screen HAS to show both images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</id>
	<title>My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When watching 3D movies, I tend to go cross-eyed and get a headache very quickly.  I think it's because everything I'm seeing is on the same focal plane, but my eyes attempt to adjust for parallax based on different apparent distances of objects.  I had to walk out of Avatar 3D after about 10 minutes, I just could not watch it like that.  Does anyone else experience this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When watching 3D movies , I tend to go cross-eyed and get a headache very quickly .
I think it 's because everything I 'm seeing is on the same focal plane , but my eyes attempt to adjust for parallax based on different apparent distances of objects .
I had to walk out of Avatar 3D after about 10 minutes , I just could not watch it like that .
Does anyone else experience this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When watching 3D movies, I tend to go cross-eyed and get a headache very quickly.
I think it's because everything I'm seeing is on the same focal plane, but my eyes attempt to adjust for parallax based on different apparent distances of objects.
I had to walk out of Avatar 3D after about 10 minutes, I just could not watch it like that.
Does anyone else experience this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701300</id>
	<title>Re:3d tv never ubiquitous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The switch from black and white TV was an easy sell:  color looks better.<br>The switch (in progress...) from SD to HD is an easy sell:  bigger/sharper looks better.<br>But I have a hard time believing that everything could/should be in 3d.  Action movies?  Sure.  Sports?  Sure.  But drama?  Sitcoms?  News?</p><p>What I notice 3d mostly being used for is "gimmick shots" in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you.  I've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent, ever-present visual benefit.</p></div><p>Then you need to watch Avatar.  I also saw UP in 3-D and I don't remember it using those gimmick shots you were talking about either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The switch from black and white TV was an easy sell : color looks better.The switch ( in progress... ) from SD to HD is an easy sell : bigger/sharper looks better.But I have a hard time believing that everything could/should be in 3d .
Action movies ?
Sure. Sports ?
Sure. But drama ?
Sitcoms ? News ? What I notice 3d mostly being used for is " gimmick shots " in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you .
I 've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent , ever-present visual benefit.Then you need to watch Avatar .
I also saw UP in 3-D and I do n't remember it using those gimmick shots you were talking about either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The switch from black and white TV was an easy sell:  color looks better.The switch (in progress...) from SD to HD is an easy sell:  bigger/sharper looks better.But I have a hard time believing that everything could/should be in 3d.
Action movies?
Sure.  Sports?
Sure.  But drama?
Sitcoms?  News?What I notice 3d mostly being used for is "gimmick shots" in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you.
I've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent, ever-present visual benefit.Then you need to watch Avatar.
I also saw UP in 3-D and I don't remember it using those gimmick shots you were talking about either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701290</id>
	<title>Lazy eye</title>
	<author>Colourspace</author>
	<datestamp>1262950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately for me, I've had an incurable lazy eye since birth, ergo no depth perception. I think it's to blame for me being a (proud) geek as although I was athletic I had no depth perception. Man, could I run though. Anyhoo, I love the idea of 3d movies, but I am concerned that people like me will get more and more excluded ad 3d becomes de-facto. Please please include 2d versions as much as possible, even if only on the DVD/blu-ray. I'm sure I'm not in that much of a minority?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for me , I 've had an incurable lazy eye since birth , ergo no depth perception .
I think it 's to blame for me being a ( proud ) geek as although I was athletic I had no depth perception .
Man , could I run though .
Anyhoo , I love the idea of 3d movies , but I am concerned that people like me will get more and more excluded ad 3d becomes de-facto .
Please please include 2d versions as much as possible , even if only on the DVD/blu-ray .
I 'm sure I 'm not in that much of a minority ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for me, I've had an incurable lazy eye since birth, ergo no depth perception.
I think it's to blame for me being a (proud) geek as although I was athletic I had no depth perception.
Man, could I run though.
Anyhoo, I love the idea of 3d movies, but I am concerned that people like me will get more and more excluded ad 3d becomes de-facto.
Please please include 2d versions as much as possible, even if only on the DVD/blu-ray.
I'm sure I'm not in that much of a minority?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699036</id>
	<title>It's still the same (crap) content</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1262984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3D, HD, monster screen - whatever.
<p>
The content of the programmes is what people watch - not the fuzziness of the picture, or the brilliance of the colours, nor whether the characters "leap out" of the screen (though how this would work on games shows and reality programmes I do not know). TV nowadays is constrained by budgets and timescales - there's a limited amount of advertising money available to turn into programming and a limited amount of time to spend making each show. These are what limits the quality of programmes - whcih is the only thing that would increase the amount of TV that people as a whole would watch.
</p><p>
We already know that audiences are willing to put up with <b>very</b> low quality pictures - video recorders proved this and pretty much defined the minimum acceptable quality. No one has ever said to me "I would have watched &lt;whatever&gt; on TV, but the technical quality of the broadcast was too low". However everyone I know (including myself) frequently won't watch programmes if the acting / story / premise / genre / script is poor.
</p><p>
I would guess that since TV companies aren't able or willing to improve the programme content, that doesn't leave much of a differentiator, so gilding the lily (or polishing the turd) is the only way they can try to shift viewers from one low quality show to another. The only people who stand to make out of this new fad are the hardware manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D , HD , monster screen - whatever .
The content of the programmes is what people watch - not the fuzziness of the picture , or the brilliance of the colours , nor whether the characters " leap out " of the screen ( though how this would work on games shows and reality programmes I do not know ) .
TV nowadays is constrained by budgets and timescales - there 's a limited amount of advertising money available to turn into programming and a limited amount of time to spend making each show .
These are what limits the quality of programmes - whcih is the only thing that would increase the amount of TV that people as a whole would watch .
We already know that audiences are willing to put up with very low quality pictures - video recorders proved this and pretty much defined the minimum acceptable quality .
No one has ever said to me " I would have watched on TV , but the technical quality of the broadcast was too low " .
However everyone I know ( including myself ) frequently wo n't watch programmes if the acting / story / premise / genre / script is poor .
I would guess that since TV companies are n't able or willing to improve the programme content , that does n't leave much of a differentiator , so gilding the lily ( or polishing the turd ) is the only way they can try to shift viewers from one low quality show to another .
The only people who stand to make out of this new fad are the hardware manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D, HD, monster screen - whatever.
The content of the programmes is what people watch - not the fuzziness of the picture, or the brilliance of the colours, nor whether the characters "leap out" of the screen (though how this would work on games shows and reality programmes I do not know).
TV nowadays is constrained by budgets and timescales - there's a limited amount of advertising money available to turn into programming and a limited amount of time to spend making each show.
These are what limits the quality of programmes - whcih is the only thing that would increase the amount of TV that people as a whole would watch.
We already know that audiences are willing to put up with very low quality pictures - video recorders proved this and pretty much defined the minimum acceptable quality.
No one has ever said to me "I would have watched  on TV, but the technical quality of the broadcast was too low".
However everyone I know (including myself) frequently won't watch programmes if the acting / story / premise / genre / script is poor.
I would guess that since TV companies aren't able or willing to improve the programme content, that doesn't leave much of a differentiator, so gilding the lily (or polishing the turd) is the only way they can try to shift viewers from one low quality show to another.
The only people who stand to make out of this new fad are the hardware manufacturers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702130</id>
	<title>Re:Killer app: porn</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1262954880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know. Porn is supposed to be one of the main drivers of technology, but I'm not sure if porn viewers are ready for things to be popping out of the screen at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
Porn is supposed to be one of the main drivers of technology , but I 'm not sure if porn viewers are ready for things to be popping out of the screen at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
Porn is supposed to be one of the main drivers of technology, but I'm not sure if porn viewers are ready for things to be popping out of the screen at them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699618</id>
	<title>Not</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1262943540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Really, not.  Absolutely no interest.  Content delivery is where the real interest lies, not yet another painfully expensive change in presentation.
</p><p>
What use 3D when all we have to look at is the same old crapola?  Will your viewing experience really be that much elevated watching Lifestyles of Clueless Trust Account Celebutantes in 3D?
</p><p>
Manufacturers need to catch a clue from huge traffic in torrents -- the hot market is in content delivery.  Don't talk to me about new methods of presentation until internet jacks on TVs are common and well integrated with reasonably priced services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , not .
Absolutely no interest .
Content delivery is where the real interest lies , not yet another painfully expensive change in presentation .
What use 3D when all we have to look at is the same old crapola ?
Will your viewing experience really be that much elevated watching Lifestyles of Clueless Trust Account Celebutantes in 3D ?
Manufacturers need to catch a clue from huge traffic in torrents -- the hot market is in content delivery .
Do n't talk to me about new methods of presentation until internet jacks on TVs are common and well integrated with reasonably priced services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Really, not.
Absolutely no interest.
Content delivery is where the real interest lies, not yet another painfully expensive change in presentation.
What use 3D when all we have to look at is the same old crapola?
Will your viewing experience really be that much elevated watching Lifestyles of Clueless Trust Account Celebutantes in 3D?
Manufacturers need to catch a clue from huge traffic in torrents -- the hot market is in content delivery.
Don't talk to me about new methods of presentation until internet jacks on TVs are common and well integrated with reasonably priced services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30801696</id>
	<title>Re:meh.</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1263726240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?</p></div><p>I do. Avatar was fun, what's more if they make 3D LCD TVs, they'll make monitors, which could make for some pretty cool stuff, especially if the industry goes with passive glasses.</p><p>If you don't like it, no one's forcing you to buy it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV ? I do .
Avatar was fun , what 's more if they make 3D LCD TVs , they 'll make monitors , which could make for some pretty cool stuff , especially if the industry goes with passive glasses.If you do n't like it , no one 's forcing you to buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?I do.
Avatar was fun, what's more if they make 3D LCD TVs, they'll make monitors, which could make for some pretty cool stuff, especially if the industry goes with passive glasses.If you don't like it, no one's forcing you to buy it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698640</id>
	<title>That's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because Microsoft is busy making 3D people, aka Natal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because Microsoft is busy making 3D people , aka Natal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because Microsoft is busy making 3D people, aka Natal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700056</id>
	<title>Old Hat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262945220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way back in 1987 at 'Telecom 87' (or maybe 86) in Geneva SONY were demoing HD-TV they were already talking about 3D TV and how it was not that difficult to do once you had HD sorted out.</p><p>Back then, their HD demo was impressive.</p><p>They had a camera trained on a japanese doll wearing a kimono. This was shown on a large CRT placed next to the Doll. There was a conventional Camera/display of the same scene close by so that you could see the difference. The Doll rotated so that you could see the movement. I was very impressed.</p><p>This was the same show where IBM introduced the 9370!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way back in 1987 at 'Telecom 87 ' ( or maybe 86 ) in Geneva SONY were demoing HD-TV they were already talking about 3D TV and how it was not that difficult to do once you had HD sorted out.Back then , their HD demo was impressive.They had a camera trained on a japanese doll wearing a kimono .
This was shown on a large CRT placed next to the Doll .
There was a conventional Camera/display of the same scene close by so that you could see the difference .
The Doll rotated so that you could see the movement .
I was very impressed.This was the same show where IBM introduced the 9370 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way back in 1987 at 'Telecom 87' (or maybe 86) in Geneva SONY were demoing HD-TV they were already talking about 3D TV and how it was not that difficult to do once you had HD sorted out.Back then, their HD demo was impressive.They had a camera trained on a japanese doll wearing a kimono.
This was shown on a large CRT placed next to the Doll.
There was a conventional Camera/display of the same scene close by so that you could see the difference.
The Doll rotated so that you could see the movement.
I was very impressed.This was the same show where IBM introduced the 9370!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</id>
	<title>They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>TooManyNames</author>
	<datestamp>1262983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, if your 3D TV requires powered glasses in order to experience 3D viewing, why not just get rid of the TV altogether and simply display slightly offset images on each lens of a pair of glasses?  I doubt that cost would be an issue seeing as how video glasses seem to be available for under $200 (it would take a lot of people viewing to overcome the cost of the 3D TV + TV glasses).  It obviously can't be related to a communal viewing experience as everyone viewing the 3D TV will need glasses anyway.
<br> <br>
At least with polarized glasses the power requirement is gone but still, since some form of eyewear is required anyway, why not just get rid of the TV altogether?  Is it just because you'll still be able to watch 2D without the glasses?
<br> <br>
Don't get me wrong, the prospects look interesting, but it just seems like holding onto the TV for no other purpose than being able to manufacture large and expensive displays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , if your 3D TV requires powered glasses in order to experience 3D viewing , why not just get rid of the TV altogether and simply display slightly offset images on each lens of a pair of glasses ?
I doubt that cost would be an issue seeing as how video glasses seem to be available for under $ 200 ( it would take a lot of people viewing to overcome the cost of the 3D TV + TV glasses ) .
It obviously ca n't be related to a communal viewing experience as everyone viewing the 3D TV will need glasses anyway .
At least with polarized glasses the power requirement is gone but still , since some form of eyewear is required anyway , why not just get rid of the TV altogether ?
Is it just because you 'll still be able to watch 2D without the glasses ?
Do n't get me wrong , the prospects look interesting , but it just seems like holding onto the TV for no other purpose than being able to manufacture large and expensive displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, if your 3D TV requires powered glasses in order to experience 3D viewing, why not just get rid of the TV altogether and simply display slightly offset images on each lens of a pair of glasses?
I doubt that cost would be an issue seeing as how video glasses seem to be available for under $200 (it would take a lot of people viewing to overcome the cost of the 3D TV + TV glasses).
It obviously can't be related to a communal viewing experience as everyone viewing the 3D TV will need glasses anyway.
At least with polarized glasses the power requirement is gone but still, since some form of eyewear is required anyway, why not just get rid of the TV altogether?
Is it just because you'll still be able to watch 2D without the glasses?
Don't get me wrong, the prospects look interesting, but it just seems like holding onto the TV for no other purpose than being able to manufacture large and expensive displays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699718</id>
	<title>Overcompensation?</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1262944020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's with the negativity?  We love new technology, plus you get to wear glasses!  Cool!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with the negativity ?
We love new technology , plus you get to wear glasses !
Cool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with the negativity?
We love new technology, plus you get to wear glasses!
Cool!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699350</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262942460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That won't work without a significant advance in LCD tech. The actual crystal in LCD displays really can only do polarized (when powered) or random (when not) alignment. That becomes light or dark because of a polarized light shining through it. They'd have to come up with a much more advanced display with 3 states (polarized vertical, polarized horizontal or random) to work with polarized glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That wo n't work without a significant advance in LCD tech .
The actual crystal in LCD displays really can only do polarized ( when powered ) or random ( when not ) alignment .
That becomes light or dark because of a polarized light shining through it .
They 'd have to come up with a much more advanced display with 3 states ( polarized vertical , polarized horizontal or random ) to work with polarized glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That won't work without a significant advance in LCD tech.
The actual crystal in LCD displays really can only do polarized (when powered) or random (when not) alignment.
That becomes light or dark because of a polarized light shining through it.
They'd have to come up with a much more advanced display with 3 states (polarized vertical, polarized horizontal or random) to work with polarized glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699704</id>
	<title>What about prescription lens wearers?</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1262943960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may be one of the few here not to have gone out to see that movie with the blue people yet, so I don't have actual experience, but how well do the various 3D glasses work for us myopics who need prescription lenses to see the screen as something other than a blurry blob? Can they be worn without being completely uncomfortable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be one of the few here not to have gone out to see that movie with the blue people yet , so I do n't have actual experience , but how well do the various 3D glasses work for us myopics who need prescription lenses to see the screen as something other than a blurry blob ?
Can they be worn without being completely uncomfortable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be one of the few here not to have gone out to see that movie with the blue people yet, so I don't have actual experience, but how well do the various 3D glasses work for us myopics who need prescription lenses to see the screen as something other than a blurry blob?
Can they be worn without being completely uncomfortable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699804</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1262944320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure why you're modded Funny, because your post is right on. The cheesy 3D effects of the 80's made it difficult to convince my wife to go with me to see Avatar in 3D, but we both thought it was well done after seeing it.</p><p>This isn't directed towards the parent at all, but I'm not sure when all the folks on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. turned into a bunch of keep-off-my-lawn curmudgeons. No one will be forced to buy a 3D TV anytime soon. Even if it's successful the content providers won't be moving everything to 3D for many years to come. You want your kids to have a holodeck? Then you can expect to see incremental advances along the way. Quit whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why you 're modded Funny , because your post is right on .
The cheesy 3D effects of the 80 's made it difficult to convince my wife to go with me to see Avatar in 3D , but we both thought it was well done after seeing it.This is n't directed towards the parent at all , but I 'm not sure when all the folks on / .
turned into a bunch of keep-off-my-lawn curmudgeons .
No one will be forced to buy a 3D TV anytime soon .
Even if it 's successful the content providers wo n't be moving everything to 3D for many years to come .
You want your kids to have a holodeck ?
Then you can expect to see incremental advances along the way .
Quit whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why you're modded Funny, because your post is right on.
The cheesy 3D effects of the 80's made it difficult to convince my wife to go with me to see Avatar in 3D, but we both thought it was well done after seeing it.This isn't directed towards the parent at all, but I'm not sure when all the folks on /.
turned into a bunch of keep-off-my-lawn curmudgeons.
No one will be forced to buy a 3D TV anytime soon.
Even if it's successful the content providers won't be moving everything to 3D for many years to come.
You want your kids to have a holodeck?
Then you can expect to see incremental advances along the way.
Quit whining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574</id>
	<title>meh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?</p><p>This whole 3D video thing smacks of a industry money grab disguised as a fad...<br>Exec: "Well everyone and their gramma has a 'flatscreen' jumbotron at home, what do we do now?"<br>R&amp;D: "Gentlemen, we've reached the limits of this plane of entertainment, we must go <i>to the next dimension</i>"</p><p>*dramatic music*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV ? This whole 3D video thing smacks of a industry money grab disguised as a fad...Exec : " Well everyone and their gramma has a 'flatscreen ' jumbotron at home , what do we do now ?
" R&amp;D : " Gentlemen , we 've reached the limits of this plane of entertainment , we must go to the next dimension " * dramatic music *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?This whole 3D video thing smacks of a industry money grab disguised as a fad...Exec: "Well everyone and their gramma has a 'flatscreen' jumbotron at home, what do we do now?
"R&amp;D: "Gentlemen, we've reached the limits of this plane of entertainment, we must go to the next dimension"*dramatic music*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703746</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262964960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that the light from all LCDs is already polarized, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that the light from all LCDs is already polarized , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that the light from all LCDs is already polarized, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30719132</id>
	<title>I can't wait...</title>
	<author>BobSutan</author>
	<datestamp>1263135480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for this to hit the living room en mass. I've been wondering why they weren't releasing movies in 3D on DVD &amp; BR for a while. It wasn't until all the hoopla with Avatar and the CES news on teh HD3DTV that I discovered why. I'm one of those people that will be using the technology. And don't forget, this just going to be a value added feature you can opt-in for when buying your new TV. I don't think anyone is expecting everyone to run out and get a new Plasma, LCD, or LED TV like they did a few years ago with the threat of the pending changeover to digital from analogue signals. That had the added push of "well, I need to upgrade anyway, why not get a nice new flat screen?"</p><p>This time around the bulk of 3D adoption will be when those first and second gen plasmas and LCDs to tits up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for this to hit the living room en mass .
I 've been wondering why they were n't releasing movies in 3D on DVD &amp; BR for a while .
It was n't until all the hoopla with Avatar and the CES news on teh HD3DTV that I discovered why .
I 'm one of those people that will be using the technology .
And do n't forget , this just going to be a value added feature you can opt-in for when buying your new TV .
I do n't think anyone is expecting everyone to run out and get a new Plasma , LCD , or LED TV like they did a few years ago with the threat of the pending changeover to digital from analogue signals .
That had the added push of " well , I need to upgrade anyway , why not get a nice new flat screen ?
" This time around the bulk of 3D adoption will be when those first and second gen plasmas and LCDs to tits up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for this to hit the living room en mass.
I've been wondering why they weren't releasing movies in 3D on DVD &amp; BR for a while.
It wasn't until all the hoopla with Avatar and the CES news on teh HD3DTV that I discovered why.
I'm one of those people that will be using the technology.
And don't forget, this just going to be a value added feature you can opt-in for when buying your new TV.
I don't think anyone is expecting everyone to run out and get a new Plasma, LCD, or LED TV like they did a few years ago with the threat of the pending changeover to digital from analogue signals.
That had the added push of "well, I need to upgrade anyway, why not get a nice new flat screen?
"This time around the bulk of 3D adoption will be when those first and second gen plasmas and LCDs to tits up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699236</id>
	<title>Holigrams</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1262942040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only time we are going to get 3d television is once 3d holographic projectors are an established technology. This is not because of any technological limitation with 3d glasses. But simply because 3d glasses look stupid and no one will want to wear them. Plus people have a hard enough time losing their remote. Plus you wont be able to just invite X friends over to watch some TV you will have to have a set of glasses for each person. Any tech which requires 3d glasses is doomed to failure from the get go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only time we are going to get 3d television is once 3d holographic projectors are an established technology .
This is not because of any technological limitation with 3d glasses .
But simply because 3d glasses look stupid and no one will want to wear them .
Plus people have a hard enough time losing their remote .
Plus you wont be able to just invite X friends over to watch some TV you will have to have a set of glasses for each person .
Any tech which requires 3d glasses is doomed to failure from the get go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only time we are going to get 3d television is once 3d holographic projectors are an established technology.
This is not because of any technological limitation with 3d glasses.
But simply because 3d glasses look stupid and no one will want to wear them.
Plus people have a hard enough time losing their remote.
Plus you wont be able to just invite X friends over to watch some TV you will have to have a set of glasses for each person.
Any tech which requires 3d glasses is doomed to failure from the get go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>ZorbaTHut</author>
	<datestamp>1262942340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, I think this is actually a sign that the 3d was done well.</p><p>I've seen movies where the 3d jumped out at me. Boing, giant monster in my face, sproing, 3d gizmos in the face, hey look at how many things we can jam in your face.</p><p>Avatar didn't do that. It wasn't a 3d tour de force, it was a movie that happened to be in 3d. Most of the time, you're right, I just didn't notice - and that was its strength. Instead of being a pile of 3d special effects, it was a movie that just happened to be deeper and realer due to the use of 3d.</p><p>It's like HDTV or, as some have mentioned, color. If you don't notice it, it's doing its job. Sometimes its job is just subtle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , I think this is actually a sign that the 3d was done well.I 've seen movies where the 3d jumped out at me .
Boing , giant monster in my face , sproing , 3d gizmos in the face , hey look at how many things we can jam in your face.Avatar did n't do that .
It was n't a 3d tour de force , it was a movie that happened to be in 3d .
Most of the time , you 're right , I just did n't notice - and that was its strength .
Instead of being a pile of 3d special effects , it was a movie that just happened to be deeper and realer due to the use of 3d.It 's like HDTV or , as some have mentioned , color .
If you do n't notice it , it 's doing its job .
Sometimes its job is just subtle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, I think this is actually a sign that the 3d was done well.I've seen movies where the 3d jumped out at me.
Boing, giant monster in my face, sproing, 3d gizmos in the face, hey look at how many things we can jam in your face.Avatar didn't do that.
It wasn't a 3d tour de force, it was a movie that happened to be in 3d.
Most of the time, you're right, I just didn't notice - and that was its strength.
Instead of being a pile of 3d special effects, it was a movie that just happened to be deeper and realer due to the use of 3d.It's like HDTV or, as some have mentioned, color.
If you don't notice it, it's doing its job.
Sometimes its job is just subtle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701388</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262951400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe.  Or maybe a commercially-significant number of people only believe that 3D will add to the entertainment value.
</p><p>Just as an example, I remember when HDTVs started coming down in price, my parents got a cheap 720p TV and hooked it up to their low-def cable box.  My dad kept talking about how wonderful and sharp the HD picture was, and how worthwhile his purchase of a new TV was.  In that case, the idea of HDTV added to his enjoyment even without actually watching HD.
</p><p>That's not too strange a story.  Now my point isn't to say that HD isn't a better picture or that people can't tell the difference.  I'm just saying sometimes, even when people are convinced they're appreciating a higher quality product, some of that appreciation comes from the idea that the product is improved.  Similarly, there was a study that showed people enjoyed wine more when they believed the wine was expensive.
</p><p>Some of that will probably happen with 3D too.  People will like the idea of 3D so much that it won't matter if it *actually* improves the experience.  If people are convinced it will improve the experience, then they'll probably perceive it as an improved experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
Or maybe a commercially-significant number of people only believe that 3D will add to the entertainment value .
Just as an example , I remember when HDTVs started coming down in price , my parents got a cheap 720p TV and hooked it up to their low-def cable box .
My dad kept talking about how wonderful and sharp the HD picture was , and how worthwhile his purchase of a new TV was .
In that case , the idea of HDTV added to his enjoyment even without actually watching HD .
That 's not too strange a story .
Now my point is n't to say that HD is n't a better picture or that people ca n't tell the difference .
I 'm just saying sometimes , even when people are convinced they 're appreciating a higher quality product , some of that appreciation comes from the idea that the product is improved .
Similarly , there was a study that showed people enjoyed wine more when they believed the wine was expensive .
Some of that will probably happen with 3D too .
People will like the idea of 3D so much that it wo n't matter if it * actually * improves the experience .
If people are convinced it will improve the experience , then they 'll probably perceive it as an improved experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
Or maybe a commercially-significant number of people only believe that 3D will add to the entertainment value.
Just as an example, I remember when HDTVs started coming down in price, my parents got a cheap 720p TV and hooked it up to their low-def cable box.
My dad kept talking about how wonderful and sharp the HD picture was, and how worthwhile his purchase of a new TV was.
In that case, the idea of HDTV added to his enjoyment even without actually watching HD.
That's not too strange a story.
Now my point isn't to say that HD isn't a better picture or that people can't tell the difference.
I'm just saying sometimes, even when people are convinced they're appreciating a higher quality product, some of that appreciation comes from the idea that the product is improved.
Similarly, there was a study that showed people enjoyed wine more when they believed the wine was expensive.
Some of that will probably happen with 3D too.
People will like the idea of 3D so much that it won't matter if it *actually* improves the experience.
If people are convinced it will improve the experience, then they'll probably perceive it as an improved experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702582</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1262957040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realize that your "is not a sentence" sentence proves two wrongs do make a right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that your " is not a sentence " sentence proves two wrongs do make a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that your "is not a sentence" sentence proves two wrongs do make a right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703688</id>
	<title>Re:Auto Stereoscopy...</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262964480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is something I don't get</p><p>If a 3D movie or program can be projected on a 2D theater screen and viewed using simple 3D glasses<br>Why can't this same format be put onto a DVD disk and displayed on my flat screen, to be viewed using the same cheap 3D glasses?</p><p>Seems to me the industry is making big hype to produce a new market that is unecessary<br>What am I missing here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something I do n't getIf a 3D movie or program can be projected on a 2D theater screen and viewed using simple 3D glassesWhy ca n't this same format be put onto a DVD disk and displayed on my flat screen , to be viewed using the same cheap 3D glasses ? Seems to me the industry is making big hype to produce a new market that is unecessaryWhat am I missing here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something I don't getIf a 3D movie or program can be projected on a 2D theater screen and viewed using simple 3D glassesWhy can't this same format be put onto a DVD disk and displayed on my flat screen, to be viewed using the same cheap 3D glasses?Seems to me the industry is making big hype to produce a new market that is unecessaryWhat am I missing here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699540</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1262943240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup - these are just different optimizations of the solution.</p><p>The movie theater uses a technique that results in a super-expensive projector, and dirt-cheap glasses.</p><p>The TV design uses a technique that results in a slightly more expensive TV, and moderately expensive glasses.</p><p>If the number of viewers is small it is cheaper to put the technology in the glasses.  If you have 100 people in the room and stepping on the glasses between shows and you need to have 1000 spare glasses to clean them, then a $10k projector makes more sense than $100 glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup - these are just different optimizations of the solution.The movie theater uses a technique that results in a super-expensive projector , and dirt-cheap glasses.The TV design uses a technique that results in a slightly more expensive TV , and moderately expensive glasses.If the number of viewers is small it is cheaper to put the technology in the glasses .
If you have 100 people in the room and stepping on the glasses between shows and you need to have 1000 spare glasses to clean them , then a $ 10k projector makes more sense than $ 100 glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup - these are just different optimizations of the solution.The movie theater uses a technique that results in a super-expensive projector, and dirt-cheap glasses.The TV design uses a technique that results in a slightly more expensive TV, and moderately expensive glasses.If the number of viewers is small it is cheaper to put the technology in the glasses.
If you have 100 people in the room and stepping on the glasses between shows and you need to have 1000 spare glasses to clean them, then a $10k projector makes more sense than $100 glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699006</id>
	<title>3d tv never ubiquitous?</title>
	<author>kirkb</author>
	<datestamp>1262984220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The switch from black and white TV was an easy sell:  color looks better.<br>The switch (in progress...) from SD to HD is an easy sell:  bigger/sharper looks better.<br>But I have a hard time believing that everything could/should be in 3d.  Action movies?  Sure.  Sports?  Sure.  But drama?  Sitcoms?  News?</p><p>What I notice 3d mostly being used for is "gimmick shots" in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you.  I've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent, ever-present visual benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The switch from black and white TV was an easy sell : color looks better.The switch ( in progress... ) from SD to HD is an easy sell : bigger/sharper looks better.But I have a hard time believing that everything could/should be in 3d .
Action movies ?
Sure. Sports ?
Sure. But drama ?
Sitcoms ? News ? What I notice 3d mostly being used for is " gimmick shots " in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you .
I 've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent , ever-present visual benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The switch from black and white TV was an easy sell:  color looks better.The switch (in progress...) from SD to HD is an easy sell:  bigger/sharper looks better.But I have a hard time believing that everything could/should be in 3d.
Action movies?
Sure.  Sports?
Sure.  But drama?
Sitcoms?  News?What I notice 3d mostly being used for is "gimmick shots" in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you.
I've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent, ever-present visual benefit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700472</id>
	<title>Who needs a TV? Just use Glasses!</title>
	<author>MageWyn</author>
	<datestamp>1262947200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Screw the TV, lets go Denno Coil style!
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn\%C5\%8D\_Coil" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn\%C5\%8D\_Coil</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw the TV , lets go Denno Coil style !
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn \ % C5 \ % 8D \ _Coil [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw the TV, lets go Denno Coil style!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn\%C5\%8D\_Coil [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699578</id>
	<title>XIX century called, it wants its gimmick back</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262943360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D photography is almost as old as "normal" one: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>And it's largely irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D photography is almost as old as " normal " one : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy [ wikipedia.org ] And it 's largely irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D photography is almost as old as "normal" one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy [wikipedia.org]And it's largely irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703526</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262963040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't? Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?</p></div><p>Active glasses allow the current single display model to work in a 3d mode. Active glasses alternate each eye at approx 60x a second for a total of 120htz, the display is able to use one of several methods to sync up the glasses with the app left or right eye image, the 2 dominant tech in this area is 3d DLP which is a checkerboard method providing a 1/2 resolution but at a much lower bandwidth (and it is really hard to tell that it is at 1/2 res) or there is the frame sequential  method (true 1080p but with 2x the bandwidth requirements.) To use glasses you would either need a very fast physical polarizer (RealD and a couple of other companies use this) or 2 layers or different display sources that have the correct polarization.  That is the simple reason why.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses would n't ?
Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer ? Active glasses allow the current single display model to work in a 3d mode .
Active glasses alternate each eye at approx 60x a second for a total of 120htz , the display is able to use one of several methods to sync up the glasses with the app left or right eye image , the 2 dominant tech in this area is 3d DLP which is a checkerboard method providing a 1/2 resolution but at a much lower bandwidth ( and it is really hard to tell that it is at 1/2 res ) or there is the frame sequential method ( true 1080p but with 2x the bandwidth requirements .
) To use glasses you would either need a very fast physical polarizer ( RealD and a couple of other companies use this ) or 2 layers or different display sources that have the correct polarization .
That is the simple reason why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't?
Why go that road except to eek out a bit more cash from the consumer?Active glasses allow the current single display model to work in a 3d mode.
Active glasses alternate each eye at approx 60x a second for a total of 120htz, the display is able to use one of several methods to sync up the glasses with the app left or right eye image, the 2 dominant tech in this area is 3d DLP which is a checkerboard method providing a 1/2 resolution but at a much lower bandwidth (and it is really hard to tell that it is at 1/2 res) or there is the frame sequential  method (true 1080p but with 2x the bandwidth requirements.
) To use glasses you would either need a very fast physical polarizer (RealD and a couple of other companies use this) or 2 layers or different display sources that have the correct polarization.
That is the simple reason why.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701296</id>
	<title>Re:Sony rescinding "NIH" attitude with 3DTVs</title>
	<author>bmacs27</author>
	<datestamp>1262950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's the gamers that will adopt it.  Especially once they get cheap head tracking involved.  Since the experience is generally only good for one viewer anyhow, it will likely be that lonely kid playing counter strike that adopts the tech first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's the gamers that will adopt it .
Especially once they get cheap head tracking involved .
Since the experience is generally only good for one viewer anyhow , it will likely be that lonely kid playing counter strike that adopts the tech first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's the gamers that will adopt it.
Especially once they get cheap head tracking involved.
Since the experience is generally only good for one viewer anyhow, it will likely be that lonely kid playing counter strike that adopts the tech first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698760</id>
	<title>Please no glasses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how they think they can ever sell these things as long as they require glasses. They're uncomfortable, especially if you already wear glasses. If you're wearing the glasses, trying to do something else at the same time you're watching TV will be difficult. Everybody watching needs their own glasses. Having to take off and put on the glasses all the time will be a pain. Glasses are the reason 3D has never been done in the home before, even though it could be. Glasses have always been the failing point of 3D, and always will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how they think they can ever sell these things as long as they require glasses .
They 're uncomfortable , especially if you already wear glasses .
If you 're wearing the glasses , trying to do something else at the same time you 're watching TV will be difficult .
Everybody watching needs their own glasses .
Having to take off and put on the glasses all the time will be a pain .
Glasses are the reason 3D has never been done in the home before , even though it could be .
Glasses have always been the failing point of 3D , and always will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how they think they can ever sell these things as long as they require glasses.
They're uncomfortable, especially if you already wear glasses.
If you're wearing the glasses, trying to do something else at the same time you're watching TV will be difficult.
Everybody watching needs their own glasses.
Having to take off and put on the glasses all the time will be a pain.
Glasses are the reason 3D has never been done in the home before, even though it could be.
Glasses have always been the failing point of 3D, and always will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699108</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262941440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw Avitar a couple of weeks ago in 3D and it looked great. I specifically arrived at the theater to catch that showing.  If I were to see it again, I'd probably try to catch it in 3d again if it was convent.  I didn't mind paying the extra few buck and wearing the stoopid glasses.</p><p>Then about a week later, I went and saw Up in the Air.  It was a great movie too.  However, if it had optionally been offered in 3d, theres no way in the world I would have made a special trip or paid a penny more to see it in 3d.</p><p>Probably for 95\% of what I watch on tv, 3d is of no interest to me.  Even if Avitar where to come out in 3d at home.  I am not sure the 3d would really be the same on a home screen.  Even a 50 or 60 inch screen.  And certainly not something under 40 inches.</p><p>I can see a lot of push back from consumers on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw Avitar a couple of weeks ago in 3D and it looked great .
I specifically arrived at the theater to catch that showing .
If I were to see it again , I 'd probably try to catch it in 3d again if it was convent .
I did n't mind paying the extra few buck and wearing the stoopid glasses.Then about a week later , I went and saw Up in the Air .
It was a great movie too .
However , if it had optionally been offered in 3d , theres no way in the world I would have made a special trip or paid a penny more to see it in 3d.Probably for 95 \ % of what I watch on tv , 3d is of no interest to me .
Even if Avitar where to come out in 3d at home .
I am not sure the 3d would really be the same on a home screen .
Even a 50 or 60 inch screen .
And certainly not something under 40 inches.I can see a lot of push back from consumers on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw Avitar a couple of weeks ago in 3D and it looked great.
I specifically arrived at the theater to catch that showing.
If I were to see it again, I'd probably try to catch it in 3d again if it was convent.
I didn't mind paying the extra few buck and wearing the stoopid glasses.Then about a week later, I went and saw Up in the Air.
It was a great movie too.
However, if it had optionally been offered in 3d, theres no way in the world I would have made a special trip or paid a penny more to see it in 3d.Probably for 95\% of what I watch on tv, 3d is of no interest to me.
Even if Avitar where to come out in 3d at home.
I am not sure the 3d would really be the same on a home screen.
Even a 50 or 60 inch screen.
And certainly not something under 40 inches.I can see a lot of push back from consumers on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698788</id>
	<title>Fail (unless the porn industry embraces it)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This technology will find it very difficult to move ahead because for the most part it actually distracts from the story. It may succeed for a few 'visual effects' driven, plotless movies (Star Trek anyone?) but on a recurring basis, it won't add value to a weekly series. OTOH, if the porn industry embraces it (porn is, after all, visual and plotless by definition) and perfects it to the point that the viewer doesn't think about it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/at all/, then it may be able to become mainstream. The impediment to this is the location of the bright shiny new 3D TV. Many folks who will watch porn by themselves on their PC will find it inconvenient to watch in the family room with the spouse and kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This technology will find it very difficult to move ahead because for the most part it actually distracts from the story .
It may succeed for a few 'visual effects ' driven , plotless movies ( Star Trek anyone ?
) but on a recurring basis , it wo n't add value to a weekly series .
OTOH , if the porn industry embraces it ( porn is , after all , visual and plotless by definition ) and perfects it to the point that the viewer does n't think about it /at all/ , then it may be able to become mainstream .
The impediment to this is the location of the bright shiny new 3D TV .
Many folks who will watch porn by themselves on their PC will find it inconvenient to watch in the family room with the spouse and kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This technology will find it very difficult to move ahead because for the most part it actually distracts from the story.
It may succeed for a few 'visual effects' driven, plotless movies (Star Trek anyone?
) but on a recurring basis, it won't add value to a weekly series.
OTOH, if the porn industry embraces it (porn is, after all, visual and plotless by definition) and perfects it to the point that the viewer doesn't think about it /at all/, then it may be able to become mainstream.
The impediment to this is the location of the bright shiny new 3D TV.
Many folks who will watch porn by themselves on their PC will find it inconvenient to watch in the family room with the spouse and kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702284</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1262955600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It took a while, but eventually I was able to relax my eyes and stop trying to change my focal length. Although it was a bit weird at first, seeing something in the background of the scene, far away, and trying to focus on it does not bring it into focus but in fact makes the whole image blurry.</p><p>I don't know if I'm better than most at consciously changing my eye's focal length, but everyone is capable of it to some extent. In fact, I deliberately practice (one eye at a time, the other eye covered) because it seems to help ease eye fatigue at work. In my experience, it's very difficult to achieve near-infinite focal length without actually having something extremely far away to refer to. Short focal length is easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It took a while , but eventually I was able to relax my eyes and stop trying to change my focal length .
Although it was a bit weird at first , seeing something in the background of the scene , far away , and trying to focus on it does not bring it into focus but in fact makes the whole image blurry.I do n't know if I 'm better than most at consciously changing my eye 's focal length , but everyone is capable of it to some extent .
In fact , I deliberately practice ( one eye at a time , the other eye covered ) because it seems to help ease eye fatigue at work .
In my experience , it 's very difficult to achieve near-infinite focal length without actually having something extremely far away to refer to .
Short focal length is easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took a while, but eventually I was able to relax my eyes and stop trying to change my focal length.
Although it was a bit weird at first, seeing something in the background of the scene, far away, and trying to focus on it does not bring it into focus but in fact makes the whole image blurry.I don't know if I'm better than most at consciously changing my eye's focal length, but everyone is capable of it to some extent.
In fact, I deliberately practice (one eye at a time, the other eye covered) because it seems to help ease eye fatigue at work.
In my experience, it's very difficult to achieve near-infinite focal length without actually having something extremely far away to refer to.
Short focal length is easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700832</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262948820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my girlfriend (who wears glasses as well) got nauseous and had to throw up.</p><p>I won't be seeing films in this pseudo-3D in the cinemas any more any time soon.</p></div><p>I don't think it's the "pseudo-3D". Has she taken a pregnancy test recently?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my girlfriend ( who wears glasses as well ) got nauseous and had to throw up.I wo n't be seeing films in this pseudo-3D in the cinemas any more any time soon.I do n't think it 's the " pseudo-3D " .
Has she taken a pregnancy test recently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my girlfriend (who wears glasses as well) got nauseous and had to throw up.I won't be seeing films in this pseudo-3D in the cinemas any more any time soon.I don't think it's the "pseudo-3D".
Has she taken a pregnancy test recently?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704636</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Cyner</author>
	<datestamp>1262972880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Polarized stereographic theaters require an expensive silver based paint to be used for the screen. Normal projectors can be used, but have to have polarization filters fitted to them at the proper angles (and of course you need two separate projects). The screen is usually the largest cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Polarized stereographic theaters require an expensive silver based paint to be used for the screen .
Normal projectors can be used , but have to have polarization filters fitted to them at the proper angles ( and of course you need two separate projects ) .
The screen is usually the largest cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polarized stereographic theaters require an expensive silver based paint to be used for the screen.
Normal projectors can be used, but have to have polarization filters fitted to them at the proper angles (and of course you need two separate projects).
The screen is usually the largest cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698944</id>
	<title>Do these not suck?</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1262984040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every technology I've seen so far for 3D television/movie presentation has been teh suck. Why? Because I have one eye. Alas, I am not disabled <i>enough</i> to leverage the ADA, but I'm not the litigious sort anyway. But every technique so far devised to have each eye see something different when looking at one screen has screwed up the case where only one view gets used. I either see both views simultaneously, which is like double vision for "close" objects, or I see things the wrong color (for the old red/green style), or the image flickers badly. My wife wants to see Avatar in 3D. I'll take her, because I love her and want her to be happy, but I'm not looking forward to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every technology I 've seen so far for 3D television/movie presentation has been teh suck .
Why ? Because I have one eye .
Alas , I am not disabled enough to leverage the ADA , but I 'm not the litigious sort anyway .
But every technique so far devised to have each eye see something different when looking at one screen has screwed up the case where only one view gets used .
I either see both views simultaneously , which is like double vision for " close " objects , or I see things the wrong color ( for the old red/green style ) , or the image flickers badly .
My wife wants to see Avatar in 3D .
I 'll take her , because I love her and want her to be happy , but I 'm not looking forward to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every technology I've seen so far for 3D television/movie presentation has been teh suck.
Why? Because I have one eye.
Alas, I am not disabled enough to leverage the ADA, but I'm not the litigious sort anyway.
But every technique so far devised to have each eye see something different when looking at one screen has screwed up the case where only one view gets used.
I either see both views simultaneously, which is like double vision for "close" objects, or I see things the wrong color (for the old red/green style), or the image flickers badly.
My wife wants to see Avatar in 3D.
I'll take her, because I love her and want her to be happy, but I'm not looking forward to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698852</id>
	<title>Call me when...</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1262983740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A&gt; They come up with working holodecks.<br><br>B&gt; Working hologram displays like that chess board in Star Wars or Lea sending a message to Obi-wan through R2D2.<br><br>I'll pass on systems where I have to wear hooky glasses with a 2D surface. I want to use my unaided eyes for this only and bonus points if you can make it so I can feel what is being projected within limits. (IE. No real lava or balls of plasma for Discovery Channel shows.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>A &gt; They come up with working holodecks.B &gt; Working hologram displays like that chess board in Star Wars or Lea sending a message to Obi-wan through R2D2.I 'll pass on systems where I have to wear hooky glasses with a 2D surface .
I want to use my unaided eyes for this only and bonus points if you can make it so I can feel what is being projected within limits .
( IE. No real lava or balls of plasma for Discovery Channel shows .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A&gt; They come up with working holodecks.B&gt; Working hologram displays like that chess board in Star Wars or Lea sending a message to Obi-wan through R2D2.I'll pass on systems where I have to wear hooky glasses with a 2D surface.
I want to use my unaided eyes for this only and bonus points if you can make it so I can feel what is being projected within limits.
(IE. No real lava or balls of plasma for Discovery Channel shows.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699850</id>
	<title>Re:Auto Stereoscopy...</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1262944440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.</i></p><p>Actually, Samsung has already licensed RealD for use in it's TVs.  That system (which is the one used in theatres) makes use of a high refresh rate display and a switching circularly polarized overlay called a ZScreen.</p><p>The only question is how cheap can you make the ZScreen.  Unfortunately, I can't find any information about the technology that makes it go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.Actually , Samsung has already licensed RealD for use in it 's TVs .
That system ( which is the one used in theatres ) makes use of a high refresh rate display and a switching circularly polarized overlay called a ZScreen.The only question is how cheap can you make the ZScreen .
Unfortunately , I ca n't find any information about the technology that makes it go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.Actually, Samsung has already licensed RealD for use in it's TVs.
That system (which is the one used in theatres) makes use of a high refresh rate display and a switching circularly polarized overlay called a ZScreen.The only question is how cheap can you make the ZScreen.
Unfortunately, I can't find any information about the technology that makes it go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699516</id>
	<title>Bit rates?</title>
	<author>Moof123</author>
	<datestamp>1262943180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judging by how schister cable companies are already with HDTV bit rates, I'm guessing the 3D stream won't get 2x the bits.</p><p>The only thing worse than low bit rate artifacts, is ones are Left/Right eye unique.  I can't wait to see a class action lawsuit after Comcast causes a nation wide vomitorium by cutting back the 3D bit rate during the superbowl...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging by how schister cable companies are already with HDTV bit rates , I 'm guessing the 3D stream wo n't get 2x the bits.The only thing worse than low bit rate artifacts , is ones are Left/Right eye unique .
I ca n't wait to see a class action lawsuit after Comcast causes a nation wide vomitorium by cutting back the 3D bit rate during the superbowl.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging by how schister cable companies are already with HDTV bit rates, I'm guessing the 3D stream won't get 2x the bits.The only thing worse than low bit rate artifacts, is ones are Left/Right eye unique.
I can't wait to see a class action lawsuit after Comcast causes a nation wide vomitorium by cutting back the 3D bit rate during the superbowl...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699878</id>
	<title>Viewing angle...</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1262944560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Often when I'm at home, I watch TV while laying on the couch, so my eyes aren't exactly vertical.  While watching Avatar I tried rotating my head a bit and the picture became much worse.  I can't imagine what this would have been like if I was lying on a couch watching.  I'd probably need to keep a bucket nearby...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Often when I 'm at home , I watch TV while laying on the couch , so my eyes are n't exactly vertical .
While watching Avatar I tried rotating my head a bit and the picture became much worse .
I ca n't imagine what this would have been like if I was lying on a couch watching .
I 'd probably need to keep a bucket nearby.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Often when I'm at home, I watch TV while laying on the couch, so my eyes aren't exactly vertical.
While watching Avatar I tried rotating my head a bit and the picture became much worse.
I can't imagine what this would have been like if I was lying on a couch watching.
I'd probably need to keep a bucket nearby...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699698</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262943900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know much about the technology, but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV?</p></div><p>Not in the slightest. This, with glasses, would be identical to the polarized light method, in terms of distortion, for both cyclops and normal people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know much about the technology , but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV ? Not in the slightest .
This , with glasses , would be identical to the polarized light method , in terms of distortion , for both cyclops and normal people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know much about the technology, but does the alternating eye thing have a distorted picture on the TV?Not in the slightest.
This, with glasses, would be identical to the polarized light method, in terms of distortion, for both cyclops and normal people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699366</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried getting lightly drunk? Of stoned? You know, that relaxed state where your eyes sometimes simply stay at the same focus even when you look at something else.</p><p>It&rsquo;s strange. I did not even remotely have any problems. (We had polarized glasses.) It was a bit unsharp and sharp at the same time. But all in all I got used to it, and then it was really cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried getting lightly drunk ?
Of stoned ?
You know , that relaxed state where your eyes sometimes simply stay at the same focus even when you look at something else.It    s strange .
I did not even remotely have any problems .
( We had polarized glasses .
) It was a bit unsharp and sharp at the same time .
But all in all I got used to it , and then it was really cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried getting lightly drunk?
Of stoned?
You know, that relaxed state where your eyes sometimes simply stay at the same focus even when you look at something else.It’s strange.
I did not even remotely have any problems.
(We had polarized glasses.
) It was a bit unsharp and sharp at the same time.
But all in all I got used to it, and then it was really cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699874</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1262944500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"XDirtypunkX (1290358)" mentioned elsewhere that Hyundai's solution is the "interlace" pixels make a screen with the resolution of 4096x2160 and when it goes to 3d mode you get 2048x1080 (1080p)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" XDirtypunkX ( 1290358 ) " mentioned elsewhere that Hyundai 's solution is the " interlace " pixels make a screen with the resolution of 4096x2160 and when it goes to 3d mode you get 2048x1080 ( 1080p )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"XDirtypunkX (1290358)" mentioned elsewhere that Hyundai's solution is the "interlace" pixels make a screen with the resolution of 4096x2160 and when it goes to 3d mode you get 2048x1080 (1080p)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701750</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>JackPepper</author>
	<datestamp>1262953140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The scenes I appreciated the most were the simple shots through a window in a door. The control room was pretty cool in 3D, but now it sounds like I am smoking the herb<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

I think the movie would be much worse without the 3D. A person might focus on the craptastic story line instead of OMG Ponies with USB ports!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The scenes I appreciated the most were the simple shots through a window in a door .
The control room was pretty cool in 3D , but now it sounds like I am smoking the herb : ) I think the movie would be much worse without the 3D .
A person might focus on the craptastic story line instead of OMG Ponies with USB ports !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scenes I appreciated the most were the simple shots through a window in a door.
The control room was pretty cool in 3D, but now it sounds like I am smoking the herb :)

I think the movie would be much worse without the 3D.
A person might focus on the craptastic story line instead of OMG Ponies with USB ports!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698630</id>
	<title>Cant even find the remote half the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ill wait for a real 3d holographic TV. As often as I cant find my remote I would never be able to find my 3d glasses.<br>Then what happens when we are having a party and have like 15 people over, take a look and pass them along ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ill wait for a real 3d holographic TV .
As often as I cant find my remote I would never be able to find my 3d glasses.Then what happens when we are having a party and have like 15 people over , take a look and pass them along ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ill wait for a real 3d holographic TV.
As often as I cant find my remote I would never be able to find my 3d glasses.Then what happens when we are having a party and have like 15 people over, take a look and pass them along ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699032</id>
	<title>A list of 3D TV's</title>
	<author>odin84gk</author>
	<datestamp>1262984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html" title="3dmovielist.com">http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html</a> [3dmovielist.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html [ 3dmovielist.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html [3dmovielist.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699180</id>
	<title>Re:Why care what MS thinks?</title>
	<author>SirCodeAlot</author>
	<datestamp>1262941800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, even for SlashDot this is very troll, you have got to be kidding me? Here are some examples of where M$ is the one to watch for the trend. Granted some of these examples are more devolper centric but still, and others you say may have had some partial incarnations previously but M$ made them easy, fun, and real.

1) Randomizing OS binaries in memory to prevent buffer overflow
2) Microsoft's Testing and Lab Management Suite
3) Project Natal
4) Intelli-Trace
5) Pex
6) Windows Home Server
7) XBox Live Service (including XNA)
8) Chess

These are all good examples of where they are the trend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , even for SlashDot this is very troll , you have got to be kidding me ?
Here are some examples of where M $ is the one to watch for the trend .
Granted some of these examples are more devolper centric but still , and others you say may have had some partial incarnations previously but M $ made them easy , fun , and real .
1 ) Randomizing OS binaries in memory to prevent buffer overflow 2 ) Microsoft 's Testing and Lab Management Suite 3 ) Project Natal 4 ) Intelli-Trace 5 ) Pex 6 ) Windows Home Server 7 ) XBox Live Service ( including XNA ) 8 ) Chess These are all good examples of where they are the trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, even for SlashDot this is very troll, you have got to be kidding me?
Here are some examples of where M$ is the one to watch for the trend.
Granted some of these examples are more devolper centric but still, and others you say may have had some partial incarnations previously but M$ made them easy, fun, and real.
1) Randomizing OS binaries in memory to prevent buffer overflow
2) Microsoft's Testing and Lab Management Suite
3) Project Natal
4) Intelli-Trace
5) Pex
6) Windows Home Server
7) XBox Live Service (including XNA)
8) Chess

These are all good examples of where they are the trend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700224</id>
	<title>Re:Auto Stereoscopy...</title>
	<author>cbreaker</author>
	<datestamp>1262946000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shutter glasses over a reasonable compromise.   Lightweight wireless shutter glasses with high refresh rates on newer TV's can be a good compromise between polarization and blue/red glasses.<br><br>I remember using shutter glasses 10 years ago with my old 21" CRT and a driver that converted almost any D3D game to 3D using the glasses and interlaced frames.  It was awesome.   When LCD's took over, they couldn't refresh fast enough and so the technology basically stalled.<br><br>Now, with super fast response times from new LCD, DLP and Plasma screens, and MUCH more powerful hardware, we can do full frame alternating eye at 120Hz with shutter glasses and get really great results.<br><br>I look forward to seeing more 3D, I've been waiting for a long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shutter glasses over a reasonable compromise .
Lightweight wireless shutter glasses with high refresh rates on newer TV 's can be a good compromise between polarization and blue/red glasses.I remember using shutter glasses 10 years ago with my old 21 " CRT and a driver that converted almost any D3D game to 3D using the glasses and interlaced frames .
It was awesome .
When LCD 's took over , they could n't refresh fast enough and so the technology basically stalled.Now , with super fast response times from new LCD , DLP and Plasma screens , and MUCH more powerful hardware , we can do full frame alternating eye at 120Hz with shutter glasses and get really great results.I look forward to seeing more 3D , I 've been waiting for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shutter glasses over a reasonable compromise.
Lightweight wireless shutter glasses with high refresh rates on newer TV's can be a good compromise between polarization and blue/red glasses.I remember using shutter glasses 10 years ago with my old 21" CRT and a driver that converted almost any D3D game to 3D using the glasses and interlaced frames.
It was awesome.
When LCD's took over, they couldn't refresh fast enough and so the technology basically stalled.Now, with super fast response times from new LCD, DLP and Plasma screens, and MUCH more powerful hardware, we can do full frame alternating eye at 120Hz with shutter glasses and get really great results.I look forward to seeing more 3D, I've been waiting for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699136</id>
	<title>It's finally happened...a tech I will not use</title>
	<author>wandazulu</author>
	<datestamp>1262941560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in the same boat; 3D gives me splitting headaches almost instantly. It's bad to the point where I simply will not go to see a 3D movie, period. Have fun guys, tell me how it is when you get back.</p><p>I've been reading/hearing about all this interest in 3D everywhere and I realize that I'm just not going to go along with this particular tech. Apart from my issues with 3D, where did all this 3D-love come from all of a sudden? It seems this particular tech was relegated to IMAX nature movies at the local science museum, and then all of a sudden Avatar is big news and then every company is talking about 3D TVs, 3D channels...this seems like too well-organized to be just a fad, but, sheesh, I hope it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the same boat ; 3D gives me splitting headaches almost instantly .
It 's bad to the point where I simply will not go to see a 3D movie , period .
Have fun guys , tell me how it is when you get back.I 've been reading/hearing about all this interest in 3D everywhere and I realize that I 'm just not going to go along with this particular tech .
Apart from my issues with 3D , where did all this 3D-love come from all of a sudden ?
It seems this particular tech was relegated to IMAX nature movies at the local science museum , and then all of a sudden Avatar is big news and then every company is talking about 3D TVs , 3D channels...this seems like too well-organized to be just a fad , but , sheesh , I hope it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the same boat; 3D gives me splitting headaches almost instantly.
It's bad to the point where I simply will not go to see a 3D movie, period.
Have fun guys, tell me how it is when you get back.I've been reading/hearing about all this interest in 3D everywhere and I realize that I'm just not going to go along with this particular tech.
Apart from my issues with 3D, where did all this 3D-love come from all of a sudden?
It seems this particular tech was relegated to IMAX nature movies at the local science museum, and then all of a sudden Avatar is big news and then every company is talking about 3D TVs, 3D channels...this seems like too well-organized to be just a fad, but, sheesh, I hope it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703588</id>
	<title>Quadraphonic sound, Take Two.</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1262963580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember Quad sound in the late 70's ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Quad sound in the late 70 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Quad sound in the late 70's ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698650</id>
	<title>Not Parallax??</title>
	<author>X86Daddy</author>
	<datestamp>1262982900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used 3D shutter glasses for my PC that work with nVidia drivers/cards for well over a decade.  Any 3D game can render this way... the tech works okay, but nowhere near as lovely or convenient as the Captain EO / Avatar method which uses polarized projection and unpowered polarized glasses... and 3D eyeglass-free monitors that use parallax have existed for about a decade as well now... None of the new TVs do this?  You can add field-sequential, shutter-frame tech to your PC and a good CRT for under $50... for the last decade.  Fun for immersion... a bit of an impediment for high accuracy things like sniping in a FPS though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used 3D shutter glasses for my PC that work with nVidia drivers/cards for well over a decade .
Any 3D game can render this way... the tech works okay , but nowhere near as lovely or convenient as the Captain EO / Avatar method which uses polarized projection and unpowered polarized glasses... and 3D eyeglass-free monitors that use parallax have existed for about a decade as well now... None of the new TVs do this ?
You can add field-sequential , shutter-frame tech to your PC and a good CRT for under $ 50... for the last decade .
Fun for immersion... a bit of an impediment for high accuracy things like sniping in a FPS though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used 3D shutter glasses for my PC that work with nVidia drivers/cards for well over a decade.
Any 3D game can render this way... the tech works okay, but nowhere near as lovely or convenient as the Captain EO / Avatar method which uses polarized projection and unpowered polarized glasses... and 3D eyeglass-free monitors that use parallax have existed for about a decade as well now... None of the new TVs do this?
You can add field-sequential, shutter-frame tech to your PC and a good CRT for under $50... for the last decade.
Fun for immersion... a bit of an impediment for high accuracy things like sniping in a FPS though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698560</id>
	<title>I work in a production facility.</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1262982480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just got two 3D monitors from Hyundai, one smaller one that goes in the production area, and a huge one to show to clients.  The networks, especially the ones that generate a lot of their own content, are scrambling for 3D content... not necessarily because they want to push it, but because everyone is scared to be left behind.</p><p>The Hyundai monitors use passive glasses, and the image is quite good.  I can see 3D, especially with passive glasses (where you can buy replacements or extras for reasonable prices), really taking off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just got two 3D monitors from Hyundai , one smaller one that goes in the production area , and a huge one to show to clients .
The networks , especially the ones that generate a lot of their own content , are scrambling for 3D content... not necessarily because they want to push it , but because everyone is scared to be left behind.The Hyundai monitors use passive glasses , and the image is quite good .
I can see 3D , especially with passive glasses ( where you can buy replacements or extras for reasonable prices ) , really taking off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just got two 3D monitors from Hyundai, one smaller one that goes in the production area, and a huge one to show to clients.
The networks, especially the ones that generate a lot of their own content, are scrambling for 3D content... not necessarily because they want to push it, but because everyone is scared to be left behind.The Hyundai monitors use passive glasses, and the image is quite good.
I can see 3D, especially with passive glasses (where you can buy replacements or extras for reasonable prices), really taking off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701264</id>
	<title>Re:3D has no appeal to me or many I know...</title>
	<author>bmacs27</author>
	<datestamp>1262950740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We run experiments with active shutter glasses all the time.  People sit there for an hour or so without reporting any discomfort so long as an effort is taken to calibrate the experience correctly to their viewing position, and inter-pupillary distance, optical accommodation, etc.  I can personally attest to using the glasses for hours and hours while debugging without any negative side effects.

I don't think the problems are as large as you might think.  This tech has been maturing for decades.  I think it's ready for prime time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We run experiments with active shutter glasses all the time .
People sit there for an hour or so without reporting any discomfort so long as an effort is taken to calibrate the experience correctly to their viewing position , and inter-pupillary distance , optical accommodation , etc .
I can personally attest to using the glasses for hours and hours while debugging without any negative side effects .
I do n't think the problems are as large as you might think .
This tech has been maturing for decades .
I think it 's ready for prime time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We run experiments with active shutter glasses all the time.
People sit there for an hour or so without reporting any discomfort so long as an effort is taken to calibrate the experience correctly to their viewing position, and inter-pupillary distance, optical accommodation, etc.
I can personally attest to using the glasses for hours and hours while debugging without any negative side effects.
I don't think the problems are as large as you might think.
This tech has been maturing for decades.
I think it's ready for prime time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701028</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262949780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's like HDTV or, as some have mentioned, color. If you don't notice it, it's doing its job. Sometimes its job is just subtle.</i></p><p>As God said to Bender, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like HDTV or , as some have mentioned , color .
If you do n't notice it , it 's doing its job .
Sometimes its job is just subtle.As God said to Bender , " When you do things right , people wo n't be sure you 've done anything at all " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like HDTV or, as some have mentioned, color.
If you don't notice it, it's doing its job.
Sometimes its job is just subtle.As God said to Bender, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701330</id>
	<title>Slashdot losing touch with it's love for tech?</title>
	<author>Automatonamaton</author>
	<datestamp>1262951040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who usually browses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and seldom posts, I felt I needed to comment on the (what I perceive to be) strange phenomenon that is a tech focused community that seems to hate new tech.</p><p>Its starting to feel like the prominent opinions on this are shifting toward "New tech is pointless since old tech works fine for me" and away from "Lets imagine/design/build it because its neat and might have potential!"</p><p>It's becoming tiresome for me to read about some new tech that looks like it might be cool, only to have 80\% of the comments by what I thought were tech enthusiasts calling it pointless or lame, instead of suggesting what great things it might lead to, or even just some optimism that it might just be cool.</p><p>Just my two cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who usually browses / .
and seldom posts , I felt I needed to comment on the ( what I perceive to be ) strange phenomenon that is a tech focused community that seems to hate new tech.Its starting to feel like the prominent opinions on this are shifting toward " New tech is pointless since old tech works fine for me " and away from " Lets imagine/design/build it because its neat and might have potential !
" It 's becoming tiresome for me to read about some new tech that looks like it might be cool , only to have 80 \ % of the comments by what I thought were tech enthusiasts calling it pointless or lame , instead of suggesting what great things it might lead to , or even just some optimism that it might just be cool.Just my two cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who usually browses /.
and seldom posts, I felt I needed to comment on the (what I perceive to be) strange phenomenon that is a tech focused community that seems to hate new tech.Its starting to feel like the prominent opinions on this are shifting toward "New tech is pointless since old tech works fine for me" and away from "Lets imagine/design/build it because its neat and might have potential!
"It's becoming tiresome for me to read about some new tech that looks like it might be cool, only to have 80\% of the comments by what I thought were tech enthusiasts calling it pointless or lame, instead of suggesting what great things it might lead to, or even just some optimism that it might just be cool.Just my two cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703350</id>
	<title>3D monitors should be (are?) easy</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1262961840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LCD monitors are already polarized.  All it takes is a company to have them output circular polarization, which would be easy even for a tiny company to figure out.</p><p>Wait...it's already been done<br><a href="http://www.berezin.com/3D/3ddisplay.htm" title="berezin.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.berezin.com/3D/3ddisplay.htm</a> [berezin.com]</p><p>Mass produce that tech and it will be very affordable using passive glasses, just like the theaters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LCD monitors are already polarized .
All it takes is a company to have them output circular polarization , which would be easy even for a tiny company to figure out.Wait...it 's already been donehttp : //www.berezin.com/3D/3ddisplay.htm [ berezin.com ] Mass produce that tech and it will be very affordable using passive glasses , just like the theaters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCD monitors are already polarized.
All it takes is a company to have them output circular polarization, which would be easy even for a tiny company to figure out.Wait...it's already been donehttp://www.berezin.com/3D/3ddisplay.htm [berezin.com]Mass produce that tech and it will be very affordable using passive glasses, just like the theaters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700464</id>
	<title>Not again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262947140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we can now compile the statistics of all the money lost to world economy over repeated attempts to market technology no one wants.<br>Flying Cars<br>Video Phones (yes, there's ANOTHER one of those out now)<br>Self-heating food<br>Video Glasses<br>3D movies/TV</p><p>All of these things have died and come back at least three times. The cost must run into the hundreds of millions by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we can now compile the statistics of all the money lost to world economy over repeated attempts to market technology no one wants.Flying CarsVideo Phones ( yes , there 's ANOTHER one of those out now ) Self-heating foodVideo Glasses3D movies/TVAll of these things have died and come back at least three times .
The cost must run into the hundreds of millions by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we can now compile the statistics of all the money lost to world economy over repeated attempts to market technology no one wants.Flying CarsVideo Phones (yes, there's ANOTHER one of those out now)Self-heating foodVideo Glasses3D movies/TVAll of these things have died and come back at least three times.
The cost must run into the hundreds of millions by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699770</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>kbielefe</author>
	<datestamp>1262944200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's great if you never do anything else while you're watching TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great if you never do anything else while you 're watching TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great if you never do anything else while you're watching TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699636</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>azmodean+1</author>
	<datestamp>1262943600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cost, resolution, and ergonomics pretty much covers it.<p>It's much cheaper and easier to make a 30+" display that does 1080P than a pair of 2" or so displays that have the same resolution, I don't think there are even prototype LCD panels that have the necessary component density.  Also it's going to be quite a long time before wearable monitors approach the comfort level of shutter glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cost , resolution , and ergonomics pretty much covers it.It 's much cheaper and easier to make a 30 + " display that does 1080P than a pair of 2 " or so displays that have the same resolution , I do n't think there are even prototype LCD panels that have the necessary component density .
Also it 's going to be quite a long time before wearable monitors approach the comfort level of shutter glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cost, resolution, and ergonomics pretty much covers it.It's much cheaper and easier to make a 30+" display that does 1080P than a pair of 2" or so displays that have the same resolution, I don't think there are even prototype LCD panels that have the necessary component density.
Also it's going to be quite a long time before wearable monitors approach the comfort level of shutter glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702342</id>
	<title>Re:What about prescription lens wearers?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1262955840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 3D glasses easily fit over my regular ones, and the picture was crystal clear. No problems noticed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 3D glasses easily fit over my regular ones , and the picture was crystal clear .
No problems noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 3D glasses easily fit over my regular ones, and the picture was crystal clear.
No problems noticed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30708078</id>
	<title>Re:Why care what MS thinks?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263060660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Not really, Nintendo have made money on every console they have released. At the moment they have a revenue stream from the Wii and the DS unrivalled by that of Sony or Microsoft. Even the GameCube made them money and that was received worse then the N64. Nintendo is quite happily making money, it will take quite a few years for them to sega-fy if, not I say if they manage to fail as badly.<br> <br>

It's also worth noting that Sony and Nintendo (as companies) are guaranteed by the Japanese government. This means the Japanese government will not let them fail. With Sony losing money hand over fist I think that the possibility they may be nationalised is real, this means the management of Sony becomes like the Management of INPEX which is subject to changes in Japanese politics. Granted changes in Japanese politics is nowhere near as radical as that in European politics (so imagine the difference between Japanese politics and US politics).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them .
Not really , Nintendo have made money on every console they have released .
At the moment they have a revenue stream from the Wii and the DS unrivalled by that of Sony or Microsoft .
Even the GameCube made them money and that was received worse then the N64 .
Nintendo is quite happily making money , it will take quite a few years for them to sega-fy if , not I say if they manage to fail as badly .
It 's also worth noting that Sony and Nintendo ( as companies ) are guaranteed by the Japanese government .
This means the Japanese government will not let them fail .
With Sony losing money hand over fist I think that the possibility they may be nationalised is real , this means the management of Sony becomes like the Management of INPEX which is subject to changes in Japanese politics .
Granted changes in Japanese politics is nowhere near as radical as that in European politics ( so imagine the difference between Japanese politics and US politics ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo survived this round but each round is a huge risk for them.
Not really, Nintendo have made money on every console they have released.
At the moment they have a revenue stream from the Wii and the DS unrivalled by that of Sony or Microsoft.
Even the GameCube made them money and that was received worse then the N64.
Nintendo is quite happily making money, it will take quite a few years for them to sega-fy if, not I say if they manage to fail as badly.
It's also worth noting that Sony and Nintendo (as companies) are guaranteed by the Japanese government.
This means the Japanese government will not let them fail.
With Sony losing money hand over fist I think that the possibility they may be nationalised is real, this means the management of Sony becomes like the Management of INPEX which is subject to changes in Japanese politics.
Granted changes in Japanese politics is nowhere near as radical as that in European politics (so imagine the difference between Japanese politics and US politics).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30757634</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>rtechie</author>
	<datestamp>1263383700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This hasn't really been demonstrated for home video. And even for movies, it's only the limited genre of "animated adventure movies" where the effects are (or will be) popular. Hard to build a format around that and porn.</p><p>More importantly, there is a broader issue of high-bandwidth formats and new formats. HD TVs have become very popular, despite the fact that PROPER HD content is pretty sparse. Most people are watching "HD" content that is highly compressed through cable, satellite, and internet. Blu-ray is fairly impressive, but hasn't seen anywhere near the adoption of crappy, low-quality downloads which have become the norm in movies and music.</p><p>I fail to see where a very expensive new format will succeed here. Everyone just bought HDTVs, they're just not going to buy 3D TVs unless the technology is so cheap they include it in all new HDTVs. Then you might see adoption.</p><p>The whole idea is a lot more compelling for home video game consoles. So if Panasonic, Toshiba, etc. throw a lot of Money and Microsoft and Sony commits with the PS4, this might also take off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has n't really been demonstrated for home video .
And even for movies , it 's only the limited genre of " animated adventure movies " where the effects are ( or will be ) popular .
Hard to build a format around that and porn.More importantly , there is a broader issue of high-bandwidth formats and new formats .
HD TVs have become very popular , despite the fact that PROPER HD content is pretty sparse .
Most people are watching " HD " content that is highly compressed through cable , satellite , and internet .
Blu-ray is fairly impressive , but has n't seen anywhere near the adoption of crappy , low-quality downloads which have become the norm in movies and music.I fail to see where a very expensive new format will succeed here .
Everyone just bought HDTVs , they 're just not going to buy 3D TVs unless the technology is so cheap they include it in all new HDTVs .
Then you might see adoption.The whole idea is a lot more compelling for home video game consoles .
So if Panasonic , Toshiba , etc .
throw a lot of Money and Microsoft and Sony commits with the PS4 , this might also take off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This hasn't really been demonstrated for home video.
And even for movies, it's only the limited genre of "animated adventure movies" where the effects are (or will be) popular.
Hard to build a format around that and porn.More importantly, there is a broader issue of high-bandwidth formats and new formats.
HD TVs have become very popular, despite the fact that PROPER HD content is pretty sparse.
Most people are watching "HD" content that is highly compressed through cable, satellite, and internet.
Blu-ray is fairly impressive, but hasn't seen anywhere near the adoption of crappy, low-quality downloads which have become the norm in movies and music.I fail to see where a very expensive new format will succeed here.
Everyone just bought HDTVs, they're just not going to buy 3D TVs unless the technology is so cheap they include it in all new HDTVs.
Then you might see adoption.The whole idea is a lot more compelling for home video game consoles.
So if Panasonic, Toshiba, etc.
throw a lot of Money and Microsoft and Sony commits with the PS4, this might also take off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700868</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262949000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>porn has neer pushed tech. Pornographers just grab any media type and put porn on it. People don't remember the failure, only success. SO in hindsight it appears as if they are a driving force in tech. They are not,and never have been.</p><p>Everymedia that has failed has ahd porn on it, every one that was a success , has porn on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>porn has neer pushed tech .
Pornographers just grab any media type and put porn on it .
People do n't remember the failure , only success .
SO in hindsight it appears as if they are a driving force in tech .
They are not,and never have been.Everymedia that has failed has ahd porn on it , every one that was a success , has porn on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>porn has neer pushed tech.
Pornographers just grab any media type and put porn on it.
People don't remember the failure, only success.
SO in hindsight it appears as if they are a driving force in tech.
They are not,and never have been.Everymedia that has failed has ahd porn on it, every one that was a success , has porn on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698594</id>
	<title>Flicker comes back</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1262982660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
We finally get a display technology with zero flicker, the LCD, and the 3D crowd has to put it back. Yuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We finally get a display technology with zero flicker , the LCD , and the 3D crowd has to put it back .
Yuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We finally get a display technology with zero flicker, the LCD, and the 3D crowd has to put it back.
Yuck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702048</id>
	<title>Re:meh.</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1262954520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who wants to wear headphones just to listen to music?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to wear headphones just to listen to music ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to wear headphones just to listen to music?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512</id>
	<title>Auto Stereoscopy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just doesn't work... It's headache inducing and problematic with multiple viewers and viewing angles.</p><p>Don't expect it anytime soon in a practical and usable form.</p><p>3D circularly polarized projectors are probably the best usable tech as the glasses are cheap.  However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just does n't work... It 's headache inducing and problematic with multiple viewers and viewing angles.Do n't expect it anytime soon in a practical and usable form.3D circularly polarized projectors are probably the best usable tech as the glasses are cheap .
However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just doesn't work... It's headache inducing and problematic with multiple viewers and viewing angles.Don't expect it anytime soon in a practical and usable form.3D circularly polarized projectors are probably the best usable tech as the glasses are cheap.
However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699402</id>
	<title>Why are they bothering with glassess???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw reviews for these guys' products 5 to 10 years ago that do NOT require glasses:  http://www.dti3d.com/</p><p>The reviewers were very impressed at how realistic it looked at the time.  If this has been around for years, why are all these major players wasting time with glasses? (cuz I know I won't buy anything 3d where I have to wear glasses)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw reviews for these guys ' products 5 to 10 years ago that do NOT require glasses : http : //www.dti3d.com/The reviewers were very impressed at how realistic it looked at the time .
If this has been around for years , why are all these major players wasting time with glasses ?
( cuz I know I wo n't buy anything 3d where I have to wear glasses )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw reviews for these guys' products 5 to 10 years ago that do NOT require glasses:  http://www.dti3d.com/The reviewers were very impressed at how realistic it looked at the time.
If this has been around for years, why are all these major players wasting time with glasses?
(cuz I know I won't buy anything 3d where I have to wear glasses)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698612</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1262982720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you polarize the image from a conventional LCD without significantly reducing contrast ratios and brightness during non 3D viewing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you polarize the image from a conventional LCD without significantly reducing contrast ratios and brightness during non 3D viewing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you polarize the image from a conventional LCD without significantly reducing contrast ratios and brightness during non 3D viewing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701158</id>
	<title>Re:3d tv never ubiquitous?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262950260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one is saying everything in 3d. But something, occasionally will benefit. And sports would defiantly benefit.</p><p>Like any medium, once the people that make TV's get a hold of it, they will discover some interesting things and gags to do with it.</p><p>Yes, most 3f had been gimmick shots..until this year. Avatar didn't use 3d to tos things at you. He used is as part of the story telling. It made the movie fuller. The story was cliche', the dialog was ok. Is was completely engrossed in the movie, both times I saw it. It completely sucked me in.</p><p>Porn..I am not looking forward to porn. 1080P is bad enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is saying everything in 3d .
But something , occasionally will benefit .
And sports would defiantly benefit.Like any medium , once the people that make TV 's get a hold of it , they will discover some interesting things and gags to do with it.Yes , most 3f had been gimmick shots..until this year .
Avatar did n't use 3d to tos things at you .
He used is as part of the story telling .
It made the movie fuller .
The story was cliche ' , the dialog was ok. Is was completely engrossed in the movie , both times I saw it .
It completely sucked me in.Porn..I am not looking forward to porn .
1080P is bad enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is saying everything in 3d.
But something, occasionally will benefit.
And sports would defiantly benefit.Like any medium, once the people that make TV's get a hold of it, they will discover some interesting things and gags to do with it.Yes, most 3f had been gimmick shots..until this year.
Avatar didn't use 3d to tos things at you.
He used is as part of the story telling.
It made the movie fuller.
The story was cliche', the dialog was ok. Is was completely engrossed in the movie, both times I saw it.
It completely sucked me in.Porn..I am not looking forward to porn.
1080P is bad enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30710120</id>
	<title>3D Icon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263036360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at 3D Icon (www.3dicon.net) to see the future of 3D...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at 3D Icon ( www.3dicon.net ) to see the future of 3D.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at 3D Icon (www.3dicon.net) to see the future of 3D...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699932</id>
	<title>Re:3d tv never ubiquitous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1262944740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I notice 3d mostly being used for is "gimmick shots" in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you. I've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent, ever-present visual benefit.</p></div><p>I agreed with this statement until Avatar 3D. No cheesy stuff-jumping-out-at-you shots, just a pervasive feel of greater depth. It's come a long way since Friday the 13th III.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I notice 3d mostly being used for is " gimmick shots " in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you .
I 've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent , ever-present visual benefit.I agreed with this statement until Avatar 3D .
No cheesy stuff-jumping-out-at-you shots , just a pervasive feel of greater depth .
It 's come a long way since Friday the 13th III .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I notice 3d mostly being used for is "gimmick shots" in movies where some object deliberately leaps out at you.
I've never seen a movie where 3d offered some consistent, ever-present visual benefit.I agreed with this statement until Avatar 3D.
No cheesy stuff-jumping-out-at-you shots, just a pervasive feel of greater depth.
It's come a long way since Friday the 13th III.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698862</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1262983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the Camera systems being used work similar to the eye, they have to focus on a specific part of the image.  When you try to look at an area that is out of focus, your eyes make a futile attempt to focus the image which ends in a headache and nausea.</p><p>Basically, focus on the part of the image that's in focus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the Camera systems being used work similar to the eye , they have to focus on a specific part of the image .
When you try to look at an area that is out of focus , your eyes make a futile attempt to focus the image which ends in a headache and nausea.Basically , focus on the part of the image that 's in focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the Camera systems being used work similar to the eye, they have to focus on a specific part of the image.
When you try to look at an area that is out of focus, your eyes make a futile attempt to focus the image which ends in a headache and nausea.Basically, focus on the part of the image that's in focus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701232</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>bmacs27</author>
	<datestamp>1262950560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's because you would be introducing a greater conflict between what the lens of your eye is telling you, and what disparity and other depth cues are telling you as to the depth of objects in the scene.  Such a conflict is generally what introduces headache, a poor 3d experience, etc.  When we do experiments with 3d in my lab, we are very careful to make sure that most of the objects are relatively near the imaged plane such that you can't detect the incorrect image blur, or the depth cue conflict introduced by the accommodation of the lens of your eye.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because you would be introducing a greater conflict between what the lens of your eye is telling you , and what disparity and other depth cues are telling you as to the depth of objects in the scene .
Such a conflict is generally what introduces headache , a poor 3d experience , etc .
When we do experiments with 3d in my lab , we are very careful to make sure that most of the objects are relatively near the imaged plane such that you ca n't detect the incorrect image blur , or the depth cue conflict introduced by the accommodation of the lens of your eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because you would be introducing a greater conflict between what the lens of your eye is telling you, and what disparity and other depth cues are telling you as to the depth of objects in the scene.
Such a conflict is generally what introduces headache, a poor 3d experience, etc.
When we do experiments with 3d in my lab, we are very careful to make sure that most of the objects are relatively near the imaged plane such that you can't detect the incorrect image blur, or the depth cue conflict introduced by the accommodation of the lens of your eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698724</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We left Avatar after 45 minutes. I wear glasses, so the extra glasses sat too far away from my eyes making focusing on the film quite hard. Wearing two pairs of glasses isn't exactly comfortable either. The reason we left though, was because my girlfriend (who wears glasses as well) got nauseous and had to throw up.</p><p>I won't be seeing films in this pseudo-3D in the cinemas any more any time soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We left Avatar after 45 minutes .
I wear glasses , so the extra glasses sat too far away from my eyes making focusing on the film quite hard .
Wearing two pairs of glasses is n't exactly comfortable either .
The reason we left though , was because my girlfriend ( who wears glasses as well ) got nauseous and had to throw up.I wo n't be seeing films in this pseudo-3D in the cinemas any more any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We left Avatar after 45 minutes.
I wear glasses, so the extra glasses sat too far away from my eyes making focusing on the film quite hard.
Wearing two pairs of glasses isn't exactly comfortable either.
The reason we left though, was because my girlfriend (who wears glasses as well) got nauseous and had to throw up.I won't be seeing films in this pseudo-3D in the cinemas any more any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698908</id>
	<title>Because refresh is cheaper than resolution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA: Some TVs come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in, but again, in some cases you'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately.<blockquote><div><p>What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't?</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Suppose your goal is to display 1920x1080x120Hz in 3D.
</p><p>
There actually <a href="http://www.berezin.com/3D/3ddisplay.htm" title="berezin.com" rel="nofollow">exist</a> [berezin.com] 3D LCD displays that use passive (polarized glasses) hardware, but they also appear to use software to do row/column-sequential content, that is, to change the polarization of each row (or column) of pixels as it's displayed.
</p><p>
It's hard/impossible to make an LCD panel switch the polarity of <em>every</em> line simultaneously.  The backlight isn't polarized, only the little pixels in front of the backlight are polarized.  So line-sequential polarization (on an LCD display, each row is rendered simultaneously, unlike CRTs with a scanning beam) enables you to use passive glasses, but effectively cuts the vertical resolution of the panel in half.
</p><p>
The easier alternative to line-sequential polarization is field-sequential polarization, in which you cut the refresh rate of the panel in half.  Compared to building a panel that can do 1920x2160p at 120Hz (and line-sequential polarization and cheap passive glasses), it's far cheaper to produce a 1920x1080p panel (which have been in production for some time now) and drive it at 240Hz (which is new).  If the a 1920x1080x240Hz panel is more than $100 cheaper than a 1920x2160x120Hz one, you still come out ahead even if the LCD-shutter glasses cost $100.
</p><p>
That's my hunch.
</p><p>
It's also probably easier for cross-compatibility to have 3D content in field sequential format, too.  Displaying a 3D Blu-Ray on a non-3D set?  Very easy to have the player discard alternating fields and send only one eye's view at 120Hz.  Probably not so easy (given the nature of video compression) to discard alternating <em>lines</em> of content on a 1080p screen.
Going the other way works too -- no mucking about with line doublers when displaying 2D content at 1920x1080 on our imaginary 1920x2160p alternating-line-polarizing screen.
</p><p>
Finally, retrofitting.  An external transmitter that plugged into the video cable / video card would be pretty easy to build for $5-10 in additional parts, and if it lets me use my 1920x1080x120Hz set to play games in 3D at 1920x1080x60Hz, that might be worth $120 for glasses and an external IR transmitter to control them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA : Some TVs come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in , but again , in some cases you 'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately.What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses would n't ?
Suppose your goal is to display 1920x1080x120Hz in 3D .
There actually exist [ berezin.com ] 3D LCD displays that use passive ( polarized glasses ) hardware , but they also appear to use software to do row/column-sequential content , that is , to change the polarization of each row ( or column ) of pixels as it 's displayed .
It 's hard/impossible to make an LCD panel switch the polarity of every line simultaneously .
The backlight is n't polarized , only the little pixels in front of the backlight are polarized .
So line-sequential polarization ( on an LCD display , each row is rendered simultaneously , unlike CRTs with a scanning beam ) enables you to use passive glasses , but effectively cuts the vertical resolution of the panel in half .
The easier alternative to line-sequential polarization is field-sequential polarization , in which you cut the refresh rate of the panel in half .
Compared to building a panel that can do 1920x2160p at 120Hz ( and line-sequential polarization and cheap passive glasses ) , it 's far cheaper to produce a 1920x1080p panel ( which have been in production for some time now ) and drive it at 240Hz ( which is new ) .
If the a 1920x1080x240Hz panel is more than $ 100 cheaper than a 1920x2160x120Hz one , you still come out ahead even if the LCD-shutter glasses cost $ 100 .
That 's my hunch .
It 's also probably easier for cross-compatibility to have 3D content in field sequential format , too .
Displaying a 3D Blu-Ray on a non-3D set ?
Very easy to have the player discard alternating fields and send only one eye 's view at 120Hz .
Probably not so easy ( given the nature of video compression ) to discard alternating lines of content on a 1080p screen .
Going the other way works too -- no mucking about with line doublers when displaying 2D content at 1920x1080 on our imaginary 1920x2160p alternating-line-polarizing screen .
Finally , retrofitting .
An external transmitter that plugged into the video cable / video card would be pretty easy to build for $ 5-10 in additional parts , and if it lets me use my 1920x1080x120Hz set to play games in 3D at 1920x1080x60Hz , that might be worth $ 120 for glasses and an external IR transmitter to control them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA: Some TVs come with the glasses and have the transmitter built in, but again, in some cases you'll need to buy the transmitter and glasses separately.What do active glasses give you that polarity glasses wouldn't?
Suppose your goal is to display 1920x1080x120Hz in 3D.
There actually exist [berezin.com] 3D LCD displays that use passive (polarized glasses) hardware, but they also appear to use software to do row/column-sequential content, that is, to change the polarization of each row (or column) of pixels as it's displayed.
It's hard/impossible to make an LCD panel switch the polarity of every line simultaneously.
The backlight isn't polarized, only the little pixels in front of the backlight are polarized.
So line-sequential polarization (on an LCD display, each row is rendered simultaneously, unlike CRTs with a scanning beam) enables you to use passive glasses, but effectively cuts the vertical resolution of the panel in half.
The easier alternative to line-sequential polarization is field-sequential polarization, in which you cut the refresh rate of the panel in half.
Compared to building a panel that can do 1920x2160p at 120Hz (and line-sequential polarization and cheap passive glasses), it's far cheaper to produce a 1920x1080p panel (which have been in production for some time now) and drive it at 240Hz (which is new).
If the a 1920x1080x240Hz panel is more than $100 cheaper than a 1920x2160x120Hz one, you still come out ahead even if the LCD-shutter glasses cost $100.
That's my hunch.
It's also probably easier for cross-compatibility to have 3D content in field sequential format, too.
Displaying a 3D Blu-Ray on a non-3D set?
Very easy to have the player discard alternating fields and send only one eye's view at 120Hz.
Probably not so easy (given the nature of video compression) to discard alternating lines of content on a 1080p screen.
Going the other way works too -- no mucking about with line doublers when displaying 2D content at 1920x1080 on our imaginary 1920x2160p alternating-line-polarizing screen.
Finally, retrofitting.
An external transmitter that plugged into the video cable / video card would be pretty easy to build for $5-10 in additional parts, and if it lets me use my 1920x1080x120Hz set to play games in 3D at 1920x1080x60Hz, that might be worth $120 for glasses and an external IR transmitter to control them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701436</id>
	<title>Exotic</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1262951700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frankly, I don't think 3D TV will catch on until we get decent systems that work without glasses.  Until then, I anticipate that it'll be more of a novelty for enthusiasts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I do n't think 3D TV will catch on until we get decent systems that work without glasses .
Until then , I anticipate that it 'll be more of a novelty for enthusiasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I don't think 3D TV will catch on until we get decent systems that work without glasses.
Until then, I anticipate that it'll be more of a novelty for enthusiasts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701322</id>
	<title>Re:meh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262950980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?</p><p>This whole 3D video thing smacks of a industry money grab disguised as a fad...</p></div><p>Now you've done it... expect a new line of eyeglasses and contact lenses that come pre-polarized....</p><p>(actually, that'd be a good idea; then I could actually see this "3D" stuff)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV ? This whole 3D video thing smacks of a industry money grab disguised as a fad...Now you 've done it... expect a new line of eyeglasses and contact lenses that come pre-polarized.... ( actually , that 'd be a good idea ; then I could actually see this " 3D " stuff )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to wear an extra pair of glasses just to watch TV?This whole 3D video thing smacks of a industry money grab disguised as a fad...Now you've done it... expect a new line of eyeglasses and contact lenses that come pre-polarized....(actually, that'd be a good idea; then I could actually see this "3D" stuff)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702790</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>eggnoglatte</author>
	<datestamp>1262958540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two words: motion sickness.</p><p>Head mounted displays (which is what you are proposing) are notorious for inducing sickness, since the image does not move in a natural way with your head movements. This pretty much kills it.</p><p>But I agree that the whole 3D hype is completely overblown. I just don't see me putting on stereo glasses in my living room, so that I can see a completely over the top parallax which makes everything look like miniatures (and a lot of people get sick from that, too - just not as many as with HMDs).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : motion sickness.Head mounted displays ( which is what you are proposing ) are notorious for inducing sickness , since the image does not move in a natural way with your head movements .
This pretty much kills it.But I agree that the whole 3D hype is completely overblown .
I just do n't see me putting on stereo glasses in my living room , so that I can see a completely over the top parallax which makes everything look like miniatures ( and a lot of people get sick from that , too - just not as many as with HMDs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words: motion sickness.Head mounted displays (which is what you are proposing) are notorious for inducing sickness, since the image does not move in a natural way with your head movements.
This pretty much kills it.But I agree that the whole 3D hype is completely overblown.
I just don't see me putting on stereo glasses in my living room, so that I can see a completely over the top parallax which makes everything look like miniatures (and a lot of people get sick from that, too - just not as many as with HMDs).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700316</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1262946360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was having difficulty for the first 10 minutes as well.  But either my eyes got used to it or it may have been because I started analyzing the 3d itself.  Trying to figure out how the 3d worked, what my eyes were seeing so I wasnt looking at the focal point anymore, but being forced to look at a given focal point was distracting throughout the movie. I think it may be because with ADD my eyes are constantly scanning the whole of the screen so until my caffinated drink sank in I was weirded out by the movie.  I ended up enjoying it though once I settled in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was having difficulty for the first 10 minutes as well .
But either my eyes got used to it or it may have been because I started analyzing the 3d itself .
Trying to figure out how the 3d worked , what my eyes were seeing so I wasnt looking at the focal point anymore , but being forced to look at a given focal point was distracting throughout the movie .
I think it may be because with ADD my eyes are constantly scanning the whole of the screen so until my caffinated drink sank in I was weirded out by the movie .
I ended up enjoying it though once I settled in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was having difficulty for the first 10 minutes as well.
But either my eyes got used to it or it may have been because I started analyzing the 3d itself.
Trying to figure out how the 3d worked, what my eyes were seeing so I wasnt looking at the focal point anymore, but being forced to look at a given focal point was distracting throughout the movie.
I think it may be because with ADD my eyes are constantly scanning the whole of the screen so until my caffinated drink sank in I was weirded out by the movie.
I ended up enjoying it though once I settled in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703978</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1262967000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current generation use a rotating circular polarisation, not just plain horz / vert like your sun glasses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current generation use a rotating circular polarisation , not just plain horz / vert like your sun glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current generation use a rotating circular polarisation, not just plain horz / vert like your sun glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700680</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262948100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>porn on a 3d TV?  DUCK!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>porn on a 3d TV ?
DUCK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>porn on a 3d TV?
DUCK!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699376</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First off, it doesn't just steal money from the consumer, it steals money from the consumer and gives it to the person making this decision. At least as importantly, though, any TV with a refresh rate of at least 50 can do 3D with active glasses (at least theoretically). To do 3D with polarization you need a TV that can polarize in two directions. More TVs can do the former then the latter and (unless it's an LED display) the former is easier/cheaper to implement on TV's that can't already do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , it does n't just steal money from the consumer , it steals money from the consumer and gives it to the person making this decision .
At least as importantly , though , any TV with a refresh rate of at least 50 can do 3D with active glasses ( at least theoretically ) .
To do 3D with polarization you need a TV that can polarize in two directions .
More TVs can do the former then the latter and ( unless it 's an LED display ) the former is easier/cheaper to implement on TV 's that ca n't already do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, it doesn't just steal money from the consumer, it steals money from the consumer and gives it to the person making this decision.
At least as importantly, though, any TV with a refresh rate of at least 50 can do 3D with active glasses (at least theoretically).
To do 3D with polarization you need a TV that can polarize in two directions.
More TVs can do the former then the latter and (unless it's an LED display) the former is easier/cheaper to implement on TV's that can't already do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701522</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1262952060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm, did you watch Avatar?  Nothing "jumped out at you" and it wasn't blurry.  Maybe you had a bad showing.  The purpose of the 3D in Avatar was immersion, not to have things jumping out at you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , did you watch Avatar ?
Nothing " jumped out at you " and it was n't blurry .
Maybe you had a bad showing .
The purpose of the 3D in Avatar was immersion , not to have things jumping out at you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, did you watch Avatar?
Nothing "jumped out at you" and it wasn't blurry.
Maybe you had a bad showing.
The purpose of the 3D in Avatar was immersion, not to have things jumping out at you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700292</id>
	<title>Re:Auto Stereoscopy...</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1262946240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's LCD.   The polarization comes free.  There shouldn't be any reason for active glasses, just power the back polarizer.</p><p>Sure it's not circular polarization, but frankly, I haven't actually seen circularly polarized films either.  Linear is perfectly adequate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's LCD .
The polarization comes free .
There should n't be any reason for active glasses , just power the back polarizer.Sure it 's not circular polarization , but frankly , I have n't actually seen circularly polarized films either .
Linear is perfectly adequate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's LCD.
The polarization comes free.
There shouldn't be any reason for active glasses, just power the back polarizer.Sure it's not circular polarization, but frankly, I haven't actually seen circularly polarized films either.
Linear is perfectly adequate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699612</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>kbielefe</author>
	<datestamp>1262943540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Real cameras have real focal distances</p></div><p>Yes, but virtual cameras don't, and even real cameras have a fair bit of control over depth of field.  In my opinion 3D movies should be rendered with as large a depth of field as possible, because the viewer's eyes narrow it automatically.  Tight compositions are enough to remove distractions.  Even though I know about the trick of looking where the camera is focused, and am therefore able to watch pain free, it breaks the fourth wall for me every time I have to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real cameras have real focal distancesYes , but virtual cameras do n't , and even real cameras have a fair bit of control over depth of field .
In my opinion 3D movies should be rendered with as large a depth of field as possible , because the viewer 's eyes narrow it automatically .
Tight compositions are enough to remove distractions .
Even though I know about the trick of looking where the camera is focused , and am therefore able to watch pain free , it breaks the fourth wall for me every time I have to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real cameras have real focal distancesYes, but virtual cameras don't, and even real cameras have a fair bit of control over depth of field.
In my opinion 3D movies should be rendered with as large a depth of field as possible, because the viewer's eyes narrow it automatically.
Tight compositions are enough to remove distractions.
Even though I know about the trick of looking where the camera is focused, and am therefore able to watch pain free, it breaks the fourth wall for me every time I have to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699042</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1262984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my screening of IMAX Avatar 3D nobody in the vicinity of about 20 people walked out. None of my friends who watched it walked out as well.</p><p>My sampling is biased though. Many of my friends are structural biologists like myself who used to watch stereoscopic pictures of protein structures and though stereoscopic is very different method, it still trains your eyes out of usual correlation between focus and eyes' angle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my screening of IMAX Avatar 3D nobody in the vicinity of about 20 people walked out .
None of my friends who watched it walked out as well.My sampling is biased though .
Many of my friends are structural biologists like myself who used to watch stereoscopic pictures of protein structures and though stereoscopic is very different method , it still trains your eyes out of usual correlation between focus and eyes ' angle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my screening of IMAX Avatar 3D nobody in the vicinity of about 20 people walked out.
None of my friends who watched it walked out as well.My sampling is biased though.
Many of my friends are structural biologists like myself who used to watch stereoscopic pictures of protein structures and though stereoscopic is very different method, it still trains your eyes out of usual correlation between focus and eyes' angle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700992</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262949600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  IMO, 3d was the only worthwhile thing about Avatar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
IMO , 3d was the only worthwhile thing about Avatar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
IMO, 3d was the only worthwhile thing about Avatar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>bobdehnhardt</author>
	<datestamp>1262983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Active glasses are old tech. I saw them demoed about 14 years ago - worked okay, a little distracting. But it wasn't at CES, it was Comdex. Well, okay, it was actually Adultdex, an "adult industry" tech/trade show that occurred at the Sahara during Comdex.</p><p>Pron really pushed the tech envelope back then....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Active glasses are old tech .
I saw them demoed about 14 years ago - worked okay , a little distracting .
But it was n't at CES , it was Comdex .
Well , okay , it was actually Adultdex , an " adult industry " tech/trade show that occurred at the Sahara during Comdex.Pron really pushed the tech envelope back then... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Active glasses are old tech.
I saw them demoed about 14 years ago - worked okay, a little distracting.
But it wasn't at CES, it was Comdex.
Well, okay, it was actually Adultdex, an "adult industry" tech/trade show that occurred at the Sahara during Comdex.Pron really pushed the tech envelope back then....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698824</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262983620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I know the technology is getting better, but the 3D in Avatar was just good enough to not be a distraction from the movie- it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Your tastes are not universal. Considerable experience has demonstrated that a commercially-significant number of people do find that 3D adds to the entertainment value of various forms of visual entertainment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the technology is getting better , but the 3D in Avatar was just good enough to not be a distraction from the movie- it certainly did n't add anything to it , besides $ 5 for the ticket .
Your tastes are not universal .
Considerable experience has demonstrated that a commercially-significant number of people do find that 3D adds to the entertainment value of various forms of visual entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I know the technology is getting better, but the 3D in Avatar was just good enough to not be a distraction from the movie- it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket.
Your tastes are not universal.
Considerable experience has demonstrated that a commercially-significant number of people do find that 3D adds to the entertainment value of various forms of visual entertainment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701196</id>
	<title>Re:3D has no appeal to me or many I know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262950440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife &amp; I watched all of Avatar in 3D, and neither of us had any problems whatsoever (except, of course, for the lame story line).  We were quite impressed with the tech, as it's a hugely noticeable improvement over the old red &amp; blue glasses of the past.  I suspect if you're watching a sufficiently high-quality feed on decent equipment, you might not have so much trouble.  That being said, neither of us wear regular glasses or contacts, so sight impairment could be an inhibitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife &amp; I watched all of Avatar in 3D , and neither of us had any problems whatsoever ( except , of course , for the lame story line ) .
We were quite impressed with the tech , as it 's a hugely noticeable improvement over the old red &amp; blue glasses of the past .
I suspect if you 're watching a sufficiently high-quality feed on decent equipment , you might not have so much trouble .
That being said , neither of us wear regular glasses or contacts , so sight impairment could be an inhibitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife &amp; I watched all of Avatar in 3D, and neither of us had any problems whatsoever (except, of course, for the lame story line).
We were quite impressed with the tech, as it's a hugely noticeable improvement over the old red &amp; blue glasses of the past.
I suspect if you're watching a sufficiently high-quality feed on decent equipment, you might not have so much trouble.
That being said, neither of us wear regular glasses or contacts, so sight impairment could be an inhibitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704112</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1262967960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sega sold them domestically (US) in 1988 for the Master System.  That's 22 years ago now, at mass market, for 50 bucks.</p><p><a href="http://everything2.com/title/SegaScope+3D+Glasses" title="everything2.com">http://everything2.com/title/SegaScope+3D+Glasses</a> [everything2.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sega sold them domestically ( US ) in 1988 for the Master System .
That 's 22 years ago now , at mass market , for 50 bucks.http : //everything2.com/title/SegaScope + 3D + Glasses [ everything2.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sega sold them domestically (US) in 1988 for the Master System.
That's 22 years ago now, at mass market, for 50 bucks.http://everything2.com/title/SegaScope+3D+Glasses [everything2.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701274</id>
	<title>Re:Flicker comes back</title>
	<author>ShawnDoc</author>
	<datestamp>1262950740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was at CES yesterday and sat through the presentation by Panasonic.  There technology works using those expensive "active" 3D display glasses.  For those that don't know, basically they alternate flashing each eye an image on the screen.

They kept hyping up how awesome it would be to watch football in 3D, and showed use a 3D video of a football game.  It was kinda neat, but anything that was moving fast (Such as arms/legs after the ball was snapped) turned into a flashing semitransparent mess.  I'm assuming this is because they are alternative which eye is seeing the picture, and in the time it takes to switch eyes, fast moving objects have changed position.

And for systems that are smart enough to show images to both eyes at the same time, I'm curious how they will handle motion blur.  That has always seemed to be a problem with 3D displays, as the eye wants to get the moving object in focus, however since the source is blurred they can't, which leads to eye strain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was at CES yesterday and sat through the presentation by Panasonic .
There technology works using those expensive " active " 3D display glasses .
For those that do n't know , basically they alternate flashing each eye an image on the screen .
They kept hyping up how awesome it would be to watch football in 3D , and showed use a 3D video of a football game .
It was kinda neat , but anything that was moving fast ( Such as arms/legs after the ball was snapped ) turned into a flashing semitransparent mess .
I 'm assuming this is because they are alternative which eye is seeing the picture , and in the time it takes to switch eyes , fast moving objects have changed position .
And for systems that are smart enough to show images to both eyes at the same time , I 'm curious how they will handle motion blur .
That has always seemed to be a problem with 3D displays , as the eye wants to get the moving object in focus , however since the source is blurred they ca n't , which leads to eye strain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was at CES yesterday and sat through the presentation by Panasonic.
There technology works using those expensive "active" 3D display glasses.
For those that don't know, basically they alternate flashing each eye an image on the screen.
They kept hyping up how awesome it would be to watch football in 3D, and showed use a 3D video of a football game.
It was kinda neat, but anything that was moving fast (Such as arms/legs after the ball was snapped) turned into a flashing semitransparent mess.
I'm assuming this is because they are alternative which eye is seeing the picture, and in the time it takes to switch eyes, fast moving objects have changed position.
And for systems that are smart enough to show images to both eyes at the same time, I'm curious how they will handle motion blur.
That has always seemed to be a problem with 3D displays, as the eye wants to get the moving object in focus, however since the source is blurred they can't, which leads to eye strain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698762</id>
	<title>not like HD adoption</title>
	<author>kirkb</author>
	<datestamp>1262983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In response to concerns that there's very little consumer need/demand for 3D TV, many proponents try to draw parallels to HDTV's slow adoption: that we just need to shove it out into the marketplace in order to attract enough early content and viewers to create the critical mass necessary for widespread acceptance.  But I think that's an unfair comparison.  HDTV was an "easy sell" to consumers:  big screens + sharp picture.  The slow adaption was mostly due to provider, network, and regulatory BS.  3D TV probably won't be hindered (much) in those areas.  It'll be convincing people that they want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In response to concerns that there 's very little consumer need/demand for 3D TV , many proponents try to draw parallels to HDTV 's slow adoption : that we just need to shove it out into the marketplace in order to attract enough early content and viewers to create the critical mass necessary for widespread acceptance .
But I think that 's an unfair comparison .
HDTV was an " easy sell " to consumers : big screens + sharp picture .
The slow adaption was mostly due to provider , network , and regulatory BS .
3D TV probably wo n't be hindered ( much ) in those areas .
It 'll be convincing people that they want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response to concerns that there's very little consumer need/demand for 3D TV, many proponents try to draw parallels to HDTV's slow adoption: that we just need to shove it out into the marketplace in order to attract enough early content and viewers to create the critical mass necessary for widespread acceptance.
But I think that's an unfair comparison.
HDTV was an "easy sell" to consumers:  big screens + sharp picture.
The slow adaption was mostly due to provider, network, and regulatory BS.
3D TV probably won't be hindered (much) in those areas.
It'll be convincing people that they want it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>Brandee07</author>
	<datestamp>1262982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't see the benefit in 3D TV. I know the technology is getting better, but the 3D in Avatar was just good enough to not be a distraction from the movie- it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket. The point is that for most of the movie, I did not perceive anything different than a normal movie, and those moments when I did were distracting and jarring. I have seen a couple imax movies in 3D and I think I tend to mentally flatten the images- except for the parts where the snake jumps out at you, which is just distracting and cheesy.</p><p>So, if I'm going to be mentally flattening the images anyway, why bother?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't see the benefit in 3D TV .
I know the technology is getting better , but the 3D in Avatar was just good enough to not be a distraction from the movie- it certainly did n't add anything to it , besides $ 5 for the ticket .
The point is that for most of the movie , I did not perceive anything different than a normal movie , and those moments when I did were distracting and jarring .
I have seen a couple imax movies in 3D and I think I tend to mentally flatten the images- except for the parts where the snake jumps out at you , which is just distracting and cheesy.So , if I 'm going to be mentally flattening the images anyway , why bother ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't see the benefit in 3D TV.
I know the technology is getting better, but the 3D in Avatar was just good enough to not be a distraction from the movie- it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket.
The point is that for most of the movie, I did not perceive anything different than a normal movie, and those moments when I did were distracting and jarring.
I have seen a couple imax movies in 3D and I think I tend to mentally flatten the images- except for the parts where the snake jumps out at you, which is just distracting and cheesy.So, if I'm going to be mentally flattening the images anyway, why bother?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698776</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>WeatherServo9</author>
	<datestamp>1262983440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Active glasses are typically better at reducing "ghosting" which occurs when each eye receives some information from the other eyes frame that should really be blocked. The glasses themselves are cheaper in a polarized system for sure, but I wonder how would the overall cost of everything would compare; is creating a tv capable of polarizing the image appropriately vs. just a regular screen with fast enough refresh rate and active glasses similar in cost?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Active glasses are typically better at reducing " ghosting " which occurs when each eye receives some information from the other eyes frame that should really be blocked .
The glasses themselves are cheaper in a polarized system for sure , but I wonder how would the overall cost of everything would compare ; is creating a tv capable of polarizing the image appropriately vs. just a regular screen with fast enough refresh rate and active glasses similar in cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Active glasses are typically better at reducing "ghosting" which occurs when each eye receives some information from the other eyes frame that should really be blocked.
The glasses themselves are cheaper in a polarized system for sure, but I wonder how would the overall cost of everything would compare; is creating a tv capable of polarizing the image appropriately vs. just a regular screen with fast enough refresh rate and active glasses similar in cost?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700494</id>
	<title>Re:Sony rescinding "NIH" attitude with 3DTVs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262947320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not going to happen.  People are going to resist this like mad.  "New TV?  I just bought a new HDTV, and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive?  Yeah, go fuck yourselves."</p></div><p>Most households I know bought an hdtv within the past 10 years, and about 10 years prior, they bought a big (30"+) tv in the 90s, and about 10 years prior they bought a tv that had a tuner to handle all the cable channels, didn't take 3 minutes to warm up etc. etc.  Guess what Sony et. al. wants everyone to buy within the next 10 years?  Just wait till the Joneses down the street get one...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not going to happen .
People are going to resist this like mad .
" New TV ?
I just bought a new HDTV , and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive ?
Yeah , go fuck yourselves .
" Most households I know bought an hdtv within the past 10 years , and about 10 years prior , they bought a big ( 30 " + ) tv in the 90s , and about 10 years prior they bought a tv that had a tuner to handle all the cable channels , did n't take 3 minutes to warm up etc .
etc. Guess what Sony et .
al. wants everyone to buy within the next 10 years ?
Just wait till the Joneses down the street get one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not going to happen.
People are going to resist this like mad.
"New TV?
I just bought a new HDTV, and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive?
Yeah, go fuck yourselves.
"Most households I know bought an hdtv within the past 10 years, and about 10 years prior, they bought a big (30"+) tv in the 90s, and about 10 years prior they bought a tv that had a tuner to handle all the cable channels, didn't take 3 minutes to warm up etc.
etc.  Guess what Sony et.
al. wants everyone to buy within the next 10 years?
Just wait till the Joneses down the street get one...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702034</id>
	<title>Greatest thing never</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262954460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D televisions are the greatest thing I never wanted, ever.  Mark my words that this will be the biggest technology flop of the decade.  I know we're only 8 days into said decade, but 3D is just too expensive, has too many barriers, and the content just isn't that cool.</p><p>Nobody is going to buy a 3D TV, a bunch of expensive glasses, and whatever else they will need and then invite all their buddies over to watch a football game (well, someone might, but not very many people).  You'll see these TVs pushed strong this year and maybe next year after that.  If they survive at all they will become a selling point along with all the other logos down at the bottom and people will say "oh that's nice" and never buy the equipment or content necessary.  They will only survive if they are not significantly more expensive than the TV you were going to buy anyway.</p><p>The Discovery/IMAX 24.7 3D content network is kinda cool, but won't be enough to get people to pay extra to buy these TVs.  And of course, it almost goes without saying, nobody is going to want to wear the big stupid glasses or buy them in the first place (because they'll be damn expensive).  You can't lay down and watch a movie, your viewing angle sucks, and all this pain and extra cost for 3D that isn't even that 3D.</p><p>Call me when we have hologram projectors and we'll talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D televisions are the greatest thing I never wanted , ever .
Mark my words that this will be the biggest technology flop of the decade .
I know we 're only 8 days into said decade , but 3D is just too expensive , has too many barriers , and the content just is n't that cool.Nobody is going to buy a 3D TV , a bunch of expensive glasses , and whatever else they will need and then invite all their buddies over to watch a football game ( well , someone might , but not very many people ) .
You 'll see these TVs pushed strong this year and maybe next year after that .
If they survive at all they will become a selling point along with all the other logos down at the bottom and people will say " oh that 's nice " and never buy the equipment or content necessary .
They will only survive if they are not significantly more expensive than the TV you were going to buy anyway.The Discovery/IMAX 24.7 3D content network is kinda cool , but wo n't be enough to get people to pay extra to buy these TVs .
And of course , it almost goes without saying , nobody is going to want to wear the big stupid glasses or buy them in the first place ( because they 'll be damn expensive ) .
You ca n't lay down and watch a movie , your viewing angle sucks , and all this pain and extra cost for 3D that is n't even that 3D.Call me when we have hologram projectors and we 'll talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D televisions are the greatest thing I never wanted, ever.
Mark my words that this will be the biggest technology flop of the decade.
I know we're only 8 days into said decade, but 3D is just too expensive, has too many barriers, and the content just isn't that cool.Nobody is going to buy a 3D TV, a bunch of expensive glasses, and whatever else they will need and then invite all their buddies over to watch a football game (well, someone might, but not very many people).
You'll see these TVs pushed strong this year and maybe next year after that.
If they survive at all they will become a selling point along with all the other logos down at the bottom and people will say "oh that's nice" and never buy the equipment or content necessary.
They will only survive if they are not significantly more expensive than the TV you were going to buy anyway.The Discovery/IMAX 24.7 3D content network is kinda cool, but won't be enough to get people to pay extra to buy these TVs.
And of course, it almost goes without saying, nobody is going to want to wear the big stupid glasses or buy them in the first place (because they'll be damn expensive).
You can't lay down and watch a movie, your viewing angle sucks, and all this pain and extra cost for 3D that isn't even that 3D.Call me when we have hologram projectors and we'll talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700400</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1262946780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The image is already polarized.  That's how LCD works. It's a sandwich of polarizing filters, applying voltage can cause them to align or align perpendicular.  The naive way to do things would be to power the rear filter (and invert the pixel signal every other frame).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The image is already polarized .
That 's how LCD works .
It 's a sandwich of polarizing filters , applying voltage can cause them to align or align perpendicular .
The naive way to do things would be to power the rear filter ( and invert the pixel signal every other frame ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The image is already polarized.
That's how LCD works.
It's a sandwich of polarizing filters, applying voltage can cause them to align or align perpendicular.
The naive way to do things would be to power the rear filter (and invert the pixel signal every other frame).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698680</id>
	<title>3D just doesn't excite me</title>
	<author>shadowrat</author>
	<datestamp>1262983020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought Avatar looked great. I thought the use of 3D really enhanced the experience. I wouldn't want to have to put on stupid glasses every time i want to watch something though.
<br> <br>
Glasses are something you can lose, or break, or not have enough of for everyone in the room. Meh. It sounds like too much work. I just want to plunk down in front of the boob tube and veg out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Avatar looked great .
I thought the use of 3D really enhanced the experience .
I would n't want to have to put on stupid glasses every time i want to watch something though .
Glasses are something you can lose , or break , or not have enough of for everyone in the room .
Meh. It sounds like too much work .
I just want to plunk down in front of the boob tube and veg out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Avatar looked great.
I thought the use of 3D really enhanced the experience.
I wouldn't want to have to put on stupid glasses every time i want to watch something though.
Glasses are something you can lose, or break, or not have enough of for everyone in the room.
Meh. It sounds like too much work.
I just want to plunk down in front of the boob tube and veg out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699334</id>
	<title>Re:meh.</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1262942400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if the technology standardized on color blocking or polarity orientation then why wouldn't glasses and contacts have it built-in?  It'd be kind of odd for people with monovision to see "doublevision" with such things, but I'd imagine it's already similar for those with color blindness.  Personally, I have no doubt that it'll catch on.  Avatar 3D made people aware that the technology exists, so more movies will follow, and it will probably make its way into the home theater before too long (probably stored on the next incarnation of BluRay).  But the main reason is advertising.  Can you honestly say that advertisers simply won't use this technology that has the potential to (almost literally) put ads in your face?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if the technology standardized on color blocking or polarity orientation then why would n't glasses and contacts have it built-in ?
It 'd be kind of odd for people with monovision to see " doublevision " with such things , but I 'd imagine it 's already similar for those with color blindness .
Personally , I have no doubt that it 'll catch on .
Avatar 3D made people aware that the technology exists , so more movies will follow , and it will probably make its way into the home theater before too long ( probably stored on the next incarnation of BluRay ) .
But the main reason is advertising .
Can you honestly say that advertisers simply wo n't use this technology that has the potential to ( almost literally ) put ads in your face ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if the technology standardized on color blocking or polarity orientation then why wouldn't glasses and contacts have it built-in?
It'd be kind of odd for people with monovision to see "doublevision" with such things, but I'd imagine it's already similar for those with color blindness.
Personally, I have no doubt that it'll catch on.
Avatar 3D made people aware that the technology exists, so more movies will follow, and it will probably make its way into the home theater before too long (probably stored on the next incarnation of BluRay).
But the main reason is advertising.
Can you honestly say that advertisers simply won't use this technology that has the potential to (almost literally) put ads in your face?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698772</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1262983440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Polarized glasses leak like hell unless you sit in exactly the right spot and look exactly the right direction - or at least they did last time I tried them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Polarized glasses leak like hell unless you sit in exactly the right spot and look exactly the right direction - or at least they did last time I tried them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polarized glasses leak like hell unless you sit in exactly the right spot and look exactly the right direction - or at least they did last time I tried them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30769708</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Darkroom</author>
	<datestamp>1263459660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being almost completely blind in one eye, not seeing all that great in the other one and having a severe astigmatism, the 3D stuff doesn't work for me or at least it didn't work when using red/blue glasses or the polarized ones I TRIED to use at Disney years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being almost completely blind in one eye , not seeing all that great in the other one and having a severe astigmatism , the 3D stuff does n't work for me or at least it did n't work when using red/blue glasses or the polarized ones I TRIED to use at Disney years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being almost completely blind in one eye, not seeing all that great in the other one and having a severe astigmatism, the 3D stuff doesn't work for me or at least it didn't work when using red/blue glasses or the polarized ones I TRIED to use at Disney years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698590</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>Change</author>
	<datestamp>1262982660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you can develop a backlight that can switch polarizations easily and quickly (or a filter over the TV that can switch back and forth), how would the TV produce alternating polarized images?  It's easy at a movie theater, you just have two projectors, each with their own polarizer.  It could be done with a projection type TV (such as with a polarized color wheel for DLPs), but I'm not sure how it would be accomplished with a direct-view LCD or plasma TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you can develop a backlight that can switch polarizations easily and quickly ( or a filter over the TV that can switch back and forth ) , how would the TV produce alternating polarized images ?
It 's easy at a movie theater , you just have two projectors , each with their own polarizer .
It could be done with a projection type TV ( such as with a polarized color wheel for DLPs ) , but I 'm not sure how it would be accomplished with a direct-view LCD or plasma TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you can develop a backlight that can switch polarizations easily and quickly (or a filter over the TV that can switch back and forth), how would the TV produce alternating polarized images?
It's easy at a movie theater, you just have two projectors, each with their own polarizer.
It could be done with a projection type TV (such as with a polarized color wheel for DLPs), but I'm not sure how it would be accomplished with a direct-view LCD or plasma TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698854</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>bazald</author>
	<datestamp>1262983740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found, when watching Avatar, that it was important to look where the director wants you to look.  Real cameras have real focal distances, so you can't look wherever you want and expect to be able to get everything in focus.  Up was an easier viewing experience, but with a less extreme 3D effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found , when watching Avatar , that it was important to look where the director wants you to look .
Real cameras have real focal distances , so you ca n't look wherever you want and expect to be able to get everything in focus .
Up was an easier viewing experience , but with a less extreme 3D effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found, when watching Avatar, that it was important to look where the director wants you to look.
Real cameras have real focal distances, so you can't look wherever you want and expect to be able to get everything in focus.
Up was an easier viewing experience, but with a less extreme 3D effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700116</id>
	<title>Barriers to overcome</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1262945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first barrier, of course, is a consistant standard or interoperable group of standards.</p><p>I suspect that, given the limitations of the technology, 3D TVs, will need to be easily put in "2D only" mode, and 3D media and broadcasts as well.</p><p>I'll buck the trend. I'm excited for 3D. Fujitsu showed a 3D camera and, if the price is right I'll get it.</p><p>But there are trade-offs on TV. If the standards look there, I'll get one of the "no glasses" 3D computer monitors when I can afford it. I think it would be terriffic for games and the disadvantage of that tech (that you have to keep your head right in front of it) is not much of an issue for a monitor.</p><p>But it's not a good technology for most of my TVs (nor possible for my projection system) as they are often viewed at odd angles.</p><p>I would be OK with unpowered glasses (again, need an easy way to switch to 2D), but I think that a thethered system, or a system with expensive / heavy / propritary active glasses is something I'm not likely to buy at all.</p><p>Make it cheap (not much more than non 3D), and balance conviencience and ease of "switching to 2D" and I'm interested.</p><p>(and 3D movies are 4D... it's just that the 4D is bigger than your field of vision and the rate of viewing it is controlled to 1 second per second).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first barrier , of course , is a consistant standard or interoperable group of standards.I suspect that , given the limitations of the technology , 3D TVs , will need to be easily put in " 2D only " mode , and 3D media and broadcasts as well.I 'll buck the trend .
I 'm excited for 3D .
Fujitsu showed a 3D camera and , if the price is right I 'll get it.But there are trade-offs on TV .
If the standards look there , I 'll get one of the " no glasses " 3D computer monitors when I can afford it .
I think it would be terriffic for games and the disadvantage of that tech ( that you have to keep your head right in front of it ) is not much of an issue for a monitor.But it 's not a good technology for most of my TVs ( nor possible for my projection system ) as they are often viewed at odd angles.I would be OK with unpowered glasses ( again , need an easy way to switch to 2D ) , but I think that a thethered system , or a system with expensive / heavy / propritary active glasses is something I 'm not likely to buy at all.Make it cheap ( not much more than non 3D ) , and balance conviencience and ease of " switching to 2D " and I 'm interested .
( and 3D movies are 4D... it 's just that the 4D is bigger than your field of vision and the rate of viewing it is controlled to 1 second per second ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first barrier, of course, is a consistant standard or interoperable group of standards.I suspect that, given the limitations of the technology, 3D TVs, will need to be easily put in "2D only" mode, and 3D media and broadcasts as well.I'll buck the trend.
I'm excited for 3D.
Fujitsu showed a 3D camera and, if the price is right I'll get it.But there are trade-offs on TV.
If the standards look there, I'll get one of the "no glasses" 3D computer monitors when I can afford it.
I think it would be terriffic for games and the disadvantage of that tech (that you have to keep your head right in front of it) is not much of an issue for a monitor.But it's not a good technology for most of my TVs (nor possible for my projection system) as they are often viewed at odd angles.I would be OK with unpowered glasses (again, need an easy way to switch to 2D), but I think that a thethered system, or a system with expensive / heavy / propritary active glasses is something I'm not likely to buy at all.Make it cheap (not much more than non 3D), and balance conviencience and ease of "switching to 2D" and I'm interested.
(and 3D movies are 4D... it's just that the 4D is bigger than your field of vision and the rate of viewing it is controlled to 1 second per second).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698840</id>
	<title>Re:meh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cant wait for these 3d's Tv's to come out. Then the price of LCD/Plasma tv will really start to drop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cant wait for these 3d 's Tv 's to come out .
Then the price of LCD/Plasma tv will really start to drop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cant wait for these 3d's Tv's to come out.
Then the price of LCD/Plasma tv will really start to drop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699252</id>
	<title>Re:meh.</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1262942100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how many years of college did it take for you to figure out this shit we like to call: 'progress'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many years of college did it take for you to figure out this shit we like to call : 'progress ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many years of college did it take for you to figure out this shit we like to call: 'progress'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699094</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1262941380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were usable with 3D video games like "Descent" with proper video card support back then too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were usable with 3D video games like " Descent " with proper video card support back then too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were usable with 3D video games like "Descent" with proper video card support back then too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700510</id>
	<title>Re:Auto Stereoscopy...</title>
	<author>Maximalist</author>
	<datestamp>1262947380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even so... who is going to go to the expense to produce 3DTV programs?  Selling a few early adopters 3D TV sets, regardless of their usability, isn't going to sell 3D cameras and post-production tech to all the TV studios.  This "feature" has years to mature or wither on the vine... because there's not going to be content that uses it for a long time to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even so... who is going to go to the expense to produce 3DTV programs ?
Selling a few early adopters 3D TV sets , regardless of their usability , is n't going to sell 3D cameras and post-production tech to all the TV studios .
This " feature " has years to mature or wither on the vine... because there 's not going to be content that uses it for a long time to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even so... who is going to go to the expense to produce 3DTV programs?
Selling a few early adopters 3D TV sets, regardless of their usability, isn't going to sell 3D cameras and post-production tech to all the TV studios.
This "feature" has years to mature or wither on the vine... because there's not going to be content that uses it for a long time to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699422</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which doesn't make sense for a movie which is, from what I've heard, mostly CGI. They <i>choose</i> to have this problem of real cameras.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which does n't make sense for a movie which is , from what I 've heard , mostly CGI .
They choose to have this problem of real cameras .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which doesn't make sense for a movie which is, from what I've heard, mostly CGI.
They choose to have this problem of real cameras.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701222</id>
	<title>3d? big deal,</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262950560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LG has just about master a 2d TV:</p><p><a href="http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&amp;id=1262093577" title="flatpanelshd.com">http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&amp;id=1262093577</a> [flatpanelshd.com]</p><p>2.5 mm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LG has just about master a 2d TV : http : //www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php ? subaction = showfull&amp;id = 1262093577 [ flatpanelshd.com ] 2.5 mm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LG has just about master a 2d TV:http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&amp;id=1262093577 [flatpanelshd.com]2.5 mm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704748</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>ilyag</author>
	<datestamp>1262973720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had the same problem. However, I found it not too hard to teach myself to focus your sight where the director wants you to focus (i.e. on the sharpest objects). I felt a bit like a trained monkey doing this, but it quickly became automatic.</p><p>I think it's an interesting dilemma for the director. It is possible to make everything sharp (by making the aperture small, and the focal depth huge. Since most of the movie is computer-generated anyway, it'd be even easier). However, this will not look realistic in dimly-lit rooms, as there your eyes cannot naturally see everything sharply. Also, the 2D version of the movie will then look terrible, as in 2D the lack of sharpness is the main tool they can use to indicate distance to object.</p><p>Still, I'd be interested in seeing what a perfectly sharp 3D movie would look like. After all, with CG, they can make two versions: sharp 3D and normal 2D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the same problem .
However , I found it not too hard to teach myself to focus your sight where the director wants you to focus ( i.e .
on the sharpest objects ) .
I felt a bit like a trained monkey doing this , but it quickly became automatic.I think it 's an interesting dilemma for the director .
It is possible to make everything sharp ( by making the aperture small , and the focal depth huge .
Since most of the movie is computer-generated anyway , it 'd be even easier ) .
However , this will not look realistic in dimly-lit rooms , as there your eyes can not naturally see everything sharply .
Also , the 2D version of the movie will then look terrible , as in 2D the lack of sharpness is the main tool they can use to indicate distance to object.Still , I 'd be interested in seeing what a perfectly sharp 3D movie would look like .
After all , with CG , they can make two versions : sharp 3D and normal 2D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the same problem.
However, I found it not too hard to teach myself to focus your sight where the director wants you to focus (i.e.
on the sharpest objects).
I felt a bit like a trained monkey doing this, but it quickly became automatic.I think it's an interesting dilemma for the director.
It is possible to make everything sharp (by making the aperture small, and the focal depth huge.
Since most of the movie is computer-generated anyway, it'd be even easier).
However, this will not look realistic in dimly-lit rooms, as there your eyes cannot naturally see everything sharply.
Also, the 2D version of the movie will then look terrible, as in 2D the lack of sharpness is the main tool they can use to indicate distance to object.Still, I'd be interested in seeing what a perfectly sharp 3D movie would look like.
After all, with CG, they can make two versions: sharp 3D and normal 2D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698806</id>
	<title>You answered your own question</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1262983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it certainly did n't add anything to it , besides $ 5 for the ticket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it certainly didn't add anything to it, besides $5 for the ticket.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698736</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, 3D imagery in Avatar turned out to be primarily "blurry vision" with some parts that jump out at you.  And the stuff that does jump out at you, isn't all that important.  I'd rather see crisp clear video without the gimmicky distractions.</p><p>I suspect the movie &amp; TV industry are attempting to find a way to provide unique content to keep people going to movie theaters instead of just watching it at home on TV.  And the TV industry wants to find a way to beat out the downloaders with unique better quality content they are not likely to reproduce right away.</p><p>The content will indeed be unique, but I don't think the public will be as intrigued by to than anymore more than the occasional novelty.  3D will never go beyond that until they learn how to use it in a seamless non-distracting way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , 3D imagery in Avatar turned out to be primarily " blurry vision " with some parts that jump out at you .
And the stuff that does jump out at you , is n't all that important .
I 'd rather see crisp clear video without the gimmicky distractions.I suspect the movie &amp; TV industry are attempting to find a way to provide unique content to keep people going to movie theaters instead of just watching it at home on TV .
And the TV industry wants to find a way to beat out the downloaders with unique better quality content they are not likely to reproduce right away.The content will indeed be unique , but I do n't think the public will be as intrigued by to than anymore more than the occasional novelty .
3D will never go beyond that until they learn how to use it in a seamless non-distracting way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, 3D imagery in Avatar turned out to be primarily "blurry vision" with some parts that jump out at you.
And the stuff that does jump out at you, isn't all that important.
I'd rather see crisp clear video without the gimmicky distractions.I suspect the movie &amp; TV industry are attempting to find a way to provide unique content to keep people going to movie theaters instead of just watching it at home on TV.
And the TV industry wants to find a way to beat out the downloaders with unique better quality content they are not likely to reproduce right away.The content will indeed be unique, but I don't think the public will be as intrigued by to than anymore more than the occasional novelty.
3D will never go beyond that until they learn how to use it in a seamless non-distracting way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698632</id>
	<title>Re:Active glasses?</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1262982780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Higher resolution.  Unlike a projection system, on an LCD screen of a given resolution, when it's in 3D mode, you're going to get half your pixels going to one eye, half to the other.  With active shutter glasses, each eye gets the full resolution (just at half the framerate, but if the content is 60hz, and the monitor is 120hz, it shouldn't be a problem).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher resolution .
Unlike a projection system , on an LCD screen of a given resolution , when it 's in 3D mode , you 're going to get half your pixels going to one eye , half to the other .
With active shutter glasses , each eye gets the full resolution ( just at half the framerate , but if the content is 60hz , and the monitor is 120hz , it should n't be a problem ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher resolution.
Unlike a projection system, on an LCD screen of a given resolution, when it's in 3D mode, you're going to get half your pixels going to one eye, half to the other.
With active shutter glasses, each eye gets the full resolution (just at half the framerate, but if the content is 60hz, and the monitor is 120hz, it shouldn't be a problem).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699034</id>
	<title>Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie</title>
	<author>Zen-Mind</author>
	<datestamp>1262984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My brain IS medically incapable of 3D. I suffer from a condition called amblyopia and therefore can rarely percieve any 3D effect no matter the technology; to be honnest I probably don't see the real world in 3D either. However, for some reason, I have rather good depth perception, probably adapted over the years since I suffer from amblyopia since I was born. So I'm also part of the group that is totally indifferent to all this 3D hype beside the fact that I fear overall image quality might go down because people will put effort in the 3D.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My brain IS medically incapable of 3D .
I suffer from a condition called amblyopia and therefore can rarely percieve any 3D effect no matter the technology ; to be honnest I probably do n't see the real world in 3D either .
However , for some reason , I have rather good depth perception , probably adapted over the years since I suffer from amblyopia since I was born .
So I 'm also part of the group that is totally indifferent to all this 3D hype beside the fact that I fear overall image quality might go down because people will put effort in the 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brain IS medically incapable of 3D.
I suffer from a condition called amblyopia and therefore can rarely percieve any 3D effect no matter the technology; to be honnest I probably don't see the real world in 3D either.
However, for some reason, I have rather good depth perception, probably adapted over the years since I suffer from amblyopia since I was born.
So I'm also part of the group that is totally indifferent to all this 3D hype beside the fact that I fear overall image quality might go down because people will put effort in the 3D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701616</id>
	<title>Re:They Have A Point...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are discounting the social aspect of TV watching.</p><p>It is a common shared experience. And although it does remove you somewhat from reality, at any moment one can break their gaze to share an common emotional experience through regular social interaction with other viewers. Not an insult, but do you live alone?</p><p>Also, the cost is multiplied by the number of viewers. Owners do not want to limit the number of guest to... say the superbowl based on the number of viewing devices they own.</p><p>On a technical level... I agree. Independent eye displays within the glasses would produce excellent 3d and probably cost the least to manufacture for the perceived viewing area. Head tracking would further increase this to 360 immersive viewing. However, I cannot see this as a replacement for TV.. at least until an avatar of each viewer is also immersed into the 360 environment.</p><p>Think of this: why would anybody go to the superbowl to see the game live when better viewing is available from home? The answer is why personal viewing glasses will not replace TV for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are discounting the social aspect of TV watching.It is a common shared experience .
And although it does remove you somewhat from reality , at any moment one can break their gaze to share an common emotional experience through regular social interaction with other viewers .
Not an insult , but do you live alone ? Also , the cost is multiplied by the number of viewers .
Owners do not want to limit the number of guest to... say the superbowl based on the number of viewing devices they own.On a technical level... I agree .
Independent eye displays within the glasses would produce excellent 3d and probably cost the least to manufacture for the perceived viewing area .
Head tracking would further increase this to 360 immersive viewing .
However , I can not see this as a replacement for TV.. at least until an avatar of each viewer is also immersed into the 360 environment.Think of this : why would anybody go to the superbowl to see the game live when better viewing is available from home ?
The answer is why personal viewing glasses will not replace TV for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are discounting the social aspect of TV watching.It is a common shared experience.
And although it does remove you somewhat from reality, at any moment one can break their gaze to share an common emotional experience through regular social interaction with other viewers.
Not an insult, but do you live alone?Also, the cost is multiplied by the number of viewers.
Owners do not want to limit the number of guest to... say the superbowl based on the number of viewing devices they own.On a technical level... I agree.
Independent eye displays within the glasses would produce excellent 3d and probably cost the least to manufacture for the perceived viewing area.
Head tracking would further increase this to 360 immersive viewing.
However, I cannot see this as a replacement for TV.. at least until an avatar of each viewer is also immersed into the 360 environment.Think of this: why would anybody go to the superbowl to see the game live when better viewing is available from home?
The answer is why personal viewing glasses will not replace TV for now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30709918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30708118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30769708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30708078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30801696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1714244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30757634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30708118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30769708
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30704214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30703990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30801696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30709918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30757634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30702130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30708078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30699618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1714244.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30698730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30701296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1714244.30700506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
